Small Town Turns On Girl Who Was Allegedly Raped By HS Football Player [#303, #380]

Dragonfly said:

Progress is being made.

Click to expand...

Hmmm?
I quote you and give you the same info, and you then come back in here post a different source like the info wasn't already provided.
Strange to say the least.

And it isn't progress.

tererun said:

Those are the facts as the news is reporting them. If you do not want to believe that then feel free to not believe that. Please do show us an alternative story on the matter as I have not seen any other claims and would love to see the info you have gotten that claims otherwise. Of course if there is no actual opposing story and you just made one up in your mind because you do not like to admit rape is real then that is on you.

Click to expand...

:naughty
No, These are the facts.

Excon said:

Listen up all you folks.
Apparently the sex was consensual, she was not unconscious and the video was erased.

The rest of the story is told in Nodaway County Sheriff’s reports. As Daisy Coleman continued drinking, her friend and an underage boy went into one of the bedrooms. Barnett admitted to sheriff’s investigators that he had sex with Daisy in another room, but said she wasn’t yet drunk, just “buzzed.” Zech said he used a buddy’s iPhone to videotape Barnett and Daisy kissing, half undressed. Barnett, Zech and two other boys say they watched the video before deleting it, according to sheriff’s reports.

Why Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR​

"Subsequent investigation and interviews raised substantial doubt about the felony charge, specifically including whether the young lady was incapacitated during the encounter."

It said that, while charges were pending in May 2012, Barnett's lawyer tried to take sworn statements from the alleged victims and their relatives, but they "refused to answer any questions citing their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate themselves. Accordingly, without competent evidence and with witnesses unwilling to testify, the State was under a duty to dismiss any prosecution when it became apparent that a conviction was not possible."

That left Barnett facing one remaining claim, a misdemeanor charge of child endangerment related to the allegation that the high school senior left the 14-year-old girl "in an incapacitated condition outside of her home in freezing weather."

During a deposition in July 2012, Daisy Coleman testified "with numerous inconsistencies and changes to previous statements," the statement from Barnett's lawyer says. "When the alleged victim's mother was questioned about these changes, she freely admitted that her daughter does not always tell the truth, particularly when she is in a stressful situation. Thereafter, the misdemeanor charge was dismissed."

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder calls for review of rape case - CNN.com

​

Zech said he had used a friend’s phone to record some of the encounter. He said, however, that he thought Barnett and the girl were only “dry humping,” a term commonly used to describe rubbing together clothed. Another teen, however, told police the video featured both Barnett and Daisy with their pants down.

Nightmare in Maryville: Teens’ sexual encounter ignites a firestorm against family - KansasCity dot com​

Click to expand...

Excon said:

:naughty
No, These are the facts.

Click to expand...

You do understand why the lawyer told them to plead the fifth don't you? Underage drinking is a crime. In other words the prosecutor told them they would prosecute them for their drinking and possession of alcohol, and possibly other things that may have been illegal that they would have to admit to and strong armed them into dropping the rape charges to protect the boys. So basically the prosecutor is using their lack of testimony to drop the case when there was video evidence that they did not have to testify to. That my friend is a conspiracy. the cops could prosecute the sexual activity based on the video and confessions of the boys.

Oh and just so you know you really should look up the laws. He admits to having sex with her that night, and there is video of it. Guess what MO law is.

Missouri Statutory Rape Laws | Criminal Law

No matter what the defendant’s age, it is a crime (first degree statutory rape or sodomy) to engage in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under the age of 14.

Click to expand...

They never needed her testimony to convict or charge him. It was superfluous as they already established sexual intercourse with two 13 year olds. It is illegal and there is no consent at all. He confessed to a felony and they let him off. Do you understand how wrong you are at this point? The facts are not even in question here. They have a confession, video evidence, and possibly DNA medical evidence. They dropped the charges, and told the girls they would prosecute them if they pushed it.

Excon said:

Hmmm?
I quote you and give you the same info, and you then come back in here post a different source like the info wasn't already provided.
Strange to say the least.

And it isn't progress.

Click to expand...

Your own arguments and quotations have shown evidence of a felony. You cannot legally have sex with a 13 year old in MO. The girls were 13 at the time of the incident and the prosecutor knew that. the boys admitted to sexual relations. Even if the girls were hot for it and wanted it real bad it was illegal and the boys should have been charged. You do not need the testimony of the victim in this case. It is a slam dunk case of statutory rape. They let those boys go. now they are all in trouble, and you look a little silly having tried to stand on an obvious conspiracy.

CRUE CAB said:

You have a real hard time with the way things "are" and the way things "should be".
I never said she "deserved" it, only that when you put yourself in those positions. Things happen. Sometimes not the things you intended.
What this is, is a lifes lesson for the girl and a learning moment for other girls. Show yourself some respect first if you want anyone else to.

Click to expand...

moral of the story: if you are a 14 y/o girl and you don't want to get raped, don't get drunk with one of your friends and then sneak out of the house to a party with drunken teenage boys.

and before anyone squeals "blaming the victim"....I'm not saying she deserved to be raped. I'm just saying that she put herself in a bad situation by her own actions.

tererun said:

Your own arguments and quotations have shown evidence of a felony. You cannot legally have sex with a 13 year old in MO. The girls were 13 at the time of the incident and the prosecutor knew that. the boys admitted to sexual relations. Even if the girls were hot for it and wanted it real bad it was illegal and the boys should have been charged. You do not need the testimony of the victim in this case. It is a slam dunk case of statutory rape. They let those boys go. now they are all in trouble, and you look a little silly having tried to stand on an obvious conspiracy.

Click to expand...

these boys were also minors. at most they would have gotten charged as juvenile offenders, charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct, given probation and forced to attend court ordered "sex offender" treatment program

OscarB63 said:

these boys were also minors. at most they would have gotten charged as juvenile offenders, charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct, given probation and forced to attend court ordered "sex offender" treatment program

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, it should not have been dropped.

tererun said:

Doesn't matter, it should not have been dropped.

Click to expand...

according to what I read, the pics and videos of the alleged incident were deleted and the girl refuses to cooperate. what evidence is there to prosecute?

OscarB63 said:

according to what I read, the pics and videos of the alleged incident were deleted and the girl refuses to cooperate. what evidence is there to prosecute?

Click to expand...

Just the admittance by him and being together with a thirteen year old is more than enough to get someone on statutory charges. They have plenty to go on. Oh, and let us ask the question, whuy would the prosecutor not give the girl immunity on the drinking charges to prosecute the boys? She was raped, i think she got her punishment for under age drinking. This is the sort of attitude these girls are up against.

I used to hate anon. I have gone head to head with those turds. hell, I even backed scientology just to screw with them. That should give you an dea of how much I despise them, but stuff like this cover up has me singing a different tune about them now. I hope they get the rapists and they are forever on the sex offender list. i hope they root out the corrupt prosecutor and local government friends of these boys, and if they can get any of them on accomplice charges they do so. I spend my whole life wishing I was born a girl, and still many moments i am thankful I was never put in that position given how some people behave.

tererun said:

Just the admittance by him and being together with a thirteen year old is more than enough to get someone on statutory charges. .

Click to expand...

nope, not even close. if he were to recant his "confession" they've got nothing. If they can't prove anything happened, him being together with a 13 y/o doesn't mean squat. any half decent defense attorney could get his admission thrown out for any number of reasons.

Given what I have read, I believe they raped this girl. but, to quote Denzell Washington from training day...in a court of law..."It's not what you know...it's what you can prove"

O.J.
Caycee Anthony
George Zimmerman
etc
etc
etc

and since the girl is refusing to cooperate, I don't blame the prosecutor for not wanting to take this case on.

@tererun
You clearly are not familiar with the evidence in this case or the law.
You should really do research or at least pay attention to what has already been provided before engaging your finger tips.
You even just contradicted multiple facts that were specifically given to you.
You clearly know not of what you speak.
Pay attention.

tererun said:

You do understand why the lawyer told them to plead the fifth don't you? Underage drinking is a crime. In other words the prosecutor told them they would prosecute them for their drinking and possession of alcohol, and possibly other things that may have been illegal that they would have to admit to and strong armed them into dropping the rape charges to protect the boys.

Click to expand...

You are making stuff up here.

tererun said:

So basically the prosecutor is using their lack of testimony to drop the case when there was video evidence that they did not have to testify to.

Click to expand...

Had you bothered to pay attention the reason the prosecutor dropped the case wasn't just the failure to cooperate, but what happened before during and after the alleged incident.

As previously provided.

tererun said:

That my friend is a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Only in your convoluted, not paying attention to the facts, conspiratorial thoughts.

tererun said:

the cops could prosecute the sexual activity based on the video and confessions of the boys.

Click to expand...

One. The cops don't prosecute. Two, the boy were charged. Those charges were appropriately dropped.
Three: Saying they had consensual sex is not a confession.
Four: Had you bothered to pay attention to the information you were given, you would know that the video does not exist as it was deleted. And you would also know that the video is reported to show her engaging in consensual activity.
Did you get that?
Not unconscious, and consensual activity.

tererun said:

Oh and just so you know you really should look up the laws. He admits to having sex with her that night, and there is video of it. Guess what MO law is.

Click to expand...

Oy vey!
No. :naughty You should look up the actual laws. And then pay attention to what laws that were in effect at the time of the indecent. Not the revised statutes which were revised after that incident.
And again, consensual sex as well as no video.

tererun said:

They never needed her testimony to convict or charge him. It was superfluous as they already established sexual intercourse with two 13 year olds. It is illegal and there is no consent at all. He confessed to a felony and they let him off. Do you understand how wrong you are at this point? The facts are not even in question here. They have a confession, video evidence, and possibly DNA medical evidence. They dropped the charges, and told the girls they would prosecute them if they pushed it.

Click to expand...

Again showing you do not know what you are talking about.
No they could not.
The allegation was false to start with.
She was 14.
He did not confess to a felony, but to consensual sex and there is no video as it was deleted. Which only purports to show consensual activity. Making her allegation a lie.

tererun said:

Your own arguments and quotations have shown evidence of a felony. You cannot legally have sex with a 13 year old in MO. The girls were 13 at the time of the incident and the prosecutor knew that. the boys admitted to sexual relations. Even if the girls were hot for it and wanted it real bad it was illegal and the boys should have been charged. You do not need the testimony of the victim in this case. It is a slam dunk case of statutory rape. They let those boys go. now they are all in trouble, and you look a little silly having tried to stand on an obvious conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Wrong!

OscarB63 said:

nope, not even close. if he were to recant his "confession" they've got nothing. If they can't prove anything happened, him being together with a 13 y/o doesn't mean squat. any half decent defense attorney could get his admission thrown out for any number of reasons.

Given what I have read, I believe they raped this girl. but, to quote Denzell Washington from training day...in a court of law..."It's not what you know...it's what you can prove"

O.J.
Caycee Anthony
George Zimmerman
etc
etc
etc

and since the girl is refusing to cooperate, I don't blame the prosecutor for not wanting to take this case on.

Click to expand...

No, they covered things up. hey, maybe i am wrong, but they had better hope i am. Outside investigators and prosecutors coming in and looking at it means there is something there. Time will tell with this.

tererun said:

No, they covered things up. hey, maybe i am wrong, but they had better hope i am. Outside investigators and prosecutors coming in and looking at it means there is something there. Time will tell with this.

Click to expand...

what, exactly, was covered up and by whom?

tererun said:

Outside investigators and prosecutors coming in and looking at it means there is something there.

Click to expand...

It means no such thing.
The Prosecutor (Rice), who made the statements that follow, is the one who has asked for them to come in because of the mere allegation of impropriety.
He isn't calling them in to second guess him, but to confirm what he concluded to show there wasn't any impropriety. Or in other words, to quell the bs that you believe.

and another thing. just how old was this girl at the time? I keep seeing conflicting reports. you claim she was 13. one of the articles in the OP says she was 14. and then I found this in one of the other articles in the OP

A teenage girl in Maryville, Mo., claims she has been repeatedly threatened and harassed after she said she was raped last year by a classmate from a well-connected family.

Over the course of several months, the harassment became so severe that her family was forced to leave town, the girl, now 16, says.

Click to expand...

raped last year and she is now 16. so the youngest she could have been is 14.


if she was 14, given that he was 17, statutory rape goes out the window.

tererun said:

Doesn't matter, it should not have been dropped.

Click to expand...

Yes it should have.

Excon said:

Yes it should have.

Click to expand...

no video, no pics. it was a case of he said/she said. and since she isn't willing to "say" in court.... what frelling choice did the prosecutor have?

OscarB63 said:

no video, no pics. it was a case of he said/she said. and since she isn't willing to "say" in court.... what frelling choice did the prosecutor have?

Click to expand...

None, according to him.
As the prosecutor said, it wasn't their non-cooperation alone, but "information brought to his attention regarding what happened “before, during and after” the incident."

And the video would have been no help because it showed her conscious and engaged in consensual activity.

But as you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't pay attention to the facts ... :shrug:

Excon said:

@tererun
You clearly are not familiar with the evidence in this case or the law.
You should really do research or at least pay attention to what has already been provided before engaging your finger tips.
You even just contradicted multiple facts that were specifically given to you.
You clearly know not of what you speak.
Pay attention.

Click to expand...

I am going to give this last response and then drop you. I remember what you are like from the zimmerman stuff, and I have probably spent too much time already with this and your ideas.

Excon said:

You are making stuff up here.

Click to expand...

Actually no. We know the girls were drinking. Under age drinking is a crime. They were told by their counsel to plead the fifth. This is because in ther telling of the account and getting it on a sworn statement they would open up the door to confessing to a crime. If the lawyer was telling them to shut up it is clear the prosecutor was not letting the under age drinking slide. I have used occams razor here and that all fits right in with what would happen if the girls were called upon by the prosecutor to swear a statement that would be used as a confession later. There might be more than just that, but that is good enough to conclude what happend. Even if there was more, whatever crime they were trying to stay silent about was not the intercourse. The intercourse is in no way legal.

Excon said:

Had you bothered to pay attention the reason the prosecutor dropped the case wasn't just the failure to cooperate, but what happened before during and after the alleged incident.

As previously provided.

Click to expand...

and here is the quote that is relevant

In a later interview, Rice called it a case of “incorrigible teenagers” drinking alcohol and having sex.

Click to expand...

If the sexual activity is a given, which it is stated as such in that statement, it is a crime under the law. There is no legal sexual activity with a 13 year old under the law of the state. He admits a crime was committed. You are standing on that. Are you even reading what is said? They had sex and it is known. She cannot say yes. There is no way for her to have consented that night. All the other stuff is now superfluous. If the act of having sex is on record as a fact he has committed a felony.

Excon said:

Only in your convoluted, not paying attention to the facts, conspiratorial thoughts.

Click to expand...

there was no reason to drop the charges. If the boys admitted to having sex there was no reason to even ask the girls if they had sex. That is a confession. No one is saying they did not have sex that night. That is a felony, and the prosecutor had a duty to prosecute it.

Excon said:

One. The cops don't prosecute. Two, the boy were charged. Those charges were appropriately dropped.

Click to expand...

My mistake i should have said prosecutor. It was not appropriate as they had a felony.

Excon said:

Three: Saying they had consensual sex is not a confession.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a confession to having sex with a 13 year old which is illegal under the law. You can toss the consensual part out because consent was never needed because it could never be given. Just the act of sex with her at that time was a felony whether she wanted it or not.

Excon said:

Four: Had you bothered to pay attention to the information you were given, you would know that the video does not exist as it was deleted. And you would also know that the video is reported to show her engaging in consensual activity.
Did you get that?
Not unconscious, and consensual activity.

Click to expand...

If they admit to that content then he committed a felony by having intercourse with her.

Excon said:

Oy vey!
No. :naughty You should look up the actual laws. And then pay attention to what laws that were in effect at the time of the indecent. Not the revised statutes which were revised after that incident.
And again, consensual sex as well as no video.

Click to expand...

Ok, please do show us the law that was in effect at the time regarding sexual activity with a thirteen year old. What was the law at the time. If it was not illegal at that time then you win. I quoted the law as it is now, if it was different at the time please do enlighten me and i will move on. if that is the case then it sucks to be her.

Excon said:

Again showing you do not know what you are talking about.
No they could not.
The allegation was false to start with.
She was 14.
He did not confess to a felony, but to consensual sex and there is no video as it was deleted. Which only purports to show consensual activity. Making her allegation a lie.


Wrong!

Click to expand...

I do believe she was 13 at the time, and they very clearly said they did include the other girl who was 13. But please do show us where the laws had changed so that at the time of the incident it was legal to have intercourse with a 13 year old. Provide me a link that is reliable and i can confirm and you win the argument. If that is the case it might have been dropped without much investigation.

Excon said:

None, according to him.
As the prosecutor said, it wasn't their non-cooperation alone, but "information brought to his attention regarding what happened “before, during and after” the incident."

And the video would have been no help because it showed her conscious and engaged in consensual activity.

But as you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't pay attention to the facts ... :shrug:

Click to expand...

You are realizing now that those revised statutes you were talking about which you say were not in effect at the time were actually in effect at the time. The title is revised because that means it is the most current statement of the law. Statutory rape laws have been on the books for years and I would find it really amazing that consensual sex with a minor was legal at the time. I could be wrong, I am not versed in Missouri law enough to know a couple years back if the statute was perhaps different. But please do show us where it was different otherwise it is really likely that it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in MO a couple of years ago just like it is today.

I am waiting.

Dragonfly said:

I'm not saying the boys are guilty.

I'm horrified that the boys apparently are being let off so easily, and even more horrified at the reaction of the town against the girl's family.

Click to expand...

You're not saying that they're guilty but are horrified that they're being let off easily?

What the heck does this even mean???

something I haven't seen mentioned yet. since the girl is unwilling to assist the prosecution, I would think this guy could argue that any prosecution would violate his right to face his accuser.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Click to expand...

bolded: since the girl refuses to testify/cooperate, and the video and photos of the incident have been erased/deleted...just what "witnesses" are there against him? without her presence and cooperation, any statements she made could be argued against as hearsay. none of the other people who were there could be compelled to testify because by doing so they would incriminate themselves.

tererun said:

I am going to give this last response and then drop you.

Click to expand...

That is called running.
And you are running because you are wrong just as you were wrong in the Zimmerman threads.

Your being wrong and not paying attention is not my fault, or my problem. It is yours. So run all you want.
But I will make sure I point out where you are wrong for the others reading this, whether you reply or not.

tererun said:

They were told by their counsel to plead the fifth.

Click to expand...

You do not know that, And I know you don't know that.
So, prove it.
It is that simple. Prove it or you are just blowing smoke.

tererun said:

I have used occams razor here and that all fits right in with what would happen if the girls were called upon by the prosecutor to swear a statement that would be used as a confession later. There might be more than just that, but that is good enough to conclude what happend. Even if there was more, whatever crime they were trying to stay silent about was not the intercourse. The intercourse is in no way legal.

Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts.
One. You didn't use Occams razor. You assumed something not in evidence. (which you are shown wrong by a quote below)

The girl lied in her allegation. She was not unconscious. That is a big red flag.
The mother admitted the girl is a liar. Big red flag confirmed.

All you are doing is making misinformed pronouncements that are not in accord with the facts.
And yes the sex was legal. Read the dam law that was in effect at the time. Like you were already told.

tererun said:

and here is the quote that is relevant

Click to expand...

Everything he is quoted as saying is relevant.
Funny how you left out the following. "But is it criminal? No.”


Everything else you said is wrong. There was no felony unless it was forced. It wasn't forced but consensual.
And Daisy, the one alleging rape, was 14, not 13.

tererun said:

Ok, please do show us the law that was in effect at the time regarding sexual activity with a thirteen year old.

Click to expand...

She was not 13 at the time.
Daisy was 14.
And the other girl was with a 15 year old. And she wasn't cooperating either.

tererun said:

What was the law at the time. If it was not illegal at that time then you win. I quoted the law as it is now, if it was different at the time please do enlighten me and i will move on. if that is the case then it sucks to be her.

I do believe she was 13 at the time, and they very clearly said they did include the other girl who was 13. But please do show us where the laws had changed so that at the time of the incident it was legal to have intercourse with a 13 year old. Provide me a link that is reliable and i can confirm and you win the argument. If that is the case it might have been dropped without much investigation.

Click to expand...

It is your responsibility when discussing topics to at least be correctly informed and be aware of the information that was previously provided.

This isn't about winning, but about the correct information being used to draw appropriate conclusions.
If you don't have correct information, you can not come to an informed opinion on the subject, or be correct.

The Statutes were revised August 28, 2012.
That does not mean that everything in the Statutes was changed.
The part that did was that they added "to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent".

Which removes that from consideration and is actually contradicted by the video that was seen. Which also means her allegation is false. She was not unconscious, and it was consensual.
She was 14, so the laws regarding being do not apply.

And as it was consensual and not forced, the other laws do not apply.


Read the following from a Huff's article.

tererun said:

You are realizing now that those revised statutes you were talking about which you say were not in effect at the time were actually in effect at the time. The title is revised because that means it is the most current statement of the law. Statutory rape laws have been on the books for years and I would find it really amazing that consensual sex with a minor was legal at the time. I could be wrong, I am not versed in Missouri law enough to know a couple years back if the statute was perhaps different. But please do show us where it was different otherwise it is really likely that it was illegal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in MO a couple of years ago just like it is today.

I am waiting.

Click to expand...

Wtf?
Read the above reply before you start spouting off with more bs.

She was 14 at the time. So the laws that deal with being under 14 do not apply. Do you not realize that?


The above law does not apply.
The only other laws that could apply, would be forcible or incapacitated.
As incapacitated was added after the fact, it does not apply. Do you not understand that?

The only evidence we have is that the act was consensual and that she was not unconscious as claimed.
No crime was committed.

Excon said:

That is called running.
And you are running because you are wrong just as you were wrong in the Zimmerman threads.

Your being wrong and not paying attention is not my fault, or my problem. It is yours. So run all you want.
But I will make sure I point out where you are wrong for the others reading this, whether you reply or not.


You do not know that, And I know you don't know that.
So, prove it.
It is that simple. Prove it or you are just blowing smoke.


Wrong on all counts.
One. You didn't use Occams razor. You assumed something not in evidence. (which you are shown wrong by a quote below)

The girl lied in her allegation. She was not unconscious. That is a big red flag.
The mother admitted the girl is a liar. Big red flag confirmed.

All you are doing is making misinformed pronouncements that are not in accord with the facts.
And yes the sex was legal. Read the dam law that was in effect at the time. Like you were already told.



Everything he is quoted as saying is relevant.
Funny how you left out the following. "But is it criminal? No.”


Everything else you said is wrong. There was no felony unless it was forced. It wasn't forced but consensual.
And Daisy, the one alleging rape, was 14, not 13.


She was not 13 at the time.
Daisy was 14.
And the other girl was with a 15 year old. And she wasn't cooperating either.



It is your responsibility when discussing topics to at least be correctly informed and be aware of the information that was previously provided.

This isn't about winning, but about the correct information being used to draw appropriate conclusions.
If you don't have correct information, you can not come to an informed opinion on the subject, or be correct.

The Statutes were revised August 28, 2012.
That does not mean that everything in the Statutes was changed.
The part that did was that they added "to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent".

Which removes that from consideration and is actually contradicted by the video that was seen. Which also means her allegation is false. She was not unconscious, and it was consensual.
She was 14, so the laws regarding being

under 14​

do not apply.

And as it was consensual and not forced, the other laws do not apply.


Read the following from a Huff's article.

White, the sheriff, said he never understood the Colemans' reasoning and that authorities weren't considering charges against the 14-year-old girl.

"They stonewalled the case all by themselves," he said.

Now that the family is saying they will cooperate, he wasn't sure whether that would make a difference.

"They wouldn't cooperate and then they said they would cooperate. And then they wouldn't cooperate. And then they went back and forth," White said. "I'm guessing, and this is just speculation, but I'm guessing that the prosecutor would be a little gun shy to believe that they would be willing to cooperate at this time."

He said authorities have had dealings with the suspects before and prosecuted them. Online court records show that the teen accused of assaulting Daisy had been on probation for a DWI.

"It's not that he's afraid of these boys and their families or anything like that. It's just that he was left with no alternatives," White said.

The case has drawn comparisons to one in Steubenville, Ohio, where two 17-year-old high school football players were convicted of raping a West Virginia girl after an alcohol-fueled party in 2012. The case was furiously debated online and led to allegations of a cover-up to protect the city's celebrated football team.

Missouri expanded its rape, sodomy and sexual abuse laws, effective Aug. 28, to cover cases of sexual contact when a person is incapacitated or incapable of giving consent. Those crimes previously had required "forcible compulsion." State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, who had supported that change, said Tuesday that it was prompted at least partly by the Steubenville case.

Daisy Coleman Rape Case Can't Be Reopened By Missouri Attorney General
​

Click to expand...

Ok, so it all boils down to he had sex with a 13 year old girl and that was against the law at the time. Consent had nothing to do with it because a 13 year old cannot consent as per the law. But fee free to ramble on in your misconstrued whatever. They do not even need to look at the revision. The fact that they had sex was a crime.