Gene Simco Controversy: the pending court case

[It is Fake]

I think he is talking about your diddler comment. It'll stay as long as it doesn't cause a derail. You make a valid point but, I can make a valid one against. So, let's just leave it dead until we get more information.

[Matt Phillips]

Don't worry, PeopleSoft, with any luck your post's death/exile will be quick and painless.

Hey, after reading 40+ pages of this stuff I don't even remember what I wrote...

BTW my hat is off to Sam, Steve, 1point2 and everyone else who contributed to this investigation. Nice work!

[Sam Browning]

My understanding is that it was agreed to by the prosecution. There was no formal motion to dismiss heard that evening.

[1point2]

The SA 3rd degree was dismissed by the judge, or in a plea deal with the prosecution?

Well done Sam. I wonder how this will affect Gene--and how the complainant's family feels about the verdict.

Don't worry, PeopleSoft, with any luck your post's death/exile will be quick and painless.

[Matt Phillips]

Let us not forget that some of the BJJBB turns diddler stories have turned out to be fabrications of spurned teenaged girls. Not saying that's the case here, but its worth keeping things in perspective.

Edit: I just realized there was more material to read. My bad.

[Sam Browning]

That's Gene's claim. I'm still looking into things before I write anything further.

[Jonathan Randal]

4) Gene says that he is pleading guilty to the charge of endangering the welfare of a child because he admits the 14 year old complainant had access to alcohol at his house and was drinking it, and he (Simco) did not take the drink from her. He also says that her parents who were at the party did not stop her from drinking either.

That puts a very different spin on it for me. Simco says her parents were there, at his house, but was that established to your knowledge?

[It is Fake]

Very interesting.

Thanks again.

[Sam Browning]

Okay, I just got back from Milbrook New York and here are the results.

1) Gene Simco was originally charged with two misdemeanor charges. Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

2) Tonight Simco pled guilty to Endangering the welfare of a child. A violation of P.L. 260.10 which is an A misdemeanor. The Sexual Abuse Charge in the Third Degree Charge was dismissed.

3) I have a letter from Ken Benzinger, Esq who is Gene's lawyer repeating what he said at the time of plea and sentencing which is that the plea reflects Gene's contention that "he never had any sexual contact with the complainant" (When I have time, I'll retype the entire letter)

4) Gene says that he is pleading guilty to the charge of endangering the welfare of a child because he admits the 14 year old complainant had access to alcohol at his house and was drinking it, and he (Simco) did not take the drink from her. He also says that her parents who were at the party did not stop her from drinking either.

5) Simco received a conditional discharge. (If he does not get re-arrested he will not serve any time). He is paying fines and court costs of $455. There is also a five year protective order forbidding him from having any contact with the complainant/victim.

[It is Fake]

The prosecution asked for a postponement to January 27, 2009 which was granted. I think they may be having trouble with the defense's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this criminal case was brought outside the applicable statute of limitations for the claimed crime.

Man I was in 2008 and thought holly crap a year...

Thanks for the update.

[Sam Browning]

The prosecution asked for a postponement to January 27, 2009 which was granted. I think they may be having trouble with the defense's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this criminal case was brought outside the applicable statute of limitations for the claimed crime.

[joecos]

Any update by any chance?

Next court appearance is 12/23, doubtful there will be anything before that.

[babo78]

Any update by any chance?

[theotherserge]

^hear-hear!

[Snake Plissken]

Did the judge seem intolerant of this behavior, short, angry? I know it's a little bit off topic, but I'm just curious about the court's tone toward this site.

Presume that since it was mentioned, it wasn't appreciated.

Please to all posters:

Sam is working hard to keep this site viewed in a seperate light of the other websites. Let's all keep this in mind when posting.