.jpg?resize=162%2C162&ssl=1)
From Jack’s Mom-
Happy New Year everybody from Chris.
On November 9th of 2012 Chris had a hearing via phone with Judge David Frazier and Denis P. Tracy. The subject of that hearing was Chris’s motion to re-test the boyfriends DNA. The hearing was 43 minutes long, it had a lot of pauses and the file size was too big for download, so I had to split it into two audio files
http://udontnojack.com/november-hearing/
NL- I read the transcribed hearing, and found it very interesting. I can see where Jack (Chris) is going with this.
The transcript reeks, seems like the DA wants to move on, but the Judge gets the point. I cannot tell sometimes if DAs want a churn and burn workstyle because of the amount of cases, or they defend cases where they think they screwed up to the bitter end. Look at McMartin and of course all those cases in Chicago. I wonder too if there is a correlation between college towns and zealous prosecution. Look at Duke, in the end they were wrong about those guys, but the Durham area has a negative view of the school. If it was not for Duke and the Medical Uberplex there, it would be just another Carolina tobacco turd town.
If you seek insight into the mindset of prosecutors, Larry, you need look no farther than the great documentary, ‘The Thin Blue Line’ or read up on the British case of Bentley & Craig (Elvis Costello’s song ‘Let Him Dangle’ is on point). Just as the cops only care about arrest rates and the number of arrestees eventually charged, prosecutors only care about conviction rates. Neither is in the business of justice — they pass that buck to the judges and juries.
Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man. I’ve met countless attorneys who understand, believe and accept that.
Most prosecuters seem to use their job as a stepping stone to get into politics and higher office. So yes its all about the conviction rate and not so much about justice.
Mr Whtieacre, since you are very familiar with the legal mind, do you think Jack/Chris has a case? Was railroaded?
I find it remarkable that anyone would come to the defense of such an obvious case of rape. This case has been well documented and there is not a shred of evidence to overturn the rapists conviction.
In short, the rapist went to this university town and acted in a supreme douchebag manner. He bragged about how great he was, he went to bars and got incredibly drunk, and he even dragged along another normally innocent person and almost got him sent to prison as well. In the end, the rapist broke into SEVERAL sorority houses, looking to find victims to film sex scenes with. During one of his breakins he assaulted/raped his victim and she POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED him as the attacker and his stupid tattoos.
Oh yeah, the victim. Most people forget about them. The victim has been traumatized for life, she cannot even sleep with the lights off.
Just one question… why was he in the sorority anyways?
I haven’t read all the materials, Larry. I’m assuming the fact that he was there in the sorority is not in dispute, but it’s instead a matter of how guilty he is, i.e. why did they go there (what was the understanding between them), what actually happened there and who did what, and did anyone take affirmative steps to back out, etc… Did one of the guys offer testimony against Jack/Chris in exchange for a deal? That’s the most common form of railroading: the investigators and prosecutors come up with a theory that one participant will swear to (in exchange for some consideration) — and then someone’s ticket gets punched. Case closed! I’m not familiar enough with the facts of this case to really weigh in, but those are the circumstances which always draw my suspicion.
Almost anyone can get railroaded, but being in the wrong place with the wrong associates sure makes it a lot easier. Being “no angel” doesn’t mean you’re guilty as charged.
Pornster’s comment has just emerged from moderation. The narrative described within it is extremely pat, and is exactly the kind of thing that juries eat up. I’m not saying I believe Jack to be innocent, but even I have heard enough of the facts to recognize the flaws in that simple (and conclusory) narrative.
This is a case where the justice system works. They’re incarcerating the rapist for a long, long time and making him exhaust every single resource he has available in a vain attempt to muddy enough water to get out early.
In the end, the rapist will get out in his 30’s or 40’s and you know what? He probably won’t go breaking into sorority houses and assault young women anymore. Probably.
I am not sure if he is guilty or not, but it does seem like some more due diligence needs to be done here. He is a moron for going to a college town and then to sorority row. I think I said before why go to Pullman when you were in Seattle shooting.
Was YoudontKnoWjack.com not available? I don’t no. He was given a life sentence but may get out in his 30s- 40s, pornster?
(Cindi, why the fuck did the name “pornster” put this comment on moderation? This moderation thing is a fucked up as some of the worst fuck-ups in porn)
@ Larry Horse & Michael Whiteacre, I have read everything about this case including the Discovery Package and Trial Transcripts so I might be of some help. Chris “Jack Venice” was in between shoots, one was in Seattle and the other was in Vancouver B. C. He wanted to have some fun before going to Vancouver and was told to go to WSU, located in Pullman, supposedly because it’s known for having many parties. While there, Chris/Jack met two men Kyle Schott and Colin Davis. Witnesses claim to have seen all three at several bars until closing but say that they saw Davis leave several minutes before Chris/Jack and Schott. However, witnesses claim to have seen Chris/Jack with a third man later on at some of the sororities.
As was pointed out, his presence at the sororities where he was charged for two burglaries is not in dispute, however, the convictions are. The jury was asked to find him guilty of burglary only if they found evidence that he intended to harm, i.e. sexual assault. Determining if he was there or not was not relevant to the case, if it was he would have been charged with trespassing not burglary. The state stressed this difference to the jury. Witnesses actually testified that they saw no harm in him being there and thought he was just another prankster as he claimed to be. Chris/Jack was accused of stealing a Coke and a beer helmet although at the trial it was admitted that these objects never left these properties and his fingerprints were not found on them. Schott was the only “witness” who claimed that Chris/Jack took these objects but in the Discovery it is revealed that he was parroting investigators. The evidence presented in court does not meet the criteria for the burglary charges and the state did not meet the burden of proof needed for the convictions. The verdict from the jury is perplexing to say the least and it can be said that they did not follow the court’s instructions. The same can be said for the rape charge.
Kyle Schott, who was found guilty, was facing the same sentence as Chris/Jack but for testifying against Chris/Jack he received a sentence of only 13 months in a low security prison. This is an incredible deal in contrast with Chris/Jack’s sentence which is life in a high security prison.
According to the prosecutor, Chris/Jack was there to shoot videos and to find women to film. But this theory lacks credibility because according to witnesses, he did not have a camera crew with him, was not carrying a camera of his own, and did not approach any women in a sexual manner or solicit them to be filmed. The belief that he was there to film is merely the speculation of the prosecution, a story for the jury and media to ponder over even if it’s based on nothing. Sorry pornster, there’s just no evidence no matter how much you want to believe.
The victim testified during the trial the she was fully certain that Chris/Jack was the 2nd man. She points to him saying that she could never forget his face. She claims that he was the man next to her and that he had his pants down so she could fully see his legs. However, her positive identification, which both the defense and prosecution believe to be the reason for the conviction, can quickly be dismissed as false. Even though she claims to have seen his legs she does not recall seeing anything that would make them stand out. She had no recollection of seeing any tattoos and never reported otherwise. Immediately this is odd because Chris/Jack has a large bullet-bandolier tattoo around his thigh. To go further, her testimony at trial falls apart when one looks at her previous statements.
The victim’s story of what happened changed several times after her original report to police. She originally only remembers that the man farther away from her was wearing a white shirt and that the man closer to her had brown hair two inches in length, was wearing a hat, a maroon shirt, and khaki cargo shorts. Within days after the incident, and after Schott admitted that he was one of the men, her story changes becoming more detailed. The first changes is that the man next to her was Schott, the man farther away now has spiky blond hair, and that she was awakened by the sound of a rapper (condom). She still does not recall the 2nd man’s face. Investigators then show her a photo lineup; a photo of Chris/Jack is included. She rates him as being the 2nd man a 5-6 out of 10 in certainty. The lineup was highly biased however and the judge admitted so during the trial. Chris/Jack was the only blond in the photo array and his picture was the only one professionally taken (highly suggestive after it becoming widely known the 2nd man investigators are looking for is a porn star). Also, in a prior photo lineup (before investigators even know about Chris/Jack) on the day of the alleged rape she gives another man a higher rating and it turns out to be Colin Davis. Investigators ignore this and focus on Chris/Jack instead.
Several weeks before the trial (a year after the incident), both the defense and prosecution are questioning the victim. She claims her certainty that Chris/Jack was the 2nd man is now a 6-7, yet she is still uncertain and still does not remember a face. Her increase in certainty is another disturbing sign that her testimony is questionable.
Another clue is her description of the 2nd man which does not fit with Chris/Jack’s which at the time was that of having short blond hair and wearing a grey to light blue shirt and jeans. Could the man fitting her description have been Davis as she first guessed? Unknown, investigators never asked for his description.
At this point the actions and/or inactions of the investigators suggest the phenomenon known as “tunnel vision,” meaning that they have already chosen who they are going to pursue even though evidence and testimony points elsewhere.
Physical evidence is not much better. A condom rapper found at the scene contained a DNA sample and was proved to be a mixture of the victim and Schott’s DNA. Several sperm cells were discovered on the victim’s tampon but the DNA did not match either Chris or Schott. It was said that it belonged to her boyfriend but his DNA was either never tested or the results not reported. No DNA, fingerprints, or other physical evidence belonging to Chris/Jack was found at the scene. Because Schott’s DNA was found it proved he was present. Further, witness testimony revealed that he was the man wearing the white shirt. This leaves the 2nd man unidentified.
Because of the lack of evidence the state did not meet its burden of proof that Chris/Jack is guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the result of the test is that the DNA from the sperm sample belonged to the boyfriend there is still no evidence against Chris/Jack. Again, I must question the jury’s verdict.
You touched on something that lay readers may not grasp. Burglary doesn’t simply mean a guy in a mask breaking into a premises to steal something. Here’s the Washington state definition, which is fairly common:
RCW 9A.52.020
Burglary in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building and if, in entering or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, the actor or another participant in the crime (a) is armed with a deadly weapon, or (b) assaults any person.
(2) Burglary in the first degree is a class A felony.
RCW 9A.52.030
Burglary in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or a dwelling.
(2) Burglary in the second degree is a class B felony.
As you can see, the difference is, in second degree burglary, the only requirements are a) entry and b) intent, while in first degree the added elements are c) a deadly weapon and/or d) an actual assault.
In any event, the facts as you present them are troubling, particularly the lack of physical evidence. I’d like to tell you that cases like this are rare, but in reality they’re all too common. Of particular interest to me is the way the “porn star looking to recruit / corrupt the morals of young coeds” narrative was employed — by prosecutors, and by pornster. The porn industry bogeyman…
“Kyle Schott, who was found guilty, was facing the same sentence as Chris/Jack but for testifying against Chris/Jack he received a sentence of only 13 months in a low security prison. This is an incredible deal in contrast with Chris/Jack’s sentence which is life in a high security prison.” Abu Ghraib was no anomaly. They just got caught, that’s all.
Schott’s testimony should not be considered worth a flea’s turd in weight, since he had an interest in saying Jack is guilty to avoid a severe sentence.
This is like offering a person $1,000,000 to lie and say he did something he didn’t do.
Of course the justice system doesn’t care about justice, it only cares about numbers, just like soldiers doing sweeps in foreign countries. Hey, if you’re brown, you’re going down, we’ll torture you for a long time until you tell us something even though you didn’t do anything and we won’t believe you if you say you’re innocent and, sorry, there’s no such thing as due process… even Americans don’t have that right any more in our beautiful country.
Abu Ghraib was no anomaly. They just got caught. That’s all.
Yes, I looked up the Washington State definition of burglary as well and the keyword to pay attention to is “intent.” The jury was told to focus on intent, specifically the intent to sexually assault. The premise that the prosecution was trying to convince the jury of was that Chris/Jack was roaming around these sororities to find women to have sex with, possibly to film, which then resulted in rape. The prosecution also argued that it was only Chris/Jack and Schott who were involved. Basically, the argument was that the victim only saw two men in the room with her and Schott was already found guilty of being one of them so if evidence or witness testimony revealed that Chris/Jack was seen with Schott then Chris/Jack must have been the 2nd man in that room. The jury was obviously convinced by this theory and their verdict was guilty.
Chris/Jack was found guilty of two residential burglaries involving sororities Pi Beta Phi and Delta Gamma, burglary in the 1st degree for Kappa Alpha Theta, and rape in the 2nd degree which supposedly occurred in Kappa Alpha Theta. But they’re lingering questions regarding the jury. What evidence did the jury base their verdicts on? Was it witness testimony and/or physical evidence? What about intent?
While no physical evidence was found to place Chris/Jack at Pi Beta Phi and Delta Gamma there was plenty of witness testimony that placed him at those two places. However, as I said before, this was not relevant to the burglary charges. The court wanted to know if the jury believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was at these places with the intent to harm anyone, i.e. sexual assault. Therefore, if the jury only found that he was at these places without the intent to harm then the jury was to give a “not guilty” verdict for the two residential burglaries. So what was Chris/Jack’s intent according to witnesses? They all basically said the same thing, that they saw no harm in him being there so they didn’t even call the incidents in until they heard about the alleged rape the next day. They thought he was there as a prankster and he even told them that. Because pranks happened often around there they thought nothing of his presence. Chris/Jack was also seen at a beer pong party, Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity, and Tri-Delta sorority.
All these sightings bring us to the prosecution’s 2nd argument of the involvement of only two men. Witnesses from the majority of these places report three men; the beer pong party, Pi Beta Phi, Alpha Gamma Rho, Tri-Delta, and even Kappa Alpha Theta (if one considers the victim’s original account) had witnesses claiming to have seen three men. This leads us back to the jury, their verdict, and the prosecution’s theory.
Was there evidence or witness testimony that showed that Chris/Jack was at these sororities with the intent to harm, i.e. sexual assault, beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Therefore the verdict from the jury should have been a “not guilty.” So why did the jury give a guilty verdict? This question is troubling to me because it leads me to another disturbing one that even Chris/Jack has suggested. Was the jury biased? Perhaps, but all the facts weren’t revealed in court and this wasn’t discovered until after Chris/Jack started his personal investigation.
Was there evidence or witness testimony to suggest only Chris/Jack and Schott were the only two men seen together that night after they drank at the bars? No. Testimony revealed the presence of three men; Chris/Jack, Schott, and an unidentified male. How did the prosecution get around this? It was never revealed to the jury that witnesses from the beer pong party saw a third man in a green shirt with them. Witnesses from Alpha Gamma Rho testified at the trial that they saw Chris/Jack but it was not revealed to the jury that soon after the alleged rape a year before they were shown a photo array that included Chris/Jack and that these same witnesses commented on his photo saying that it was definitely not him. The witness from Tri-Delta was supposed to testify, as promised at the start of the trial, that she saw three men but for some unknown reason she was never called to the stand and her written testimony was not presented either. It should be noted that Chris/Jack later requested for this written testimony but the Pullman PD claimed that it doesn’t exist so he then accused them of illegally withholding these documents. The judge sided with the PPD and pronounced that these documents do not exist. However, this was and is a troubling development. This witness was asked to make a written testimony for the investigation a year before the trial. This means these documents should exist and that the PPD is lying. But if they are telling the truth then why was the written testimony never completed as asked? A witness from Pi Beta Phi saw Schott outside her window and Chris/Jack with a third man walk past her room but the prosecutor dismissed the presence of the third man by telling the jury that he was merely an individual prankster who just happened to be at the same place at the same time. For Kappa Alpha Theta, the victim’s description of the two men was never questioned in detail in court. Also, the photo array where she picked Davis rating him a 6 in certainty was never revealed at the trial.
Already this case is reeking. Where is the defense? Was the defense even aware of any of this? If so then why did he not bring them up? If not then was his abilities insufficient or was this information concealed from him as well? The prosecution clearly relied heavily on these facts never being revealed in court, if they had the prosecution’s theory would have immediately been seen as bogus.
Chris/Jack’s main defense was that another man was involved and not him. Because of the lack of physical evidence much of this case revolves around witness testimony and when it comes down to it witness testimony is memory. This case relied on people’s memory. Memory is susceptible to change and suggestion and we see this corruption in the testimony from at least four of the witnesses. Why? The trial took place a year after the incident, plenty of time for memory to degrade over time. Plenty of time for memory to change from suggestion, the media constantly reported on the rape charge and bombarded people with the image of Chris/Jack, not to mention his lifestyle. This could have created a bias in an already supper conservative population. Did Chris/Jack’s image become superimposed on witness memory? The Discovery shows that Schott was parroting investigators when he testified so were the other witnesses also? Were they coached by the prosecution in any way? Yes, I may be droning on about these questions but this is what’s left in the wake of this case. The truth was both twisted and concealed to fit the prosecution’s theory while the defense was asleep at the wheel. The prosecutor continuously says that the evidence against Chris/Jack was overwhelming but he never points to a specific piece. The prosecutor has also admitted that this conviction relied on witness testimony and not physical evidence.
My only conclusion from all this is that the case, the verdicts, and the sentence have no foundation. There are just so many, too many, questions that the shadow of doubt is more like an ominous cloud.
What was Jack doing there in the middle of the night except for trouble? He said college coed’s would be a good place to look for porn stars? If he was not there and was home in his own crib he would not be in prison.
Seriously….
Mr Venice locked up brings new meaning to Jack in the box.
I think you’re confused. Being at or near a place where a crime may be occurring does not infer guilt of that crime nor does it mean intent to commit one. No one is arguing that he wasn’t in the area but when one looks at all the evidence and witness testimony it’s clear that there’s nothing to suggest he committed the crimes that he was accused of. I don’t know if he said that “colleges would be good places to find porn stars” as you say but according to witnesses he was not soliciting anyone to be filmed nor was he approaching anyone in a sexual manner. Your statement presumes guilt just because he was in the area and is opposed to the very ideals that our justice system was built upon, innocence until proven guilty. If the evidence and witness testimony do not prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt then we as his peers must presume his continued innocence. This is the argument that those who have looked into his case are making. Yes he was found guilty and sentenced but the point being made is that the verdict was not based on any substantial evidence. There was no physical evidence to support that he raped anyone at Kappa Alpha Theta sorority or that he was even at the scene. Witness testimony does not place him at the scene either. Yes witnesses claim to have seen Chris/Jack with Schott (who was proven to be one of the two men) earlier that night but association does not prove guilt. Witness testimony does not support the burglary charges either because the INTENT to harm was not present. The court asked the jury to determine the INTENT he may have had and decide based on physical evidence or testimony whether it was or not to harm, i.e. sexual assault. The state was basically asking the jury if Chris/Jack entered Pi Beta Phi and Delta Gamma with the intent to harm so it could sentence him with burglary as charged. If INTENT to harm was not found then the charges would have to be dismissed and Chris/Jack declared innocent. Just him being at those sororities were not grounds for the burglary charges. The court told the jury that if the state wanted them to determine if there was evidence or testimony to establish whether or not he was present at these sororities then the state would have charged him with trespassing instead.
I hope everyone reading this is following but if anyone has any questions feel free to ask.
I try not to comment on any thing like this, but I will do so in this case. I think some of you are forgetting a few things.
1) The crime of burglary is committed when someone breaks in, or enters without the owner’s permission, for the purpose of committing a felony (This, of course is a lay definition from my jurisdiction). To Gabe, the fact that he was there is very important, as it relates to the first element. As to the second element, from just reading the post here, it can be met from twice: a) The taking of the hats (larceny), or the actual sexual conduct. As far as the hats, it is sufficient to move them with the intent of depriving the owner to establish larceny.
2) Intent is a question of fact for the jury. No one but the actual person will ever know there true intent. However, the jury may infer this based of the evidence they are given. So, if you say that the second guy, and not Jack (Christopher?) was the actual assailant, Jack’s presence at the crime can be used as circumstantial evidence that he was there to be part of that crime, and (again, in my jurisdiction) gets him convicted of the crime, either under an accomplice theory, or aiding and abetting theory. I have yet to read anything that wouldn’t get him convicted.
3) The prosecutor’s theory of the case is just that: a theory. Doesn’t have to be correct. All he has to do is prove a crime was committed, and the defendant committed the crime. In the end, the jury decides the facts.
4) I’ve read a lot of attacking the victim’s accounting of the incident. In the end, it is the defense attorney’s job to attack the inconsistency. If a victim remembers events one way, and a year later at trial, she proclaims something different, doesn’t mean she’s lying, and no court that I know will find it an error to testify based on her most recent recollection of events. Sounds like dude just had a bad lawyer.
Don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes, but it seems as if sympathy are coloring this case. That is fine, but at least understand how a trial works when you do it.
I do have faith in the justice system. What I find happens a lot of times is that people will twist and turn the case with a lot of legal jargon and make it look like “see, there’s NOTHING to prove a crime was actually committed” when in fact there really was.
I have no doubt that the convicted rapist in this case is guilty Not that I know him, not that I hate him, but he wasn’t breaking into sororities just to steal a hat or some odd. He’s just a douchebag who got caught doing incredibly illegal and douchebag crimes. They just don’t throw douchebags in jail for the sake of them being douchebags.
And this guy? You want to try to get him out of prison on a technicality even though he raped a young girl? What kind of people are you?