Slate's done a piece on the case too:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/02/dharun_ravi_the_rutgers_student_who_spied_on_tyler_clementi_should_accept_the_plea_deal_from_new_jersey_authorities_.html

no lawyers on line on DCUM? I guess they are lawyers, but not criminal lawyers

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the note said soemthing hurtful to his mother, along the lines of "I called you to talk and you blew me off; you've never really accepted me and this just proves it!" Such a note would make it harder to convict the roommate which might be why they are keeping it quiet.

I would guess that it had information that somebody intends to use in a court room? I wonder, if there are any lawyers on line (and this is DCUM, so there must be!) if the prosecution can withhold information like this to avoid jury bias? Also, wouldn't the parents be the "heirs" to their sons possessions? How can the authorities legally keep this from them? Unless it contains something that might be relevant for a trial? But I thought the prosecution has to share all their evidence with the defense? Or maybe they did that, but not the parents, to avoid it getting to the press for jury contamination?

Anyway, if I were the parent, I would be very very upset if they were withholding this note from me.

I was under the impression that Clementi was gay, but not out; and that his roommate had taped him having sex with another male student; and replayed it or posted it on the web or Facebook or wherever; and that Clementi killed himself because he was outed, being bullied and tormented by his roommate, and was very embarassed and distraught at having something so private taped and and shared with the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yep, this is what I somehow picked up too. To read that Tyler was likely already suicidal (the notes on his computer) and that Ravi's acts didn't quite rise to the level of what's above (although they might have if the party had happened) was a surprise to me.

It's New Jersey, so I don't suppose many people here will be able to cite the law, but one of the charges was "invasion of privacy".

Exactly what crime are you saying was committed? Attempted broadcasting?

Even if someone does something completely awful, s/he can't be charged with a crime unless there is a statute or a common law cause of action that applies. In this case that's not clear at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is certainly a tragedy, but I don't think that the room mate is guilty of the crimes charged. The room mate was clearly a jerk and probably a bully, but society should be careful before criminalizing being a jerk. For example, John Edwards is certainly a jerk and perhaps dispicable, but the US attorney is NC may be going to far in stretching the campaign finance laws to charge him with a crime. If being an offensive jerk becomes a criminal offense, the prisons would be more overcrowded than they are now.

This.

Sorry but he is guilty of recording and broadcasting illegally!

Actually he neither recorded nor broadcasted anything. Learn the facts before spouting off next time. The article that this post is about is a good place to start.

He didn't record but he did broadcast it. He attempted to do it a second time to a wider audience, and put some forethought into it.