10 accused, 1 conviction: What went w...

10 accused, 1 conviction: What went wrong?

There are 38 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Sep 7, 2007, titled 10 accused, 1 conviction: What went wrong?. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

In the nearly 18 months since Carl Brizzi stood before news cameras to announce sweeping allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct against 10 workers at Marion County's juvenile lockup, prosecutors clinched ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
westsider

United States

#1 Sep 8, 2007
dont you think the girls are scared to say anything else because of where they are, no matter what these are kids and you are to protect them now who will.these are trouble kids and didnt deserve what happen to them in state custdy.so now these people will get a break what will happen to the grils now,keep an on all the girls so this dont happen to know one .
what went wrong

Cincinnati, OH

#2 Sep 8, 2007
The headline presumes guilt before innocence. What went wrong? Perhaps nothing at all - maybe the system worked the way it should, exonerating the men.
Robert Jordan

Indianapolis, IN

#3 Sep 8, 2007
Nothing went wrong.The election is over. Many of the high profile cases before the election end up just like this after the election. Prosecutors are politicians like the rest of their scumbag politicians. It just that they have more power over individual citizens than most. They abuse it too.
mayhew

Indianapolis, IN

#4 Sep 8, 2007
why are there male guards over female's?
sweetie

Ashburn, VA

#6 Sep 8, 2007
Perhaps had Carl employed trained child interviewers to conduct the original interviews, had he used experienced sex crimes prosecutors to watch and evaluate the statements and other evidence, and used trained sex crimes detectives to seek statements from the accused persons, this would not have happened. Carl claims to have used "Seasoned" investigators, but if they aren't sex crimes specialists, all of their other experience is largely useless.

The main problem with this case comes in the first line "Carl Brizzi stood before cameras." If Carl spent half of the time investigating (or having trained prosecutors investigate) that he spent on his press appearances, he wouldn't be in this mess.

It's too bad that the Star is choosing to focus on these mis-steps by the Brizzi adminsitration only after the election.

Since: Dec 06

Peru, Indiana

#7 Sep 8, 2007
You've got to get sworn testimonies under oath. Without it you have nothing so, they had nothing. Brizzi screwed up as it seems he has many times in the past. The only difference this time is the screw up didn't fit his style.

His conviction rate is so high among the poor and blacks but corporate white guy nothing. Seems he only wins the easy ones, the ones that are so obvious.

Time for a change in government.
question

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Sep 8, 2007
Isnt a concern here a conflict?Would it be a conflict if the prosecutors wife was employed by a key witness in this case? also employed by the agency that oversess these employees? How much money was collected by the brizzi family during any period of this investigation by the FSSA department? Shouldnt there have been a recusal of some kind? Maybe that would not have been possible because the media attention Mr Brizzi sought before the election would not have then been availalbe. THe star needs to look into this matter
THIS N THAT

United States

#9 Sep 8, 2007
Has anyone actually seen Brizzi's diploma and law license? I'm just saying...
What

United States

#10 Sep 8, 2007
FSSA doesnít run the Juvenile Detention Center the judges in Marion County do. Bring FSSA into the discussion just doesnít make sense. If any state agency was involved it was Department of Child Services, which from early 2005 has been itís own separate agency.

Since: Sep 07

Mooresville

#11 Sep 8, 2007
This is just plain awful. If one of the guys plead guilty, then you would think that the investigation would be taken further. Maybe the girls were threatened by other guards or girls in the school if they went to court and testified.
concerned

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Sep 8, 2007
It seems there IS something wrong witht the system if there is nothing in place to protect the workers AND the girls from accusations or attacks.
True Victim- Defendant

Marysville, OH

#13 Sep 8, 2007
First of all- in response to some of the comments being made- anytime you are dealing with a juvenile kid that has been in trouble with the law the majority of their life, it is the responsibility of any educated individual to evaluate the credibility of that person before passing judgement on a man that has never been in trouble in his entire life.
In these cases, the prosecutors and detectives took the word of severely messed up juveniles as the truth without having any physical evidence or checking into any of the stories they told. For instance, Harvey was not even in the state of Indiana when the girl said she was with him. Did the police ask him where he was on those dates before filing charges- NO! The alleged victim was only able to give dates for two instances (resulting in half of the charges against him) and for both of those times, Harvey had an alibi, which the police neglected to ask for. Both of these instances supposedly took place in the juvenile center, however, if they would have checked his work records they would have seen that he was not even working those days. Before arrests were made, Harvey's attorney offered to let the police interview him, but they refused to talk to Harvey with an attorney present. If detectives would have followed through and asked the questions they needed to ask, it could have saved Harvey a lot of pain, money and time. Instead the detective, Russell Burns and staff was more concerned about where Harvey lives and what color his wife is, than with the facts of the case- making the comment, "We don't live out there, you must be married to a white woman." Why do people assume that a black person living outside of the big city has to either be married to a white person, or be a drug dealer. He failed to consider the fact that Harvey was an college educated person with degrees in criminal justice and political science, and just jumped to the stereotype of interracial marriage.
Society tells minorities that if they get their education, stay in school, and stay out of trouble- then the justice system will give them a fair shot and their word will mean something, but reality is your word means nothing if it doesn't serve the purpose of the prosecutor going for re-election and the police officers under him. And for those of you out there who want to tell minorities that the system is fair, and these cases weren't politically driven, you can't. The prosecutor knew before the election that Harvey had an alibi for half of his charges, but waited almost a year before dropping any of the charges. He knew the victim didn't want to cooperate after she said under oath that the police made her statement up and she didn't remember talking to them. I wonder if they will believe her accusations against them the way they believe her accusations against Harvey?
AMB

Marysville, OH

#14 Sep 8, 2007
mayhew wrote:
why are there male guards over female's?
Male guards are not allowed to be alone with females in the juvenile center- that is one detail that the investigators could not explain. The girls were making things up.
Rob

Peoria, IL

#15 Sep 8, 2007
Brizzi did the same thing to Officer Adam Chappell. If it gets him TV time he doesn't care if he has a case or not. The case against Chappell will end up the same way. To bad that Officer Chappell will never recover his good name. And to think that I voted for him. Never again Carl.
Johnny B Goode

United States

#16 Sep 8, 2007
The system worked. Our system of proof beyond reasonable doubt was founded on this principle: Better to let 10 guilty go free than to jail one innocent. If you are accused you'd want the same high burden for the State.

This time maybe we let a few guilty ones, pardon the pun, get off. One was convicted; something happend at the facitly and some positive changes are being made.

It is easier to do the crime than to get he conviction. Child molestors are sneaky.
Interesting

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Sep 8, 2007
Well there are better changes and improvements at the Center now. Hopefully with all of the new security in place and better staff, the County won't have these issues in the future. Let's just move forward please.
question

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Sep 8, 2007
What makes a point. Maybe Dept of Child Services is involved. Isnt that the same group that has paid Brizzi's family - didnt his wife have a contract directlyl with James Payne who is head of that agency AND was one of the defendant's bosses, so a key witness. SERIOUS conflict it seems to me
MIke Nifong

Indianapolis, IN

#19 Sep 8, 2007
Is there a similarity here of Brizzi to that prosecutor? Seems so Disgrace
toJohnnyBGood

Indianapolis, IN

#20 Sep 8, 2007
You makea good point IF the prosecutor had done some basic things that any fool knows, like get a sworn statment from at least ONE witness. Even the law professor knows that. Either Brizzi didnt get a sworn statement cuz he's incompetent or no witness would provide a sworn statement. If it's the latter, brizzi should not have "hammed" it up in the media the way he did. Also, a big piece of this story is Brizzi knew the state had already conducted an investigation in 2000 and concluded there was no wrongdoing.
NO question this was a publicity stunt. That's my problem with this mess
question

Indianapolis, IN

#21 Sep 8, 2007
I would like to know:

1. after the date charges were filed, how long did any Brizzi family member collect money from either or both FSSA or Dept of Child Protection Services and how much was collected?

2. Was James Payne the former boss of the juvenile director and if so a witness who was or should have been interviewed for this case?

3. Is James Payne head of one or both FSSA or Dept of Child Protection Services and therefore directly a funder of the monies paid to the brizi family members?

6. Does whatever agency or agencies that paid the Brizzi family money during the investigation fund, manage or otherwise have any inovlvement with the employees that were charged?

IS THERE A CONFLICT HERE?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Clayton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
help Sat help 1
toa Apr 28 Idefinitelyknow 2
Gregg Stephenson, YRC Mar '16 Yes 1
News Bill tightens redevelopment funds use Mar '16 For Real 2
Dustin Vanhook (Jul '15) Mar '16 Dustinvanhook 2
Nicepak (Dec '14) Feb '16 HHM 2
What do locals think of Grey Bros. (Sep '15) Feb '16 HHM 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Clayton Mortgages