Former student accepts deal in Rutgers suicide case

[alp227]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- A former Rutgers University student who allegedly watched a web video secretly taken of a male student's sexual encounter with another man has been admitted to a pretrial intervention program.

Molly Wei pleaded not guilty Friday to two counts of invasion of privacy, according to a statement from the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office.

The case exposed the issue of bullying and suicide on school campuses after a grand jury indictment alleged that Wei's classmate Dharun Ravi secretly streamed online the encounter between his roommate, Tyler Clementi, and another man in September 2010.

Clementi's body was recovered from the Hudson River on September 30, more than a week after he jumped from the George Washington Bridge, which spans the Hudson River separating New York and New Jersey.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/06/new.jersey.rutgers.suicide/index.html

---

This comes after the teens charged with harassing Phoebe Prince also got similar probationary sentences. I'm thinking about it, and not every crime resulting in death is deserving of hard prison sentences, and in this case would prison or probationary rehabilitation be more effective as punishment?

I mean, Ted Kennedy got a suspended sentence for leaving Mary Jo in the river. Donte Stallworth got house arrest and a lifetime ban from driving for killing a pedestrian while driving drunk. Police officers who batter or even kill people with excessive force almost always get no charges (exception: Johannes Mehserle).

Is this a just punishment, or is Wei getting off too easy based on her social status (upper middle class Asian)?

[pnwmom]

1. This isn't due to her social status. It's due to the fact that she didn't plan

the crime; she didn't set up the cameras or operate the computer or try to disseminate the images or tweet an invitation to see more. She also didn't participate at all in the second planned "event."

What she is claimed to have done (she pleaded not guilty) -- was view some images on a computer that the roommate was operating in her room. This doesn't compare to what the roommate did. That's why there were two smaller charges against her and 15 against him.

(He was also an upper middle class Asian by the way. That hasn't stopped them from throwing the book at him. Which I agree with, by the way.)

[alp227]

2. OK thanks for clarifying; I didn't check all the facts about what Ravi/Wei did n/t

[pnwmom]

3. She's also agreed to testify against Ravi, her former friend.

Their case against Ravi will be much stronger with her testimony. As I'm sure you know this kind of agreement happens all the time.

[JI7]

4. even if it hadn't resulted in death they should have been kicked out

for invading someone's privacy like that. i hope this sticks to that Dharun Ravi asshole for the rest of his life.

[pnwmom]

5. They both left Rutgers, though I've never seen actual evidence reported

that she did anything other than letting a friend sit in her room and operate his laptop.

By charging her, however, they increased the likelihood she would testify against her friend.

[JI7]

6. she described the guy Tyler was with as looking "sketchy" with ragged clothes

[LisaL]

7. Never heard anything of the sort. Where is that info came from?

[pnwmom]

8. Are you suggesting she's guilty because she thought someone looked sketchy?

I don't think there is a law against that.

[JI7]

9. no, i'm saying she knew what Ravi was doing

although he was the one who set it up. but that it wasn't as you were saying before where she had no idea what he was doing with her computer in her room.

[pnwmom]

10. That doesn't prove anything about what she knew about Ravi's plans.

She has acknowledged a couple of minutes of looking at the computer with Ravi. And a friend said she later said the bearded visitor looked "sketchy."

Just because she thought, after she saw him, that the visitor looked sketchy doesn't mean she had prior knowledge of or approved of Ravi's plans to set up a camera and spy on them.

But even so, it's not like she got off scott-free. She'll have her 300 hours of community service, 3 years of probation, and a lifetime to remember whatever it was that she did do.

[bettyellen]

11. I wonder how long she let him continue to live stream the video

it's not like she is making claims that she did anything but go along with it, once she did know.
I wonder if she initially tried to help with the cover up, before she tried to save her own ass. It will be interesting to see at trial.

[pnwmom]

13. He didn't stream the video with her at all. After the first time,

when she was there, and it was NOT streamed, he apparently decided to do it again later -- and tweeted about it to his friends and invited them to see it. She was never accused of participating in that, however; and it's not even clear he ever did stream it, from the reports I've seen.

[LisaL]

16. I do not believe that is clear.

Prosecution says he provided others the opportunity to view the encounter.
What he decided to do later never happened because Tyler discovered what was going on and removed the camera. So if prosecution is correct Ravi provided others with the opportunity to view the encounter in the first incident in Molly's room.

[bettyellen]

17. yeah, he did plan to stream the videos and I thought it was pretty clear that was at Molly's

and she didn't stop it at all- the poor fella who was being spied on ended it. to me, that sounds lke it was streamed from Molly's, and it had been planned.

[LisaL]

18. If it was streamed at all, it was during the first encounter.

So it would not be planned in advance-especially Molly would not know about it. The second attempt failed because Tyler discovered the camera.

[bettyellen]

20. was Molly at the first one only? How woud it not be planned if he set up the camera?

[LisaL]

22. He didn't set up the camera. The camera was on his laptop.

Laptop was in their dorm room. He remotely turned it on while at Molly's room.

[bettyellen]

31. by set up I meant pointing it to the target and turning it on, and so he did set it up

WTF do you think "set up" means. LOL, it means to prepare something to wirk, and he sure as hell did set it up- more than once.

[pnwmom]

25. He planned it, he set up the camera. Molly didn't have anything to do with that.

Then he came to her room and asked if he could use her computer -- which he did -- and he showed her the images on it.

[bettyellen]

33. showed her images of him spying on someone- which he had romised to stream on Twitter

I see now, she;s as innocent as a lamb!

[pnwmom]

40. You're twisting the timeline. Is that on purpose or do you just not understand?

"which he had promised to stream" implies that she saw images AFTER he promised to stream them, which is simply untrue.

First, after setting up his webcam, he came into her room, asked to use the computer, and showed her images for a couple minutes.

The next day, he tweeted to 150 friends that he planned to do it again and make it available for all to see. He didn't mention anything about Molly being involved, just himself. And then Tyler found out and that was the end of the plan.

[bettyellen]

44. So Ravi didn;t set up the camera a second time? Whoa I never heard that.!

[pnwmom]

45. I didn't say that. I think I read that his roommate discovered it,

which implies that he had set it up again. But that doesn't implicate anyone except Ravi. If he had done it again, he could have viewed the images from anyone's room, or even from the library -- anywhere he could get access to a computer.

[bettyellen]

47. Actually it makes Molly look like she stood by and let it happen again. Maybe thatls why she

doesn't want a trial. Because when he tweeted intent- she knew it was not a joke.

[pnwmom]

49. How? He tweeted about it, the roommate found out about it,

(someone probably tipped off the roommate) and then the roommate disabled the camera.

How do you know Molly ever saw the tweet? How do you know she knew Ravi intended to do it again? You're making a lot of assumptions based on no publicly known evidence. Do you have some insider knowledge here?

[pnwmom]

24. It was never streamed. And there was no indication

that Molly had ever agreed to a later streaming.

[bettyellen]

32. the victims parent referred to Molly's actions as "unlawful" today- what do you think that means?"

I'm guessing they know a whole lot more than you do. I have read in the news lately that intimate images were streamed, so there;s that... Youre making excuses for this Ravi dude- really? Is there a collefe kd that ever did a bagd thing according to you?

[pnwmom]

41. I'm not making excuses for Ravi. I support the charges against him.

But it is a matter of FACT, not opinion, that the images were never streamed. The media misreported the situation in the beginning, and a lot of people can't seem to rid themselves of this incorrect idea. Just because Ravi and Molly could see the images from her dorm room doesn't mean that the whole world could see them.

The parents today also said that they supported the decision of the prosecutor to allow pre-trial intervention for Molly; and that Molly's degree of involvement was MUCH less than Ravi's. That is what I've been saying ever since more details came out.

[LisaL]

52. Those are not the "facts." If the images were never streamed,

then what does prosecutor mean by "giving others the opportunity to view the encounter?"

[bettyellen]

54. PW was unaware of the reports that images were distributed.

[pnwmom]

58. Not true. I knew those claims were initially made,

but then they were disputed.

It would be an easy enough matter to be proved in court, however; and both defense attorneys say they have proof that the images were never streamed. I doubt the attorneys would risk their own reputations by lying about something that could be so easily proven. (People here also said the Duke lacrosse attorneys must be lying about clear issues of fact -- and they weren't. Flat out lying is a dumb thing for an attorney to do. They have their future relationship with the judge to be concerned with.)

In any case, Molly Wei has only been charged with 2 counts of invasion of privacy -- whereas Ravi has been charged with 15 counts.

[LisaL]

73. The claims might be disputed by his defense.

That doesn't make it fact.
He is charged with invasion of privacy. Which covers both observing Tyler without his consent and sharing the images.

[pnwmom]

57. Could you show me a link to that quote?

The prosecutor made some claims early on that were changed when more facts became available. I don't know when or what or who that quote referred to. For example, Ravi gave Molly the opportunity to view the encounter -- but that didn't require streaming.

Did the prosecutor say Molly gave "others the opportunity to view the encounter" or Ravi? And in what context?

[bettyellen]

59. no one is saying Molly distributed them, but you already knew that

And the link is already in one of Lisa's posts here. As I told you before, other new info was reported in the MSM by the prosecutors when they added the charges of obstruction last month. Aside from deleted tweets, they found evidence that either images of video (described in some reports as intimate) were indeed shared from the first incident. So, you missed all that, and are in error referring only to reports that came out before the real investigation was underway.

It seems Ravi's lawyer might use the excuse that he had been referring to the second night when he said that his client didn't share the images. Because, of course lawyers do bend the truth to make their clients appear Innocent, they do it all the time.

As I said before, some of the reports said images (including nudity), but the NYT said video. Could be a clip, and not live streaming, in which case that would give them lawyers another hair to split. Like the claim that no video was streamed the second night- given that the attempt to stream was aborted by the victim that night- it is incredibly dishonest. Totally misleading,like saying someone mid crime didn;t do it, but probaly staying within the letter of the law.

[pnwmom]

67. Ravi is NOT being prosecuted for disseminating images.

None of the 15 counts accuse him of disseminating images -- only viewing them. You've made a lot of claims without any links. You should familiarize yourself with the actual case, rather than the rumors that were falsely spread at the outset.

http://www.dailytargum.com/news/middlesex-county-jury-indicts-dharun-ravi-on-15-counts-1.2548270

Dharun Ravi was indicted on 15 counts today after evidence from a criminal investigation was presented to a 23-person grand jury last week, according to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office.

Ravi, 19, of Plainsboro, N.J., faces two counts of invasion of privacy and two counts of attempted invasion of privacy for using a webcam to view his roommate Tyler Clementi's intimate encounter with another man.

SNIP

He was also charged with two counts of second-degree bias and two counts of third-degree bias. A second-degree offense could carry about five to 10 years in prison, Kaplan said.
The grand jury also found that Ravi attempted to mislead investigators and witnesses by deleting a Twitter post that alerted others to view his roommate's second encounter and replacing it with a false post.
They also found that Ravi tried to convince witnesses to not testify against him and that he gave investigators information that would mislead the investigation.
For these actions, he faces three counts of tampering with evidence, three counts of hindering his own apprehension and one count of witness tampering.

SNIP

[bettyellen]

68. yet the prosecuter said he did share them. So he's being charged w/ lesser crime?

So what, it happens all the time. I am shocked you weren;t remotely aware of how the justice system works in this country.

You are editing the info out there and minimizing what this kid did. It is a bit repulsive.

[LisaL]

72. No, he isn't being charged with lesser crime.

Invasion of privacy charges cover both observing someone without consent and sharing the images.

[LisaL]

71. Why do you keep saying that?

He is charged with invasion of privacy. His defense might be saying Ravi didn't disseminate any images. But clearly prosecution does not agree.

"So where do the four invasion of privacy charges come from? As Middlesex County prosecutor spokesman John O'Neill, explained to The Atlantic Wire via telephone, "There are different counts that lead to different events ... they cover different actions." Ravi faces two invasion of privacy charges--one for "observing" Clementi and M.B. (as his partner is identified) in a situation "where a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or engage in sexual penetration or sexual conduct"--and a second, more serious charge, for "disclosing a photograph, film, videotape, recording or other reproduction of the image" of Clementi and M.B. There are two more attempted invasion of privacy charges for the incident on Sept. 21st."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/understanding-hate-crime-charges-against-dharun-ravi/36873/

[bettyellen]

74. that's what I thought, but I rmember there being speculation about another charge

but I cannot for the life of me remember what it was. But it was thought it was a bit of a stretch.
From what I can tell, the defense has tried to make this all about the 2nd occasion, since then they can legally say nothing was streamed by their client, no harm done, etc. Even on this thread, if you listen to some people, you'd never know there had been a crime committed, and a second attempt to repeat that crime. Disturbingly dishonest, if you ask me.

[pnwmom]

23. It never got streamed at all -- whatever Ravi had planned.

A lot of information came out in the early media coverage that turned out to be untrue.

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/05/06/news/doc4...

Authorities say Ravi set up a webcam to capture Clementi's liaison and used Twitter to tell others about it.

But Sinins said that contrary to early reports, no liaison was webcast on the Internet for the public to see.

[bettyellen]

38. no "webcast" just images and maybe video clips then?

WEF do you think her lawyer is going to say?

I am disgusted to hear anyone minimize what Ravi did, and this girl is almost as boad for not stopping it.

[pnwmom]

48. No images were broadcast on the internet.

It would be reckless and stupid for the attorneys to make a clear factual statement that could be so easily disproved in court. I'm sure these attorneys aren't stupid or reckless.

I have never minimized what Ravi did -- unless you call correcting your false timeline "minimizing." And for all we know, the girl DID stop it. They only watched the images for a couple minutes and then stopped. Do you think it was more likely that Ravi stopped on his own, or that the girl had something to do with him stopping?

[bettyellen]

55. It was pretty well established that the victim stopped it, certainly not Molly, LOL.

Now you want to give her a good citizen ship award, good lord.
And you were quite flip about what Ravi di , and seem to be unaware of the seriousness of him spreading private images, and that he attempted to do it again. If Molly trued to stop him, her lawyers would be saying that, not carefully using words like stream instead of images. We shall see,

[pnwmom]

28. The prosecution initially claimed that, but withdrew that claim.

A lot of information came out in the early media coverage that turned out to be untrue. The streaming claim was untrue -- that never happened.

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/05/06/news/doc4dc43c6bd9a2b298033973.txt?viewmode=2


Authorities say Ravi set up a webcam to capture Clementi's liaison and used Twitter to tell others about it.

But Sinins said that contrary to early reports, no liaison was webcast on the Internet for the public to see.

[bettyellen]

36. wasn't that ONLY because the victim found out the camera was set up- again?

[pnwmom]

39. Could be. But Molly was only involved in the first incident.

Ravi tweeted about doing it again and streaming it, but there was never any indication that he was involving Molly in a second incident.

[bettyellen]

43. i thought that is the one he disributed images from

which would make sense then, her getting charged,

[pnwmom]

50. She wasn't charged with distributing any images.

She was only charged with 2 counts of invasion of privacy.

[bettyellen]

51. I didn't say she was. I;m saying it looks like she knew he had done it

and that moreso, he would do it again. Dorms are small, tweets like that get around fast. It would be most unusual if she hadn't heard about it.

[pnwmom]

56. "It looks like" isn't evidence of anything.

Yes, she knew he had done it once, but there is no EVIDENCE put forth that she knew he was planning to do it again. However, if she did get the tweet, she had no more obligation than about 150 other people who received the tweet to do anything about it. But for all we know, she did do something. SOMEONE told Tyler what was happening. It could have been Molly or any of the other people. We don't know.

Fortunately, we still require evidence in the courts, if not on DU.

[bettyellen]

60. I had never seen reports that someone told Tyler, did you?

Or what was that your guess as to what "it looked like"? It was reported that he noticed the computer pointed at his bed again, and shut it down. I've never seen anyone but you claim Molly helped prevent the second crime- have you?

As for Molly's obligation, if she had participated in this crime once (and it is not in dispute that she did look at the images, which is a crime) and she knew it would occur again, legally that would work against her in court. Which would be a good reason for her to avoid a trial. There could no longer be any doubt (which would be her most likely defense) that what she was looking at was the product of spying, and not maybe Tylers own video collection or something he ddn;t mind sharing.

So if she allowed the crime to occur a second time, she looks pretty bad. At that point she could have made things right by stopping it, and she did at the very least have a serious moral - if not legal- obligation to do so. And it would certainly be brought up in court against her to show her extremely callous disregard during the comisssion of the crimes.

Where are you getting this cray idea she tried to warn Tyler? Did you just totally make that shit up?

[LisaL]

65. Tyler actually found out from checking Ravi's tweeter feeds.

And the second attempt to view the encounter was prevented by Tyler who searched the room for cameras.

[bettyellen]

70. okay, so she was making that shit up. I know I specualted Molly say the tweets or heard the gossip

but that's in the realm of the probable. It's not a crazy depserate attempt to make Molly look like a do gooder.
How nuts is that?

[LisaL]

64. Nobody told Tyler. Tyler found out from checking Ravi's tweeter

feeds.

[bettyellen]

66. she's crazy to speculate that Molly told Tyler, and dishonest to minimize the second attempt by

saying explicit footage wasn;t streamed - when it was the victim himself who prevented Ravi from commiting the crime again. If Molly had any part in helping Tyler, her lawyers would absolutely be shouting if from the rooftops. The best they can do is deny she knew viewing the images was a crime, and pretend she didn't knw the crime would occur again. We'll see what her texts and tweets reveal- I doubt they will show any concern for the victim.

I'm glad you understand and see what the defense lawyers spin has done to minimize this whole incident. Others here are lacking a lot of info, buying the BS and spinning away as if Molly is some sort of a hero. It's delusional to the point of being ridciulous.

She isn't a hero, she's a slitherly rat who got herself in deep shit, and now has to turn on her "friend" to save her own ass. Nothing terribly admirable in any of that.

[bettyellen]

37. Im not interested in what Molly;s lawyer says, but thanks!

[bettyellen]

19. It seems they (he?) planned on streaming from Molly's place.

And only the victim himself foiled the plot.
you don;t know if they streamed or not, so why are you pretending you know she is completely innocent?

[pnwmom]

26. The police say it wasn't streamed. Isn't that good enough for you?

The first time he went over to her room, asked to use her computer, and showed her the images.

Later, he tweeted to all his friends that he planned to stream it -- but that never happened. And there was no indication in his tweet that Molly would be involved with that, and no other evidence the police have ever made known.

I never "pretended" she was completely innocent. I said that she viewed the images. But that's all the police have charged her with - 2 counts of invasion of privacy. They've charged Ravi with 15 counts because he was the instigator and the one who carried it all out.


http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/05/06/news/doc4...

[bettyellen]

35. very private images did get out on the internet, and Molly was among those who knew where they came

from, so there;s that... Those were the charges, and she knew it was happeneing. That is why she was charged,

[pnwmom]

42. Show me a link that proves that. I've never seen that stated anywhere.

And Molly was never charged with that. There were 15 charges against Ravi and only 2 against her -- for viewing the images that he linked to on her computer.

[bettyellen]

63. here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/rutgers-roommate-faces-hate-crime-charges-in-spying-suicide.html?_r=1

[LisaL]

53. That's not what prosecution says.

"Prosecutors say Mr. Ravi live-streamed the encounter on Sept. 19."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/rutgers-roommate-faces-hate-crime-charges-in-spying-suicide.html

[JI7]

14. it's interesting of all the things that have been said

none was that she didn't know what he was doing or tried to stop it.
but we got the description of how the guy was sketchy .

[bettyellen]

21. sounds like she participated -or her lawyers would be all over the news

idiot probably left a trail of emails tetxs and tweets.

[pnwmom]

29. She's pleaded not guilty. But, in any case, the only thing

she's been charged with is viewing the images after Ravi used her computer to access them.

The police have said that Ravi tweeted about the incident, but never indicated that Molly did.

[pnwmom]

27. There was never any indication that she was involved with the planning.

Some friend said that, after seeing it, she thought the visitor looked sketchy. So what? He was older and bearded. Maybe he DID look like he didn't belong and she wondered what he was doing there -- until it became obvious.

[bettyellen]

34. she wondered what he was doing LOL, you mean Ravi didn;t tell her like he did all of Rutgers? HA.

[pnwmom]

46. Why do you keep distorting the timeline? He didn't tweet about it

until AFTER the incident with Molly occurred.

[bettyellen]

61. I think you need to get up to speed with this. Sorry, you missed quite a bit of reporting.

Google the obstruction charges, and get back to me.

[NashVegas]

62. That's Called "Accessory" IIRC

Miss Molly made a CHOICE to be involved.

[msanthrope]

12. It's a plea to testify against Ravi. She'll be able to testify as to what he said,

his manner---

He ought to ask for a plea.

[LisaL]

15. Considering prosecutors recently brought additional charges

against him, I doubt they are going to give him a similar plea deal.

[pnwmom]

30. I doubt that, too. n/t

[msanthrope]

69. They might--if only to avoid appeals that might not work out in their

favor. Though they've got plenty on the bastard.