Saturday, August 1, 2009
OREGON, Mo. - A former Tarkio gym teacher and basketball coach is breathing a sigh of relief after being found innocent of sex crime charges Friday evening.
The seven-woman, six-man jury, including one alternate, deliberated for about a half-hour before acquitting Lee A. Rucker, 34, on charges of felony first-degree child molestation, felony sexual misconduct involving a child less than 14, and misdemeanor furnishing pornographic material to a minor.
The trial was held in Holt County on a change of venue from Atchison County, with Circuit Judge Roger Prokes presiding. The decision comes a little more than a year after Mr. Rucker was first arrested on the allegations.
From 2006 to 2008 Mr. Rucker worked for the Tarkio R-I School District, where he taught physical education, served as athletic director and coached girls' and boys' basketball at the middle school and high school levels. He has no prior criminal record.
After more than a year of frustration, Mr. Rucker said he'll be happy to put this case in his past. He is thankful for his family, friends and people he coached who supported him.
"I really don't know what I'm going to do now," he told the News-Press. "My wife and I want to re-collect ourselves and bring our family back to normal."
The third day of the trial allowed the defense to present its case, including testimony from Dr. Phillip Esplin, a renowned forensic clinical psychologist and expert in reviewing and assessing children's statements.
Mr. Esplin has testified in other cases, such as the Michael Jackson trial in 2005.
"It's very rare where he'll find a case that he'll go and testify," Patrick Peters, Mr. Rucker's lawyer, said.
Mr. Esplin's testimony, along with that of several others, served as solid arguments for Mr. Rucker's innocence, Mr. Peters said. The attorney added that he wishes the allegations initially would have been looked into more thoroughly.
"Any of us could have been that person," he said. "You need more investigating before you file charges on somebody."
Mr. Peters said he was sorry that despite the jury's verdict, the allegations put an unnecessary stain on Mr. Rucker's reputation.
"Tarkio lost a great coach and a great person," he said. "It's a sad deal."
Andrew Gaug can be reached
at andrewgaug@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
cheerbs says...
Sad thing is, it will still follow him around. It has tarnished his career.
August 1, 2009 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
Indeed, and In My Opinion he should receive a LARGE monetary settlement, in the 7 figure range for this BLACK mark on his name, AND the fact that he will find it hard to get work.
He SHOULD be re-instated at his Coaching job, after all, he WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY !!! NUF Said !!!!
Steve-O
August 1, 2009 at 4:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
What happens to the individual who filed the false charges?? This DOES happen, people....we've discussed this before. I actually served on a jury in which a man was wronfully accused, and during the trial, it became VERY apparent that he was innocent, and that he was being falsely accused of a terrible crime. When it was all over, it's basically "Sorry.....we made a mistake". Yet, he'd already served time in jail, and his name was already smeared. NOTHING happened to those who smeared him!! Why is that?
August 1, 2009 at 4:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ELH says...
Cases like this are one more reason that news organizations should not publish the names of individuals accused/charged with these types of crimes unless they are convicted. They won't publish the identity of the accuser/"victim" to protect them, but don't hesitate to subject the accused to public outrage and, in some cases, violence.
August 1, 2009 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LibertyOrDeath says...
As frustrating as it may be, our legal system does not offer apologies.
Instead of apologies, what should be considered is the professional careers of each involved of the prosecution and/or investigators. These people must be held accountable for their actions to prevent this ever-growing mentality that someone can be dragged through the mud and if they are innocent all will be well when it certainly is not.
The concept that this man is now somehow entitled to millions of dollars is more than absurd, it's immoral. Tort reform is a hot topic as of late and it should be.
To assess what should happen in favor of the innocent, let's look at his situation.
If he was fired because of the investigation, he should be reinstated by the insistence of the investigators and/or prosecutor. Seeing a now innocent man back at his job is more productive to his career than a large paycheck from the wallets of those who did not investigate or prosecute him; tort does not come from their pockets you see, it comes from ours.
I/we do not owe this man anything except the benefit of the doubt. The schools owe him nothing but his job back and the investigators/prosecutors owe him nothing but efforts to insist his name is clear as the jury has found it to be.
Our judicial system is noble when practiced by noble men. Rarely does anything become more sincere when money is added to the equation.
The team that, by virtue of their job, created a situation in which Mr. Rucker was fired should now do everything in their legal authority to clear this man, up to and including helping to reinstate him as a teacher.
In any scenario, we have to stop worshiping money. It does not fix anything when you're dealing with moral or immoral behavior. If I had a current-event time machine I would go back in time and smack the hot-coffee lady and the judge that awarded her money for her ignorance. There is little doubt that ignorant woman and the ignorant judge opened this can of worms.
Money will not fix your life or your problems.
August 1, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Liberty, read this link and tell me again if you want to "smack the hot-coffee lady and the ignorant judge".
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
August 1, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saturnlady says...
Image how much money he spent for his case, not to mention the stress and his reputation. Yes, he need to demand a large amount of monetary settlement.
August 1, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing.
August 1, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
apmastrangelo says...
A civil action sounds appropriate and would not be surprised to find few in line willing to assist Mr. Rucker.
August 1, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
matt says...
Good comments for the most part above.
These allegations happen all to often, and ruin the careers of public officials.
I wish the two parents could be held liable for these false allegations.
As a former teacher of many years, my question is where were the school administration and Board in this? Usually they turn tail and abandon the teacher.
August 1, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
Hey Liberty, what about all the money this man is out from loss of wages, Attorney fees and other fees associated with defending himself? Forget the fact that for the rest of his life there will still be people who say (behind his back) that he got off on a technicality, or thru some fancy legal maneuver. Forget that people still won't trust him, even though he has been found innocent of all wrong doing. Do you think the next time, and there will always be a next time, that someone makes ANY sort of comment on ANY sort of behavior of his, or even a complete misunderstanding, he will stand accused in the eyes of his colleagues and peers even if nothing comes of it? That is the truth. I work in this field and I know what I am saying. Innocent until proven guilty is no longer the case - wake up! The coffee lady is not to blame, the judicial system is. No one should be awarded for plain ignorance. Also, an accident is an accident and no mountain of money will turn back the clock, But this was a case of false accusal and so it is different. There SHOULD be steep penalty for false allegation. We must fight for victims rights, but not by completely sacrificing the entire Judicial system and it's rules of evidence etc. Take for example parents spanking their own children. It is not against the law in Missouri to spank your child, but do it and watch them take your children so fast it will make your head swim. The powers that be, have decided one SHOULD not do so, and so we have a generation of children who are without morality, afraid of nothing, respecting nothing, Godless, and unstoppable. Just a whisper of any kind of "sexual" abuse, rather true or completely false is enough to get your children removed, you locked up, and legal fees mounting up to Heaven. Liberty, what if it were you? would you be so quick to say, hey Im ok after all that was done to me. Don't mind the legal fees, and it was just a nice vacation from work. HA! I don't believe you are being completely honest if that is your answer. No one knows what that man went through, except him and God.
August 1, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Teeter59 makes a great point...for the rest of Mr. Rucker's life, there will be those who feel he "got away with something". WhoIsJohnGalt is a perfect example of that attitude. I find it interesting that with some people, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't afforded to the accused....unless, of course, THEY happen to be the accused!!
Shame on you WIJG!!!!
August 1, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Actually, it wasn't WhoIsJohnGalt....it was greenman who made that idiotic remark. Sorry WIJG. My apologies to you...
Shame on YOU, greenman.....it's people like you who make a sham out of our legal system....
August 1, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
saturn, others, who exactly should this man sue? Should it be the prosecutors and police? Who should pay .. the officers ... the prosecutor ... the taxpayers ... the alleged victim? If so, think about the ramifications of that? Would you want to report a crime to the police if later you could be sued because a jury failed to find the defendant guilty? Would anyone want to be a prosecutor or a cop if they could be sued personally? Yep, doesn't make sense when you truly think about it.
As to this gentleman's innocence, yes he was found not guilty. He was not found innocent. Perhaps the case should never have been brought. Perhaps it needed to be brought. We all recall the OJ mess. Not guilty in criminal court. Found liable in civil court. Different standards. Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal and preponderance of the evidence in civil court. There is a presumption of innocence in criminal court but none in civil court. So could this gentlemen survive a second trial in civil court? Who knows. Doubt it happens.
August 1, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Thanks for the correction, Pops. I was having a WTF moment there. I have been pilloried more than once in these forums for taking the "wait for the facts" stand.
Far too many in these forums read a headline and make an emotional judgment from there.
August 1, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shocked says...
I agree with greenman. Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing. It only means that they were not able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty. If you did not attend this trial. You have no idea what went on in the court room, and therefore should not voice your opinion if you don't know the facts. I attended the entire trial and have a totally different opinion!!!!
Mistakes can be made that keep the jury from convicting. The defense attorney himself, pointed that out! Just because you find someone not guilty doesn't mean you think they are innocent! You just don't have the evidence to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is a pretty sad world these days when people forget about the children!!!!
August 1, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shocked says...
I need to rephrase part of my last post. What I was trying to say was that the defense attorney pointed out that mistakes were made, not that they kept him from being convicted.
August 1, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
howarddecker says...
greenman and shocked...
shame on both of you. our justice systems gurantees that accused ARE INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. The trial proved this out. So both of you are WRONG and DUMB!
August 1, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shocked says...
howarddecker..
That is your opinion! I have my opinion. Just expressing it like everyone else. Don't see any need to call anyone names.
By the way, were you at the trial???
Maybe you were, I don't know.
August 1, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
Not guilty and innocent are not the same thing. That is neither dumb nor wrong - it's just a fact. A finding of not guilty is based on the standard of reasonable doubt, not a standard of innocence. If absolute innocence were the standard there would never be a guilty verdict, ever. Also, a person who is able to spend a great deal of money is more likely to be found not guilty than someone who is not able to spend a lot of money. Does having money make someone "innocent" or does it make them someone who has a lot of money, and uses it to be found not guilty? I don't have an opinion either way on this particular case, I just like to point out when people are wrong. Now you know.
August 1, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
WhoIsJohnGalt:
One thing I try very hard to do is take ownership when I've made a mistake, and own up to it. Again....I apologize for slamming you for something you didn't say!
August 1, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
greenman and shocked:
I am overwhelmingly appalled at your attitudes toward our justice system, and toward those found innocent in court. With your attitudes, one is convicted when accused...and can NEVER clear his/her name. That's totally unfair, and is absolutely contrary to our legal system.
My personal hope is that neither of you are ever accused, because I ALSO hope that if you are, you are judged with the same measure of intolerance that you have shown in this thread.
Now...for a little education (since both of you have fully demonstrated your need for one!!):
Acquitted -
1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty.
2. to release or discharge (a person) from an obligation.
3. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.).
4. to bear or conduct (oneself); behave.
5. to free or clear (oneself).
Not Guilty (found in a legal dictionary) - 2 : a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Funny thing...beyond a reasonable doubt. The logical opposite would be beyond an UNREASONABLE DOUBT....which is the level to which the two of YOU seem to hold Mr. Rucker. UNREASONABLE!!
August 1, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
pops, then how do you explain the second OJ verdict?
August 1, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
"Acquitted -
1. to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty.
2. to release or discharge (a person) from an obligation.
3. to settle or satisfy (a debt, obligation, claim, etc.).
4. to bear or conduct (oneself); behave.
5. to free or clear (oneself)."
"Not Guilty (found in a legal dictionary) - 2 : a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Sorry Pops, I don't see the word "innocent" in any of the cutting and pasting you did in your post. If anything, you've bolstered my assertions and weakened your own. I'll stick with the education I have, thanks. And thanks again for making my argument that much stronger.
And again, I have no opinion on this case, it's just that innocent and not guilty aren't the same thing. Now go back to berating the justice system because someone you know or can relate to might have been falsely accused of something.
August 1, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I guess what I'm trying to say to ALL of you is that once one is accused, according to your twisted, tiny little minds, one is automatically guilty.
I don't intend to have a war of wits with unarmed individuals......
August 1, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shocked says...
I never said that once one is accused, one is automatically guilty. My point was that just because they found him not guilty, did not mean that they thought he was innocent. It is possible that it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt!
August 1, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
As opposed to an UNREASONABLE DOUBT?? Get real!! What you're SAYING, by your own admission, is that if one is accused, even if found "NOT GUILTY"....there is always a cloud of suspicionl....at least in YOUR mind. What would it take to make you say "Mr. Rucker didn't do it...he's innocent"??
August 1, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shocked says...
I am saying that I was there and because of what I witnessed in the court room, I have formed an opinion. I did not say that I was definetly right! My opinion is that they could not be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. And I believe that I am intitled to my opinion the same as you are.
As far as what it would take for me to say he is innocent......Something different than what I saw and heard in that court room!!!
August 1, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mauibound says...
For those who were not there . . . .
One boy recanted on the stand, saying that the deputy told him to change his story and lie.
The other boy's story kept changing, was refuted by two witnesses, and his "world's worst mom" didn't think anything happened until she didn't get a pay raise 10 days later.
Unbelievable stories and cops telling kids to lie, coupled with Lee Rucker's great reputation as a coach and teacher, led to a verdict by the jury in 30 minutes.
August 1, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hometown_gal says...
I have lived in Tarkio for many years, attended Tarkio R-1 school district for 13 years, my 3 children went to school here also. I have seen alot of things happen thru the years at this school, but this deal rubbed me wrong from the start. I supported Mr and Mrs Rucker from the start. I hate to say that they both are gone from the school district know, what a shame. I wish Lee and Melanie all the luck in the world. Good luck to their children, also. They all lived a life of **** for over a year. Acquitted, can't asked for any better news than that. And NOT GUILTY!! The best two phrases in a court room.
August 1, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saturnlady says...
mauibound and hometown_gal, thank you for your standing. 238er, yes, you are right. He should sue anyone who damaged his career and life, that including the prosecutors, police and the alleged victims, etc. NOT GULITY is not gulity, very clear to me.
August 1, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthbetold says...
I don't have an opinion one way or the other either but someone said earlier that she made a false report. Just because he was found innocent does not mean it was a false report. It means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
August 1, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
pops, my friend, you've not been able to support your argument from the side of logic - in the least. I understand, you've some emotion involved here, and that's fine. However, I object to your throwing the word "wits" around when you have to cut and paste your best argument and it fits my case better than yours.
Now, in a battle of wits, I'll invite you to battle at any time. I fear, however, with your performance concerning the current topic, you aren't ready for that kind of competition - might I suggest "it's your call" - most of the posters on there can't achieve verb agreement, much less a cogent argument. I truly believe that is where your competition lies. Best to you and whatever offspring you claim.
August 1, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
...and, besides the popster spouting it from his "educated" domain, I've never seen the term "unreasonable doubt", ever. And it has no logical cohort in the term reasonable doubt. Perhaps he is on to some new area of law we know nothing about.
I'll keep tabs, to see if the Western (and to those of you who are enrolled in some government financed 9 or 12 month course of study at our local "university", Western should be taken to mean Western hemisphere, not the place where you go each day to study sociolgy or some other course they place you in prior to you flunking out and defaulting on your student loans) system of justice may be overturned by his brilliant (non)observation.
August 1, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
greenman, do you believe if you string enough words together, someone in assume it is a coherent thought?
August 1, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
greenman,
YOU, pal, are the one tossing "reasonable doubt" around as the level of proof that is required in court. I agree....however, considering your bias against Mr. Rucker....and obviously others who have been through the court system....you seemingly feel that level isn't high enough to prove their innocence....only that the evidence against them didn't rise to the "reasonable doubt" level. THAT'S why I asked YOU if you believe in a level of "unreasonable doubt". Maybe I need to be clearer. Maybe you feel it needs to be "absolutely no doubt".
Perhaps, on that note, I can provide you with a bit of advice that I heard years ago. This directly applies to you:
"It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Your reponses were foolish, ill-conceived and illogical. You speak of emotion....not me. I take the court results, and accept them. Thankfully, in this case, the system worked, and Mr. Rucker was found "not guilty"....was "acquitted"....and was declared "innocent". For me, that means he didn't do it!! If you can't understand that.....I guess it's a shame court reports aren't rendered in a pictorial format.....
August 1, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
So Saturn, how about answering my questions. Should the prosecutor pay personally when a witness recants? Should the taxpayers who employ the prosecutor?
Now think this through, who would be a prosecutor if they were personally liable to any defendant found not guilty? No one. So many of your ideas are as half-baked as this one.
August 1, 2009 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
itsallgood says...
make the people that brought these allegations for Mr. Rucker (and any other case in the future) be responsible for court cost if found not guilty...I bet people would be less likely to try to prosecute if they knew they might be liable for the accusees court cost.
August 2, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
pops, back away from the ledge buddy, it'll be ok...you win, ok? Now get a glass of something cool to drink and let your pacemaker reset.
August 2, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Flyfish1 says...
It really makes no difference there will always be those who believe he "got away", his teaching/coaching career is over, there will always be someone who will be able to recall that he was charged and went to trial but can't remember the outcome, just plant the doubt! Even if he moves away, the "charges" will always follow! What a waste!
August 2, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I'm fine, greenman. It had nothing to do with "winning"....it has to do with making people understand their biases, and confront them. Flyfish1 makes a great point....this man's life is finished, for all practicle purposes, thanks to people who not only rush to judgement BEFORE trial, but who refuse to accept the "Not Guilty" verdict AFTER the trial, and still have deep suspicions about the man. Thanks to narrow-minded, short-sighted, irresponsible people, his life is a waste...unfortunately.....
August 2, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greenman says...
pops, I don't have a dog in the race. All I stated was that not guilty and innocent aren't the same thing. And they aren't. You posted legal definitions that support that. For that I was called names and you made judgements concerning my education and intelligence - two things you obviously have no standing on which to form or state an opinion. Your comments here clearly show who and what you are with regard to this issue, I'll let them tell the story. Now, I fully expect you to lash out again in another incoherent post that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm trying to say, and now that I understand your limitations with regard to logical discourse, I can accept that. Take care, and good luck with the anger issues.
August 2, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
catfishjlh says...
That part of Missouri is the last place I would live. I have seen that police force work and PA work, they jump at decisions before really investigating cases. This is one part of our system that the system does not work, too many people are being ran up the railroad tracks before even finishing the tracks. Also be careful driving through that part of Missouri, especially tarkio, they love setting up speed traps.............
August 2, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I'm not lashing out, greenman....only making an observation regarding your ability to comprehend common words. "Not Guilty" means one is not guilty of the crime they've committed. "Innocent" means....one is not guilty of a crime. Can't see the difference. Evidently you, and others like you, like splitting hairs, and intend to force alternative definitions to commonly used English words and terms. My post of definitions support what I am trying to say...not sure how you can pull something else from that....
Additionally, I have no anger issues to work through...but thanks for your concern....
August 2, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
pops, in our legal system not guilty and innocent have two different meanings. Right or wrong that is how it is. Not guilty simply means the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all, nothing more. Innocent means that someone did not commit the act alleged.
These cases involving sex are difficult at all levels. Remember the "recovered memory" hysteria?
August 2, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
OK...I can buy your explanation, 238er. However, let me ask you this.....is there EVER a case in which a defendant is found "Innocent" by a jury of his/her peers, or is the finding "Not Guilty"?
August 2, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saturnlady says...
I believe in JUSTICE FOR ALL, that is America is all about. 238er, I am not a big fan to spend the taxpayer's money to prosecute the prosecutors or police. In this case, there has no justice for Mr. Rucker. If anybody has done the same thing to me, YES, you bet, I will sue anyone who damaged my life or career. I don't know the details of this case, so I am not suggesting that prosecutor was doing anything wrong, maybe or may not, I don't know. From the conversation above, maybe the police did something wrong, again I don't know the details or FACTs, so I am not going to join this conversation. Definitely he should sue those alleged victims and their families.
Back to the topic of prosecutors, yes, President Clinton did something wrong, but was that a crime that Ken Starr needed to spend 40m+ our taxpayer's money to prosecute? This was a moral issue, not a crime. What about the Michael Jackson case? Yes, he was wired, and he did something we common people could not understand, I have to say, I am not a fan of Mr. Jackson, but did the prosecutor have enough evidence that he actually committed a crime? I would say these prosecutors abused their powers, yes; they prosecuted these cases because they were easy targets and because they could, no matter how thin the evidence was.
Back to this town, our prosecutors are eager to prosecute minor misdemeanors, they are busy to put those behind child supports back to jails, but real crimes (drug dealers, bank robberies), nothing happens. I am not defending those people who do not pay child supports, but sending them all to jails, who will be benefit from that? Our taxpayers pay for the jail expenses. Well, maybe some of them have real difficulties, or some of them just had nasty divorces, some just don't want to pay which should be prosecuted. My neighbor reported things were stolen from their house, nothing happened, just a police report was filed, never heard anything since. What about these bank robberies for last two months, did they get caught?
I just think the real prosecutors should weigh into the evidence heavily, since they are powerful, they should be careful. When they file criminal charges, they should have the confidence and enough evidence to prosecute and win. We want them to prosecute the real crimes. Prosecutors and police should hold accountable, like anyone else, if anyone (police or prosecutor) abuses his powers, then should get fired.
I want to ask what the definition of innocent is. Who can say he or she is totally innocent? A lot of time, people just did or said something not quite right (I did not mean you kill someone that sort of things which are crimes), and then they got into troubles. How many teachers now-a-days are afraid of saying something wrong? Not guilty is not guilty; our legal system is not here to morally judge people. Is that good enough for anybody?
As aways, please excuse my English as English is my second language.
August 2, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saturnlady says...
by the way, pops, good posts!
August 2, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Pops, I'm afraid not. I think the closest it gets to that is when the judge throws out the case prior to trial or at the end of the prosecution's case without it going to the jury. Sorry.
August 2, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Yep....I think you're right, 238er. The problem is, the same nay-sayers would say, if the case were tossed out, that the person is STILL possibly guilty...but that the judge tossed it due to a "technicality"....
See, that's my difficulty with all this. With some folks, when one is accused, they're already judged and sentenced, in their minds....no matter what happens, they MUST have bought off the judge, bought off the jury, or bought off the witnesses. There's no WAY the jury could have been right letting them off....
August 2, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TrappinFool says...
pops, there is no such thing as innocent in the criminal justice system. When you go to plead a charge, your choices are guilty or not guilty. You cannot plead innocent. When a trial is tried in front of a judge or jury, a person can only be found guilty or not guilty. A jury or judge can decide if the case was proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "reasonable suspicion". If the finding is anything less than reasonable suspicion then the prosecutor never should have taken the case to trial.
A jury is told that they must believe the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". It isn't 100% certainty and just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean that they are 100% not guilty.
I know nothing about the case and didn't hear any of the trial. My thoughts are, there has to be something there for the prosecutor to believe they can try a case.
August 2, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Trappinfool says "there has to be something there for the prosecutors to believe they can try a case." And that is absolute worst attitude to have. Because, just as some others have pointed out, the accused is damned by the accusation. And anyone that says wait a minute is perceived as sympathetic to child abusers or a fellow traveler.
Read this link and the sublinks from the article. This is Salem in the 1600's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care...
August 2, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TrappinFool says...
WIJG, that is not an attitude, that is a fact! The prosecutor has utmost discretion in a case. The prosecutor can decide not to file any charges that he does not want to. If a guy is shot dead and another man is found standing next to him with a smoking gun and admits to the police that he killed the guy, the prosecutor can decide not to file charges and let the guy walk free if he chooses. The decision to file charges or try a case is solely in the hands of the prosecutor and has no bearing on what anyone else says.
I know what it is like to be falsely accused. Several years ago I was accused of sexual harassment after replying to a statement made by a female (and it was not inappropriate). I was placed on unpaid leave for 10 days while the company did their investigation. They tried everything they could to pin something on me and it wouldn't fit. They brought me back to work and I got a written reprimand for talking when I should have been working. They just had to find something to write me up for to justify my 10 days off without pay. That accusation still costs me to this day when I have to explain any punishment I have received in a job interview.
I feel bad for Mr. Rucker as it will be hard if not impossible for him to find a job from here on out. I also would not fault him at all for filing a civil suit against the "victim's" families. If any blame needs to be placed, it needs to be placed on the prostitutor (or is it prosecutor? Same thing either way!) who has utmost discretion to file charges no matter how simple or complex the case is that is submitted by the investigators.
August 3, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
You do realize you just made my point?
August 3, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TrappinFool says...
No, your point was that it is an attitude! Its a fact that a prosecutor has to feel they have a substantial case. Its an attitude on the prosecutor's side, not mine or yours or anyone elses.
What about the people who believe that OJ and MJ are "innocent"? Give me a break! Anyone who watched any of either proceedings will get their own opinion of the cases. Then when MJ dies he is seen as an idol despite that a grown man admits that he likes to lay in bed with young boys because its fun.
Having not heard any of the Rucker trial, I can't say for sure, IMO, if the guy is guilty or not so I just leave it at that. If he is guilty and just paid for the right attorney then he doesn't deserve special treatment! If not, then I sympathize with him.
August 3, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
I have one last comment to make. IF someone makes a false allegation against you (as in the child that got caught lying) that family should be liable. I know it weakens the system for kids that tell the truth, but sadly we are throwing our judicial system on the chopping block in favor of what kids say. BEFORE you blast me, I work in this field. BEFORE you blast this listen a moment. What if it were you? Perfectly innocent and some neighbor kid, who is messed up for God knows why emotionally says....HE TOUCHED ME. BEFORE you can blink an eye...you are arrested, charged, and defending yourself. Now that is the truth. On the flipside. My 6 year old daughter was molested by her step dad. She told my sister. They told me. Before I lost my mind, I asked him if he did it. He admitted the whole thing. I called Police, they treated us like dogs. We pressed on. The police went to his door, asked if he did it, he said no. They said will you take a polygraph, he said no. Thank you have a nice day. I was told not enough evidence to charge him. So, I got him on the phone, and I taped the conversation. He again admitted in full detail what he did. I took the tape to the police, they told me that they could arrest me for taping him. (not true in Mo you can tape someone if your reason is not to blackmail them but to perserve the truth and as long as one person knew the call was being taped and I did) BUT the cop who I spoke to, didn't know that I guess. I cited that he told me he did it, couldn't they use that? They said no, as a wife cannot testify against her husband (also crap, but I was young). Short story? He got away with it. There was at that time a statute of limitations on sexual abuse and by the time I found out the cops were WRONG, it was too late. Now, he is guilty as sin, but got away with it. Does that change my previous view? NO it does not. because the law is all we have. Some people WILL fall through the cracks, BUT we must keep the rules of evidence in place and not JUST take the word of any child every single time as fact. Sad but we cannot because they do make mistakes, they do mess up, they do misunderstand and they do ...believe it or not LIE. So Mr. Rucker, I will pray for you, because the justice system did not do what it was supposed to do for you. Most of the time it is the investigators at the Children's Div level that make the first mistakes, but the prosecutor's office should leave no stone unturned when investigating on their own. What happened to my family would not happen today. But I feel no sense of peace at that. Either way, it SHOULD have been investigated better.
August 5, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Teeter, thank you for you post. Finally, someone who agrees. I've tried to say this very thing and it falls on deaf ears (or eyes, in this case!). Anyway, What's unfortunate, most of the time, it's because of people just like many in this thread who are unwilling to give a person the benefit of the doubt. Once you're accused, you're guilty. Even if you're found "NOT GUILTY"....to them, obviously you did SOMETHING or the allegations wouldn't have even been made. My only hope is that these people never have the false accusations made against THEM!! It DOES happen, people. Kids....even as teenagers, don't understand the full ramifications of such an accusation...how it destroys entire lives.
August 5, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10377586 says...
So if the families feel the verdict unacceptable will they now file civil charges? I don't know anyone involved but since there was someone there that had a different opinion and the burden of proof is much lower in a civil case......
Just thinking out loud.
August 5, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
calibro says...
Mr. Rucker does have recourse in this case. He should and will sue the Tarkio School District for unlawfully forcing him out of his position. The school district is insured and will more than likely settle on an agreed amount. I would additionally approach civil litigation against the families that pressed the charges in the first place and get awarded on that front as well.
August 7, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stebob1 says...
I sat through the trial and know Mr. Rucker personally!! One of the things that was not mentioned ( and could not be) since it was a court of law was the fact that he "passed" a lie detector test and the parents of the kids "refused" to let their kids take the test!! What does this say??? I have no doubt that he is innocent. Bob Bruner
August 7, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stebob1 says...
I would hope that Mr. Rucker files suit against the parents and the school district. I don't feel he will ever be able to get a job in education, even though he was found not guilty. I notice some of the comments above refer to being not guilty is not the same as innocent! I would suggest those type of people get their head out where the sun is shinning!!! Also,(the comment) where there is smoke there is fire. Come on and get real!! A teacher is at a great disadvantage in this type of situation. You can win -- but you still lose.
August 7, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dges says...
I know of 2 abuse cases that were screwed up by the system. the one that was guilty never ended up court. but the one that was innocent ended up on the sex offenders list, and his daughter that was suppose to have been abused by him moved in with her dad when she became of legal age ,and also has 5 children that live there also.. sounds like shes really scared of the man whose life was nearly ruined because of the allegation. DOSENT IT?
August 8, 2009 at 6:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
calibro says...
I was at the trial and I can tell you (SHOCKED) that the case was decided even before the defense stated their case. The accusers stepped all over themselves in their testimony. One accuser's parent even changed their story three times on the stand!! It is sad that innocent teachers must endure this type of career ending event because of bitter scorned parents. I'm not forgetting the children in this case, but the parents of those children are!
BTW, I spoke to a juror after the case and this person did say that most if not all jurors were completely decided after the prosecution stated their case. A case built on lies and deception. Believe it or not,the accusers did win. They got Rucker and his family removed from the community and they ruined Lee's career. However, in their victory, they have marked their children, FOREVER, as the kids that made up the story. Parents of the Year -- I think not!
August 11, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlie1 says...
That area is and will always be about making a name for yourself if your a prosecutor.Plain and simple.I have had freinds who have went through loads of crap all because of that.And that includes St.Joseph.All there concerned about is getting in the News Papers.I also feel to a certain degree that the police department in St.Joseph is the same way.
August 11, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gr8skp says...
I have worked in Tarkio, Missouri since 1996. I have known the Ruckers since they moved to Tarkio three years ago, and the Martins, one of the two victim families, for 13 years. I was also at Lee Rucker's child molestation trial in Oregon, Missouri. I would like to offer a few observations.
Keep in mind, being found "not guilty" by a jury in America does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent. Guilty people successfully evade conviction in our court system and "get away with it" every day. Remember that O. J. Simpson was found "not guilty" by a jury. Is there doubt in anyone's mind that he was guilty?
There were noticeable similarities between the O. J. Simpson trial and Lee Rucker's trial. Rucker's slick, big-city, very expensive, but brilliant defense attorney simply out-lawyered the young, relatively inexperienced, small-town prosecutor. It was also obvious that the Atchison County Sheriff's Department had mad serious mistakes in preparing the case for trial, which contributed to Rucker's "not guilty" verdict. As happens all too often in America, Rucker got off because he had money--enough to afford a very good lawyer, at least. Too bad the victim families weren't given a choice of prosecutors or law enforcement personnel; the trial might very well have had a different outcome.
August 31, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gr8skp says...
A big deal was made during the trial about the amount of time that passed after the molestation incidents and before the victims came forward to file charges-a week. Given the shame, fear, and uncertainty that a molestation victim experiences, waiting much longer than a week is not unusual in such cases. I personally know three people who were sexually abused more than 30 years ago, and not one of them ever notified authorities of what had happened. I also found it ironic that Rucker's attorney kept reminding the jury that it's virtually impossible for anyone to remember all the details about something that happened a year ago. Yet he frequently pressed the victims for such details, and he was the one responsible for postponing the trial for a year!
During the trial, the two victim families were also accused of fabricating the charges against Rucker with the two families working together in some bizarre conspiracy to ruin his life. The victim children in this case, and their parents, were not "out to get" Rucker. Rather, they all liked, admired, and respected him. I can't imagine anyone going through, and especially putting their children through, the overwhelming shame and nerve-wracking fear of testifying in open court in order to settle some imaginary grudge. There are much easier ways to hurt someone or trash their reputation. And knowing the Martins as long as I have and as well as I do, there is no way this upstanding, close, loving, helpful, generous, and-until this happened to them-happy family could possibly be capable of such a selfish, stupid act.
The thing that appalled me the most while watching Rucker's trial is that criminal defense attorneys are now allowed to cross-examine each of the child victims as a hostile witness! That was one of the saddest, hardest, most gruelling things to watch that I have ever experienced. No doubt this relatively new development will contribute to two things: (1) fewer victims being unwilling to step forward and prosecute child molesters, and consequently, (2) more child molesters continuing to molest and get away with it, with little fear of being caught, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. From now on, good luck keeping your loved ones-particularly your children and grandchildren-safe.
August 31, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jimthomeface says...
gr8skp, I don't know what kind of vendetta or smear campaign you're running against Mr. Rucker, but it was proven he was not guilty. The children admitted to being coached and one of the cops admitted to changing her story and lying. He was not guilty. Not at all. Quit trying to take out your insecurities on a good man.
August 31, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )