LF: Rapist cop, 29, WAILS in court as he is found guilty of sexually assaulting at least 13 black women while on-duty - including teen girl and a grandmother

Title: Rapist cop, 29, WAILS in court as he is found guilty of sexually assaulting at least 13 black women while on-duty - including teen girl and a grandmother - and now faces up to 263 years in prison
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... aping-13-black-women-duty.html
Published: Dec 11, 2015
Author: Wills Robinson For Dailymail.com and Ass
Post Date: 2015-12-11 09:05:07 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 20848
Comments: 88

A former Oklahoma City police officer has been found guilty of attacking at least 13 black women - including teenagers and a grandmother - in the neighborhood he patrolled.

Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted by the all-white jury of eight men and four women on Thursday evening after four days of deliberations.

The 29-year-old ex-officer broke down in tears as he was found guilty on 18 counts - including rape, sexual battery and forcible oral sodomy - against eight of the women who testified against him.

His supporters also sobbed as the judge went through the verdicts on what happened to be his 29th birthday.

Some of the victims' supporters reportedly sang Happy Birthday to him as they gathered outside the courthouse.

Holtzclaw's defense attorneys tried to comfort him as he nodded his head up and down while shaking his head in disbelief. As he stood up to be handcuffed by court officers, he shouted: 'I didn't do it.'

He was found not guilty on 18 of the charges, but still faces a recommended 263 years in prison.

Holtzclaw, who turned 29 Thursday, could now spend the rest of his life in prison. He was remanded in custody and is set to be sentenced in January.

The Oklahoma City Police Department welcomed the verdict. Bill Citty said in a statement Thursday night that the trial of former officer Daniel Holtzclaw was 'long and difficult' for all involved. He says he's proud of his detectives and local prosecutors.

He called Holtzclaw's case the worst he'd seen in nearly four decades in law enforcement.

The mother of the youngest accuser clapped as the verdicts were read out. She said she went to the courthouse to hear the verdict, but found the doors locked - but was able to race home in time to see it on TV.

The grandmother whose allegations led authorities to launch an investigation was in the courtroom at the time.

She was the first to testify, telling the court Holtzclaw pulled her over as she was driving home late at night and ordered her out of her car.

He then told her to sit in the backseat of his squad car, where he stood over her and told her to perform oral sex.

She notified police officers hours later, launching a case in which 12 other women eventually came forward.

The woman was tearful after the verdict and prayed with supporters outside the courtroom.

The victims say they met Holtzclaw while he was on duty, and prosecutors say the ex-officer intimidated them into not reporting his crimes.

Holtzclaw's lawyer, Scott Adams, told jurors Holtzclaw was an honorable but naive officer trying to help troubled women who lied about him, and made their credibility the cornerstone of his defense strategy.

Adams called just one witness, an ex-girlfriend of the officer, before resting his case. A total of 13 women testified against him.

Since the trial began November 2, many of the women's descriptions had traced a similar arc: The officer stopped them while out on patrol, ran background checks for outstanding warrants or conducted searches that turned up drug paraphernalia, then forced them to have sex to avoid arrest.

Most said they never reported the assaults to authorities for fear no one would believe them.

Video courtesy of NewsOk.com

His father Eric Holtzclaw (left) holds his wife, Kumiko Holtzclaw (right) as the verdicts are read

He covered his face as he stood to his feet and made his way to face the judge

Holtzclaw continued crying as court officers dragged him out of the courtroom to the jail cells

Supporters of the cop's victims pray outside the courtroom. Some (not pictured) reportedly sang Happy Birthday as the verdicts were read out

'What's the good of telling the police? What kind of police do you call on the police?' asked one woman, who sobbed as she testified Tuesday that Holtzclaw pulled down her shorts and raped her on her mother's front porch when she was 17.

An expert testified that the girl's DNA was found inside the crotch of Holtzclaw's police uniform.

Another victim was a fifty-something grandmother.

The vulnerability of victims was a common thread in a recent Associated Press investigation that found about 1,000 officers nationwide had lost their badges in a six-year period for sexual assault and sex-related misconduct.

Hundreds were convicted, but many others were never prosecuted.

Judge Timothy Henderson had little to say after the verdicts were read out. He said Holtzclaw would be sentenced in January

Assault: Daniel Ken Holtzclaw, 29, was accused of 36 charges by 13 women, including rape and oral sodomy. He was found guilty on 18 charges and not guilty on the other half

Throughout the trial, Adams challenged the accusers' credibility, enumerating their arrest records, searching for inconsistencies in their stories and questioning why most didn't come forward until police investigators approached them.

He also noted that some had filed civil lawsuits against the city.

'You could have called anybody at 911 and said: "Not only was I raped by an Oklahoma City police officer, but I have DNA evidence all over the place in my room," 'Adams challenged one witness, after reading her criminal history to the court.

He focused especially on the women's use of drugs. Under Adams' questioning, one woman acknowledged she had slipped out of the motel room prosecutors had arranged for her the night before and procured marijuana and the hallucinogen PCP. She slurred some words, but denied being high on the witness stand and stood by her accusations.

Several of the women pushed back. 'I'm really getting upset by the way you're coming after me,' said the youngest accuser, who is now 18.

Prosecutors did not try to hide the witnesses' backgrounds, asking each about hers before Adams' cross-examination. They turned to relatives and friends who recalled the women telling them about the attacks. They also called police investigators and forensic experts to corroborate the women's claims.

After the first accuser came forward, police examined searches Holtzclaw made in police databases and data from his vehicle's locator device.

Detective Kim Davis, who led the investigation, testified GPS records showed, for example, that Holtzclaw was parked outside one woman's home for an unusually long time for someone he was supposedly dropping off. Davis described meeting with the woman four months later, and when Davis asked if the woman knew why they were meeting, 'She said, 'How do you know? Did he confess?' '

Adams employed a strategy used by other lawyers who have successfully defended officers accused of rape.

In 2012, an Oklahoma jury took just 40 minutes to acquit Stephens County sheriff's deputy Brandon Balthrop of assaulting two women and a teenager during traffic stops. Balthrop's attorney, Jim Kee, said he highlighted problems with each accuser's story, from inconsistencies in testimony to one's criminal record and drug abuse. He said Adams appeared to use the same approach.

Balthrop later surrendered his law enforcement license and had his case file expunged. The county settled federal lawsuits by paying the women $215,000.

In October, a Florida jury acquitted Stephen Maiorino of raping a 20-year-old woman, despite statements by the judge that evidence of rape was 'overwhelming.'

The former officer's lawyers argued the sex was consensual; the accuser was led crying from the courtroom after the verdict. The city later agreed to an $875,000 settlement with the woman.

Holtzclaw was placed on administrative leave and eventually arrested, after investigators used GPS tracking devices to corroborate the stories of his victims

'There's a lot of deference and respect given to law enforcement,' said Florida state's attorney Dave Aronberg, whose office prosecuted the former Boynton Beach officer. 'There's just this assumption that you want to believe him.'

Holtzclaw's case has attracted attention from clergy and activists, who've been especially critical of the makeup of the eight-man, four-woman jury, which appears to be all white. Oklahoma court officials could not provide jurors' race.

Valeria Benabdallah, an Oklahoma City psychotherapist who attended part of the trial, said she was uncomfortable because jurors were being asked to judge a black female witness 'pleading for her innocence.'

More than 50 people marched outside one day, chanting, 'We want life!' loudly enough to be heard inside the courtroom.

'I can't order you to not hear it, but you understand that has nothing to do with what goes on in this courtroom,' Judge Tim Henderson instructed jurors.

Holtzclaw's sister and his father, a police officer in Enid, have been a constant presence during the trial, and other family members and friends have attended.

One former high school football teammate said he was convinced of Holtzclaw's innocence. 'He's not that type of guy,' Jarred Benton said.

It depends on the effectiveness of the prosecution case and other factors. The defendant declared his innocence when he said not guilty.

A criminal defendant testifying can generally do more harm than good. Even an innocent defendant risks being made to look guilty under cross-examination. Sometimes the defendant's testimony is necessary to establish some element of the defense, such as his state of mind.

The decision for a criminal defendant to testify is usually made after all other witnesses have testified. The criminal defendant generally testifies as a last resort due to uncertainty that the defense had established so much as a reasonable doubt in contesting the prosecution case.

Not that that seems to count with some "conservatives" who prefer to fantasize about a cop getting raped by black men in prison. They seem to enjoy that, I've noticed.

I also don't find it comforting that people who have no idea of what the acronym DNA stands for (let alone pronounce it or spell it) are nevertheless convinced that it is incontrovertible proof of...well, something, mostly because they've heard the letters D, N, and A recited hundreds of times on some crappy CSI show on the boob tube.

18 women taking the stand under oath, pointing at him, saying "He raped me", describing how and when, in graphic detail. And when cross-examined, the cross-examination focuses on their morality and their lifestyle, but cannot shake any of them on rapes.

Phone position data consistently corroborates the women's testimony. The cop's phone WAS there, when the women said he was raping them.

And what does the defense present? His ex-girlfriend saying he wouldn't do such things.

Mountain of evidence against him. No evidence in his favor. They don't put him on the stand, and he is sentenced to two and half centuries in prison - in other words, he loses his life.

What WE can learn from this is this: If YOU are accused of heinous crimes and a mountain of evidence is presented against you, and you're innocent, if you want to live, take the stand. It's your only hope: that the jury will hear you, judge you and believe you.

If you want to risk your life on textbook logic, well, you're going to die anyway, so may as well die in prison, eh?

No, that was when Cristopher Darden colosally screwed up on June 15, 1995 and called upon Simpson for a demonstration of how the gloves fit, without knowing that they would fit. It was not testimony by Simpson and was not covered by the 5th Amendment.

But he may have taken the stand, answered a single 'did you do it' question with a simple 'no' so there could be little cross-examination and then rested his case.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

Yes, there is a PRESUMPTION, and some Americans on juries even respect it. I would.

But there I am, in that jury room. I've heard 18 women tell me he raped them. Yes, I saw the defense attorney go after them for their lifestyles - blame the victim sort of thing - but I've still got EIGHTEEN women undergoing brutal cross examination and maintaining the crimes, in detail.

There is a presumption of innocence, sure. But evidence overcomes the presumption, and there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence all pointing one way here. NOTHING has been presented that overrides that evidence.

The jury was convinced that there was not sufficient evidence to convict on 5 of the charges. They obviously considered each charge.

The presumption of innocence has been beaten back by strong evidence of guilt. So, Mr. Defendant, Mr. defense attorney, what EXPLANATION do you have? WHY are these 18 women all liars? WHY were you THERE in all of these cases. What were these women doing with you? Why is there the DNA of a teenager ON YOUR POLICE UNIFORM CROTCH?

You have NOTHING to say? NO explanation? You decline to answer "on the grounds it might incriminate you?"

Well, you have the presumption of innocence, but that's only a presumption, and I've just listened to 18 people say you did it TO THEM. So it's their word versus your...silence.

AND there's the phone location evidence - you were THERE. You don't deny it. You don't say anything.

There is a presumption of innocence, but there is NO legal principle by which I have to assume that 18 people are lying under oath, the phone evidence is all fabricated, and DNA evidence is wrong.

No, the prosecutor PROVED his case to me beyond any REASONABLE doubt. I am not required to fabricate fantasy stories for you.

If you have an explanation that can account for these things - or if YOU want to present the claim that they're all lying and you're being framed, then SPEAK.

But you don't speak. That doesn't prove you're guilty. Your silence doesn't prove your guilt. The EVIDENCE presented against you proves you're guilty, and you have nothing to say in your own defense, so it's really easy to convict you on the evidence. Because you did it, and I'm sure you did it.

IIRC, at his civil trial, he was absolutely destroyed when he couldn't opt out of taking the stand.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks â€¦ golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives â€¦ just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

It is very strong evidence if the science is properly observed. In the OJ trial, defense attorney Barry Scheck utterly destroyed the testimony of the prosecution criminalist witnesses and the purported value of the DNA evidence in that case. Also, Dr. Frederick Rieders, forensic toxicologist, greatly undermined the credibility of blood evidence collection.

Cross examination of the accused is not limited to the sphere of questions that the defense counsel raised on direct. Cross-examination can always go to character, and to integrity. Past bad acts can be brought up to impeach.

The article here doesn't characterize the DNA evidence beyond mentioning one witness testifying about a single DNA sample.

But, of course, for some people all a prosecutor has to say is "DNA" and they vote to convict whether they have any idea what DNA is or not.

In the trials I've watch, objections based on 'not covered on direct' or words to that effect were invariably upheld.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

Yeah, that glove thing was pretty catastrophic. In circumstances like that, never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

That reminds me, what kind of gals do you like physically and personality wise? I always thought you like model types like ur boy trump

My best recollection of a significant moment was that after the criminal trial, a photo emerged of O.J. depicting him wearing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, the type assertedly identified by a shoeprint at the scene of the crime. This was a point made in testimony at the civil trial.

I can only observe that it was accepted at the trial and apparently not effectively refuted by the defense. Few defendants can afford an OJ Dream Team who have the legal and scientific expertise to effectively challenge the asserted science. There is no way for the reader to judge it independently.

The same may be said for fingerprint/handprint/palmprint comparisons, or handwriting comparisons, or lie detector tests. Trials are plagued with bogus science and bogus testimony, aka testilying.

Certainly the article avoided any mention of the character of the DNA sample. This is so typical of trial reporting.

I generally answer whatever is asked, because, really, what difference does it make, but why do you ask?

My answer: there is a song from World War II called "Bless 'Em All". It reflects the GI's attitudes about seeing women, any women, in the war.

What sort of women do I like physically? Most. All races. Most shapes and sizes. Not obese. Not anorexic. As I get older, I appreciate older without losing my appreciation for younger. Pretty "catholic" really, in the original sense of the word.

As far as personality goes, it doesn't matter, really. Personality is malleable. People's personalities change depending on who they're dealing with and why.

Lest I sound like a comparison shopper (or perhaps just a conscientious consumer), truth is, I've been married for a long time, and I'm monogamous in practice, so it's an academic question.

In my 20s, when I was not married, my answer would have been very straightforward - I liked any woman who liked me, to the full extent that she liked me, and more than that, if I could get away with it.

But that is many years ago. And I've got a daughter, so I give her good advice, because I know what I'm talking about: I was the sort of guy that I warn her about.

If he is guilty and has nothing to offer beyond saying he didn't do it, his best hope is to not testify and hope his attorney planted a reasonable doubt in one juror. Not testifying may have been the best available call. At least he did not screw up any possible appellate issues, if there are any.

If he's guilty, yes. And he is guilty. The jury found him so. The evidence says so. He's guilty.

I agree that, given his guilt, the only thing to do was to not put him on the stand.

The discussion began up thread with the assertion by someone that he probably WASN'T guilty, to which I responded with a PSHAW. If he WASN'T guilty, then his attorney committed malpractice by not having him testify, because on this stack of evidence, the only hope an innocent man has is to tell the jury he didn't do it, and endure cross to prove it.

We had the necessary shadow-boxing up-thread about presumption of innocence and no presumption of guilt from silence, and that's all well, but with 18 direct eyewitness victim accusers testifying, AND phone location data, and DNA-in-the-crotch data, the guy was proven guilty by a mountain of evidence UNLESS the defense could demonstrate that the victims were lying. That can be done with two or three, but EIGHTEEN? ALL of them were dirty lying conniving whores? And where was the blackmail note...from ANY of them? Where is the lawsuit against the city? 18 marginal people brilliantly conspired to bring down a nobody cop, to be able to sue the city? Where's the lawyer that organized them.

You have to spin utter fables to be believable - and to do it, you have to stand there in front of a jury that has lots of women in it, and serially accuse 18 rape victims of all being liars and whores.

There is no presumption in law that says that just because a defense attorney stands up there and bellows bullshit that the jury has to believe him. There is a presumption of innocence, but there is no presumption of TRUTH. There is no presumption that, just because the defense lawyer spins a tale, that therefore the jurors have to treat that tale as reasonable doubt.

The JURORS get to decide what is reasonable, and it is utterly unreasonable to think that EIGHTEEN down and out women, unorganized by any plaintiff lawyer, decided to take time out of their miserable lives to come down and get abused and called liars in open court while telling of a humiliating rape by a cop, and then being gutted about their personal sexual pasts.

The fact of EIGHTEEN accusers, each of whom withstood cross, is a mountainous pile of evidence. And then there's the phone data. And the DNA. And it all corroborates the EIGHTEEN accusers.

Sure, we don't PRESUME guilt from silence. Guilt has been PROVEN by the EVIDENCE - it is a towering pile. The presumption was overcome by evidence. Now the defendant needs to convince us that he's NOT the serial rapist that the evidence shows, because the jury is convinced that he is by the evidence. Why is that not so?

I suppose he can claim that he was badly represented...tough to do when you've hired a successful name lawyer.

So, now the ex-cop faces an interesting life. He's been broken in regular society, and his excessive sex drive destroyed him. But on the positive side, he need no longer worry about paying bills and earning a living. He is effectively retired, with housing, medical care and food provided for life. He will have a lot of time for intellectual pursuits. He can exercise.

Given that it's life in prison, there is no reason not to do pleasurable but unhealthy things like smoking. He can smoke without guilt.

Perhaps he will enjoy the prison sex life. Certainly there is sex available if he wants it. And given his proclivity before, he need only change is mind and alter his repertoire a bit.

If he shifts his mindset, there are many positive aspects of being a prisoner. For a man like him, prison could actually set him free from the obligations of others, and allow him to pursue simple hedonistic pleasures every day of his life.

Why do you warn your daughter of men that like girls who like them? why is that bad

I was disturbed by the lack of evidence. Maybe there was more than what was mentioned in this article.

He was talking about that one instance. He wasn't stating some kind of docrinal fact that is universal.

You can prove it becaue everyone who "lives by the sword" doesn't die by the sword. They die like everyone. But not by the sword every time.

Just like when you told TC that the Jury doesn't have to follow the judges orders.

I'm surprised you posted that one. You're great mind should have known that all men dying and dying by the sword are not the same thing.

You seemed to be denying that Jesus was the source of this paraphrase or that He spoke to the subject at all.

Naturally, you have to judge for yourself how specifically or generally to apply a saying of Jesus in modern life. Personal defense was not a subject included in His major doctrinal statements, like the Sermon on the Mount.

I believe he said put away those swords or you shall surely die. Or something like that.

He was talking to the people who there and would have been killed if they resisted.

There is zero evidence that he said whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Just look at the world. Does everyone who lives by the sword die by the sword? No they don't.

So either Jesus was full of shit and not God because he got it wrong. Or he didn't make a universal statement. I see no other possibilities.

True. But that doesn't mean that if you live by the sword you will die by the sword.

The difference between the Jury going rogue and lawyers suborning perjury is elemental.

If a Jury disregards the judge's instructions, that's actually within their legal RIGHT. They CAN do that, and decide as they please, without any repercussions at all. They have greater power than the legal system lets on to them. That's a key reason why lawyers don't like lawyers to be on juries, because lawyers know the law and can greatly empower the jury by telling them the full scope of their power - which includes the power to judge the law itself - even though judges tell them they DON'T have that power, they do.

But lawyers DON'T have the right to suborn perjury. It's illegal. And they have law licenses, which get yanked for that sort of thing. And defense attorneys are fighting against prosecutors and police who, when they know they're prosecuting a dirt bag they know is guilty, take it personally when defense lawyers beat them. When defense lawyers defeat them by legal tactics such as moves to suppress and the like, everybody knows that's the system. But when defense lawyers themselves break the law to get the win, by suborning perjury, the prosecutors then target the defense lawyers personally and directly. And they don't have to prove the case against them in COURT, they MERELY have to prove to a committee of the Bar - which is largely staffed in those levels by judges and former prosecutors and the like, "respectable" lawyers - that the defense lawyer suborned perjury. He doesn't go to jail, but he DOES lose his law license and his practice and livelihood.

So, the difference between the juror and the defense counsel is that there is no consequence to the juror in going rogue, but the defense counsel can lose his law license - and believe me the prosecutors and judiciary who man the upper ranks of the Bar LOVE to oust lawyers who step over the line.

Don't they? Remember, life continues after death, and that life is one of reward or punishment.

So, the man who lives by the sword - he earns his keep by wielding weapons against other human beings. Where did Jesus authorize that, other than in self-defense? If you take up arms as a soldier in a cause, and the cause is evil and contrary to God's law, then you bear the guilt for killing people to advance evil. You die in your bed of old age, and you wake up in Hell. You DID die by the sword in the end - your spirit perished, eternally, in the flames, BECAUSE you took up the sword. You lost everlasting life.

Those who take up the sword perish by it does not JUST mean that they will get run through, for those who die physically have, in the words of Jesus, merely fallen asleep. The "dead" awaken, alive, on the other side. But then they are judged, and if they go down to sleep in the grave with the blood of others on their heads, blood drawn by a life of the man living by the sword, the man who lived by the sword DOES perish by it:.

You are quite mistaken that men who live by the sword don't perish by it. They all do. To perish, when Jesus speaks of it, doesn't mean simply to fall asleep in the flesh - to physically die. It means to lose life eternal. THAT is to perish.

I pointed out the FACT that everyone who lives by the sword doesn't die by the sword. Can we agree on that?

Jesus never said everyone who takes up the sword will die by the sword. He was talking to his followers who were with him. It isn't complicated.

But you are so stubborn and think that you are never wrong. So you will dismiss my words and doing that you are calling Jesus a liar. Because everyone who takes up the sword doesn't die by the sword.

People who live by the sword and murder are going to go to heaven. There is something called repentence. No not all people I didn't say that.

Jesus was not merely speaking to his followers in that room. He was speaking generally for mankind for all kind. We know this because God prohibited men from shedding the blood of other men, and made exceptions from that rule for the execution of justice against those who had shed man's blood. He made various law enforcement exceptions for ancient Israel, specifically, and he made exceptions for the wars of Israel to take the Holy Land. But otherwise the rule stands. And on the last page of the Bible, Jesus said twice, from heaven, that killers are thrown into the fire.

All who take up the sword - not simply defend themselves with it but who take it up as a principle by which to make their way in the world - risk hellfire, because they are at a high risk of shedding man's blood and killing men. And if you kill a man outside of the very narrow range of conditions in which God authorized it, you're a killer doomed to hell. So yeah, ALL who take up the sword DO perish by it, in the end. Not just the people in that room.

You're right that it isn't complicated. It's easy. If you kill somebody, you're damned unless God forgives you, or God explicitly permitted that killing.

I note that you tell me that by dismissing YOUR words, I am calling Jesus a liar. Are you Jesus?

Do yourself a favor and read the last page or two of the Bible. On it, Jesus lists twice the people who will be thrown into the flames and not enter into the city. "Murderers" is on the list twice.

You've got a theology made up of whatever you want to believe. It does not respose on what Jesus actually SAID.