Hi Jonatnon. Yes, it WOULD seem logical that your phone conversation would trigger an OFFICIAL recompiling of the facts - including the necessary paperwork. But apparently logic is not the way to go for them.
This only leaves one to speculate on what is REALLY behind their actions (barring gross incompetence)...
Perhaps this isn't a 'Sweet Pea' case but a 'Rainbow' case after all.. no matter what the DA says publicly.
quote "...When a victim of a crime does not wish to follow through with the prosecution, he or she is asked to fill out a written form with the District Attorney's Office, and that form is placed in the case file. The owners of the store never expressed a wish to drop the prosecution, and there is no written form in the file...."
>JEEZ when the Russians look at this like a hard case, that's pretty bad.
My guess is that different Russians see this in different ways. Not the least of these, I assure you, is the anti-US propaganda purposes such cases serve (and serve well..)... But that's a long offtopic.. ;)
Getting back to the story, my guess is that if these two guys aren's released VERY soon AND with an apology, they'll have good grounds to sue the authorities for ___ (lawyer types fill in please). I imagine very soon some profile attorneys may be contacting them with an offer to work for a percentage of the damage charge settlement fee.
(addition) ..You need to understand the way bureaucrats operate/think (if this can be called thinking..) - "if it's not documented ON PAPER, it doesn't exist"..
If the 'victim witness statement' Roesnik talks about has not been filed yet, the 'facts' as documented ON PAPER per last statement from the store owner/s are this: a) a burglary DID occur b) victim expresses desire to 'press charges all the way' (If an archeologist were to dig up this case (thousands of years from now..), it would seem the defendants got off easy (with the misdemeanor charge as opposed to felony).)
This is something that, judging from the partial transcript, the officials (unknowingly) stressed in the public conference. But what is most surprising is that none of them offered you to fill out said statement RIGHT THERE AND THEN..
Jonathon and Katherine, Have you BY THIS POINT IN TIME filled out/filed the 'victim witness statement' Roesnik talks about? quote: "Roesink: That's the paperwork you fill out to say, 'We don't want to press charges' the victim witness statement. Or there's a special form in the District Attorney's Office."
You need to understand the way bureaucrats operate/think (if this can be called thinking..) - "if it's not documented ON PAPER, it doesn't exist"..
All the blogging in the world does not substitute a proper form filled out and filed in manner prescribed by set procedure. It is often absurd (idiotic) and incompassionate (cruel), but it is a fact.
Not to justify the DA's actions, but she does make a valid point - "Roesink (to Heib): Why didn't you come to court and tell the judge?.." A better question is: if the defending attorney was up on everything, why didn't he(she?) insist on the store owners attending the trial???
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
Hi Jonatnon. Yes, it WOULD seem logical that your phone conversation would trigger an OFFICIAL recompiling of the facts - including the necessary paperwork. But apparently logic is not the way to go for them.
This only leaves one to speculate on what is REALLY behind their actions (barring gross incompetence)...
Perhaps this isn't a 'Sweet Pea' case but a 'Rainbow' case after all.. no matter what the DA says publicly.
September 6, 2006 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
In support of my earlier reasoning -
taken from: http://www2.steamboatpilot.com/news/2...
quote "...When a victim of a crime does not wish to follow through with the prosecution, he or she is asked to fill out a written form with the District Attorney's Office, and that form is placed in the case file. The owners of the store never expressed a wish to drop the prosecution, and there is no written form in the file...."
September 6, 2006 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DA: Justice was served
>JEEZ when the Russians look at this like a hard case, that's pretty bad.
My guess is that different Russians see this in different ways. Not the least of these, I assure you, is the anti-US propaganda purposes such cases serve (and serve well..)... But that's a long offtopic.. ;)
Getting back to the story, my guess is that if these two guys aren's released VERY soon AND with an apology, they'll have good grounds to sue the authorities for ___ (lawyer types fill in please). I imagine very soon some profile attorneys may be contacting them with an offer to work for a percentage of the damage charge settlement fee.
September 6, 2006 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
(addition)
..You need to understand the way bureaucrats operate/think (if this can be called thinking..) - "if it's not documented ON PAPER, it doesn't exist"..
If the 'victim witness statement' Roesnik talks about has not been filed yet, the 'facts' as documented ON PAPER per last statement from the store owner/s are this:
a) a burglary DID occur
b) victim expresses desire to 'press charges all the way'
(If an archeologist were to dig up this case (thousands of years from now..), it would seem the defendants got off easy (with the misdemeanor charge as opposed to felony).)
This is something that, judging from the partial transcript, the officials (unknowingly) stressed in the public conference. But what is most surprising is that none of them offered you to fill out said statement RIGHT THERE AND THEN..
September 6, 2006 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
Point taken. No hard feelings.
September 6, 2006 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
Jonathon and Katherine,
Have you BY THIS POINT IN TIME filled out/filed the 'victim witness statement' Roesnik talks about?
quote: "Roesink: That's the paperwork you fill out to say, 'We don't want to press charges' the victim witness statement. Or there's a special form in the District Attorney's Office."
You need to understand the way bureaucrats operate/think (if this can be called thinking..) - "if it's not documented ON PAPER, it doesn't exist"..
All the blogging in the world does not substitute a proper form filled out and filed in manner prescribed by set procedure. It is often absurd (idiotic) and incompassionate (cruel), but it is a fact.
September 6, 2006 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
Not to justify the DA's actions, but she does make a valid point - "Roesink (to Heib): Why didn't you come to court and tell the judge?.."
A better question is: if the defending attorney was up on everything, why didn't he(she?) insist on the store owners attending the trial???
September 6, 2006 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DA: Justice was served
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
September 6, 2006 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sweet Pea owners: 'We didn't want this'
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
September 6, 2006 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
This story has spread past the English speaking circles. Here http://lenta.ru/news/2006/09/05/trash/ is the report in Russian posted 05.09.2006 (Sept 05), 14:50:46 (Moscow time). Headline reads "Americans jailed for half a year for stealing from the garbage". Below the story is a link to the "We didn't want this" story on steamboatpilot.com (which is how I got here).
September 6, 2006 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )