“This was a good listen but the linking of the two cases, while worthy of consideration, seemed like a bad idea the longer I listened.
I commend both women for their strength, and think they both got a raw deal, but I am not convinced one case had anything to do with the other.
The judge skewed toward leniency across the board, not just in cases involving sexual assault/abuse.
And as lenient as the judge was in the jogger case, the prosecution was only asking for a six-month sentence, not 10 or 20 years. So that outcome was going to be insufficient regardless.
I was expecting to hear that the chef had reoffended or continually harassed his victims, making a mockery of the judge’s sentence. But he appears to have moved on with his life and not gotten into more trouble.
Or that the judge had several other sexual assault accusations (still a possibility).
And to learn later in the pod that
the judge might have faced a misdemeanor (at most) for his alleged crime in the 70s made the mingling of the cases even more of a stretch.
The judge admitted no crime in his relationship and committed no crime in his role as a judge. While I think he was negligent on both fronts, there is way too much gray to hang him like this.”
Tim in the 19130 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
10/04/20