More than 125 faculty and librarians have signed a petition in Jason’s support, and hundreds of supporters have rallied on his behalf. But the prosecution goes on — the D.A.’s only response being to ask for a change of venue since he has too much local support.
You can read Jason’s lawyers’ motion to dismiss (PDF) for a much fuller account of the incident and investigation — an investigation in which a police officer took a look at two white non-students with sky-high blood alcohol content and no reason to be where they were and a black student with no police record and a solid academic history, and referred to the black student as a probable drug dealer.
On February 18, there will be a pre-trial hearing at which that motion to dismiss is considered. If you’re in Western Massachusetts, consider attending that hearing to support Jason.
If you’re not in Western Mass, you can help by participating in the national call-in day next Tuesday, February 3:
On February 3rd, 2009-the one year anniversary of the hate crime against Jason-organizations and citizens throughout the country will be calling into the Northampton District Attorney’s Office to demand Justice For Jason. Throughout the country folks are infuriated at the racist prosecution that has already taken a year of his life and is threatening to take away 30 more years! Join the effort by signing up to call the DA and DEMAND JUSTICE FOR JASON!
The phone number for the office of Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel is (413) 586-5150 . You are welcome to call anytime. We respectfully ask that your calls be respectful in tone.
There’s no question this was a racist assault. Unfortunately, it’s become clear that the investigation and prosecution have also been racist, extending the reach and brutality of that initial assault. There’s not much we can do to prevent individual attacks or to change the minds of violent racists like John Bowes and Jonathan Bosse. But we can and we must act against miscarriages of justice like this one. Let’s act now.
misslaura says
My father is a UMass faculty member and has been keeping me posted on this story since right after the assault happened. I can’t believe it’s gotten this far — I feel such rage when I think about it.
christopher says
…is how did two non-students get into the dorm in the first place? Otherwise, I’d love to hear the other side of this story because I certainly can’t come up with it on my own.
<
p>Besides, can the D. A. even ask for a change of venue? The sixth amendment to the federal Constitution guarantees the defendant the right to be tried in the “…district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” It seems the defense can request that right be waived, but not the prosecution.
misslaura says
Jason Vassell called a friend to come over for support and the non-students were lurking by the dorm door and followed him in.
<
p>They naturally tried to portray the friend as part of a fight, that Vassell called him for back-up and it was two-on-two, but in fact the friend seems to have tried to cool things off and break it up, and got punched by Bowes or Bosse without ever himself acting violently in any way.
<
p>Don’t know about the change of venue question. Or the other side, honestly. There seem to be a lot of witnesses basically corroborating what Jason Vassell said, while Bowes and Bosse clearly lied from the get-go, and Vassell was known as a hardworking student and nice person while Bowes at least and I believe also Bosse have been reported for assault on other occasions, including a racist assault very much like this one.
gary says
<
p>And Vassell’s knife?
misslaura says
who Bowes and Bosse followed into the dorm.
<
p>Yes, Vassell defended himself with a pocketknife after he was assaulted and his nose had been broken.
gary says
The timeline seems to indicate that he produced a pocketknife THEN had his nose broken.
david says
that he wasn’t very effective at scaring the guys off, wouldn’t you say?
gary says
Rules to live by: i) when threatened through a window, don’t open the door ii) don’t call a friend stupid enough to open the door iii) pull a pocketknife? For god’s sake why not just threaten them with harsh language.
<
p>He seems sympathetic, but with so many questions of fact it’s hard to imagine a motion being granted.
johnk says
gary says
Don’t get all sactimonious. If you’re stupid enough to open up the locked door to your assailant and then pull a knife against two drunks, you may not deserve what you get, but don’t expect less.
<
p>The motion that is linked is a fine example of defense advocacy.
<
p>The prosecution might well say that the ‘victim’ called his friend as backup, who came over to teach those guys a lesson. Meanwhile he fetched a knife when he could have as easily contacted the Police or the RA. Armed with a knife and no brains, the two got together, let the drunk bums in and proceeded to get their asses kicked, then cried victim.
<
p>My point: it’s a fact driven matter being considered on Motion. Tie goes to the jury.
johnk says
the two attackers were the ones who went into the dorm. Jason Vassell and his friend did not go outside to confront the two drunks.
<
p>Sorry, but it’s just the angle that you are taking this is what I don’t agree with.
david says
he showed the knife to try to scare the two attackers. He was punched before inflicting any injury on them. He may subsequently have inflicted minor injuries with it, apparently in the course of trying to ward them off. MissLaura can correct me if I have the details wrong.
<
p>There’s a detailed chronology in the motion to dismiss, with record cites, which is linked in the main post.
misslaura says
The motion to dismiss has a lot of detailed information, but it’s also clear that it’s pieced together from multiple witness accounts, and that sometimes makes it a little hard to pin things down. I recommend skimming it if you have questions — most of what I said was an attempt to distill the many voices heard from in it.
eury13 says
if it had been a gun? I hear the right to defend oneself with firearms is very big among your political brethren.
gary says
<
p>No difference: knife, gun, kitchenaid mixer…at issue is at some point did the victim become the escalating aggressor. Just the facts. Reality based and all that, bleeding hearts notwithstanding.
christopher says
By other side I meant the authorities who decided to charge the apparent victim; I’d love to know their reasoning.
david says
Simi Valley, anyone?
christopher says
but this still looks like it had to be defendant’s initiative, or at least assent.
david says
mcrd says
The defendant armed himself with a deadly weapon—why?
There is obviously more to this story than is being published by the local cops.
The fact that the “racist” Klanners were charged with misdeamenors is also puzzling—unless the cops, the chief of police, the DA and the ADA are all “in on it” and spend their weekends burning crosses in their back yards wearing a bed spread. This doesn’t add up. Then couple this with the fact that the state police or the FBI are not pursuing
civil rights violations—this entire matter is baffling.
Perhaps the gentleman in the dorm room was engaged in some unlawful activity? Stranger things have been known to happen at zoo mass.
petr says
Thirty years is much to much time for a case like this. I don’t, however, favor outright dismissal. If Vassell did pull a knife, self-defense or no, there ought to be some consequences. Also, if he had sufficient time to call his friend for backup, he had sufficient time to call campus security and/or the police. I think, though he was indeed the victim, he could have handled it better. Let him have his trial. He might get whatever vindication is to be had, and he might have to take his lumps as well. First offence; he’ll get probation maybe and have to do community service. I think that’s the worst that ought to happen to him. I don’t, however, feel that the case should be outright dismissed.
<
p>I’m much more troubled by the misdemeanor charge and lack of charge for these two (obvious) blockhead racists. They ought to get the thirty years!! Sounds like that’s probably where their going to end up anyways… I’m mystified (OK, not really, some of the cops seemed either irretrievably stupid our outright racist themselves…) as to why they would simply give this lunks a slap on the wrist.
<
p>
mcrd says
it will go to a grand jury. The fact that everything is being heard in district court would lend one to come to the conclusion that much of this is hearsay BS.
johnd says
People on this site usually want the facts and that is what a jury will hear. Why is MissLaura trying to prevent our judicial system from working. Does she think ‘popularity should sway justice? Did Michael Vick avoid prison because crowds of supporters rallied for him? It is often the case that crimes occur and pieces of the story come out, typically one-sided but in the end in court all the facts come out, many facts to the surprise of everyone.
<
p>Fights happen everyday. Sometimes people defend why they started one or why they defended themselves a certain way. Is anyone here telling the other side of this story? Is there anything but anecdotal evidence here in support of Vassell?
<
p>If these 2 thugs caused the problem, I hope they get tried and convicted of the crime. And yes, I would want them to go to PRISON as opposed to joining some “hate counseling” group or join a support group for “racial haters”…
<
p>Same for Vassell. Let him go to court and stand trial. If they convict him, he goes away. When I went to Mass Maritime Academy we were all issued pocket knives and were required to carry them at all times or be punished. During freshman year a fellow student got into a fight at a red light between 2 cars of guys and he killed one of them with his school knife. He said he was only protecting himself… he went to jail for a long time.
cos says
The prosecutor doesn’t have a duty to prosecute unless they believe he’s really guilty and should be convicted. Putting aside the specific facts of this case, and looking just at your argument, it sounds like you’d be defending the arbitrary prosecution of anyone even vaguely involved in any disturbance, no matter how clear it is that they did nothing wrong, because you believe it should just be the trial’s role to sort it out, and if they did nothing wrong they’d be acquitted. I can think of a lot of things wrong with that logic.
johnd says
<
p>I think when somebody gets stabbed, whether rightly or wrongly, and the “victim” is pressing charges, then the prosecutor has the right and even the obligation to charge somebody. Maybe some of the lawyers here could comment on what the prosecutor legally must do though. Otherwise, it seems we would have prosecutors acting on the people they may ideologically or politically agree with or not agree with.
farnkoff says
in a burglary attempt, the prosecution is absolutely obligated to charge Mr. Mulchahey. You sure?
farnkoff says
johnmurphylaw says
johnmurphylaw says
You absolutely love to split hairs.
johnd says
Do you concur that a prosecutor would have to charge someone who stabs someone?
farnkoff says
I don’t know whether that is the case or not.
cos says
I was addressing the theory expressed in the earlier comment, not the specific facts. Logically, the opinion stated in that comment applies to a lot more cases than this one. Regardless of how you feel about this one, I think that theory needed demolishing.
farnkoff says
As in, when employer X runs a comprehensive “background check”, will he be able to see the arrest, charge, and disposition? Or will he just see “No record”? Anyone know?
gary says
Generally, acquittals remain on a person’s criminal record unless and until expunged.
<
p>There are probably some junvenile exceptions to that that general rule of which I’m unfamiliar.
laurel says
gary says
In Mass, if the record isn’t sealed, then the record of arrest is forever. However, if sealed, then you are allowed by statute to answer the question “have you ever been arrested?” with the answer “no record”.
farnkoff says
For the info.
joe-viz says
If a there is no arraignment the arrest does not make it into the Corri system. So you have to be formally charged usually the day after before it goes on your record. But once that happens it is there.
joe-viz says
usually the day after the arrest.
mcrd says
An arrested person is booked by the police at the police station. (Record of arrest #1) Then within a period of time the arrested person is brought before the court and the probation dept. (Record of arrest #2) The police bring the application for complaint to the clerks office and the complaints are typed and signed by the complaintant.[Under oath] (Record of arrest #3) The arrested person is then brought before the court for arraignment and formally charged and a plea entered ( Record of arrest and arraignment and entered on the docket) being arraigned is mandatory and a constitutional guarantee to preclude those in authority from simply shanghiaing people and imprisonning people without being charged with a crime. All of this goes on the BOP for perpetuity unless the record is sealed or expunged. If sealed—-the record remains but it is sealed to all eyes except the court and BOP. If expunged—it all goes away. Misdeameanors can be sealed ten years after date of offense or subsequent offense. Certain felonies can be sealed—most —not. I am not certain but I think you can answer no to a question of arrest or conviction after five years for a misdemeanor if there is absent a subsequent arrest or conviction on an employment app. Felonies follow you forever.
lene says
A criminal record is established at arraignment and whether the final verdict is a conviction or not, the record remains until either 10 years for misdemeanors or 15 years for felonies. After the appropriate period the person requests the record be sealed and the Commissioner of Probation is required to seal it. For all intents and purposes, criminal records cannot be expunged in Massachusetts a very few first-time minor drug offenses and juvenile offenses may be expunged which wipes the record from existence. The SJC, in a challenge to the expungement provision by the Boston Globe, prohibited the expungement of criminal records.
Once sealed a person may answer that they have no record to a question regarding a criminal record.
Prior to sealing, if an employer or landlord has been certified by the the Criminal History Systems Board to receive CORI, they can see whatever is on the record – convictions, dismissals and anything in between including the confusing process between arraignement and adjudication.
farnkoff says
And thus, as a general rule, deny employment to those whose record comes up as “sealed”?
farnkoff says
guilty enough to be denied employment.” Even if acquitted. That sort of sucks, IMO. Welcome to the low end of the blue-collar world, Jason- you’d better hope for at least some “shovel-ready” projects.
christopher says
It sounds like a decision has been made NOT to prosecute the instigators (Someone feel free to correct me if I’m misunderstanding this.), which is what really makes it a miscarriage of justice in my mind. Remember the Duke lacrosse team? Sure, it FINALLY sorted itself out, but I bet the stigma of the prosecution hasn’t gone away.
<
p>As for popularity, like it or not it might be a factor. A District Attorney is after all an ELECTED official, charged with representing the people of the county. If the people decide this is someone they don’t want to see prosecuted they have every right to make their feelings known. The DA still has to make the call, but he will need to explain his decision and potentially face the political consequences.
mcrd says
Many times witnesses (so called) have an agenda and are prone to selective memory or “disremember” events as Roger Clemens would have it. or the cops want to put someone away, or the DA does, or the defense is sick of his client and throws him/her under the bus. Think it doesn’t happen—often? Think again.
johnd says
And I would rather have a judge and jury than a angry crowd and popular opinion. These stories hit the MSM and people get into a frenzy… and then the facts come out. Look at the darling of the media, the woman who had octuplets a few days ago. People were ready to sell their livers to send donations… until they found out about the other 6 kids she had, the 8 embryos that were inserted, the lack of a Father… People have been hung on this knee jerk impulsive frenzy so I am a big believer in finding out the facts, and not just by a reporter but by court orders or testifying under oath.
<
p>But, again, I’m not saying we don’t get occasional dis-remembering or “innocent mistakes”…
lucretia says
Haven’t we learned from Pring-Wilson’s case that there IS no self defense when it is knife against fists? In Massachusetts you LOSE your right to self defense when you pull out a weapon. All prosecutors see it this way. If it is going to be tried in District Court, the most he will get would be 2-1/2 years in Jail. If Superior Court maximum 10 if first felony. I say he’ll be found guilty at trial, given a 1 year suspended sentence and 3 years probation. He will probably have assault with intent to murder dropped to A & B with dangerous weapon only. He’ll be tried on those charges and will be a felon the rest of his life. No jobs, no housing, no life. All because some punk low lifes crossed his path with their racist b.s. I can remember a person being tried in Amherst for breaking a dorm plate glass window when drunk and being charged with a felony A & B with dangerous weapon, why aren’t these punks being charged with the broken window as a weapon against the girls in the dorm? Seems like the Amherst police dept. is being a bit inconsistent here?
izzy says
These comments are rife with wild speculation that has no basis in any of the information available to the public at this time; also a few inaccuracies. Bowes (or is it Bosse?) IS charged with a felony — A & B based on racial animus causing injury. If you look at the alleged facts, it’s difficult to come up with a more serious (Massachusetts) charge.
<
p>As for Vassell, it seems to agreed that there was a confrontation in the dorm lobby after the initial encounter thru the dorm room window. Neither side alleges, as many of Vassell’s supporters seem to believe, that the two “intruders” were in the process of delivering a serious beating to Vassell, who then struck with the knife to save his life. It would seem that there is a dispute about who struck the first blow and under what specific circumstances. Much of the unknown specifics apparently can be seen on security video recordings.
<
p>With that in mind, how to deal with Vassell – can anyone claim that it is clear that he should not be CHARGED with any crime? For those who do, end of conversation. Otherwise, assuming that Vassell might be held criminally liable for his actions, what were they? Apparently, he stabbed two people multiple times with a knife. That’s at least assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
<
p>The fact that the two “B”‘s used racist language and apparently have some sort of history of racist-related violence certainly explains their behavior and is relevant to the civil rights/hate crime part of the charge against Bowes. But how does that exonerate Vassell?
<
p>Imagine if the combatants had been of the same race and had gotten into an argument during which vile ethnic or religious langauge was used and a fight with similar results ensued. Would you argue that the insulted stabber also should not be charged?
How often are these the sort of facts we read about in connection with a confrontation that left one or more people seriously hurt or dead?
izzy says
These comments are rife with wild speculation that has no basis in any of the information available to the public at this time; also a few inaccuracies. Bowes (or is it Bosse?) IS charged with a felony — A & B based on racial animus causing injury. If you look at the alleged facts, it’s difficult to come up with a more serious (Massachusetts) charge.
<
p>As for Vassell, it seems to agreed that there was a confrontation in the dorm lobby after the initial encounter thru the dorm room window. Neither side alleges, as many of Vassell’s supporters seem to believe, that the two “intruders” were in the process of delivering a serious beating to Vassell, who then struck with the knife to save his life. It would seem that there is a dispute about who struck the first blow and under what specific circumstances. Much of the unknown specifics apparently can be seen on security video recordings.
<
p>With that in mind, how to deal with Vassell – can anyone claim that it is clear that he should not be CHARGED with any crime? For those who do, end of conversation. Otherwise, assuming that Vassell might be held criminally liable for his actions, what were they? Apparently, he stabbed two people multiple times with a knife. That’s at least assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
<
p>The fact that the two “B”‘s used racist language and apparently have some sort of history of racist-related violence certainly explains their behavior and is relevant to the civil rights/hate crime part of the charge against Bowes. But how does that exonerate Vassell?
<
p>Imagine if the combatants had been of the same race and had gotten into an argument during which vile ethnic or religious langauge was used and a fight with similar results ensued. Would you argue that the insulted stabber also should not be charged?
How often are these the sort of facts we read about in connection with a confrontation that left one or more people seriously hurt or dead?