Thu Oct 24, 2013, 09:58 AM

riqster (13,986 posts)

Steubenville Rape Grand Jury indicts another scumbucket.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/steubenville-rape-grand-jury-indicts-another-scumbucket/

Snips:

"This is why the grand jury was needed. Steubenville, as a town, tried its best to deny and cover up its predilection for sex crimes, and got busted due to the initial efforts of a blogger and a posse of hackers. Two of the perps thereafter got jailed, but those who engaged in the cover-up initially escaped punishment.

Today’s scumbucket rape-enabler is the 20-year old daughter of the school employee who was indicted recently. From the article:

Hannah Rhinaman, 20, was indicted on two counts of receiving stolen property and one count of grand theft, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement."

More at the link.

6 replies, 1489 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

6 replies	Author	Time	Post
Steubenville Rape Grand Jury indicts another scumbucket. (Original post)	riqster	Oct 2013	OP
Good,	JimboBillyBubbaBob	Oct 2013	#1
Sounds like she was indicted for charges that are unrelated to the rape.	Sheldon Cooper	Oct 2013	#2
The article stated that her charges were related to the rape,	riqster	Oct 2013	#3
I realize that she is not the rapist.	Sheldon Cooper	Oct 2013	#5
I meant the article referenced in the blog post.	riqster	Oct 2013	#6
good	gopiscrap	Oct 2013	#4

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 10:00 AM

JimboBillyBubbaBob (1,389 posts)

1. Good,

let the games begin.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 10:13 AM

Sheldon Cooper (3,724 posts)

2. Sounds like she was indicted for charges that are unrelated to the rape.

Her father's been indicted for obstruction of justice in the case.

Reply to this post

Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 10:23 AM

riqster (13,986 posts)

3. The article stated that her charges were related to the rape,

Just not related to her father's. Keep in mind, the GJ is investigating possible cover-ups and actions/ inactions related to the rape: not saying that this woman or her father were rapists themselves.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 10:38 AM

Sheldon Cooper (3,724 posts)

5. I realize that she is not the rapist.

I don't agree that the article is as clear as you are saying it is.

Reply to this post

Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 11:54 AM

riqster (13,986 posts)

6. I meant the article referenced in the blog post.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/23/21097355-steubenville-teen-rape-case-ohio-grand-jury-indicts-daughter-of-school-employee?lite. Here it is again.

"The charges occurred when she was an employee of Steubenville City Schools. However, the charges are separate and unrelated to the previous indictment issued against her father, William Rhinaman, on October 7"

It does NOT say unrelated to the rape, which is what you said. Just that their charges are not related to each other.

Both of these individuals were indicted by a grand jury empaneled to investigate other crimes committed in connection with the rape.

Reply to this post

Response to riqster (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 10:30 AM

gopiscrap (22,943 posts)

4. good

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)