Here’s my take: I think visiting a rape victim’s family to talk about a case that is set to go to trial soon was a terrible misstep for LaHood, and Lyons is using it to his political advantage. To that extent, both LaHood and Lyons are exploiting the victim and her family.
As for the specific accusations, they are all based on hearsay. Lyons says that the victim and her mother say that LaHood said this or that to the Child Advocacy Center and to someone in Lyons’ office who then reported it to Lyons. This is like the game of “telephone,” and I don’t find it particularly reliable, since it’s in Lyons’ interests to paint LaHood in the worst possible light. What information is he leaving out? Are the statements being taken out of context?
I don’t believe hearsay is admissible in court, so perhaps that’s why Lyons decided to try this “case” against LaHood in the court of public opinion. LaHood has denied the charges of improper conduct. Right now, it’s nothing more than he-said/he-said. Lyons isn’t taking questions or offering any further information.
That said, LaHood’s reaction has been a little overly-defensive in television and radio reports. He’s visibly agitated, talking fast and loud, and stumbling a bit over answers — saying at one point that he met with the father, then in the next breath saying he never met with the father. In other words, he acts as if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
There’s probably something to this, but it’s hard to sort out fact from fiction in the absence of clear and unbiased information about the incident. How serious it is will be left up to the speculation of the voters. My guess is that those who favor LaHood will find plenty of reason to discount Lyons’ accusations, and those who favor Lyons will find plenty of ammunition here to blast LaHood.
Welcome to politics. Let the games begin.
It is Lyons’ business, it is not Lahood’s.
Don’t make them co-conspirators in this. Lahood had absolutely no business there.
If, in fact, he was there to see the father, as a private lawyer running for office, the only possible reason was to initiate (or head off) a lawsuit against Lyons or the county. Either way, it shows really poor judgment.
You don’t think Lyons is exploiting this for political gain? How was this press conference in the best interests of the victim and her family? This could have been dealt with privately by Lyons. He chose to take it public for no other reason than to embarrass his political opponent. In saying that, I’m not excusing LaHood’s actions.
On 1470, when asked how he got the victim’s name, Lahood said, “I never got it.” Greg & Dan asked, “Didn’t you talk to the father?” Lahood said he did but never got the victim’s name. What???? That’s some fancy dancing!
“He chose to take it public for no other reason than to embarrass his political opponent.”
Maybe he felt this would be the most effective way to keep Mr. Lahood from tampering with his cases.
LaHood had no business going to the victim’s house. How did he know where they lived? I am sure that the Peoria Police told them. At least that was what was implied. The next question is why did the police give that kind of information to LaHood. They are nit suspose th give any on that kind of information. Everyone ought to be concerned when the police endorse any one, especially an elected official. they want something and the person elected will owe them their life.
Personally, I don’t care who wins the election. I do however think it was unethical for LaHood to talk to a witness in a criminal case. He is not SA yet, and if this is any indication of how he will run his election and office if elected, maybe he should stay in private practice. I also think the police department should investigate which officer gave the information to LaHood. A rape victims identity is suppose to be kept private.
I guarantee that almost everyone in the victim’s neighborhood knows who the victim is.
And LaHood didn’t reveal her name or her parent’s name to anyone, nor their address.
We know about this ONLY because Lyons decided to make it public. Thanks to Lyons, the issue of her identity is now a huge issue.
Bill, you’vve got to be kidding, right? LaHood did not release the victim’s name, but did disclose the name of the alleged perp. How hard is it to put 2 and 2 together? Durrr. Lyons SHOULD have made LaHood’s dirty dealings public! Good for him! He IS the SA and he needs to protect his cases for his prosecutors. I commend him for it. Too bad the damage has been done (thanks, Daren). Oh, and trace all the flipflopping on LaHood’s part about where he got the info. He’s not going to do well on the witness stand, me thinks. He should have stuck to one story.
“LaHood did not release the victim’s name, but did disclose the name of the alleged perp.”
I don’t get your point. The “alleged perp’s” name was never a secret.
So…………………..
WHY was LaHood there in the first place?
Anyone really know?
PI said, “I don’t get your point. The “alleged perp’s” name was never a secret.” By releasing the alleged perp’s name, the victims are now obvious as well as the ALLEGED perp, which completely goes toward why the case is now tainted in Peoria County and the 10th Circuit with the media hype (and, you know, that silly thing about the right to be innocent until proven guilty). Again, (sorry, PI) durrrr. It would be really difficult to explain constitutional rights/law in a comment. Use your internetties and the brain you have to figure out how simple this is. This is not about Lyons/LaHood now, it is about the victims AND the alleged perp and the right to a FAIR trial, which I do believe still exists in Bush’s America, despite Gitmo. 🙂
As I’ve said before, LaHood MAY face some legal difficulties if Mr. Hinkle is acquitted. I don’t think candidates enjoy any privledge, but I may be wrong. Anyway, Hinkle would have to prove he was libeled.
Lahood is an ambulance chaser.. he was looking for a civil lawsuit. Why else? Campaign donations?
kcdad: Do you have a crystal ball which tells you what an individual’s motivation is for specific behaviors? Unless you have personally asked Darin — perhaps your analysis is just a theory.
Take this example — a man is driving an awesome Porsche — why is he driving it? Analysis: He is rich and he can afford it, his girlfriend thinks guys who drive Porsches are cool, his owns a Porsche dealership so why would he drive a Ford, he is insecure and it makes him feel important to drive a Porsche, he won the Porsche, and so on…. the appearance/behavior — a man driving a Porsche is the same — the motivation for the appearance/behavoir is vastly different! 🙂
I am in now way condoning the actions of Mr. LaHood nor Mr. Lyons in their behaviors and handling of this very sensitive matter.
No. I am not a medium or spiritualist.
No, let’s try this example: A private lawyer, running for political office stops at the home of a victim of an ongoing investigation. (Being conducted by his opponent)
What are the possible motivations?
1) Selling girl scout cookies for his daughter?
2) Conducting a neighborhood watch practical exercise?
3) Just got lost and was checking a map for directions?
4) Curious at to what the home of a rape victim looked like?
5) Sincerely interested in the well being of the father of the victim?
These possibilities are easily dismissed… do have any others?
I know! His girlfriend thinks it cool to be seen in the company of rape victims!
Durrrr?
Anonymous for Cause — I thought PI asked a civil question. Not sure why you felt the need to treat him like he’s an idiot. I’m guessing you must be a lawyer.
CJ? What does Durrr mean?
kcdad: Proving once again that one can find anything on the internet: Derrr
Sorry if my comment sounded as though I was treating anyone like an idiot. It was not the intent of the comment, really. I actually used a smiley face to show a little bit of a tease to Peoria Illinoisan. Typed words do not always convey their true intent. All apologies to Mr. PI if my feelings were misconstrued by the text that I typed. 🙂
something you say when someone is being stupid
derrr what an idiot.
The plot thickens:
http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x590309895/Darin-LaHood-likely-to-be-called-as-a-witness-in-rape-trial
How can anyone honestly cast a vote for Lahood now? What a… derr.
How can anyone vote for LaHood, you ask? Easy. He ain’t Kevin Lyons.
kcdad, what a ridiculous question to ask. You would not have voted for him under any conditions so obviously you are going to be clueless as to why others would.
Tell you the truth, I am not overly comfortable with LaHood either. One finally steps down…and another steps right up. That family is beginning to drive me crazy. As if the normal people in the area don’t have enough to worry about when the ‘Schockster’ comes to power. We’ll all be a cozy little Republican family again.
I voted for his dad, and probably would have believed the garbage about him had I not been awakened to the Neo-Cons takeover of the Republicans.
You don’t understand me at all, and that is not your fault. You are comfortable. Don’t think too hard, Don’t ask any tough questions. Payday comes and payday goes, praise be to the economy.
Much easier to dismiss your opposition as inferior then use your “formidable mental capabilities” to confront them one on one. Good strategy, let me know how that works for you…