Talk:Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich/Archive 1

Archive 1

What was the sentence

I'm still trying to wade through the sources, but does anyone have a clarification on what the initial sentence possibility was and what the plea deal was? Right now I'm looking at this but I can't determine what "The boys were to be sentenced on charges of first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism on Tuesday, but that has been delayed" refers to. Is that what they agreed to in the plea deal, or is that what it would have been had they not plead guilty? Ryan Vesey 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the initial deal was never actually formally enacted it was just what the prosecutors agreed to with the defendants. At that point Dietrich tweeted. later at the actual sentencing, the judge changed the terms of the plea deal. Details of what was sentenced at that point are in the next link, but i think the original "weak" deal might be lost to us. http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/National-media-coverage-begins-in-Lou-as-sexual-abuse-twitter-case-goes-before-judge-169740186.html Gaijin42 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

this link seems to have before & after of the plea deal . http://www.wdrb.com/story/19545645/savannah-dietrich Gaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2 different crimes

This article appears to be conflating 2 different crimes. The Dietrich case has been resolved I think. . .The trial for the Steubenville rape (I think the rape happened the night of Aug 11, 2012) is not set until Feb. according to this CNN article [1]. R. Baley (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. The source was listed when I came across the article and other than the Kentucky vs. Ohio difference (which I was still unaware of as I hadn't started on the others). I'll throw the paragraph onto here and later start a draft in my userspace. Ryan Vesey 14:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

==Night of the rape==
On August 11, 2012 Savannah Dietrich, 16, was drugged so that she could not later recall most events from the night.  She couldn't remember anything after midnight.  It was first clear that Dietrich was drunk around 10:00 or 10:30.  Witnesses reported that baseball players from Steubenville High School dared bystanders to urinate on Dietrich.  Dietrich left the party with football players from the high school after midnight.  Some witnesses reported that Dietrich needed assistance walking while another reported that she was asleep and carried out by Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond.  The football players briefly took Dietrich to a second party before bringing her to a third.

Dietrich awoke on the way to the third party long enough to vomit in the street.  One witness reported that Dietrich was left alone and topless for several minutes while another reported that Mays and Richmond held her hair while she vomited.  While heading to a third party, a witness for the prosecution declared that he recorded Mays assault Dietrich in the back of his Volkswagen Jetta.  Mays flashed Dietrich's breasts and used his fingers to penetrate her.  At the third party, Dietrich could not walk on her own, vomited, and toppled onto her side.  When Mays attempted to coax her into performing oral sex on him, she was unresponsive.  While Dietrich lied on the floor naked, witnesses stated that Mays exposed himself to her and that Richmond used his fingers to penetrate her.  Another athlete took photographs of the event.  He claimed that he did it so he could let Dietrich know what happened to her, but he deleted the images after showing them to several people.  Dietrich ended the night on a couch in the basement of the home with Mays initially alongside her. She claimed that she woke the next day with no knowledge of the events that transpired the night before.

I concur, I think the source of the issue was this source I used (that triggered my creation of the article) that talks about both cases, and does a poor job (imo) of transitioning between the two cases in its story. I think both cases are probably notable and as they have been related to eachother in some sources, could have a brief mention/link to each other. http://jezebel.com/5969076/we-wouldnt-know-about-the-steubenville-rape-case-if-it-wasnt-for-the-blogger-who-complicated-thingsGaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Is this title correct?

The article used to be called "Rape of Savannah Dietrich" and is now "Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich". Can you have an assault OF someone? I would have thought that assault is usually ON someone, and that if so the title should be "Sexual assault on Savannah Dietrich". But I am less than 100% sure. What do you think? DBaK (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen that usage.--Auric talk 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I wonder if this is an AmE/BrE thing then - in which case if it is correct AmE then let's leave it alone. Just to be clear - if you came and punched me, would you be charged with carrying out an assault of me? Not carrying out an assault on me? Is the film called "Assault on Precinct 13", or "Assault of Precinct 13"? I honestly thought "assault" usually took "on", but do feel free to educate me. It's also quite instructive to compare the set of articles that comes up on Wikipedia when you start typing "assault of" to those you get when you start with "assault on". The former few are mostly rubbish or redirects and the latter few more are mostly proper articles. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault on Precinct 13 (both) is a film title and a different usage. In that case "Assault on" means that Precinct 13 is being assaulted. "Assault of" would mean that Precinct 13 was assaulting someone. I can't be sure, but somehow this case is different, possibly because she is a person and not a thing. I'm confused now. Have a look at Preposition and postposition and see if you can make sense of it. --Auric talk 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I did, and a few other things beside ... and my conclusion is: I have no conclusion! I think you may be right, that there is some very subtle gradation of meaning here that I am not quite getting. My certainty level is now even lower, and I think the encyclopaedia is probably best served by my shutting up about this for a while! I'm not going to push further for change - I really can't in good conscience, when I feel so unsure. Thank you for an interesting debate! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I love these linguistic differences. So fun to figure out where the branching happened and why! X of Y (where X is some sort of crime against Y) is very common in American English. "Murder of" is probably the most common, but "Rape of" is decently common too. The most notable use of that phrasing would probably be "The Rape of Nanking", or "The Rape of the Sabine Women". Also as a bonus treat for you British Enlglish spearkers : The Rape of Lucrece, by Shakespeare. Googling "the sexual assault of" comes up with quite a number of news references, but the target of the assault is usually more vague. It probably comes from our legal system where "Sexual assault of a minor" is a specific crime etc, that can flow over into non-legal contexts. "Assault on" sounds more in the future/ongoing. Also, the only time I hear "Assault on Y" usually is something like "Sexual assaults on college campuses" where the "on" is referring to the location, not the target. (The precinct movie is both the location and the target!) In the end, I think nobody could prove definitively that "Sexual assault on Y" would be wrong, but it is not the common usage in the US imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be a pedant, I'd argue that "assault against ..." would be clearer 86.162.205.54 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In American English, the current title Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich is clear and correct. It makes the victim in this case the object of the verb to assault, i.e., one who was assaulted. In AmE, you would more likely say "Assault by xyz" if xyz was the initiator of the assault. At least I would. The movie Assault on Precinct 13 was about an attack upon a place (a police station) called Precinct 13, in which the place called Precinct 13 was not the initiator but the receiver of the attack. Assault of Precinct 13 would have generally been understood to mean the same thing, since a place cannot initiate an assault (but can be the target and/or venue of one). Dwpaul (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'Gag order'

According to this document [2] - a court record - there never was a 'gag order': "Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been disseminated to the public about this case, not the least of which is that a 'gag order' had been entered." the document is of course an inadmissible primary source - but we clearly need to check other sources, and ensure that we aren't perpetuating misinformation ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that there was no "gag order," both a heading and a portion of the narrative that explicitly state that there was one need to be changed. Dwpaul (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Grump is referring to pages 32-34.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)