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: 22533
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.

He asserted his innocence when he plead "not guilty". And no properly instructed jury will convict simply because the accused did not take the stand.

I don't know if he took the stand or not but if he did not, to then announce after sentence was passed 'I didn't do it' is pretty weak.

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

And being a non black in a predominately black prion is going to eliminate the Eighth.

For the rest of his life, he is going to a groups bitch. They will take turns on him.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Certainly true, now that they can create DNA artificially from a computer database in the lab.

Not in the criminal trial, but he really had no choice but to take the stand in his civil trial.

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

Yes, but in a case like this, where all you've got is a defense attorney badgering a bunch of women who say they were raped over aspects of their lives not associated with the rape, you take the stand in your own defense unless you're guilty.

18 women coming into court and being subject to harsh cross examination, each testifying that some particular patrol cop raped them, with phone tracking showing that he was in the place at the time is plenty of evidence. It's a mountain of evidence. The all-white jury did not find him guilty of every charge brought, only some of the charges.

Moreover, he's a nobody. He's not some Kobe Bryant type, some guy who is going to pay anybody off.

If he really is innocent - which is not believable - and he chose not to testify because of a tactical decision to not have to face embarrassment, given the number and severity of the charges, he bet his life on remaining silence. And he lost.

They do it all the time. Just because the judge "instructs" the jury doesn't mean that the jurors OBEY. People are not so easily managed.

When people hear 18 different women testify that they were raped by one weird- looking cop. And when the prosecutors say his semen was in the panties of one of them.

And then when all the other side does is call ONE witness, an ex-girlfriend, and then tries the old tactic of discrediting the rape victim. That can work if there's one rape victim. It flat out does not work to claim that all EIGHTEEN women are just liars. Particularly when the guy looks like that.

If he didn't do it, he had to take the stand if he was going to have any chance of escaping with his life.

Defense attorneys do not let guilty clients take the stand: that's true. They can't.

And they don't NECESSARILY let innocent clients take the stand either. But in a case like this, where there are EIGHTEEN WOMEN each pointing at him and saying he was raped - and where the jury has to watch the defense lawyer trash and tear apart EIGHTEEN WOMEN, one after the other - they're ALL liars, cheats, criminals, every one of them.

And the only person who speaks FOR the guy is an ex-girlfriend? That's it? No other partner cop? Nobody in the neighborhood? No alibi? When the PHONE DATA shows he was at each scene at the time.

The guy was doomed, and any defense attorney knows that he was doomed - his only shot, if he was really innocent, was to take the stand. But they couldn't LET him take the stand, because he was guilty as sin.

No. But in that case there were no witnesses, just prosecutors trying to make a forensic case. Here, you have forensic evidence, and you have eighteen women taking the stand, pointing directly at the man, and saying "He raped me."

Re-run the OJ trial and have all of what happened, but then have eighteen people in the street say: I saw OJ stab the two people. I watched OJ kill them. I saw OJ kill them. He did it. Etc. Etc.

The defense attorneys could twist and turn all they wanted to, and point out that every one of these guys who saw OJ is a homeless derelict, a drunk, some guy with a criminal record, etc. OJ would have been doomed. Nothing could have saved him from eyewitness testimony other than taking the stand and being believable. But his defense attorneys could not LET him take the stand, because he was guilty and they knew it. Same with this case.

Do you really think that jury instructions will override human nature in all 12 jurors?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Add former WHITE COP that was raping black women to the mix,and I have to say the 263 year sentence shouldn't be worrying him.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

He gets no sympathy from me,no matter what happens to him from this point forward.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

Well he didn't kill anybody...
but it wouldn't bother me if his cellmate castrated him with a rusty razor.

Truly,we don't know that to be a fact. All we know of are the 13 women who testified against him. We have no idea how many women he has raped that didn't report it for various reasons,and it is possible one or more has committed suicide because of the fear and misplaced guilt coming off of the rape.

As far as that goes,it is entirely possible he may have killed one of his victims that fought back and injured him,and we just don't know about it.

What we do know is that he has no concern for the lives of other human beings or he wouldn't go around raping them.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

Wasn't he on the stand when he tried on the gloves and crooked Cochran uttered his "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" garbage?

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

All those women have a strong financial interest in seeing him convicted in the criminal trial to pave the way for fat settlements from the city in the civil suits.

For the vast majority of the "victims", getting this guy convicted is literally winning the lottery.

I discount the testimony because the alleged victims have so much financial motive to lie.

Then you should discount all incidents where cops beat someone up or do something wrong to someone. Those people have a vested interest in possibly suing the police.

Actually, I do discount those cases unless they have a pile of compelling physical evidence.

There is a lot of police abuse in this country. There are also a lot of "victims", waiting to pounce on any chance to get big payouts from the taxpayers. The greater their incentive to lie, the more I discount their testimony.

Matthew 26:52

King James Bible
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

New International Version
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

You discount the testimony because of their race and social class, and because the defendant is a cop.

EVERYBODY who sues the cops is poorer than the state and the city. EVERYBODY, then, has a financial interest to lie about the cops, because if they lie, and the cop is convicted, the state and the city have unlimited deep pockets, thanks to the power of taxation.

But if you're ever accused of a series of heinous crimes that will cost you your life if you are convicted, and you have dozens of witnesses who are going to directly accuse you as having harmed them to their faces, and there is evidence to corroborate what they say, if you are NOT guilty and your defense attorney says he's NOT going to put you on the stand, demand that he do it. Because otherwise you are going to give up your only chance at saving your life.

To save his life, this cop had to speak to that jury, and had to be cross examined.

And the defense counsel would actually then be a lie detector, because if the defendant lied under oath the defense counsel would have to reveal that or withdraw from the case (which is the same thing as revealing it). Remember when OJ stood up to speak and OJ's counsellors all leapt up and warned him that if he continued they would have to withdraw from representation?

That was because if he openly lied to the court, they would either have to reveal it, or they would have to withdraw. If they did neither and they let their client lie, they would be suborning perjury and disbarred. No lawyer is going to lose his law license to protect some criminal dirtbag murderer. You fight as hard as you can - within the law - but in the end the criminal is a criminal and if you can't save him within the law, you remember that you want to make sure that if you lose HE'S the one who goes to jail, not you.

When you're on trial for your life, if you're innocent and they have a mountain of witnesses, you take the stand and fight for you life, because if you don't, you're going to die, and the fact that your lawyer was timid and didn't recommend you testify is going to be very small consolation as you grow old in your cage.

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.

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.