Bond reduced for Warren Central rape ...

Bond reduced for Warren Central rape suspect

There are 87 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from May 15, 2007, titled Bond reduced for Warren Central rape suspect. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

A Marion Superior Court judge reduced the bond today for a Warren Central High School student held on charges he raped another student.

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

Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#73 May 16, 2007
Former Indy Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
There has to be some evidence to establish "Probable Cause:, which is required to arrest a person and take them to court. Also the Judge need probable cause to set bond and keep him in jail until bond is paid.
Wrong. No actual evidence is required to arrest someone in cases like these. All you need is an accusation. That's sufficient for an arrest and charges being filed. Scary, isn't it?
Someone

Euclid, OH

#74 May 16, 2007
Hey TEACHER, MARION COUNTY EDUCATOR is just the kind of worthless teacher that I was talking to you about earlier. I know, let's fry him. Then we can have the trial. I guess we'd have to apologize if he was found innocent, but who cares.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#75 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. No actual evidence is required to arrest someone in cases like these. All you need is an accusation. That's sufficient for an arrest and charges being filed. Scary, isn't it?
Nope, probable cause is a requirement. Apparently the bruises and scratches were the probable cause. If not for probable cause any one could be arrested at the whim of a police officer. Therefore, it is not that scary because without probable cause there would be a Constitutiuonal rights problem.

If there was no probable cause the case would go to the detectives to follow up.
when evid rule

United States

#76 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. No actual evidence is required to arrest someone in cases like these. All you need is an accusation. That's sufficient for an arrest and charges being filed. Scary, isn't it?
Remember the physical evidence? Bruises on neck and wrists, students seeing him carry her off in the hall, possible video of him wrestling with her in the hall/gym, etc. Plus, just wait for the dna to come out (so to speak.) He be done!
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#77 May 16, 2007
when evid rule wrote:
<quoted text>Remember the physical evidence? Bruises on neck and wrists, students seeing him carry her off in the hall, possible video of him wrestling with her in the hall/gym, etc. Plus, just wait for the dna to come out (so to speak.) He be done!
I've seen no actual proof of any of that, other than a short statement in one of the stories about bruising on the wrists (which doesn't necessarily mean that someone has been raped). All the rest were postings on this forum (which are rumors and hearsay). People read stuff like that and immediately file it in their minds as "fact". Prove it (a "possible video"?!? Come on! Unless you've SEEN it, then pipe down and stop feeding rumors). As in police reports, official statements, etc. Until an investigation is done, none of this is "fact". DNA is helpful, but also not foolproof. Remember that DNA transfer occurs during consensual sex as well.

I'm not saying that all of the things you mention aren't possibilities. But at this point, it's just rumor. Look at the FACTS when they come out and then come to your own conclusion. I'm not about to rush to convict someone when I haven't seen any actual facts to prove the accusation. I hope all of you people who are in such a rush to judgment on this are faced with a false accusation against you someday...
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#78 May 16, 2007
Former Indy Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, probable cause is a requirement. Apparently the bruises and scratches were the probable cause. If not for probable cause any one could be arrested at the whim of a police officer. Therefore, it is not that scary because without probable cause there would be a Constitutiuonal rights problem.
If there was no probable cause the case would go to the detectives to follow up.
Nope, that's not correct -- it's not a requirement. I'm not saying that they may not have had "probable cause" in THIS case. I have no idea if they did or they didn't. In general though, you don't need it before you arrest and charge someone. Anything that involves an accusation by a minor does not require it. An accusation is all you need for an arrest and filing of charges. Evidence or probable cause not necessary...they've got to provide that to get an indictment (although indictments have been granted without any evidence whatsoever....but theoretically you DO need evidence to get an indictment), but not for the arrest and filing of charges.
Police Officer

Covington, KY

#79 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. No actual evidence is required to arrest someone in cases like these. All you need is an accusation. That's sufficient for an arrest and charges being filed. Scary, isn't it?
Jane, you're completely and totally wrong, period. In ANY criminal case, probable cause is required to arrest somebody. Which means that there is SOME evidence of a crime occurring, and that the case is not just "he said vs. she said."

We can deduce from the fact that he was arrested so quickly that there was an accusation of something with enough evidence to convince the officers/detectives on scene that Mike Bell PROBABLY raped the victim.

Where do you get your information that "no evidence is required in cases like these?"
Police Officer

Covington, KY

#80 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's not correct -- it's not a requirement. I'm not saying that they may not have had "probable cause" in THIS case. I have no idea if they did or they didn't. In general though, you don't need it before you arrest and charge someone. Anything that involves an accusation by a minor does not require it. An accusation is all you need for an arrest and filing of charges. Evidence or probable cause not necessary...they've got to provide that to get an indictment (although indictments have been granted without any evidence whatsoever....but theoretically you DO need evidence to get an indictment), but not for the arrest and filing of charges.
Jane, you're out of your mind. There is "probable cause exemption" for juvenile victim cases. Show me ANY part of the Indiana or United States constitution which says that juveniles only need accuse somebody of something for an arrest to be made?

You're wrong, period, end of story.

That is EXACTLY what probable cause protects people from. There HAS to be probable cause for an arrest, it can't just be a juvenile saying "my dad hit me" and then an arrest. There MUST be enough evidence, corroborating statements, physical signs that would lead a reasonable, neutral and detached person to conclude that a crime occurred.

ANY arrest requires probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, in any circumstance. The accusation by a juvenile is not, itself, enough to arrest and charge somebody.
Police Officer

Covington, KY

#81 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's not correct -- it's not a requirement. I'm not saying that they may not have had "probable cause" in THIS case. I have no idea if they did or they didn't. In general though, you don't need it before you arrest and charge someone. Anything that involves an accusation by a minor does not require it. An accusation is all you need for an arrest and filing of charges. Evidence or probable cause not necessary...they've got to provide that to get an indictment (although indictments have been granted without any evidence whatsoever....but theoretically you DO need evidence to get an indictment), but not for the arrest and filing of charges.
Additionally Jane, any person under arrest in the United States has the right to go before a judge to have him rule on whether or not there was probable cause for them to be arrested. I can assure you that going before the judge with "well, the kid said this happened, but I have no supporting documentation or evidence, just the word and accusation of the child" would get your case thrown out in blink of an eye.

“Stupid People Amuse Me”

Since: May 07

B.F.E.

#82 May 16, 2007
I sure hope wrote:
that IF the story falls apart and it turns out that NOTHING happened (like the Duke case) that all the people on here saying "string up the pice of s--t" will come back here and admit that they were wrong.
Don't hold your breath on that one.

As a victim of rape myself when I was 18, I hope she is being truthful. It makes it harder for any girl/woman to report once false accusations make media headlines (as if it isn't hard enough anyway) Attitudes of some posters on here are what keeps many (like myself) from ever telling anyone in the first place. I didn't even tell my parents until I was 32 years old. Top that off with the irreparable damage she has done to this young mans future if she is lying... it's an awful thought.

I don't see how this is a racial thing, either. It isn't his race that made this story popular.. it was more WHERE the alleged crime occurred. I am sure if he were white, and allegedly raped a girl in a school hallway.. we'd still be hearing about it. It would still be a "newsworthy" crime.

I will wait until the case is tried and a jury decides his guilt or innocence before passing my own judgment.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#83 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen no actual proof of any of that, other than a short statement in one of the stories about bruising on the wrists (which doesn't necessarily mean that someone has been raped). All the rest were postings on this forum (which are rumors and hearsay). People read stuff like that and immediately file it in their minds as "fact". Prove it (a "possible video"?!? Come on! Unless you've SEEN it, then pipe down and stop feeding rumors). As in police reports, official statements, etc. Until an investigation is done, none of this is "fact". DNA is helpful, but also not foolproof. Remember that DNA transfer occurs during consensual sex as well.
I'm not saying that all of the things you mention aren't possibilities. But at this point, it's just rumor. Look at the FACTS when they come out and then come to your own conclusion. I'm not about to rush to convict someone when I haven't seen any actual facts to prove the accusation. I hope all of you people who are in such a rush to judgment on this are faced with a false accusation against you someday...
Jane, the police do not publish all of the information or evidence they may have. You can be sure there was PROBABLE CAUSE to effect an arrest. The alleged perp is then taken to Court, in front of a judge, for a probable cause hearing. The Judge decides if there is enough probable csuse to continue with prosecution. I would imagine the case will go to the Grand Jury also.

I can promise you that because you didn't read it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#84 May 16, 2007
Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that's not correct -- it's not a requirement. I'm not saying that they may not have had "probable cause" in THIS case. I have no idea if they did or they didn't. In general though, you don't need it before you arrest and charge someone. Anything that involves an accusation by a minor does not require it. An accusation is all you need for an arrest and filing of charges. Evidence or probable cause not necessary...they've got to provide that to get an indictment (although indictments have been granted without any evidence whatsoever....but theoretically you DO need evidence to get an indictment), but not for the arrest and filing of charges.
Jane, I am not going to argue this with you. You are totally incorrect. You said your read about bruises and marks on the victims wrists. That Jane, is PROBABLE CAUSE.
Maybe there is an Attorney who can answer the question.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#85 May 16, 2007
Police Officer wrote:
<quoted text>
Additionally Jane, any person under arrest in the United States has the right to go before a judge to have him rule on whether or not there was probable cause for them to be arrested. I can assure you that going before the judge with "well, the kid said this happened, but I have no supporting documentation or evidence, just the word and accusation of the child" would get your case thrown out in blink of an eye.
Exactly, that is why police don't arrest without Probable Cause. Not only would that open the door for civil rights violations, but discredit the police officer and the department.

I appears, from what I read, he has had his probable cause hearing and the bond was reduced. I would think the Grand Jury would be next.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#86 May 16, 2007
Police Officer wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, you're completely and totally wrong, period. In ANY criminal case, probable cause is required to arrest somebody. Which means that there is SOME evidence of a crime occurring, and that the case is not just "he said vs. she said."
We can deduce from the fact that he was arrested so quickly that there was an accusation of something with enough evidence to convince the officers/detectives on scene that Mike Bell PROBABLY raped the victim.
Where do you get your information that "no evidence is required in cases like these?"
Thanks Police Officer, good to see you back.
Former Indy Citizen

Cincinnati, OH

#87 May 16, 2007
Police Officer wrote:
<quoted text>
Additionally Jane, any person under arrest in the United States has the right to go before a judge to have him rule on whether or not there was probable cause for them to be arrested. I can assure you that going before the judge with "well, the kid said this happened, but I have no supporting documentation or evidence, just the word and accusation of the child" would get your case thrown out in blink of an eye.
Also there is a very short time period in which the arrestee has to be taken to Court. Cases have been lost because the time period was missed.
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#88 May 17, 2007
Former Indy Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Also there is a very short time period in which the arrestee has to be taken to Court. Cases have been lost because the time period was missed.
I am having trouble posting, so I apologize if these are posted more than once....

OK, let me try to respond to all of these attacks from "Police Officer" and "Former Indy Citizen" at once...

First of all, I know these things from personal experience. Someone close to me was the victim of a false accusation so I've done a LOT of research into this and, quite frankly, I know a lot more than I care to about these things.

In general, there can be a discrepancy between what is actually written in the law and how it is interpreted / applied by police. They are very open to interpretation and can be defended as such.

Each jurisdiction has different rules regarding when an individual can be placed under arrest, but all state that there must be "probable cause". Treto-Haro, 287 F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 2002) articulated the probable cause standard:

<quote>The uncorroborated statements by a victim can be probable cause that a crime occurred. The victim's statement does not have to refer to an actual episode of violence or abuse. It can relate her fear or expectation of some future act of violence or abuse by the abuser.</quote>

This says that probable cause may be based on the unsupported and unproven statements or speculation of what someone might do in the future. Allen Cowling, defense strategist and consultant who specializes in false allegation cases states:

<quote>A police officer can arrest you, without a warrant, if they "see" you committing a crime or if they have "probable cause" to believe that you have committed a crime. All it takes is one person making a criminal complaint against you, without any corroboration, to give the police "probable cause" to arrest.</quote>

An eye witness statement that he or she saw a crime committed or was the victim of a crime is generally sufficient to establish probable cause. Again...I'm not saying that in THIS case they didn't have anything more than an accusation. I have no idea (because I know very well that they don't publish everything that they have, thank you very much). Point is that you don't NEED anything other than an accusation to arrest someone. Legally and in writing, you might, but in practice that's not what happens.
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#89 May 17, 2007
...Previous post continued...

Example: In Mitchell vs City of Tulsa (No. 02-5044), the court ruled that there was probable cause to arrest. The background of the case: a woman called police and stated that she witnessed Mitchell abusing a child in the parking lot outside of a grocery store. When police arrived at Mitchell's home, he admitted having been at the grocery store. Police told him he had been accused of child abuse and he was placed under arrest. The child was examined and no marks on the body were observed. Police removed Mitchell from the house and booked him into the Tulsa County Jail for felony child abuse. The court ruled that was enough for "probable cause". Which was nothing more than an accusation. So your point of a judge throwing out a case in "the blink of an eye" based on insufficient probable cause for arrest is bunk. It could (and should) happen, yes...but here's an example where it didn't.

I can go on with further examples if you'd like...the point is that what constitutes "probable cause" is VERY open to interpretation....and can most certainly be defined, interpreted, and defended as an accusation ALONE.

As for the timing issue....legally, you have six months from the time of an arrest from when you have to indict someone (or else the charges must be dropped). That's the "law", meant to protect people from an investigation dragging out forever and people having to put their lives on hold. However, in reality these investigations often drag out for longer. Delays can result from any number of reasons; crowded court calendars; busy prosecutors or delays in getting documents from the prosecutor or police, etc. Also, it is usually not in the best interests of defendants to push the issue (when the time period lapses to > six months) because a prosecutor will then push for an indictment just to avoid having to drop the charges. So even though the LAW is that an indictment must occur within six months, that's not necessarily what actually happens. There are ways they can get around that, and they do. I'm not saying that this is rampant, I think probably most do get resolved within six months. But in cases where an accusation was completely false and the prosecutor / police made a huge stink about the arrest initially in the media.....which they find out later to be untrue.....they want to put as much distance between the media attention and the eventual outcome as possible to try to minimize them looking foolish.

That enough proof for you? I stand by what I've been saying all along, as it is true. They MAY have had more than just an accusation in THIS case....however, my point is that you don't NEED anything more than that to arrest someone. So you're wrong. The law might SAY you need it, but the definition of what actually constitutes it is VERY open to interpretation.
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#90 May 17, 2007
Former Indy Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Also there is a very short time period in which the arrestee has to be taken to Court. Cases have been lost because the time period was missed.
Sorry, having problems with posting, trying again...

OK, let me try to respond to all of these attacks from "Police Officer" and "Former Indy Citizen" at once...

First of all, I know these things from personal experience. Someone close to me was the victim of a false accusation so I've done a LOT of research into this and, quite frankly, I know a lot more than I care to about these things.

In general, there can be a discrepancy between what is actually written in the law and how it is interpreted / applied by police. They are very open to interpretation and can be defended as such.

Each jurisdiction has different rules regarding when an individual can be placed under arrest, but all state that there must be "probable cause". Treto-Haro, 287 F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 2002) articulated the probable cause standard:

<quote>The uncorroborated statements by a victim can be probable cause that a crime occurred. The victim's statement does not have to refer to an actual episode of violence or abuse. It can relate her fear or expectation of some future act of violence or abuse by the abuser.</quote>

This says that probable cause may be based on the unsupported and unproven statements or speculation of what someone might do in the future. Allen Cowling, defense strategist and consultant who specializes in false allegation cases states:

<quote>A police officer can arrest you, without a warrant, if they "see" you committing a crime or if they have "probable cause" to believe that you have committed a crime. All it takes is one person making a criminal complaint against you, without any corroboration, to give the police "probable cause" to arrest.</quote>

An eye witness statement that he or she saw a crime committed or was the victim of a crime is generally sufficient to establish probable cause. Again...I'm not saying that in THIS case they didn't have anything more than an accusation. I have no idea (because I know very well that they don't publish everything that they have, thank you very much). Point is that you don't NEED anything other than an accusation to arrest someone. Legally and in writing, you might, but in practice that's not what happens.
Police Officer

Covington, KY

#91 May 17, 2007
Jane, I have been an officer of the law for 20 years, I have a masters degree in criminal justice and have studied case law for my entire career. The uncorroborated statement of one is NOT enough to place somebody under arrest. Period. Cases where this happens are quickly thrown out and result in civil lawsuits in the MILLIONS of dollars. Simply going to the police and saying "this person hit me" and then the police arresting the person is NOT how it works. Jane, if you call the police and say that you have been beaten up and say it was your next door neighbor who did it, unless he admits to it, or unless you have a witness or unless you're visibly bruised and beaten...he's not going to be arrested. It's your word against his.

I fail to see how you can argue with Former Indy Citizen...a former police officer and myself, a 20 year veteran of the profession. I deal with crime EVERYDAY, I deal with people reporting being victims EVERYDAY and you simply CANNOT arrest somebody based on the uncorroborated statements of another. The only time where you can come close, is a domestic battery case...where society has placed such a low burden of proof on men who batter their wives...often times it takes a small amount of evidence (i.e. red marks) to build your probable cause of domestic battery.

I appreciate your research Jane, but simply put, you are wrong, in the law, in common practice, in reality. Laws are being passed in this country and case law is being handed down that is diminishing the probable cause standard...but it is not now, nor has it ever been.....one persons accusations with no supporting evidence.
Jane

Indianapolis, IN

#92 May 18, 2007
Police Officer wrote:
Jane, I have been an officer of the law for 20 years, I have a masters degree in criminal justice and have studied case law for my entire career. The uncorroborated statement of one is NOT enough to place somebody under arrest. Period. Cases where this happens are quickly thrown out and result in civil lawsuits in the MILLIONS of dollars. Simply going to the police and saying "this person hit me" and then the police arresting the person is NOT how it works. Jane, if you call the police and say that you have been beaten up and say it was your next door neighbor who did it, unless he admits to it, or unless you have a witness or unless you're visibly bruised and beaten...he's not going to be arrested. It's your word against his.
I fail to see how you can argue with Former Indy Citizen...a former police officer and myself, a 20 year veteran of the profession. I deal with crime EVERYDAY, I deal with people reporting being victims EVERYDAY and you simply CANNOT arrest somebody based on the uncorroborated statements of another. The only time where you can come close, is a domestic battery case...where society has placed such a low burden of proof on men who batter their wives...often times it takes a small amount of evidence (i.e. red marks) to build your probable cause of domestic battery.
I appreciate your research Jane, but simply put, you are wrong, in the law, in common practice, in reality. Laws are being passed in this country and case law is being handed down that is diminishing the probable cause standard...but it is not now, nor has it ever been.....one persons accusations with no supporting evidence.
Look, I appreciate your experience and knowledge. But also appreciate mine. First of all, you state how you fail to see how I can argue with Former Indy Citizen and yourself. Honestly, I really don't understand how you can argue with actual cases where this has happened (which I provided for you above, where a COURT ruled that an accusation was enough). Do the research...I did. I was completely shocked and floored when this happened so close to me at how the justice system actually works. Opened my eyes to a lot of things that I didn't know before. Which is definitely a good thing...now I know not to believe everything I read, to ask questions and demand evidence before I believe what the media presents. Society would be a much better place if everyone did that...would keep everyone a lot more honest.

I'm not saying that every police officer and / or prosecutor is out to arrest people based on solely an accusation....I would hope that most AREN'T. And I applaud you for not arresting people based off of just an accusation alone. But just understand that not everyone does it that way. It's naive to think that every police officer / prosecutor does "the right thing" in cases like this. Because sometimes they just don't. Egos, a sense of power, and desire for public approval can all lead to some pretty unethical things being done. Yes, there's a system in place to TRY to prevent that....but it doesn't always work. I have first-hand experience that proves that, as well as research on many, many actual CASES that prove that. So don't sit there and try to tell me that it doesn't happen, because it most certainly does.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
(-Can-nabis -co-caine- he-roin op-ium ecs-tasy ... 5 hr Coll 1
WH Doctor Says Trump Is Healthy and His Mind Is... 8 hr HiHoSilver 9
News What happens to your body when you eat Tide pods 9 hr Truther 1
No NFL talk 12 hr Truther 2
Trump Is An Agent of Russia! 14 hr The Liberal 3
There is no Prostitution in Indiana Sun Some girl 4
Chuntel guillory Sun Wonder 1

Indianapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Indianapolis Mortgages