Associated Press Weighs in on the Sutton matter. In all it's graphic detail.
Chet Brokaw of the Associated Press has his first story in on the day's proceedings in the Sutton case (on the Rapid City Journal website) . And he doesn't mess around with telling what went on. The article goes straight for the jugular..... well, a more accurate description is about two feet lower than that:
I've noted it in an earlier post - the Sutton testimony had better be very compelling if he wants to stand a chance of counteracting the tale being told at the moment.
Wiese, the first witness at the hearing, said he did not realize the motel room had only one king size bed. He said that after he went to sleep the first night, he was awakened by Sutton covering him up and touching him. He said he woke up numerous times and felt Sutton touching him on his side, back and hip.Go read all of the tale here at the Rapid City Journal. I'm going to have to put a net-nanny filter on my website if this kind of testimony keeps up.
Wiese said he kept repositioning himself and turning over. "I was stunned and didn't know what to do," he said.
He said that when he moved, Sutton would move his hand. Wiese said he didn't say anything about it the first night but that he was confused and shocked.
The second night, after going to bed, Sutton "placed his hand on my penis. He had his hand on there. I could tell he was shaking, too."
Sutton then started shifting it and moving it back and forth, Wiese said.
After about a minute, Wiese said he hatched a plan. He hopped out of bed and claimed he had missed a cell phone call. Wiese then pretended he was talking to a friend and left the room.
Wiese stayed elsewhere the third night in Pierre.
I've noted it in an earlier post - the Sutton testimony had better be very compelling if he wants to stand a chance of counteracting the tale being told at the moment.
Comments
Sutton and Wiesse in the same room. Sutton does not deny on the tape that he might have groped the kid. Certainly Sutton is open to talking to a Catholic Priest about this issue.
Also, Wiesse's story jives with that of someone who probably is a little cocky and yet shaken by getting perved on by Sutton.
Wiesse has witnesses that testify to his demeanor immediately after the incident(s).
I have seen trials in this state where the jury has burned down to the ground defendant's in Sutton's situation with testimony very similiar to what came out today.
What makes this all the more compelling is that this is not a court of criminal law. This is the South Dakota Senate sitting in judgment of its members. The burden is distinct to each member in the Senate who will be voting. There is no appeals process here. Once each member votes to expell or whatever the committee forwards as a recommendation as a whole...will be it.
At this point Sutton is in trouble and his lawyers know it. Even more damaging will be the testimony forthcoming this week about Sutton's history and allegations of abuse against him.
If a school teacher had sex with a student of age it would not be criminal but they would be crushed by their employer and fired.
Here the same is true for Sutton. While he won't have criminal charges filed against him, the Senate will surely take action against him.
blame the victim...smells like tricks right out of the DNC playbook.
Get real! Wiesse's father is running for Gov., Sutton is influential in the Democratic Party, Sutton is a family friend, and Wiesse's "supervisor"...could you get any more conflicts for the kid??? Punch a legislator when your dad is running for Gov. RIGHTTTT. You must be the head brain in the Sutton defense team.
And Pat Duffy. His "legal expertise" must be from a Cracker Jack box! Allegations of smoking and drinking makes allegations of abuse unbelievable. RIGHTTT. His desperation to discredit Wiesse was so transparent.
AND OTHER VICTIMS??? Sutton is toast with a “CAPITOL” T, unless he and Pat D. have a HUGE ace up their sleeves, like maybe a virginal sodomy rape victim, found dead from an illegal abortion on the Wiesses’ pool table after a drinking and smoking teen party.
The skirt comment you made is aimed at a criticism that the woman had it coming or was asking for it. Focusing on the actions and reactions of the alleged victim in this case is very different.
Get a clue!
You need to get a clue, too!
I've been in both positions described, and in neither case was I proud of my actions/reactions. My epsiodes as a "victim", too big for me to keep to myself, were recounted as parodies wherein I defended my heterosexuality. And conversely, although I could have been called to account for leveraging a position of power, I wasn't. I learned, without widespread public awareness of these particular sins, to stop committing them.
Assuming there is merit to the accusations, there is NO DIFFERENCE between this scenario and one in which the page (employee, student, softball team member, family friend) was female.
Wiese's testimony is credible to me. Do I think the Senate should expel Sutton? I don't think it has the authority under current rules. I also think many of those sitting in judgment have experienced both sides (certainly one side) of this one-on-one power game that gets played out in a variety of permutations (but usually gets recognized only in its sexual aspect).
Here's what I can't picture: Sutton staying in the legislature and working with people who heard the testimony.
One has to wonder why a sane person would subject himself to that.
Of course the Wiesse family knew that Dennis was running then. You don't make that kind of decision at the spur of the moment.
And yes, I think an 18 year old kid, who knew his dad was probably going to have a primary would be scared to hit him, and probably scared to say anything to anyone for fear of what might happen to your family. Don't be so naive...Austin's fears have come to pass, he's being vilified by the attorney's for Sutton (as well as by Sutton supporters) and all of us are discussing what HE should have done, like any of this was HIS fault, as well as judging his father for his actions or lack thereof. Stop victimizing the victim. It is not like there were no other people to help substantiate Austin's story. So far, who is coming forward for Sutton to say it didn't happen? And even if you think Austin is making the touching story up, who in the hell sleeps in the SAME bed with someone you aren't married to (relationship with, whatever), unless it is an emergency??? Even without the touching, that is CREEPY. The burden is ALWAYS on the older person (employer, supervisor, whatever) to behave in a manner that is above reproach. Even an idiot knows that, so ask yourself, what in the hell WAS Dan thinking??? He wasn’t saving any money, rooms are charged on a per person basis, not a per bed basis. He certainly wasn’t concerned about room size or inconvenience of the parties. It isn’t like he didn’t know that one bed means both of them would have to sleep together (remember, he didn’t offer the hideabed). And even if he did tell Austin about the hideabed, he should have insisted that the kid sleep on the hideabed. Don’t any of you curl up to your wife and snuggle in your sleep???
You can't have it both ways!
Also, who goes back into the room and into the same bed next to the same person who allegedly just grabbed your penis and goes to sleep? That is even stranger!
(...a variant on the Stockholm... well, you know.)
Wiesse probably thought all day about his encounter with Sutton the previous night and determined it was worth investigating potential and finally decided to spend a second night while knowing there is still one bed. I think Wiesse wouldn't have gone back the second night if he were certain about his sexual orientation.
It also is not a stretch to agree that a young man possibly searching for his sexual identity is something to take into consideration. I can image that it is difficult for some of you to truthfully describe your reactions to other people had you been placed in an identical situation. It is difficult to cleanly express an opinion because someone will say "don't attack the victim" or say "your homophobic" or some other ridiculous method of labeling.
I doubt voter's in SD would blame Wiesse for punching Sutton. My vote wouldn't depend on the offspring of a candidate. I know I would punch a man for grabbing my genitals because I am certain about my boundaries and was taught to be early on. Sutton must have determined in his mind that a second encounter similar to the previous night meant Wiesse was giving him a green light.
I am not certain Sutton did anything illegal. Sutton broke Biblical law and acted immoral but beyond that, what? We probably would not have heard a peep if Sutton and Wiesse had sex.
As a practical matter I would attempt to politically stomp Sutton into the ground for abusing his political power. He chose to test his sexuality on a class of people that are dependent on his protection from inappropriate behavior beyond the bounds of legally expected scope of duties.
Secondly, that Duffy guy is creepy. Has he asked Austin yet if he became aroused, or if he had ever let anyone else touch him like that before? That would make Austin look like a participant and not a victim.