Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Crime Scene blog: Deal may be in the works for Pete Newman

The Crime Scene Blog, in an exclusive, reports Taney County auhorities are working on a deal for former Kanakuk Kamp director Pete Newman to plead guilty to sex charges:

Taney County prosecutor Jeff Merrell says that there have been discussions between his office and the attorney for Peter "Pete" Newman regarding a possible plea deal.

Merrell would not comment on whether the negotiations were for all of the charges which Newman is currently facing in Taney County.


Previous Turner Report posts on Pete Newman can be found at this link.

42 comments:

Darin Codon said...

I met up with the lead on the case for the Prosecutor's office last night.

Quick note: The courtroom was never closed and there are no plans to close the courtroon in the case.

Best regards,
Darin
Branson Missouri

Anonymous said...

What's that supposed to mean?

Anonymous said...

If there is a plea deal in the works, let's all hope and pray that he doesn't get off with 20-30 years!!

How would the sentencing work? Is the sentencing part of the plea deal? Or would that be for the judge to decide??

This guy needs to be locked away forever, for the safety of society, and for his own.

Anonymous said...

Pete, if you don't reap what you sow in this world, you sure will when you meet the One, who's Name you operated under and blasphemed for so many years!!!!

Anonymous said...

Darin,

Can you explain what you're talking about with regard to the courtroom being closed?

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know if Colorado is going to bring him to their state for their charges?

If he enters a plea here, then will CO. still pursue him?

Also, the word on the street is that TX, AR, GA, OH, KS, and OK have charges of their own in the works. When do they take their shot at him?

Anonymous said...

...and AL

Kathee Baird said...

I love ya, Darin, but you're wrong on this one. The courtroom WAS closed to the media for the prelim.

Prosecutors used Missouri's child witness protection act - Section 491.725 RSMo., a law that went it effect last summer, as the basis for their motion.

Look at the docket entries for 09AF-CR02097 and talk to judge Williams, he issued the ruling.

When you say, "the lead on the case for the prosecutor's office," are you citing Jeff Merrell or Chris Lebeck?

From the News-Leader: prosecutors cited the new law as justification for closing the courtroom during a preliminary hearing Tuesday for Peter D. Newman, a former Camp Kanakuk assistant director charged with having sexual contact with a number of former campers.

Docket entry from Case Net for case #09AF-CR02097 (before the case was bound over~~~09AF-CR2097-01 is the docket for the bound over case:

11/09/2009 Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: State's motion to protect child witnesses pursuant to Missouri's child witness protection act - Section 491.725 RSMo. tbp
Filing Party: MERRELL , JEFFREY M

Associated Docket Entries: 11/09/2009 - Notice of Hearing Filed
Set for 11-16-09 @ 1:00pm. tbp

Docket Entry: Notice of Hearing Filed
Text: Set for 11-16-09 @ 1:00pm. tbp
Filing Party: MERRELL , JEFFREY M
Associated Docket Entries: 11/09/2009 - Filing:
State's motion to protect child witnesses pursuant to Missouri's child witness protection act - Section 491.725 RSMo. tbp


11/10/2009 Docket Entry: Motion Hearing Scheduled
Associated Docket Entries: 11/16/2009 - Motion Hearing Held
Deft with Atty Canton. State by APA Lebeck. Motions taken up for argument. Parties agree to closed PH. St withdraws all other motions. tw/cs

Associated Events: 11/16/2009 , 13:00:00 - Motion Hearing

Anonymous said...

Kathee,

I love ya Kathee, but we were there and it WAS going to be closed, but Mr. Newman waived the preliminary hearing. So NO hearing took place behind closed doors.

Get this straight. Be responsible. Love ya.

Kathee Baird said...

Anon @ 10:43:

I understand that you're a family member of Pete's. Get it.

However, the hearing WAS closed to the media. But you are correct that he did waive!

Love ya too!


k

Anonymous said...

Any plea deal he strikes will be between the state of Missouri and himself. Colorado is a separate charge that will have to be dealt with on its merit. If any other states bring charges they will be dealt with separately as well.

The judge can not sentence him to longer in prison than is allowed by law. Some of these charges have maximums of five, seven years.

Anonymous said...

Just because Mr. Newman waived his right to a hearing does not change the fact that if he had not done so, the courtroom would have been closed as ruled by the judge.

Anonymous said...

11:31--...so?

Anonymous said...

So? Courtrooms are public forums for a reason. To provide fair, just hearings for both sides...defense and prosecution. Though, I do believe if a child should have to testify, then special provisions should be made while that child is in the courtroom...but, this should be the only exception in the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

I love how voyeurs think this is a public issue, when in fact, it is VERY personal for all these victims. You people spouting off all these cavalier statements and just a bunch of insensitive.....well, better not say.

If both parties ( Pete AND families) were agreeable to the hearing POTENTIALLY having been closed, then WHO ELSE needs to know? He would have legal representation there looking out for him. The victims would have theirs. Why is that a problem for anybody, other than you just want the scoop. That's it. You are nosey. A lot of people reporting are doing very careless jobs, getting all kinds of "facts" wrong, and it is laughable to those of us on the inside.

You know your heart. Sometimes "rights" are used as an excuse for wanting something harmful. But, you probably don't care anyway.

ymi17 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ymi17 said...

2:08 -

The alleged crimes certainly are ALSO civil offenses, but as for THIS case, it's a public issue, because the affront he's being "punished" for is his breaking of Missouri statute.

The "public" is punishing him for his actions. If he's later sued, that will be the victims punishing for his actions. So it is "everyone's business" to see that the process for prosecuting a public crime is appropriately followed.

If you want to argue for closing a hearing in a civil case between the two on the same basis I won't argue with you.

The attitude that the only people this affects are the direct victims, Pete and his family is simply ludicrous.

Ross
Kanakuk Camper 1990-98
Kanakuk Staff 1999-2005

ymi17 said...

Though I fear in this forum arguing sound civics and the public nature of criminal statutes existing at all is equivalent to casting pearls before swine.

Obviously, it is a personal issue for those involved. Minors should be protected. But the process must play out in public, because that is the law. :)

Anonymous said...

ymi17--

Every person is not an attorney, or legal expert. So, your points make sense.

However, nothing illegal was ever going to happen.

To call concerned victims "swine" proves to point of the poster who said you were insensitive.

Get off your haughty high-horse and try to understand where they're coming from, bigshot.

Hope you never find yourself, or those you love on the other side of this fence.

The "public" punishing him is also inaccurate. HIS CRIMES will bring his just punishment; not the people of Missouri.

Also, since you're such a legal-genius, can you tell us the benefits of victims bringing civil charges against him? What would that do?

Ross said...

Anon at 3:36.

Two things: First, victims can bring a civil suit if they choose. It's up to them, and I wouldn't presume to suggest one way or the other.

Second, I've made it perfectly clear who I am. I'd invite you to do the same.

foursquarelife@yahoo.com

You've made some pretty sweeping statements about me and my posts that are unfounded and untrue. So either identify yourself and take it to e-mail if you have a personal issue, or keep the discussion here on-topic, okay? Thanks.

In Him,

Ross

Anonymous said...

For the record, that is right. It is the people of mo vs Pete in crim court. Right on name of case. People make laws to keep order etc etc.

Anonymous said...

Ross,

I am not the poster of any of the above....just came here and read all this. But, I would say that having a four square life (speaking in Kanakuk-terms) refers back to the verse about Jesus growing in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor with God and man. Well, slinging such hateful language/sarcasm to people (who are saying they are victims) is not at all a good way to demonstrate a four square life. Neither is being pompous and downright mean. Just b/c you have more KNOWLEDGE of something than another doesn't make it appropriate to tear them down "in the name of Jesus." You're just plain mean.

Anonymous said...

Your blog or profile doesn't reveal who you are at all, so NO, you are still anonymous here. Who knows who RUNROSSRUN is?

ymi17 said...

I'm sorry if you read what I was saying sarcastically. I am an attorney, and take very seriously the fact that criminal law is set out to provide a means for the public to enforce its laws (not victims to enforce torts).

I also am a Kanakuk staffer (who posted an e-mail address), and wasn't calling anyone names or using sarcasm at all. I am merely trying to clarify the state of the law, but understand that an online forum on a charged issue isn't always going to lead to a proper discussion of civics (hence my scripture reference re: pearls before swine).

Please use discernment, this is not about me being "mean", it's about the proper analysis of the case against Pete Newman and the public's role.

ymi17 said...

I've re-read my original comments five times, and still don't see a thing that is meanspirited or sarcastic. I really didn't mean to offend anyone, can't find any reasonable rationale for anyone being offended, and hope that you either send me an e-mail explaining it further or quit the diatribe.

foursquarelife@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ross. We (the public) have a right to be informed. We all have an interest in the enforcement of our laws. I also feel I have a vested interest in the cour proceedings even though I'm not a member of either Peter's or the victims' families. I am a Kanakuk parent. I want to know if there were truly incidents in the past which were overlooked. I want to know if Kanakuk management knowingly placed children at risk.

Anonymous said...

A law was created, by the people, for cases dealing with minors for who are victims of sexual crimes to close the courtroom. I dont think that pete, Kanakuk, or the victims had this law legislated in order to protect themselves (yes I am being a bit sarcastic). If you are upset with this law then perhaps you need to persue having it overturned.

My understanding is that this law was intended to protect the victims and does so. I do not think that it means that Pete's portion will be closed otherwise the law is flawed.

Additionally it was the prosecuting attorney who filed the motion to close the courtroom. The judge accepted it. It was not Newmans Lawyer who filed it. If you are angry about this then take it up with the attorney who is making decisions on behalf of the victims.

Can we move on to a new subject now... Such as if anyone knows what happens next in Colorado? If he is sentanced in Missouri, then what happens if he is guilty in other states? Do they get joint custody or something?

Anonymous said...

There is an audio clip attributed to Jeff Merrell posted January 22, 2010, where he explains about jurisdictional issues between La Plata County, CO, and the Taney County charges. I don't know how to link to it, but maybe this info will be useful for searching: The article author is Sam Clanton, and it's under the banner "Hometown Daily News." The URL is very long & begins with eclassifiedsnetwork.com... I found it via a google news search.

Amy C.

Anonymous said...

It is likely that if he is given a severe enough sentence in MO, that the other states will withdraw since any time served would be cuncurrent with his MO prison stay.

If they feel the sentence is too light, they may bring him in and force a trial. Unlikely.

Anonymous said...

7:13, How do you know that the CO time would necessarily run concurrent with the MO time? I don't think that's a certainty.

Also, if he pleads guilty to a certain # of charges here, then there will be a min. sentence on each charge and they don't have to run concurrently. That's up to Judge Mark Orr to decide.

Anonymous said...

Saw this over on another site:

"Seven yrs on each charge served concurrently would bring so much outrage from the community and families across this nation that he would wish he was locked up to be protected for the rest of his life. Plus the judges (or whoever) would be dragged through the mud in the media, O-Rielly, and such that this would be a HUGE mistake. Theres way too much attention on this case and way too much anger for them to get away with just slapping him on the wrist with 7 or 15 or 25 or even 40 years. If he gets what he deserves for all the crimes he's done, then he never gets out. Come to think of it, if he gets what he deserves, then he's slowly tortured for about 60 years."

...AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!

ymi17 said...

I seriously doubt we see a concurrent sentence with the multiple jurisdictions - these are separate crimes - Colorado's statute has no application to Pete's alleged crimes in Missouri, and vice versa. And the arrests can't be for the same act - that would violate double jeopardy. So clearly there was an incident within Colorado in addition to the Missouri charges.

I think it all makes it less likely that we see a trial, but more likely that he serves significant jail time.

Anonymous said...

i agree that concurrent sentences in MO are unlikey - and CO and any other state can convict and require him to begin his sentence at the conclusion on the MO prison time.

my point was that if he gets 40+ years in MO, CO or any other state would likely withdraw because of the time and money involved - like it or not, budget and logistics play a part.

I didn't mean to indicate any other state HAS to sentence concurrently - of course they don't. its just how these things usually work. I actually would be shocked not to see the years piled on, for the very reasons 8:04AM states.

Anonymous said...

ymi17:

Based on the current charges, what kind of time do you see him getting if he pleads any time soon?

Also, would you know anything about WHERE he might serve?

Lastly, what would you expect his days are like right now in the Taney Co. Jail? Separate cell alone? With others? Do you think that other inmates would be aware that this guy is a serial Child Molester?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Is this dude going to plead or what?

Anonymous said...

What he has done has so boggled the mind and imagination, that no wonder so many are confused. He has wreaked havoc upon our very souls, and the souls of countless children.

His sentence had better be appropriate!

Anonymous said...

ymi17: I'd like to know your thoughts on the above question re: sentencing.

Ben Rodda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

On another blog post the author suggests that "other states (are) considering charging Pete Newman with sex crimes" I realize that the word "considering" was chosen by the author. However I wonder if this be the case why have other states have not filed charges yet. It seems that there is probable cause along with a body of evidence. Or does ever state have to start from scratch at this point?

Anonymous said...

Docket Entries stating: "Certificate of Surrender of Prisoner by Bondsperson filed." were filed on his case dating 2/11 and 2/16.

Can anyone explain what this means?

Steve Smith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I always knew Pete was a pervert and had alterior motives...even at age 12 and 13 I just knew he was a bad person. I'm from Auburn, Al and grew up in the AUMC youth group all of jr high and high school. I knew Pete very well. I used to tell my Mom and older sister that he gave me a weird feeling and that there was something not right about the way he hugged and touched the boys in his D-group and youth group. He often got reprimanded for breaking the rules by having his D-group boys spend the night with him at the FIJI house or his apartment but he continued to do it and acted like the rules didn't apply to him. He was so pompass and full of himself and thought all of his duck tape man and Bubba skits were just the coolest thing ever. I could never stand him....I saw evil in him and I was right! This is all very disturbing. I wonder how many of my friends, peers he molested, sodomized or pulled his little. " its ok to masturbate and read the bible together" trick on???? I'm positive there are Auburn boys out there that are too ashamed to speak out. It breaks my heart to think about how many lives he has ruined. He has broken so many hearts but most importantly he has broken God's heart and tarnished the name of Kanakuk and Christianity. I wish that the death penalty could be sought for him...I honestly do. Hell will not be hot enough for Pete Newman!