Widgets Magazine

Brock Turner to undergo mandatory drug, alcohol counseling

Before his release from jail this September, Brock Turner, the former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, will undergo random testing as well as mandatory drug and alcohol counseling after he was found lying about his high school drug and alcohol use.

The new counseling requirements followed the release of documents from Santa Clara County Superior Court and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, which revealed that Turner acted aggressively toward another woman prior to the convicted assault and that he lied to officials about his behavior in high school.

According to the prosecution’s sentencing memo, Turner denied using illegal drugs and said he only began drinking alcohol after he started attending Stanford in September 2014. He made the claims during an interview with a probation officer and during a jailhouse interview on June 14.

“Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol,” Turner wrote in a statement to Judge Aaron Persky ’84 A.M. ’85.

However, according to the prosecution memo, the police concluded from photos and text messages retrieved from investigators that Turner was “engaging in excessive drinking and using drugs,” including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis, when he was in high school. Once Turner was notified that his text messages had been publicized, he admitted to using LSD, smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol in high school.

Turner also had a previous arrest for underage alcohol possession in November 2014.

In a report by the Associated Press, Turner’s probation manager Jana Taylor — who recommended the counseling for Turner —  wrote in an email that the department does not want to be blamed for discovering that Turner had positive drug or alcohol tests and not modifying his probation accordingly.

Taylor wrote to the Associated Press that Judge Persky — who drew sharp scrutiny for giving Turner what many saw as a “light sentence” of six months in jail — will not oversee the changes in Turner’s probation terms.

The addition of counseling to Turner’s probation was enacted by the internal probation department, and is expected to be approved by the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Taylor wrote.

 

Contact Shagun Khare at shagunkhare.st ‘at’ gmail.com.

  • Strykr32

    Judge Persky was aware of Brock Turner’s alleged alcohol and drug use before sentencing. He states he was in the transcript of the June 2 2016 Sentencing Hearing….

    “Let me just say for the record that I have reviewed everything, including the sentencing memorandum, the probation report, the attachments to the probation report, and the respective sentencing memoranda.”

    “The People have presented some evidence of, first of all, the pending minor-in-possession case, which I have considered, as well as communications involving recreational drug use, even a video showing recreational drug use. But I don’t – on balance, I don’t find that enough to negate the absence of any criminal convictions.”

    And notwithstanding what is indicated in the article, attributed to Ms Jana Taylor, that another Judge would oversee the changes in probation terms, Judge Persky made the changes in Brock Turner’s probation terms yesterday, Monday July 25, 2016.

    “Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol,”

    “Never really experienced” in this context does not necessarily mean absolutely have not. It can mean the type of celebrating involving alcohol he experienced in high school was on a whole different level, may have included a beer or two, not seven cans of beer and several shots of Fireball.

    Brock Turner was cited for violation of B&P 25662(a), Minor in Possession, on November 15 2014, he was not arrested. He and three friends, all swim team members, wearing bright orange tuxedos, a swim team tradition at athletic events, were on their way to a Stanford football game, three were sipping Coors light beer.

    The same rookie deputy, Braden Shaw, who arrested Turner on January 18, 2015, saw a silver can in the hand of one of the swimmers and after age profiling the swimmers, decided to investigate whether they were minors in possession. On seeing Deputy Shaw, they ran and he gave footchase. Deputy Braden Shaw called in that he was in hot pursuit and another deputy in a car cut off the swimmer who had not been drinking. After likely being given the choice of being cited for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer, PC 148(a)(1), he provided the names and phone numbers of the other swimmers. Deputy Shaw then called them and they returned to the scene where he cited two for being minors in possession and another for having a fake id.

    It is interesting to note that for this relatively minor misdemeanor, the interviews taken right there on the street(600 block, Serra Street) were digitally recorded by Deputy Braden Shaw, yet on January 18, 2015, there is no mention in the Police Report of Deputy Braden Shaw digitally recording the interviews of the witnesses, Jonsson and Arndt, for a serious felony. It would have been informative to hear exactly what Jonsson and Arndt stated happened that night in their own words because their various accounts of Turner fleeing by running rapidly away as first described by Deputy Shaw in the Police Report written versions of their interviews are not supported by the location they had Brock Turner pinned, a mere 75 feet North of where victim was lying. And according to the lone juror who has commented on the case, Brock Turner’s allegedly running away, seen as a sign of guilt, was the most compelling testimony that led to his conviction.

    In any event, the released documents do not at all indicate that Brock Turner was…

    “engaging in excessive drinking and using drugs,” including LSD, ecstasy and cannabis, when he was in high school.

    In fact quite the opposite, in a text message to his sister, he comments on not being able to find a place to drink beer. Then there are several texts about using buying/using drugs which are taken completely out of context and without knowing who he was talking to or about and their relationships. Teen guys who don’t use drugs often joke around like this. The person they were speaking of may have been totally straight edge and the last person in the world to use drugs/alcohol. It may have been an inside joke others do not understand because they do not know the context.

    If Brock Turner had been engaging in excessive drinking and drug usage in high school, all documented in text messages, he would have never given the police his I Phone PIN after being arrested; he did so in order for them to find the phone number of his friend on the swim team.

    I became curious as to why certain interviews were recorded and others were not and decided to look through the Police Report and note which were and were not. All interviews below were conducted after there was a determination it was a crime scene and a crime log had been started. The area had been cordoned off as a crime scene, at least according to the Narrative of Deputy Braden Shaw contained in the Police Report.

    Deputy Braden Shaw interviewed Witnesses Jonsson, Arndt, Sinclair and Barnett at the crime scene and according to his report, there is no mention that any of his interviews were recorded.

    Deputy Robert Edwards interviewed Witnesses Bolton and Robbins at the crime scene. There is no indication these interviews were recorded. He interviewed Witness Julia, victim’s friend, later that day and there is no indication the interview was recorded.

    Deputy Jeffrey Taylor had the first interview with Victim at the hospital that morning when she began to answer questions. There is no indication it was recorded.

    Detective Mike Kim interviewed Suspect Brock Turner early that morning at the SUDPS office. It was recorded. Later that morning he conducted the second interview that morning with Victim, it was recorded.

    Deputy Terrance Dotsy interviewed Witness, Brock Turner’s friend Tom, later that day. It was recorded.

    Deputy Carrie DeVlugt interviewed Victim that evening at SUDPS office, it was recorded. She phone interviewed Victim’s sister, Witness; her report states the interview was not recorded.

    At first I thought that only the Suspect and Victim’s statements were recorded but that is not the case since a witness’ interview was recorded. It seems however that there is no notation in the police report of a prosecution witness interview having been recorded only a recording of the interview of a potential defense friendly witness, Turner’s friend, Tom, by Deputy Terrance Dotsy.

    We know that Deputy Braden Shaw had a digital recorder on November 15 2014 since he recorded all the statements of the four Stanford Swimmers he stopped when his age profiling led him to believe they might be minors in possession. Did something happen to his recorder between November 15 2014 and January 18 2015.

    But there were numerous Deputies at the crime scene whom he surely could have borrowed a digital recorder for something as important as an interview with Witnesses to a rape: Edwards, Taylor, Adams, Barries, Havig, Campos. Are we to believe none had a recorder.

    Or maybe all of these interviews were recorded and it just was not noted in Deputy Shaw or Edwards’ Narratives in the Police Report. If so, what became of the recordings, were they played in court or erased after the written Narratives were produced? What is the SUDPS protocol with regard to recording interviews with eyewitness’s to felonies?

    Deputy Adams was the FTO(Field Training Officer) apparently for Deputy Shaw and/or Deputy Edwards. His Narrative was not included in the Police Report. Since Deputy Adams ran the alleged 75 feet over to Victim with Deputy Braden Shaw and Deputy Adams notified the detained Brock Turner he was under arrest and transported Brock Turner to the SUDPS Office, would think his Narrative would be included in the Police Report.

    Deputy Shaw’s and Deputy Taylor’s Narratives contain verbatim sentences such as the description of Victim and description of the location. Either they were authored by the same person or one had the Narrative of the other as he wrote his Narrative. Deputy Shaw is listed as the Primary, Deputy Taylor and Deputy Edwards as Assist.

    Have not been able to find the Stanford Department of Public Safety Operations/Policy Manual online however, the Palo Alto Police Department Policy Manual is available online.
    http://i.imgur.com/m0P3qcn.jpg
    450.2 POLICY
    The Palo Alto Police Department may provide members with access to portable recorders, either audio or video or both, for use during the performance of their duties. The use of recorders is intended to enhance the mission of the Department by accurately capturing contacts between members of the Department and the public.
    450.5 ACTIVATION OF THE AUDIO RECORDER
    Members should activate the recorder at any time the member reasonably believes that a recording of an on-duty contact may be useful. Once started, recordings should continue without interruption until the contact ends, if feasible. At no time is a member expected to jeopardize his/her safety in order to activate a recorder or change the recording media. However, the recorder should be activated in required situations as soon as practicable.
    450.7 RETENTION OF RECORDINGS
    Any time a member records any portion of a contact that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence in a criminal case, the member shall record the related case number and download the file in accordance with the Computers and Digital Evidence Policy and document the existence of the recording in the related case report. Any time a member reasonably believes a recorded contact may be beneficial in a non-criminal matter (e.g., a hostile contact), the member should promptly notify a supervisor of the existence of the recording. Members should upload the file, in accordance with current procedure for storing digital files, at the end of their shift and any time the storage capacity is nearing its limit.
    http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46151

    If the Stanford Department of Public Safety has similar policies and we know that Deputy Braden Shaw recorded interviews for relatively minor offenses on November 15 2014, minor in possession of alcohol, for the Stanford swimmers, including Turner, sipping cans of coors lite, while walking to a football game. And we know that Deputy Terrance Dotsy recorded an interview with potential defense friendly witness Tom, then why weren’t the interviews of the witnesses to what at the time was believed to be a rape, a serious felony, recorded by Deputy Braden Shaw? It can’t be that no recorder was available because there were at least five deputies at the crime scene.

    I originally believed the prosecution friendly witness’ interviews were not recorded so that their narratives could be embellished in the Police Report. I now believe the prosecution friendly witness interviews were recorded, probably without the witnesses even aware they were being recorded, and the recordings were not noted in the Police Report narratives and then the narratives were embellished to make it appear Turner ran, attributing guilt to Turner. This would explain why the location Turner was pinned, 75 feet North, does not match the location he should have been pinned, hundreds of feet North, if he ran rapidly away and was then chased down, as allegedly described by the witnesses.

    One would think that cross examination of witnesses would bring out a true account of events, but if a prosecution friendly witness has allegedly stated one sequence of events in an embellished Police Report narrative that is helping the victim, how many witnesses are then going to go into court and state otherwise which would help the defendant, an alleged rapist, harming the victim’s case and making the witness appear to have either lied to the police or to be presently lying to the court which is perjury.

  • HateRape

    Strykr32 likes rape.

  • Strykr32

    No rape occurred and there was never any evidence that a rape occurred.
    1) Brock Turner had his pants on and his fly was zipped.
    2) Results of the SART exam showed no evidence of a rape having occurred.
    Notwithstanding the above, Detective Mike Kim signed a Felony Complaint alleging two counts of rape on January 27, 2015. The rape charges were never withdrawn by the DA but were thrown out in court by Judge Persky at the Preliminary Hearing in October 2015.
    With regard to the digital penetration that allegedly occurred, Juror Question #4 is illuminating as to the nature of said penetration.
    Question: Is contact with the inner lining of the Labia Majora or any portion of the Labia Minora considered penetration.
    Response: Sexual penetration means penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the other person for the purpose of sexual abuse, arousal or gratification. Penetration of the genital opening refers to penetration of the labia majora, not the vagina. Penetration of the external genital organs is sufficient to constitute sexual penetration.

    http://i.imgur.com/bDgbeYk.jpg

  • Strykr32

    1) I’m sorry to most people rape means when a woman is forced to have sexual intercourse by an assailant brandishing a weapon such as a knife or gun with the alternative being even greater bodily harm than she was subjected to when she was assaulted with no guarantee that even if she cooperates she will not meet her death at the hands of the rapist. That is what rape means to most people.
    2) The prosecutor is the one who tried to make Turner appear as a druggie, kind of ridiculous considering his success in swimming. If he was participating in excessive drug use he never would have had the stamina to have the success he did. And besides, NCAA swimmers and Olympic members can be subjected to random drug tests. Well he is 21 today.
    Happy 21st, Brock Turner!
    I sincerely hope that your conviction has been overturned by your 22nd Birthday.
    3) Sorry, there is no scenario where Turner is guilty under Jury Instructions #1002A, 1003A, 1047A, 1048A, if the jury were operating under a beyond reasonable doubt burden of proof as required by said instructions rather than a preponderance of evidence burden of proof common to University Sexual Assault Tribunals aka Kangaroo Courts.
    4) Her sister thought she looked fine when she walked another girl who was plastered over to Julia’s place and Julia must have thought she looked fine when she left her alone and went upstairs at KA. The determination that she was unconscious was based on her not answering questions of police or paramedics for hours. That is not a medical determination of unconsciousness unless there is also a determination that she truly was unable to answer questions especially when one considers that had she answered questions and admitted to consent, she likely would have been cited for public drunkenness, indecent exposure, lewd conduct and there would have been no anonymity. A conviction for Indecent exposure carries lifetime registration on the sex offender registry. Publicity surrounding this event would have been very bad for her professional reputation and for her father’s professional reputation, a clinical psychologist specializing in treating alcohol and other chemical dependencies. She also would have chanced seeing her relatively recent relationship with her steady boyfriend terminated.
    5) The witnesses assaulted and broke the wrist of a competitive swimmer with Olympic aspirations during swimming season. They did not follow proper protocol when making a citizen’s arrest. They never told Turner he was under arrest and why they were detaining him. Their being exonerated of their assault by having Turner found guilty and not facing possible civil suit gives them a vested interest in his conviction.
    The narrative regarding Turner running rapidly away as allegedly described by the witnesses did not happen. Turner was pinned 75 feet North of where he and she were lying. I have mathematically modeled the situation according to the witness version of events and Turner’s version of events. Under the witnesses’ version of events, Turner would have been pinned about 600 feet North. Under Turner’s version of events, where he was walking away looking for a place to vomit, he would have been tripped by Jonsson 67 feet North, and then pinned a little further North.
    The point is we don’t know if the witness’s version of events in the Police Report is what was actually stated to Deputy Braden Shaw because all of the interviews with Prosecution friendly witnesses allegedly were not recorded, which I do not believe. Not when the interviews took place outside in January past 1:00 AM and were of witnesses to a felony. Not when his interviews with Turner and his Swim Teammates were recorded by Deputy Braden Shaw on November 15 2014 for the heinous crime of sipping a can of coors lite beer while walking to a football game on campus.
    6) No, Brock Turner is not a rapist. Even under the FBI definition, which is irrelevant in California, he is not a rapist. The FBI definition specifically states penetration of the vagina. His fingers did not penetrate her vagina. Juror question #4 makes it clear his fingers did not penetrate her vagina.

  • Beth

    Strykr32, are you fucking KIDDING me?

    1) Just because “most people” think something, doesn’t make it true… you moronic twat. Just because people THINK the sky is blue doesn’t mean it is. And someone doesn’t have to have a weapon to make it a rape. Rape can be some guy threatening to leave you in the middle of nowhere (with nothing) or even just pushing you… despite the fact that you say no or push him away. Rape can be your boyfriend saying sorry for the FIRST time he raped you and then pushing you against the wall, covering your mouth so your roommate doesn’t hear your screams, and doing whatever the hell he wants to you.

    2) Just because someone swims doesn’t mean they aren’t into drugs or partying. Rapist Brock Turner hadn’t done real swimming for some time before this happened. And I know plenty of guys who were in sports (football, track, SWIMMING) who did plenty of drugs. They just also happened to do sports as well.

    4) So either they had sex… or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then she wouldn’t just be faking it to avoid lewd behavior or indecent exposure and this would be a moot point. If they did… which you assert they did and that it was consensual and she was trying to avoid jail and ruining her and her father’s reputations and her relationship with her boyfriend… then he had sex with a woman who was clearly too drunk to consent. That, dear fucking twatbag, is rape.

    6) (Because I’m only addressing which ones I want to and can actually physically tolerate responding to)… If he didn’t put his fingers in her vaginal canal… then why the fuck was there dirt and pine needles up in there? And yes, he is a fucking rapist. He HAD SEX WITH A WOMAN WHO COULDN’T GIVE CONSENT.

    It’s people like you… the ones who sit there and DEFEND someone who obviously did a HORRIBLE thing… it’s the ones like you who make it so much harder for a woman to come forward about being raped…. to tell people “this happened to me and it sucked” and for them to be believed. It’s people who do this bullshit that make the nightmares so much harder to handle, the touch from someone so much more painful, the days and the nights battling demons… so much more unbearable. Rape victims aren’t scheming to get people in trouble or avoid trouble themselves most times (there are some times this happens, but it’s not every time). It’s people like you… judging everyone without knowing their lives… that made me admitting that what happened to me was what it was… that I DIDN’T ask for it… that it was WRONG. So fuck you.

  • Strykr32

    1) I stated what rape means to most people. What feminists want to classify as rape is not what most people consider rape notwithstanding the FBI under Eric Holder changing its classification for statistical purposes several years ago. Maybe there need to be distinctions for rape such as there are for murder, 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree etc.
    1st degree might be rape with a weapon; 2nd degree rape without a weapon, threat of physical harm etc.
    2) Wrong, Brock Turner competitively swam for Stanford on January 10, 2015, a week before the incident.
    http://www.pacifictigers.com/sports/c-swim/2014-15/files/Pacific_-_Stanford_Men.html
    4) In California, rape involves sexual intercourse; there was no sexual intercourse.
    The consensual “sex” that occurred:
    a) digital foreplay, which apparently consisted of his fingers caressing her labia.
    b) dry humping with his pants on and fly zipped. (battery, a misdemeanor which he was not charged and all the Swedes witnessed.)
    6) The “dirt and pine needles in her vaginal canal” are an urban legend that has arisen regarding this case. There wasn’t even a pine tree. The trees are redwoods.

  • Emily

    Bottom line – you’re saying that women everywhere have no right to complain after being touched in private areas (labia, etc) without consent. You’ve written it multiple times. That in itself is sickening to me. That you would tell your mother, your sister, your daughter that being touched in a sexual manner (labia or anywhere else down there) without consent is okay to do. Shame on you. Brock Turner will forever be known as a RAPIST, and rightfully so. No one should be able to get away with that. Good thing those people caught him before he could do any more harm to her.

  • Emily

    Where is your source regarding the pine needles not being true? Most would back up such allegations with court documents, rape kit results, any actual tangible facts. Why am I not surprised that it doesn’t exist? Nice try Stryker, but you’ve been caught red-handed doling out misinformation. Now how is anyone supposed to believe anything else you’ve written? What a joke.

  • Strykr32

    If there were pine needles in her vaginal canal, a foreign object allegedly inserted by Turner in accord with the urban myth, and this was noted in evidence presented to the jury such as rape kit results, Jury Question #4, asking whether contacting the labia (with another foreign object, Turner’s fingers) constitutes penetration requires the assumption the entire jury is composed of utter idiots.

    http://i.imgur.com/SVpPria.jpg

  • Strykr32

    I have never written “that women everywhere have no right to complain after being touched in private areas (labia, etc) without consent.”

    That is a pure lie.

    Please provide links to such statements that I have written.