who's your nanny?

John Mattingly: Maryland Needs More Tyranny!

John Mattingly, a private practice attorney in St. Mary's County, Maryland, who will be challenging incumbent Richard Fritz next year, recently criticized the county's top prosecutor for not prosecuting defendants to the full extent of the law.

When one hears the name Rick Fritz -- the man who, for starters, failed to hold any government police officers legally accountable for the murder of Jamie Dean in addition to sanctioning the persecution of 16-year-old John Edison, Jr. as he was held without bond in a detention center for a crime any sensible person would've known he didn't commit -- one might be tempted to think anyone would be a better choice.

Well, apparently not, if this report is any indication. To wit:

Mattingly said State's Attorney Richard Fritz (R) also mishandled a recent rape trial ending with the teenage defendant's acquittal, and that too many members of his staff with too little to do leave work too early in the afternoon.

Would that the state's prosecutors would actually do "too little" work. If they simply failed to show up to work in the first place, there'd be a hell of a lot fewer nonviolent citizens turned into "criminals" via bogus convictions for drug and gun possession and the like.

But more importantly, note that when Mattingly alludes to the rape trial of John Edison by suggesting it was "mishandled," he's really complaining because prosecutors failed to obtain a conviction.

In no uncertain terms, Fritz and his office -- specifically ASA Joe Stanalonis, who dumped the case on Dan and Julie White (no relation) at the last minute -- deserve to be heaped with scorn for mishandling Edison's trial. Not because they didn't win, mind you, but because they continued to press forward with the case even as evidence continued to mount that overwhelmingly suggested Edison was innocent.

John Mattingly may want to consider the fact that when a defendant is acquitted by a jury in less than one hour, it's pretty obvious that police and prosecutors are guilty of attempting to throw an innocent citizen into a government cage.

Which, yes, supports Mattingly's contention that Fritz needs to be replaced -- just not by a man like him who, apparently, believes the state's attorney's job is to win convictions, civil liberties be damned.

At Best, John Edison Was a Victim of Gross Negligence; at Worst, He Was Framed

My letter to the editor publicizing the widespread malfeasance and corruption that defined the John Edison, Jr. non-rape case runs today in local southern Maryland paper The Enterprise.

John Edison, Jr: Victim of Lies, Perjury, and Corruption

For nearly half a year the state of Maryland condemned 16-year-old John Edison Jr. to a government cage without bond as he faced charges of violently raping a 12-year-old girl on July 5, 2008. After being smeared as a rapist in the media, extricated from friends and family, and forced to miss more than three months of school, Edison faced 51 years in a penitentiary for a crime he not only didn't commit, but one that police and prosecutors almost certainly knew he couldn't possibly have committed but pursued anyway.

John Edison was acquitted of these horrendous charges last Friday, Dec. 19, after it took a jury less than one hour to find him innocent. As Frostburg University economics professor Bill Anderson noted after the trial, "The time of deliberation tells me that jurors had decided on acquittal even before Edison's attorney presented the defense."

This is meant to take nothing away from attorney Kevin J. McDevitt, of course; his heroic and vigorous defense of Edison is precisely what allowed jurors and other observers to realize the state's allegations against his client were entirely bogus in the first place. McDevitt's inspection of police reports and interrogation tapes, along with interviews with police officers involved with his client's arrest, revealed that Edison was essentially being framed by St. Mary's County Det. Bill Raddatz and Maryland State Police Det. Nims.

As a result of interviews with Edison's family, I've learned that Det. Raddatz lied from day one about observing scratch marks on John Edison. In fact, Raddatz wrote in a statement of charges that Edison had scratches on both of his arms, even though Edison told Raddatz that the only mark on his body was an abrasion put on one of his arms while he was being frisked in the police station by Maryland State Police Tpr. Roby -- who himself testified that he didn't remember seeing a single mark on Edison's body at the time of his arrest. Not only is such an abrasion inconsistent with defensive wounds from a violent rape, but Raddatz never even bothered to contact Roby about this claim.

Moreover, Det. Raddatz intentionally photographed marks on Edison's body that he knew weren't scratches, something he later admitted. Indeed, during the course of his investigation, McDevitt learned that three police officers saw Edison without a shirt on the morning of his arrest, and all of them said they didn't see scratches on Edison's body.

As if this complete fabrication of evidence weren't bad enough, Det. Raddatz also lied, at minimum, to fellow police officers and said that Edison admitted to raping the 12-year-old girl. According to a report from St. Mary's County Cpl. Stephen Myers, who is one of the officers who admitted to seeing no scratch marks on Edison, it was learned that the defendant confessed to sexual assault. However, there is no such confession present on interrogation tapes; all Edison admitted was that any sexual relations that transpired were consensual.

Enter Det. Nims, who showed up between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. on the day of Edison's arrest and later committed perjury by swearing in a search warrant that John Edison had scratches on his chest. (So Raddatz insists there are scratch marks on Edison's arms; Nims says he saw scratches on Edison's chest. That's a lot of scratches on someone whose accuser admits during trial that she never once scratched Edison.)

Det. Nims also swore in a search warrant that he took DNA evidence from Edison but later admitted under oath that although he swore to collecting it, Det. Raddatz actually collected this evidence. This malfeasance shouldn't be too hard to believe considering the fact that Nims also perjured himself on the witness stand during Edison's trial when he lied about disclosing a mistake he made in one of his reports. Specifically, Nims testified that he disclosed during an earlier motions hearing that he mistakenly documented that the accuser reported bleeding from her vagina after she was allegedly raped. However, this claim was proven false by transcripts obtained from the prior hearing, during which Det. Nims made no such disclosure.

In no uncertain terms, John Edison has from the very first day of his arrest been the victim of blatant, unconscionable lies by the lead detectives in this non-rape case. Instead of conducting themselves as officers of the law and administering an unbiased investigation to determine whether or not laws were broken, Dets. Raddatz and Nims colluded to fabricate evidence against an innocent boy.

Equally contemptible in this matter is Assistant State's Attorney Joe Stanalonis, who pursued this case against Edison despite the ridiculous idea that someone could have actually committed a violent rape that resulted in absolutely no injuries to a single person involved.

In fact, at one point the 15-year-old friend of the accuser told Det. Nims that John Edison and his friend snatched the two girls off the street, dragged them into Edison's house, and raped them -- a statement Stanalonis attempted to exclude from evidence. In a separate report, this same girl contended to Tpr. Roby that Edison raped the 12-year-old while she tried to stop it, but Edison's friend grabbed her and raped her. And in yet another report, the girl tells police the four children were all hanging out together.

To believe that police and prosecutors thought John Edison (or his friend, who was arrested originally as well) actually committed a violent rape requires a suspension of disbelief suitable only for the most fantastic of science fiction movies. It is only due to the indefatigable work of Kevin McDevitt, one family's faith in a boy it knew to be innocent, and a jury comprising sensible folks that justice prevailed against the steepest of odds.

Given that the state reserves a monopoly on the use of force, one is hard-pressed to believe when dealing with its agents that honesty and integrity are even plausible, much less guaranteed.

Despite the moral depravity on display in this case, there were actually some good guys at work. In particular, the officers who admitted to seeing no scratches on John Edison at the time of his arrest deserve to be commended. However, Dets. Raddatz and Nims should be fired immediately. ASA Stanalonis deserves to be disbarred. State's Attorney Richard Fritz hardly escapes scrutiny, as he was aware of this case from the outset and used his influence with local judges to have Edison tried as an adult.

Just about everything about this case reeks of corruption, and all of these men should be charged with obstruction of justice for their abhorrent malfeasance and sabotage of an innocent citizen. The notion that such behavior would be tolerated in a country ostensibly founded on principles of individual liberty is absurd on its face.

We're with the Government, and We're Here to Help

Police and prosecutors in St. Mary's County (Md.) take part in an annual "Shop with a Cop" charity drive, which raises money for needy children so they can afford to buy Christmas presents. Well, guess who coordinates this initiative.

The effort in St. Mary’s County is headed up by Det. Bill Raddatz of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations, who, along with Joe Stanalonis, an Assistant States Attorney, heard about a program in Baltimore five years ago – an Optimist-sponsored initiative. That year the program in Baltimore served 10 children, providing $100 to each child to go shopping.

Yes, that would be the very same corrupt tag team of Bill Raddatz and Joe Stanalonis that colluded to lie and fabricate evidence in the attempt to put 16-year-old John Edison Jr. in prison for rape. Edison was acquitted last Friday.

I guess it's just fine to use your government authority to prosecute kids for crimes you know they didn't commit as long as you take a few of them shopping every year.

Sometimes this is just too easy.

Washington Post Weighs in on Edison Acquittal

The Washington Post finally gets around to reporting John Edison's acquittal last Friday.

Prosecutors said the girl had no reason to lie and that throughout the investigation she maintained that Edison tried to have sex with her against her will. Physical evidence showed that the two had some sort of sexual contact, although it was not clear that an attack occurred. The nurse who examined the girl testified that she found no evidence of physical trauma.

This paragraph is entirely accurate. However, the question no one in the local or national media apparently wants to ask is: Why the hell did the state of Maryland even pursue charges of rape against John Edison in the first place despite the absence of any physical evidence whatsoever? And at the very least, how could the state justify charging Edison as an adult on four separate counts that could have resulted in 51 years in a penitentiary?

It's appalling that I'm the only person questioning the outrageous malfeasance that occurred at the hands of St. Mary's County and Maryland State Police detectives and prosecutors in the state's attorney's office -- namely Assistant SA Joe Stanalonis, who oversaw this case from the very beginning at the behest of SA Rick Fritz and then dumped it on a junior prosecutor (Julie White) the day before the trial began last week.

It is a virtual certainty that senior Det. Bill Raddatz of the St. Mary's County Bureau of Criminal Investigations fabricated evidence suggesting that the boy's 12-year-old accuser (who is now 13) left scratch marks on Edison -- "evidence" that would be used to obtain a search warrant of Edison's home and, in part, to fraudulently justify the boy's incarceration without bond as he awaited trial.

Even though Stanalonis was aware that medical examiners testified to finding no physical evidence of assault on the young girl, he pressed ahead anyway to charge John Edison with an adult offense as judges ignored actual evidence presented by defense attorney Kevin J. McDevitt demonstrating this.

This case is rife with lies, cover-ups, and outright corruption. If a lowly blogger has to go it alone here -- with much-appreciated help from some other commentators like Frostburg economics professor Bill Anderson, who has weighed in on the LRC blog about this case -- he will. But it sure would be nice if those hard-hitting journalists at the Washington Post and other supposedly elite newspapers would grow a little backbone and at least begin to question the actions of the state it so reliably defends.

John Edison Post-Trial Photos

With so many holiday parties and family get-togethers, this is a bad time of year to be able to find a couple spare hours during the day to sit around on a computer. So I apologize for not getting around to posting any more photos I took after the John Edison trial until now.

 
This is the first picture I took Friday afternoon, hoping to get a nice shot of Edison walking out of the courthouse a free man with his family. Alas, it wasn't to be. Instead of being able to flee the state's clutches as soon as he was exonerated, Edison was taken out a back door by police and driven to the correctional facility for final processing.

 

Det. William Raddatz leaving the courthouse following the verdict. You'll be hearing much more about this fellow, who apparently lied when he reported that Edison's accuser left scratches on the boy's arms. This allegation played a big part in the prosecution's push to try Edison as an adult and was also used to justify holding Edison without bond.

 

John Edison's family. The three folks clustered in the middle of the second row are, from left: Edison's aunt, Alice Gaskin (glasses), and his mother and father.

 

John Edison's mother and father.

 

Anxiously waiting in the lobby of the correctional facility for John's release.

 

John Edison steps to freedom for the first time in over five months.

 

I was hoping the picture quality would be better, but as you might understand, this was John's moment to enjoy with his family and the last thing I wanted to do was interfere.

If you're interested in this case, these are the only photos you will find anywhere. The Washington Post covered the hearing (at least the days I was there) but there were no reporters or camera crews to be found upon Edison's release. Make of that what you will.

NOT GUILTY: John Edison Freed

At approximately 2:45 p.m. today, John Edison Jr. was acquitted on all counts of the rape charges brought against him by the state of Maryland. After four days of trial the jury took less than an hour to render its verdict of not guilty.

This is the photo I took at 4:30 this afternoon the moment Edison was released from the adult correctional facility in Leonardtown, Maryland. Unbelievably, he was not allowed to walk out the front doors of the circuit court building with his family after his hearing; instead, police whisked him back to jail for two hours for "final processing" while parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends waited for him outside.

I'll have more commentary and photos tonight or tomorrow because I'm running late for a holiday happy hour, but I wanted to post this because I thought it would be cool to scoop the Washington Post.

For five and a half months, from July 5 to December 19, John Edison has been unjustly incarcerated by the state. Today he is finally free.

Edison Rape Trial: Day Two

Unfortunately, work responsibilities are preventing me from getting to the courthouse today to cover what should be an interesting third day of testimony during the John Edison non-rape trial, but I wanted to give a brief update about yesterday.

A so-called state medical expert made $2,000 off taxpayers to drive down from College Park and admit that he didn't even look at any of the medical reports from this case until only a few days before the trial began. He hemmed and hawed when asked whether one would expect to find traces of blood on a vaginal swab if a rape victim had reported that she was bleeding from her vagina, and ultimately settled on "not necessarily." However, in response to defense attorney Kevin McDevitt's question asking if he drove all the way down to tell the court that Edison raped his accuser, he said "no."

On a more significant note, McDevitt apparently caught one of the police officers -- a state police detective named Nims -- perjuring himself on the witness stand. Nims originally took the girl's statement when she reported bleeding from her vagina, and then told the court yesterday that he made clear during an earlier motion hearing that he'd made a mistake -- that the accuser really never reported that -- leaving McDevitt incredulous.

Consequently, Edison's family had to shell out 200 bucks last night so McDevitt could purchase the transcript from the proceeding in question. Indeed, it turns out that Det. Nims never reported this supposed misstatement during that hearing.

So at this point, it looks like either the girl lied to police about bleeding from her vagina in the first place (which wouldn't be surprising given her testimony on Tuesday, or the fact that there was no physical evidence of assault at the time of her medical exam), or Det. Nims misconstrued the girl's original statement and then flat-out lied about retracting it once he was on the witness stand yesterday.

Whatever the case, it seems John Edison's future is all too apparently riding on a trial thrown together by incompetent, disingenuous police officers and their counterparts in the state's attorney's office. Big surprise.

Edison Rape Trial: Day One Summary

I don't know if I'll have the luxury of taking time off from work tomorrow to honor my duties as a taxpayer and observe day two of the John Edison rape trial, but let me just say that I'm dumber for having sat through the alleged victim's testimony today.

At opening statements, the asst. state's attorney, Julie White, argued that the alleged victim (who is now 13) was pulled into a bedroom and thrown onto the floor, at which point John Edison put his penis into her vagina and then flipped her over and put his penis "in her butt." (I honestly expected her to say "anus" or "rear end.")

Defense attorney Kevin McDevitt reminded the jury that they weren't there to determine whether or not sexual activity took place -- Edison freely admits that it did -- but whether he violently raped the girl anally and vaginally and beat her with a belt.

McDevitt also said that 200 to 300 million sperm are present in a normal ejaculate, and the jury will hear a DNA expert testify that he found something like nine. He also said that a Maryland State Police chemist would say that we lose a million skin cells a day, and that 4.5 nanograms were found on the girl -- about the same amount that would present if you touched your spouse or your child.

Most important, McDevitt stated that the jury would hear testimony from a forensics nurse who found absolutely no injuries to the little girl -- no fractures, lacerations, gynecological injuries, or even mere abrasions, which microscopic tools failed to find.

When White called the girl as the first witness, we learned that her birthday is Oct. 25, that she is 13, and that she lives in Lexington Park, Maryland. White asked the girl to explain what happened and she essentially repeated what the prosecutor noted moments before in her opening statement, stating a couple times the seemingly well-rehearsed phrase that John "tried to force his penis into my vagina."

Upon McDevitt's cross, the girl said she didn't know her house address (she "forgot") and couldn't even tell the court how long she's lived at her current residence. She did know her age and grade in school, at least.

When Edison's attorney then asked her if she knew what "under oath" meant, the girl asked, "under age?," at which point McDevitt informed her that it meant she had to tell the truth. McDevitt next asked her if she would scoot toward the microphone so the jury and courtroom could hear her better, and she did so reluctantly while rolling her eyes.

Have a good picture of what we were all dealing with?

In an effort to avoid totally confusing the reader, I'm going to refrain from giving a blow by blow account of this girl's testimony, which for two-plus hours consisted of contradictions to original statements to police and apparent outright lies on the stand -- even if the only lie was that she was violently raped by John Edison.

So here's the Cliff Notes version. The girl said her day on July 4 consisted of going to her aunt's house with a friend -- the friend I noted yesterday in my LRC piece -- and they watched fireworks. She admitted to hanging out with John Edison and her friend at John's house before John's friend arrived. She also admitted to being out from midnight to 3:30 a.m. unsupervised. She then said she was dragged into the bedroom and raped about three minutes after John's friend got to the house (around 4:00 a.m.).

Specifically, this girl said she was dragged down the hallway while the other boy and girl were on the couch in the living room, and that the two friends did nothing to stop it. She then said John pushed her on the bed gently, at which point McDevitt pointed out that her statement to police indicated she was pushed onto the floor, and there was a good 10 minutes of discussion about if/when the bedroom door was shut. The witness also couldn't recall how long this alleged rape took place -- she settled on saying it was somewhere between five minutes and one hour.

Tellingly, the girl then admitted she didn't scream, yell, or do anything when asked by McDevitt, and acknowledged that there were no marks on her after she was allegedly dragged down the hallway. Even weirder, when McDevitt asked whether she was scared during this entire ordeal, she said, "not really."

At this point we broke for lunch, and after the trial resumed the girl said that John really didn't "hit" her with the belt but "tapped" her, "playing around" and "laughing." She said it "didn't hurt much." Moreover, McDevitt also got the witness to admit that she in fact did not scratch Edison at all during this alleged rape, something she is on record telling the police mere hours after everything transpired. When McDevitt asked her if she remembered telling police officers that she scratched him, she said no. There was lot of "I can't remember" and "I don't know" today.

McDevitt also played about a minute's worth of a taped discussion with police in which the girl told police that John called his friend to tell him to come over to do the "same thing" (rape) to her friend. (Recall that the girl had already told the court that John's friend was already at the house when the alleged rape occurred.)

McDevitt then read a statement from the girl to the nurse that she wasn't sure whether Edison's penis went in her anus, but she told the court today that it went "halfway in." When McDevitt asked her if she was lying to the nurse then, the girl rolled her eyes and said, "whatever." The question in my mind at this point was: If Edison's penis was halfway in the girl's vagina or anus (or something to that extent), how could this possibly account for a "violent rape?"

In a nutshell, what I considered the most striking thing was this girl's complete indifference even to being at the trial today, or to describing the supposed course of events from this alleged rape. She never once got upset describing the actions of Edison, and only started showing any emotion or frustration once she realized McDevitt was pointing out all her prevarication and lies to either police or the court.

The day ended with the nurse on the stand admitting she found no physical evidence at all suggesting this girl was the victim of assault, and certainly not the "violent rape" the state alleges. McDevitt successfully showed the court that this girl hung out with Edison for at least a couple hours after this alleged rape occurred, and that the four kids were together outside when the girl's mom finally came to pick her up on the morning of July 5.

One would think that if a girl was violently raped and beaten with a belt, she'd be able to remember the course of events to at least a minimal extent. The girl's testimony smacked of lie after lie, while the state's prosecutor could only challenge McDevitt's testimony by asking the girl to admit that she told Edison "no" when he was allegedly having forced intercourse with her.

I've learned never to take anything for granted anymore, especially where the state is concerned, but from what I witnessed today you'd have to reflexively believe a mere accusation of rape is proof enough of a man's guilt to convict this kid.

I know you can't count on justice where the government is concerned, but if there was even a shred apparent in this case, the prosecution would have risen to request the state drop all charges upon reconvening after lunch.

Thankfully for Edison, his family, and his attorney, it looks like they'll only have to hope the members of the jury retain merely a shred of common sense.

The Persecution of John Edison, Jr.

John Edison, Jr., a 16-year-old Maryland boy who has been incarcerated without bond since July for allegedly raping a 12-year-old girl despite the absence of any physical evidence indicating that she had been assaulted, finally gets his trial this week.

My article discussing the events surrounding this case, including what I believe to be a wholesale violation of this kid's civil liberties at the hands of an opportunistic prosecution, runs today on LewRockwell.com.

UPDATE: Trial has been moved to tomorrow.

John Edison, Jr: Poster Child for Maryland Tyranny

After a month of being blown off by the state of Maryland and forced to languish in a government cage while awaiting continuation of an initial hearing to have his rape case heard in a juvenile court, 16-year-old John Edison, Jr. was officially denied his request to be tried as a minor for the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl.

St. Mary's Circuit Judge Marvin Kaminetz heard two days of testimony about John K. Edison Jr. before ruling that the case should proceed ahead, out of concern for the public's safety.

"The court does consider this against tipping the scale in favor of the defendant," the active retired judge said, noting the administrative handling of two prior assault allegations against the boy, including one where an "authority figure" in the county's school system was the victim.

Edison's arrest last July on the rape charge expanded that pattern, the judge said.

"It's more aggressive behavior, antisocial, scary to the public," Kaminetz said. "I do consider him to be a danger to the public. That tips the scale in favor of the state."

Apparently allegations are now considered proof of guilt in this wonderful American justice system of ours.

Not only has Edison been confined in an adult jail without bond since July 5 on nothing more than a young girl's accusation of rape, but now the state of Maryland is also justifying his trial as an adult by holding previous assault allegations -- not convictions, mind you -- against him.

What's worse, Judge Kaminetz entirely ignored the medical examiner's report that there was no physical evidence found on the girl to suggest she was the victim of a violent physical or sexual assault.

Dr. Pieter Esterhay from the emergency room at St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown testified that a listing of the girl as a victim of a sexual assault was based solely on the patient's allegation that it occurred.

Kaminetz said he would not consider the hospital's listing of the sexual assault claim in his decision, and said that he concurred that Edison could be amenable to treatment.

This is sheer insanity. "We've got the robes and the guns," the state seems to be saying loud and clear, "and we don't give a damn what the evidence shows, even if there's virtually none to speak of. We've decided you're guilty and that's all there is to it." This is tyranny writ large.

Even if we assume that John Edison is guilty of rape, it's difficult to explain the state's hard-on for this kid. The prosecution is painting the picture that Edison is some violent menace to society -- even though there is no medical evidence suggesting a crime even occurred, and, in fact, the medical examiner reported the girl's hymen still intact.

Even if Edison took things a little too far after he and the girl began fooling around consensually and she suddenly changed her mind, he's nevertheless being treated as if he boasts an existing criminal record for armed rape or robbery, or as if he was actually apprehended after breaking into the home of a random victim and holding her at knifepoint.

Instead of acting like adults and using even a fraction of common sense in reviewing the facts of this case, the state's lawyers and judges are falling for a story concocted by two little girls who were caught hanging out all night and into the wee hours of the next morning with older boys. I know kids have never been known to lie before, but this is absurd in the extreme and almost too ridiculous for words. The state is showing nothing but extreme prejudice against Edison.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the state recently turned up DNA evidence proving that Edison was with the 12-year-old girl, which is unsurprising given that they spent the better part of an entire day together. And no doubt the prosecution will argue that although the girl's medical exam came out negative, it still doesn't "prove" Edison didn't rape her (even though it argues that Edison committed a violent rape). But here's my question: If the medical examiner had testified that the girl's exam indicated she actually had intercourse, would the prosecution insist that that didn't necessarily indicate she'd been raped? To ask that question is to answer it, as the prosecution's job is to obtain convictions, plain and simple.

As it stands, John Edison remains imprisoned in an adult jail awaiting a December trial on charges of second-degree rape and second-degree sexual offense with a 12-year-old girl. I'm not a doctor, and I understand that in some rare cases a female's hymen can actually remain intact even if she is the victim of rape. I also realize that sexual assault can come in a variety of sickening forms -- especially where children are concerned -- and an intact hymen doesn't necessarily mean an assault didn't take place. However, the state of Maryland is arguing that Edison is guilty of a violent rape, which would almost certainly result in at least some bruising and tearing around the girl's vaginal region. And whereas I'm not a doctor, Dr. Pieter Esterhay is, and he has testified that the 12-year-old's exam revealed no indication of abuse.

Sadly, something tells me the state really won't care about this inconvenient little fact as it charges forward with its quest to demolish the life of John Edison.

Of Course I'm Biased

I was amused to read this critique of my article challenging the incarceration of a local southern Maryland boy. In it the writer accuses me of being "a bit biased" over the rape case against John Edison, Jr., who has been held without bond in a government cage since July 5 over nothing more than an accusation by a 12-year-old girl. (Just last week the state obtained results of a DNA test proving Edison was with the girl, though it hardly proves he forced himself on her.)

To the charge that I'm biased, the only rational response I can come up with offhand is: well, duh!

This concerned citizen, Frank Marquart, is also a cop who finds nothing wrong with rounding up others willy-nilly at liberty-trampling sobriety checkpoints, so take his opinions for what you will; it stands to reason he'd endorse such totalitarian behavior.

I stated in my public letter that the defendant was jailed on nothing more than an accusation by the alleged victim. Marquart writes that "the charging document states that the perpetrator had scratch marks on both his arms, consistent with the victim's statement." But one of Marquart's "brothers and sisters" on the police force also testified during a preliminary hearing that the only evidence presented by the prosecution was the statement by the accuser. So you figure it out. I'm going by the reports published by the newspapers covering the hearings.

Even if Edison had scratch marks on his arms, so what? Does that mean he must have raped someone? He and a friend were alone with two girls for the better part of an entire day -- girls under the age of 16 who were out all night until 7:00 in the morning the next day. Edison has claimed from the outset that they were all fooling around, as sexually curious kids are known to do. You really think there was no flirtation and messing around going on, if not much more, that could have led to a random scratch? Not to mention, Edison's father also has written testimony proving that his son had one of the scratches on his arm well before the night in question.

Here's the point: some people are statists and will always give the government the benefit of the doubt; some people are anti-state and realize that the state can strongarm anyone it chooses with little to no repercussion, often for little to no good reason at all. Marquart is a statist; I'm a libertarian.

Marquart says that three judges have reviewed the case and all determined that Edison is "too dangerous to be on the street." Again, so what? This should be expected from agents of the state who are paid to get convictions, not necessarily to convict the right people or to first and foremost consider the accused innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not going to rehash my arguments about the case again here -- you can go back through the past few weeks and find them all yourself on this blog if you like -- but Edison is being treated as if he was nabbed after breaking through a window and attempting to rape someone. Remember, the hospital's examination of the 12-year-old accuser revealed no signs of physical or sexual trauma.

I really don't know how many times this tiny little detail has to be pointed out. But the fact remains, John Edison is spending months on end in a jail cell -- prior to his hearing -- despite the absence of any compelling physical evidence whatsoever.

So yeah, Frank, I'm a little fricking biased.   

State Gets Undeserved Break in Edison Rape Case

Maryland prosecutors got a break this week in their case against 16-year-old John Edison, Jr., who is accused of violently raping a 12-year-old girl, when they received scientific confirmation that Edison's DNA was found on the girl as a result of a nail scraping.

Though negative test results would have been cause for Edison and his family to jump for joy, they were prepared for the likely possibility that tests would come back positive. After all, Edison has never denied being with the girl and has insisted from the beginning that any sexual activity that took place was consensual. Also recall that the 12-year-old's hospital exam following this alleged rape revealed absolutely no evidence of physical or sexual abuse, and even concluded that the girl's hymen was still intact.

I don't have all the details about what may have taken place on a sexual front on the night in question, nor do I know if they've even been made public to date, but the greatest challenge facing Edison's attorney, Kevin J. McDevitt, is to overcome society's seemingly overwhelming bias against men in rape cases by getting a jury to focus on the fact that his client is facing decades in prison on mere accusations alone.

At this point, it's not known what type of DNA evidence was discovered on the alleged victim, but it could be anything from hair to semen to saliva. It's important to realize that the presence of Edison's DNA on the 12-year-old in no way necessarily means that he forced himself upon her. Skin cells slough off our bodies constantly, so mere touching could lead to DNA transfer. The girl could have had her fingers in the boy's mouth. They could have been roughhousing and flirting like sexually curious kids are wont to do. And that's not even considering the fact that the girl could have had her hands in Edison's pants or performed fellatio on him.

Another interesting tidbit I learned about this story in the past week or so was how often the girls changed their stories about this alleged rape. Recall that Edison, his friend, and both girls were seen by a neighbor around 7:00 a.m. on July 5 outside Edison's house walking down the street and by all accounts getting along. McDevitt is also on record saying that the 12-year-old gave Edison a hug before leaving his house.

According to the 911 tape, the 15-year-old is heard accusing Edison of raping her. But police reports indicate that the 12-year-old accused Edison of raping her, and the 15-year-old accused Edison's friend of raping her (two boys, two girls, two alleged rapes). The 15-year-old then changed her story again, claiming that Edison raped the 12-year-old and that any sexual contact between Edison's friend and her was consensual. I think I've got this about right, but you can see why it's a little confusing to keep everything straight.

Unfortunately, this discovery of Edison's DNA evidence on the alleged victim is a win for the prosecution, though one that is entirely undeserved given its abhorrent treatment of this boy, who has been incarcerated without bond since July 5 on nothing more than a rape accusation. That said, this new evidence -- however anticipated given the fact that Edison and his friend spent the night of July 4 and morning of July 5 with these girls -- is probably all the probable cause it needs to keep Edison confined indefinitely as he awaits his trials. After all, he's so far been condemned to a government cage on much less.

In sum, this new DNA evidence proves nothing more that the fact that Edison was with the 12-year-old on the night and morning in question, a fact he has freely admitted all along. In fact, it's altogether likely that it could work to his benefit -- combined with hospital records indicating that this girl was assaulted neither physically nor sexually, sober viewers have every reason to conclude that she was a willing participant in the transfer of any DNA. Moreover, given the variety of stories offered up by the girls, it's very telling that there is no rape case simultaneously pending against Edison's friend regarding the 15-year-old.

From where I sit, it looks like a couple of very young girls who were about to get caught sneaking around by their parents decided to try to cover their respective butts by crying rape, knowing full well that their earlier interactions with the boys would probably reveal physical evidence to support their accusations. If I'm wrong about this, I'll be the first to apologize. But I just can't see how anyone, much less trained police officers and prosecutors, could look at all the facts of this case -- especially the lack of evidence from the outset and the consistent inconsistency of the girls' accounts of events -- and think John Edison actually raped this 12-year-old.

The Most Important Article You'll Read This Week

No, not because it's written by me, but because it relates the story of how southern Maryland boy John Edison, Jr., is right now being held captive in a government cage on the flimsiest of charges that he violently raped a 12-year-old girl.

Forget the fact that the girl's friend initially accused Edison of raping her, then changed her story. Forget the fact that the 12-year-old's hospital report revealed NO signs of physical or sexual assault, and that she had an intact hymen after this alleged crime took place. Forget the fact that Edison is being confined in an adult jail cell -- where's he's already been assaulted by other juveniles -- on nothing more than an accusation by a 12-year-old girl -- who's apparently out at all hours of the night hanging out with older boys.

The state of Maryland will just hold him without bail indefinitely while it gets around to setting trial dates and figuring out how it's going to argue its case against this kid.

One note: The paper edited out my comments related to State's Attorney Richard Fritz's own rape trial when he was 18, where he pled guilty to having carnal knowledge of a 15-year-old girl.

I think it would be a mistake to assume Fritz's own demons aren't playing a role in his current treatment of John Edison, but whatever the case, it is appalling that this child is denied bail and relegated to imprisonment while his family and lawyer fight these charges -- especially when known sex offenders and other criminal recidivists are granted bail despite the existence of much more substantive evidence than is at hand in the Edison case.

I'm not going to beat around the bush here. John Edison and his family need your help. An innocent boy is behind bars and facing the full wrath of the state. You can write the state's attorney at richard.fritz@co.saint-marys.md.us or call his office at (301) 475-4590.

UPDATE: I mentioned in a previous post that I would publish the 12-year-old girl's medical report once I received a copy from Edison's family. However, I've since learned that this is a sealed document that is not part of the public record. While the family of the accused has a right to request and obtain this information and essentially share it with anyone it chooses, it would be imprudent, if not altogether unethical and perhaps illegal, for me to do the same.

So, for anyone who may be wondering how I can make such absolute statements about this girl's medical exam yielding no signs of physical or sexual abuse (or even sexual activity, for that matter) without actually citing a published report, this is why.

Raping Justice

On Wednesday John Edison, Jr., was back in a St. Mary's County courtroom in a hearing scheduled to reveal the recommendations of a juvenile services office tasked with reviewing Edison's request to have his case tried in a juvenile court. Currently he is being charged as an adult for a violent rape of a 12-year-old girl whose medical records showed no signs of physical or sexual assault.

Throughout five hours of proceedings, Edison and his family were treated to the all-too-common machinations of the state: the juvenile services office hadn't completed its report, and the judge found the need to reconvene this particular hearing on a later date and scheduled the next go-round for Oct. 20. That's right, he kicked the can down the road almost another full month.

No worries, though, apparently. State and county employees can go home to their families, sleep in their own beds, and enjoy home-cooked meals. John Edison, on the other hand? Well, he can just rot in a jail cell for another month waiting for the state of Maryland to get its shit together.

John Edison Rape Case Has No Legs

After meeting with the family of John Edison, Jr., last Friday afternoon, I'm even more convinced that the rape charges against the 16-year-old are completely unfounded.

On the Fourth of July, two girls -- the alleged 12-year-old victim and her 15-year-old friend -- were hanging out with John Edison, Jr., and his friend at Edison's house until about 6-7:00 a.m. on July 5. Edison told the girls they had to leave because his father would be home from work soon. The boys accompanied the girls out of the house and down the street, a scene that was actually witnessed by a neighbor, who apparently has said the four kids were laughing and getting along.

So imagine John Edison's surprise when state troopers showed up to arrest him for rape about three hours later. According to the family's account of the 911 tape, the 15-year-old girl initially claimed that Edison had raped her, but when she went to the hospital to be examined, she retracted this claim and instead insisted that Edison raped the 12-year-old. Interestingly enough, the 15-year-old is John Edison's cousin.

I've already mentioned that the medical exam administered to the 12-year-old showed no signs of physical or sexual assault, and that she indeed was apparently still a virgin at the time of her examination. I'm awaiting a copy of the medical report, and I'll post it when I receive it.

Alice Gaskins, John Edison's aunt, was also denied access to her nephew's interrogation when she showed up at the police station on the morning of July 5. I need to confirm whether or not this maneuver on the part of the police was legal, but if it was, I'm sure that's simply due to the fact that they decided to charge Edison as an adult -- a convenient loophole used to deny the accused legal representation if I've ever heard of one.

So Edison remains confined in an adult jail awaiting trial on absolutely nothing more than an accusation by a 12-year-old (or 15-year-old, but who's counting?) and a near-dictatorial decree from a state's attorney who's on record saying that if a young girl accuses someone of rape, by golly, he's gonna go and find someone to charge.

John Edison Rape Case Update

I will be interviewing the family of 16-year-old John Edison, Jr., tomorrow afternoon to discuss more of the details behind the rape accusations levied by a 12-year-old girl against Edison in early July. In anticipation of that meeting, however, I wanted to point out some very disturbing news about the top county prosecutor overseeing this case.

St. Mary's County (Md.) State's Attorney Richard Fritz (along with two other men) pled guilty in 1964 to having carnal knowledge of a 15-year-old girl (Carla Henning Bailey) when he was 18. The story came to light in 1998 on the eve of election day as Fritz was campaigning for state's attorney of St. Mary's County when St. Mary's Today publisher Ken Rossignol ran the headline, "Fritz Guilty of Rape," on the front cover of his newspaper.

In retaliation, Rick Fritz teamed up with then-St. Mary's County Sheriff Richard J. Voorhaar in the wee hours of the morning on election day to dispatch sheriff's deputies across the county to buy up all the newspapers condemning Fritz. They, along with six deputies, have since been found liable for civil damages to Rossignol for violating his first amendment rights under Maryland law (case law here).

Fritz won the 1998 election with 54 percent of the vote, but the resulting brouhaha over Fritz's high school conviction compelled Bailey to break her silence after 35 years and tell her side of the story about what she calls a "gang rape" when she was 15.

In 2000, Chris Wallace interviewed Fritz, Rossignol, and Bailey for a 20/20 story, during which Fritz, perhaps out of some sense of guilt or attempt to clear his tainted name, made this damning statement:

"I know that, as a prosecutor myself, if a 15-year-old girl came in and told me that she was held down, raped by three different people, I’d immediately have them arrested and charged with first-degree rape."

That was eight years ago, but Fritz's outlook apparently hasn't changed much because today a 16-year-old boy is at this very moment confined to a government cage, awaiting trial for allegedly violently raping a 12-year-old girl despite a wholesale lack of any physical evidence whatsoever that the girl was a victim of a sexual assault.

Let me repeat that: JOHN EDISON, JR., IS RIGHT NOW SPENDING DAY AND NIGHT IN AN ADULT JAIL ON CHARGES OF RAPE DESPITE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE GIRL'S CLAIM.

St. Mary's County's top prosecutor apparently believes, in his own warped sense of justice, that a mere accusation of rape constitutes enough probable cause to see a teenage boy banished to a jail cell, locked away from friends and family for months on end, as he awaits trial.

In essence, Rick Fritz doesn't care whether you're really innocent or guilty; if some girl decides to accuse you of rape, why, he's "immediately having you arrested and charged with first-degree rape." Case closed.

I'm not going to sit here and condemn 18-year-olds for having consensual sex with 15-year-olds. And while Carla Bailey insists that Fritz and his buddies gang-raped her, they nevertheless pleaded guilty to statutory rape. However, how Fritz and his government cronies reacted to the story in 1998 -- by dispatching their lackeys to conceal the truth from the citizenry -- should speak volumes about Fritz's character and judgment.

This is the man who currently retains authority to bring criminal charges against alleged offenders within his jurisdiction, and a child's future is now in imminent danger because Rick Fritz apparently reserves the right to use his office to issue edicts of guilt based on accusation alone.

If State's Attorney Fritz and John Edison were to swap places right now, the term "justice system" would carry a helluva lot more weight here in St. Mary's County, Md., than it does right now.

No Evidence? No Problem! The Rape Case against John Edison, Jr.

This case apparently escaped my attention when it was first reported, but a 16-year-old southern Maryland boy is being held in an adult jail on charges that he violently raped a 12-year-old girl in late evening on July 4 or early morning July 5 (he was charged on July 5), assaulting her both vaginally and anally, and beating her with a belt.

The problem? John Edison, Jr. essentially is confined in a government cage over mere accusations of rape by the alleged victim. Maryland prosecutors presented to Edison's defense attorney prior to initial hearings no physical evidence that a rape had occurred, nor statements gathered from Edison himself or from the accuser. According to the Enterprise, a local St. Mary's County newspaper:

Edison is accused in charging papers of pulling a 12-year-old girl into his bedroom on July 5 and having intercourse with her. He is being held without bond on charges which include second-degree rape and a second-degree sexual offense. ‘‘Currently he’s being held at the St. Mary’s County Detention Center and charged with a sex offense against a child and he’s only 16 years old,” Edison’s defense attorney Kevin McDevitt said.

McDevitt argued that the only evidence presented at this time was the statement from the alleged victim. The defense attorney asked sheriff’s deputy James Fontana, who described the victim’s account of the rape, if he was aware of any other witness accounts or scientific evidence against Edison.

The deputy said he was not aware of any other evidence.

And according to a Washington Post report eight days before the aforementioned Enterprise article ran:

"[Edison] has done nothing wrong," McDevitt said. "Essentially what's going on in this case is a young girl got caught sneaking out by her parents over to his house, and she's scared, and that's the story that she gave."

McDevitt added that the 12-year-old gave Edison a hug before leaving his house.

On the most serious charges of second-degree sexual offense and second-degree rape, Edison is being charged under statute (a)(1), which states:

   (a)  Prohibited.- A person may not engage in a sexual act with another: 
  (1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

To understand the seriousness of the charges against Edison, on these felonies alone he faces up to 40 years in prison. All despite Deputy Fontana's admission that there were no witness accounts or scientific evidence suggesting Edison had even touched the 12-year-old girl. How District Judge Robert Riddle found enough evidence to allow these charges to stand, let alone hold Edison indefinitely, is beyond me.

Edison's attorney seems to agree. I don't make a habit of referencing St. Mary's Today, which I consider to be a highly suspect publication in terms of credibility, but it contains some choice quotes from Kevin J. McDevitt:

“This case is a shining example of how children’s missteps can result in a tragic miscarriage of justice,” McDevitt told ST. MARY’S TODAY.

“Despite my consistent requests The State of Maryland has yet to provide me or my client with a single shred of forensic evidence that would in anyway corroborate the violent rape that the victim has alleged.”

“It is impossible to have the type of violent forced rape that is alleged in the charging documents and leave no injuries or physical evidence whatsoever,” said McDevitt.  “My client anxiously wants this case to proceed as soon as possible so that he may prove his innocence and go home to his parents that miss him.”

Moreover, in a conversation I had this morning with Edison's aunt, Alice Gaskins, I was told that the state of Maryland admits that there is no evidence anywhere on the girl's hospital report -- taken only hours after this alleged rape took place -- indicating that a physical assault had occurred, much less a violent rape. In fact, the girl's hymen apparently was still intact at the time of her examination, meaning that she was still a virgin after Edison allegedly raped her. And if McDevitt's insistence that the girl gave his client a hug before leaving Edison's house is accurate, this alone should be enough to debunk the girl's accusation. After all, who would hug the person who just violently raped her?

I hope to learn more about this case from John Edison's famly in the coming days (the girl's name has not been released), but as of right now, it certainly looks like Edison's civil rights are being violated and that he's being considered by the state of Maryland to be guilty until proven innocent.