More News Columnists

• Bill Slakey: As Trib closes, many questions remain unasked
• Phill Casaus: Don't cry for us, Albuquerque; it was worth it
• Joline Gutierrez Krueger: My Wall of Fame holds memories of people, stories that have mattered

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Neither could say for sure how they ended up naked at a male friend's house or in explicit digital images on an iPod rumored to have made the rounds at Valley High School.

There was no rape kit, no forensic evidence, no witnesses and, according to testimony, no "no" uttered by either girl when prosecutors say they were being savaged during two boozy, curfew-breaking nights in April 2005.

No case might have come to light at all had not the Valley High principal pulled the girls out of class to account to a phalanx of male law enforcement agents for the rumors of the iPod photos.

No matter. Despite the obvious problems in the case, the state charged two 17-year-old male students - friends of the girls at the time - with 14 counts apiece of rape, kidnapping, sexual exploitation of minors and conspiracy.

The state also sought adult sanctions, which would require the boys, if convicted, to register as sex offenders and be labeled as child pornographers even though the girls were also 17 at the time.

(Because of their ages, I'm not naming any of the four.)

This week, the first boy - let's call him Boy 1 - went on trial in Children's Court. After 2 days of testimony and one day of deliberations, jurors Thursday found him not guilty of all charges.

They apparently did not buy the prosecutors' contention that the boy and his best friend, Boy 2, hatched a plan to lure the girls - one on Friday night, one on Saturday night - to his North Valley home, incapacitate them with liquor and then sexually have their way with them, taking photos of their comatose prey as prurient mementos.

"Sex without consent is rape," prosecutor Nancy Neary told jurors.

True enough. But the problem for jurors was how to define consent.

In an era of Paris Hilton hedonism, the line between a criminal act and the capricious antics of promiscuous girls and boys is getting harder to draw.

Robert Gorence, Boy 1's attorney, countered that what happened that weekend was the consensual experimentation of sexually active teens too drunk, too unsupervised and too stupid to know better.

According to testimony:

Both girls said they made plans to meet up with the boys.

Both girls said they frequently hung out with them, often at Boy 1's house.

Both girls admitted they had previously engaged in consensual sex with Boy 2.

The first girl, an "A" student and star soccer player, testified that shortly after her 12:30 a.m. curfew Saturday she crawled out of her bedroom window - a regular practice - grabbed a bottle of Jack Daniels and took off with the boys.

The second girl, also an "A" student, told jurors she spent that weekend with a girlfriend. She said she did not tell her folks that no parents would be around, but that about 10 college-age men, vodka and a hot tub would.

By 3 a.m. Sunday, she said, she was drunk and sitting in the lap of Boy 2, flirting with him, as they drove to the North Valley home.

What happened to each girl after that the prosecution left to the alcohol-murky memories of the girls, who said they believed unwanted sex acts occurred but could not remember details.

One girl testified that she could not remember how she ended up in her bed at home the next morning.

Such reliance on the girls' clouded recollections forced jurors to essentially decide whether they believed the girls or blamed them.

So many questions remain.

Is it possible, as Gorence suggested, that the girls were forced to cry rape to save their reputations, explain their "Girls Gone Wild" behaviors to their parents, exact revenge on the two-timing Boy 2?

And why were the girls not provided female investigators? Both testified that the four male agents they were forced to speak with made them uncomfortable.

Why, too, did the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department not see a conflict of interest in the case after agents learned early on that the second girl was related to a former high-ranking sheriff's official who remains in a high position within the local law enforcement scene?

Why were the boys detained from midmorning until early evening at the school without being allowed to call their parents?

Why did the prosecution not present a single witness who could say they saw the photos of the girls on Boy 2's iPod at school?

And why oh why did prosecutors take a case to trial that many court-watchers believed could not be won?

The case was so weak that even before the jury got it Thursday, Children's Court Judge Marie Baca had already dismissed nine of 14 counts against Boy 1 for insufficient evidence.

Gone were two charges of kidnapping, one of criminal sexual penetration and six of conspiracy.

What remained were the more damning sex charges, including two child pornography counts - until the "not guilty" verdicts came in.

Boy 1, gangly and borderline geeky, is 18 now. Two weeks from now, he plans to be far away, studying marine biology and journalism at a California university.

At the close of his case, he told jurors he would have pleaded guilty to being stupid if he could have.

"It was a lack of all judgment, pretty much," he said.

His friend, also 18, is expected to go to trial later this fall.

It would be nice if this messy case could at least provide a warning to teens: What you do and who you do it with could become the focus of a police investigation.

That may be too much to hope for.

So let this fall to the parents and not the prosecutors: It's after midnight. Do you know where your kids are and what they are doing?

Whether they like it or not, they still need us to be parents.