Ms. Seccuro's book is about her survival, and not about the success of the criminal justice system at prosecuting rapists. Ms. Seccuro didn't even really know that she was raped by more than one person until years after it happened, and other people were the ones who confirmed that it was a gang rape.
If I have read the book accurately, Mr. Beebe knew that Ms. Seccuro was gang raped, and he knew who the other perpetrators and many of the witnesses were.
What did he tell his lawyer? Did he tell her that the victim's rape-drugged memory had conflated him with two other rapists, so that he wouldn't be prosecuted for everything that had happened to her? Did he and the lawyer then decide that the way to try to get evidence brought before the court that would acquit him of some of the charges was not for him simply to testify about who else was there and what happened, but to get a private investigator to get evidence to substantiate what he already knew and then try to sell that evidence to Ms. Seccuro for $30,000?
She didn't pay it. He was subsequently supposed to give information about the other rapists, without extorting it from her; that was part of his plea bargain. He got the plea bargain, and he didn't give the information, perhaps because some of the media was portraying him as a victim because his written apology to Ms. Seccuro years after the rape led to her pressing charges against him. Is what he thought "Why should I incur the wrath of powerful men when at least some of the media is supporting me? All that will happen is that those men will attack me in court, and I'll lose. I'll be in jail for years, they'll be acquitted of everything, and they might even sue me."
That is not a quote from him or the book; it is my question about what he and his lawyer were thinking.
Copyright L. Kochman, with the noted exceptions of the content of Ms. Seccuro's book and not my questions about them, July 6, 2016 @ 1:55 p.m.
