Monday, April 02, 2012

Sue Baur needs to be fired: Cowlitz County Prosecutor won't charge lying rape "victim."

Here's the article:

Local girl lied about 2001 rape; father set free

Local girl lied about 2001 rape; father set free
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
In early 2001, an 11-year-old Kalama girl named Cassandra Ann Kennedy told police her dad raped her on at least three occasions. Her father, Thomas Edward Kennedy, denied the allegation, but he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to more than 15 years in prison.
So, let me get this straight:

A girl lies about rape... HER OWN FATHER DOES 9 YEARS OF THE HARDEST TIME IMAGINABLE... and she is not going to be charged?

If I had standing (If I lived in Cowlitz) I would be filing a recall petition... today.
Baur said Cassandra Kennedy will not be prosecuted for her apparent lies about her father, partly because prosecutors do not want to discourage people in similar circumstances from coming forward.
WHAT "similar circumstances?"  Who WANTS those LYING about being raped to "come forward?"

How does failing to hold this woman accountable reduce the liklihood that those slime like her will NOT come forward and lie... especially now that they know they can get away with it?

This kind of sexist bullshit proves this woman to not only be unfit to be a prosecutor, it proves her to be unfit to be a lawyer and unfit to be in elective office.

NINE YEARS OF UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT.

NINE YEARS SHE ALLOWED THE AGONY TO GO ON... AND ON.... AND ON.

I can't even begin to imagine what the horrors were this innocent man had to endure... how he was treated in prison for raping his own little girl... the nine years of his life stolen from him because of a lie...

And this scumbag prosecutor won't DO anything about it?

She needs to be gone... today.  Right fricking now.

Baur is a disgrace to the legal profession.  Her bigoted sexism is inexcusable.

And now, one has to wonder: how many others have been falsely convicted of the same thing for the same reasons?  And how does Baur's mishandling of this case REDUCE the likelihood that this kind of crap won't continue?

Sickening.

15 comments:

Jack said...

There are a number of men in the Longview area that have been persecuted like this. The prosecutor needs to GO.

Martin Hash said...

This is so incredibly sexist that there must be something that we aren't being told. Sue Baur needs to explain herself fully or resign.

Martin Hash said...

Looking into it, Baur's excuse is that 11-year olds who grow up need to be able to tell the truth without going to jail.

The question then becomes: was it originally a case of "he said, she said" with no other evidence? If so, then a judge should have thrown out the case to begin with. This is probably back-wash of our society's tough stance on child rape (especially parental).

Anonymous said...

If anyone talking all this trash about Sue Baur really knew her or anything about her career and what she stands for, they wouldn't be persecuting her like they are. A judge and jury put this man away, not Sue Baur. The girl was ELEVEN for crying out loud! Wake up people. Sue, I love you for always and will stand by you always!!!

Just a guy said...

I appreciate your position in all of this, but I don't NEED to know someone who is not interested in justice.

While OF COURSE a "judge and jury put that man away," that is NOT the point.

Based on this kind of bizarre reasoning, both legal and moral, that scum that kidnapped that little girl, who then raped her REPEATEDLY and even had two children with her, should not be prosecuted because it happened so long ago.

But they're going to prosecute him ANYWAY, and he'll spend the rest of his LIFE in prison.

And he'll be in prison because HIS crime NEVER STOPPED.... just like HERS.

My concern isn't for Baur. My concern is for an innocent man who spent nine years of hell at the bottom of the prison food chain because his daughter LIED... and ALLOWED THE LIE TO CONTINUE.

To that end, I don't care if Sue Baur is Mother Teresa personified. In this case, the idea that she would put the protection of false accusers over the protection of their victims is the thing... because here's the message she sent with her decision not to prosecute to those similarly inclined:

Go ahead and make a false allegation. Your target might do prison time, and if he goes, well, don't worry about it, YOU WON'T BE CHARGED.

As a I result, I don't give a DAMN who she is, what her career has been, or how she bakes chocolate chip cookies.

What I care about was that this girl FALSELY ACCUSED HER OWN FATHER, AND HE SPENT NINE FRICKING YEARS LOCKED UP LIKE AN ANIMAL< TREATED LIKE AN ANIMAL BY HIS FELLOW PRISONERS BECAUSE IN THEIR EYES HE RAPED A LITTLE GIRL... HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

Think about it.

If it were you that had done the time... would YOU be so forgiving and supportive of the one who is going to let that monster walk?

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting,and repulsive, how people can comment on in such a negative and hurtful way with only the "facts" from an article in the media. Educated people understand that the media prints what they want to in order to make a good story, regardless of what the whole truth might be. If one were to look into the history of The Daily News in Longview, they would find that the reporting is often shoddy and replete with misinformation and errors. Anyone familiar with the legal system, in ways other than being arrested for their own stupidity, also knows that it takes a preponderance of evidence for a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The word of an 11yr old alone would never have convicted an innocent man of rape, and those who really want to know and understand the true story would research ALL of the information made available through a public records request. However, it seems many people just want to join in the ignorance of hate mongers who have nothing better to do than make judgments without knowledge. I wonder what some of you would be saying if the prosecutor were a man. I'm fairly certain there would be less focus on the conviction 9yrs ago and more on the fact that the prosecutor reacted immediately and with integrity as soon as she found out about the woman's recantation. Knowing full well what the repercussions could be, Ms. Baur reacted in a responsible and ethical manner. To me, that speaks of incredible integrity and dedication to justice. I commend her bravery in dealing with this head on.

Just a guy said...

Well, there's a simple solution to your repulsion: If I have any of the facts wrong, then feel free to correct me... and them.

Here's what I know: It's indisputable... and for that matter, YOU don't dispute them.

1. A man did 9 years in prison in what amounts to a living hell that Faust couldn't have conceptualized;

Right?

2. He did that time because his daughter lied and allowed that crime to go on, unending, for every day of those 9 years.

Right?

3. Your "walk on water" prosecutor refuses to press charges because of those "similarly situated."

Right?

If those facts are substantially wrong, then by all means, please correct them. If those facts are substantially correct, then I stand by my earlier position: Baur is unfit to be a lawyer, unfit to be a prosecutor and unfit to be in elective office, since SHE obviously allowed HER gender to interfere with HER thought process.

This woman put her own father through an unspeakable agony... an unending nightmare of pain, depression, physical torture...

And YOUR concern is over your precious prosecutor.

Well, someone much smarter then I once remarked that in politics, if you can't stand the heat, then stay the hell out of the kitchen.

This woman allowed her father to rot in prison, knowing every moment of every day that what she was doing and had done was wrong.

And in the weakness of your positing, you play the gender card.

Well, let me clue you in on something: On THIS blog, the PLUMBING of the inept, incompetent or corrupt makes no difference.

My own brother-in-law faces the wrath of this meager effort, as does our "Republican" congresswoman, much like our democrat congressman before her.... so when it comes to YOUR rabid defense of a fellow female, feel free to jam it.

And if you believe Baur's cowardice in dealing with this to be "integrity... responsible or ethical?"

Then maybe YOUR name is Sue Baur, because no one else could POSSIBLY arrive at that conclusion.

Perception is not Reality said...

Hello, Just a Guy.

While I did not write any earlier posts, when I can across your last one, I want to clarify your first few questions. I am not a lawyer but am more fully aware of the facts of this incident than what most people have been reading and/or seeing in the media. In regards to your three questions to Anonymous here are the factual responses:

1- You state: 1. A man did 9 years in prison in what amounts to a living hell that Faust couldn't have conceptualized;

Right?

Answer: Sadly, Yes. Mr. Kennedy was in Prison for 9.5 years after a jury convicted him based on witness testimony and physical evidence.

2- He did that time because his daughter lied and allowed that crime to go on, unending, for every day of those 9 years.

Right?

Answer: WRONG. It has not been proven that Ms. Kennedy lied at the time. This is a common misconception, and an unfortunate one that has now led to an onslaught of perceived misjustice. It is equally plausible that she is lying now. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when she was telling the truth, which is why it makes it then impossible for Ms. Baur or anyone in the criminal justice system to charge her for a crime.

3- Your "walk on water" prosecutor refuses to press charges because of those "similarly situated."

Right?

Answer: WRONG. Ms. Baur is unable to press charges because there is absolutely no way she can know one way or another whether Ms. Kennedy is lying now or was lying in 2001. If she was lying in 2001, the statute of limitations, set to protect all citizens, has run out.

Further, I think it is imperative that all concerned citizens realize that while Mr. Kennedy was granted a new trial and the charges were dismissed, he has not been found innocent and has not been exonerated of Rape of a Child. The reason that there will not be a new trial is the exact same reason that Ms. Kennedy will not be on trial. That reason is, due to Ms. Kennedy's recent statement, in neither case is it possible to prove either case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I hope this brings more clarity to you and any other concerned citizens.

Knowledge is Powerful said...

To Just a Guy, and all other concerned citizens.
While I am neither Sue Baur, nor a lawyer, nor the previous Anonomous, I am privy to more information than what most of the citizens have been given through the media.
Just a Guy, I will answer your questions below with the knowledge that I have. Please take the time to read them and respect them. You said to feel free to correct you and the statements, so I will do that.
1. A man did 9 years in prison in what amounts to a living hell that Faust couldn't have conceptualized;

Right?
Answer: RIGHT. Mr. Kennedy was convicted by a jury of 12 peers in 2002 and was sentenced to 15 years in prison based on medical evidence and witness testimony. I cannot imagine what he faced during those years. I agree it likely was, as you say, a living hell.

2. He did that time because his daughter lied and allowed that crime to go on, unending, for every day of those 9 years.

Right?
Answer: WRONG. You are assuming that Ms. Kennedy lied at the time. At no point has Ms. Kennedy’s recantation been proven to be true now. Mr. Kennedy has not been found innocent and/or exonerated of the crime of Rape of a Child. It is equally as plausible that Ms. Kennedy is lying now as it is that she was lying when she was 11. No one, sadly, will ever be able to answer this question, as we do not have the technology to overcome human nature. At this point, it is simply impossible to know one way or another.

3. Your "walk on water" prosecutor refuses to press charges because of those "similarly situated."

Right?
Answer: WRONG. This was an extremely unfortunate snippet the media took hold of and has caused extreme harassment and concern from around the world, but does NOT represent the true actions or intentions of Ms. Baur. There is a burden of proof which sits with the Prosecution. They have a duty not to bring charges to any person unless they feel that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person is guilty. It is absolutely impossible to know when Ms. Kennedy was telling the truth and when she was lying. This makes her unreliable, and thus in turn makes it impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether or not people agree with it, it is the law, and the standard that is upheld in the court. I hope that through more insight and knowledge that you (all) will be able to change your perception of the situation, and of Ms. Baur.

Anonymous said...

I was actually speaking on this matter the other day when it came to light. I'm gonna put all the arguments on this page into one neat little box I think.

1. First, yes, it is not the job of the Prosecutor to actually go through and put this man in jail. It is indeed the job of the prosecutor to go over the facts of a case and choose whether or not they need to be pursue the case. This woman decided to pursue a case of circumstantial evidence, and so many assumptions it's honestly ridiculous that it even made it to court. If a child is sitting in court saying daddy touched her, then yeah, people are gonna believe her. It's the prosecutor's job to realize if this has any merit to even be there in the first place.

2. By not doing anything to the liar, you set an example. This woman feels that it's okay to let her go free because the girl "felt bad" after letting her dad sit in prison for a decade. This is preferential and sexist treatment. I have read up on this woman and found that she has a history of men being falsely accused in her county. I can understand if a child's lie can slip through, but when man after man is getting prosecuted unjustly, and then given no justice in return in her area, there's a pattern here. Her perceptions of men are colored to a bad light where she is not able to make unbiased judgement. She cannot be in control of mens' futures.

And the media can distort and change info all they want, but by picking through it you see patterns and ideas that you can't cover up.

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/04/was-answer-to-mike-nifong-for-corrupt.html

Just a guy said...

Initially, when Baur claimed she was not going to file charges, it was because, well,

"Cassandra Kennedy will not be prosecuted for her apparent lies about her father, partly because prosecutors do not want to discourage people in similar circumstances from coming forward"

Political analysis is my business... my only business.

The reaction to this stupidity amounts to political tap-dancing... period.

Her major concern shouldn't be about the tiny, infinintesimal few who MIGHT come forward; her concern should be both for justice in THIS case, as well as providing a statement to those considering this kind of crime that if they lie to get a guy locked up in prison that there is a major, major price they have to pay for that.

All of the focus of those who disagree with me has been on protesting my demand that poor Sue resign or be forced out or recalled.

Well, WHAT ARE YOU SAME PEOPLE GOING TO DO FOR THE POOR BASTARD LOCKED UP FOR THE LAST 9 PLUS YEARS?

Now we're told (ALSO taken from the TDN news article) "oh my God, Baur is incapable of figuring out if she was lying then, or if she is lying now."

Such a statement goes to my initial point: Baur, of her own volition, indirectly admits she's unfit to be either a prosecutor, lawyer OR elected official.

It's her JOB to "figure it out."

Because if he DID do it, then he NEEDS to be locked up.

And if he DIDN'T do it, then his false accuser NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP.

Would it be difficult?

Of course.

Would it take up some of precious prosecutor's precious time? Yeah, well, too bad.

For the anon poster to tell me that I'm wrong over the fact that Kennedy was imprisoned... and KEPT in prison because his daughter lied, here's the deal:

If it has NOT BEEN PROVEN that the daughter lied at the time, where does the PROSECUTOR get off even attempting to overturn a jury verdict without PROOF?

And the same poster who claimed me to be "WRONG" over my allegation that Baur refused to press charges because of the impact on those "similarly situated" should read the quote that I lifted directly from the article that says, well, gee, charges won't be filed "partly because prosecutors do not want to discourage people in similar circumstances from coming forward"

How can I be "wrong," if that's part of the reasoning to fail to file charges?

I've seen the backfill to justify this, the tail-wagging-the-dog approach to saving a now rapidly-sinking political career.

And that effort has been ENTIRELY political as opposed to legal.

I said at the outset that Baur should either resign or be forced out.

I have read absolutely nothing to change my mind.

I deal with the reality of the situation, which is this:

IF Baur can't prove the girl lied at the time of the dad's conviction, then she has no right to try and overturn a jury verdict because she feels like it. That she did, without proof of the lie, makes her, IMHO, unfit to be a prosecutor.

If Baur can't prove that the girl is telling the truth NOW, then see the paragraph above.

And IF the girl is telling the truth NOW, then she has admitted she perjured herself THEN, and IS liable for prosecution NOW.

And if the girl is lying NOW, then she needs to be prosecuted for lying NOW, and her dad needs to finish his sentence. So, Baur's incompetent inability to figure this puzzle out NOW provides her with no defense.

On the contrary: it strengthens MY position that she's unfit for office.

I completely understand the concept of prosecutorial discretion. I also understand that this would be a difficult case. But the statute of limitations has NOT tolled on this... and what *I* care about is justice for the victim.

You remember... the victim?

The guy that not one of you Baur defenders give a damn about?

Anonymous said...

I dont know why the citizens of Cowlitz County and surrounding area are not having massive protests in front of Baur`s office and home. She should be removed from office and disbarred and never be allowed to practice law again. Baur says that she cannot prove perjury? That should be a slam dunk. Obviously Baur is completely heartless toward what happened to Mr Kennedy. He does have one option and that is to pursue a civil action against Cassandra Kennedy, but if she does`nt have anything to attach, then its a empty action. Good God are you people in the Cowlitz County are in such a apathetic state that this gross injustice doesnt even bother you?

Unknown said...

Having been falsely accused of molesting my own son many years ago, and having had to defend against the accusations, and being an attorney I believe I am in a position to weigh in on this.

There are many times when someone comes forward to recant they are simply shown the door by the prosecutor, for the very same reason this prosecutor decided to listen. If the facts were strong enough to doubt the reliability of the conviction, then why not charge the person and let the system decide her guilt or innocence. It is done EVERYDAY. That's how the system works. Ms. Baur couldn't be disbarred over a judgment call, but she can be voted out of office if enough people disagree with her position.

If there is a pattern in Cowlitz County of excessively charging men with sex crimes, then you may have a civil rights violation and someone should talk to the U.S. Attorney for your area, and request an investigation.

Anonymous said...

Sue Baur needs to go, fired, disbarred.
She was the prosecutor then and is now the "judge" to sweep this under the rug???
As Cassanda continued to lie past the age of 18, no statues of limitations should apply. By Sue saying " it's a case of a victim changing her test. is wrong on so many levels. If Thomas is freed then Cassandra was never a victim. Her logic about similar cases is just plain stupid as a similar case would be someone unlawfullt sent to jail. This person Sue should lose her job.

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of apologists for Sue Baur. False rape allegations are swept under the rug every day. The only reason this one got any attention is because of how long the man languished in prison for.

Many men make the mistake of assuming that women have the same sense of honour and fairness that men do. With some exceptions, most do not in our society. Sue Baur is showing us that she is certainly NOT one of those exceptions.

If the situation was reversed, and it had come to light that a young boy had lied about sexual abuse at the hands of his mother, one can only imagine how vigorously the case would be prosecuted.