Secret video of mids alleged

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
141

<p><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan02nov02,0,7513929.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan02nov02,0,7513929.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A handwriting expert testified yesterday that there is no doubt the label on a disc that contains sex videos of Naval Academy midshipmen was written by a Navy doctor who is accused of secretly filming the students at his home.</p>

<p>Donald Moryan, a forensic document examiner with the Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory in Georgia, also told a military jury that it was "highly probable" that Cmdr. Kevin Ronan wrote the labels on two other lewd DVDs that prosecutors say were recovered from the doctor's Annapolis house.</p>

<p>Prosecutors in Ronan's court-martial at the Washington Navy Yard were hoping that Moryan's testimony would put a dent in the defense's assertion that Ronan had nothing to do with the sex videos....

[/quote]
</p>

142

<p>Another "Sea Lawyer" question:</p>

<p>If we are to presume innocence until one is proven guilty, then doesn't that mean that we are to believe the Defense's argument is true unles proven otherwise? Beyond a shadow of a doubt??</p>

<p>Even tho' it might seem unlikely (given the expert's testimony), the possibility does exist that someone else could've forged the doctor's handwriting - especially if it is very distinctive and/or the forger had close contact w/ the doctor. I don't know about the first premise, but the latter is true.</p>

<p>Also, it mentions in the article that the writing is on a label - could that have been from another disk?</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that if the doctor is guilty, then he should be punished severly. I'm just looking for loopholes in the prosecution. I'm only doing so - not because I'm inclined to believe that an "extortion plot" exists - but because the premise of "presumed innocence" dictates it. (So don't flame me for busting on a mid - that is not my intent - even tho' there are some serious credibility issues there given that he has admittedly forged documents in the past). </p>

<p>FWIW, I also have some questions I'd like to see answered when the Defense presents its arguments.</p>

<p>This is an interesting case - sure wish it did not involve USNA.</p>

143

<p><a href="So%20don't%20flame%20me%20for%20busting%20on%20a%20mid%20-%20that%20is%20not%20my%20intent%20-%20even%20tho'%20there%20are%20some%20serious%20credibility%20issues%20there%20given%20that%20he%20has%20admittedly%20forged%20documents%20in%20the%20past">quote=bz2010</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Typewritten documents are easy to forge; especially in the computer age. However, forging somebody's handwriting is another story.</p>

144

<p>Agreed - that's one reason why I wondered if the writing was directly on the disc or perhaps on a label(s) or case that could've been substituted. I admit, this may be too far-fetched. Maybe the whole defense is a sham. Just what does "beyond a shadow of a doubt" mean? (Or is that just in murder cases?). I know I'm a total amateur looking at this case - maybe that's why I have so many questions. </p>

<p>This case is so interesting because it seems like we have one good guy and one bad guy - but which is which? I want to believe that the mid is the good guy, but I also want to believe that the doctor is a good guy. But one of them is a bad guy - either the doctor is bad b/c he made the tapes, ot the mid is bad b/c he tried to extort $$. It's probably easier to believe that the doctor is bad because that involves a simple plan - get camera, record activity. What the defense is suggesting is much less plausible: Find doctor's camera, make recordings w/out doctor's knowledge, forge handwriting (or substitute disks w/ cases or labels w/ existing handwriting, and this would also require a lot of "acting" & deceit...</p>

<p>Obviously the defense want us to believe that the doc is the "good guy", opening up his house to mids, provding food, games, transportation, etc. Apparently several mids didn't suspect anything as they joined him regularly for meals, etc. And they want you to believe that the mid is the "bad guy" since he was dropped from the academy, falsified documents previoiusly, etc. I suspect it isn't nearly that cut & dried, however. Again, that's where the whole "presumed innocent" issue comes in to play - if we are to presume innocence than we have to also "presume" that it was a set up by the mid. Very unfortunate situation.</p>

<p>Another question I have tho' (might go back & see if this has been mentioned), is - how much time passed between the discovery of the discs and the notification of authorities - and did the mid say anything to the doc about it in the meantime? Was there a confrontation b/w mid & doc at any time? Maybe this is where the "extortion" comes in...?</p>

<p>Obviously, w/out being present in the courtroom, there will probably be questions which won't get answered. I just hope that the true "bad guy" is revealed & the proper punishment dispatched.</p>

145

<p>There is also the question of whether the DVD's in question were DVD-R or DVD-RW, which I understand can be RE-written.</p>

<p>So who knows? Maybe the discs DID have lectures on them, and someone overwrote the lectures.</p>

<p>The lessons of the story?</p>

<p>a) Sponsors: Don't let your Mids take over your home.</p>

<p>b) Mids: If you want some romantic time with your honey, have some class and go rent an anonymous hotel room rather than using your sponsor's house as a convenient and free love pad.</p>

146

<p>


</p>

<p>I would venture to say that you're probably looking at two bad guys. As USNA69 stated in a previous post, we'll never know the whole story.</p>

147

<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>
Bingo!</p>

148

<p>The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecution must prove its case against the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means, however, that the defense need not prove anything; it is NOT incumbent upon the defense to disprove a single word of what the prosecution says. Having said that, the defense may introduce evidence that, to a reasonable person, introduces doubt upon the prosecution's case.</p>

<p>Interestingly, the source of a document, in this case a label, can be traced to a particular machine. If the source of label is in question, assuming it is relevant as to where or by whom the label was produced, the prosecution could look to the various printers in the Dr.'s house and test them to see if they produced the label. Laser printers, copiers, impact printers, etc. all have "fingerprints" that can usually, not always, be detected on printout under microscopic examination.
If the witness is a forensic document examiner, he would know to establish that the label was produced on a machine resident in the doctor's house.
Strong circumstantial evidence that the doctor produced the label.</p>

<p>I will have to re-read the above posts to determine if this somehow answers the questions posed.</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
Strong circumstantial evidence that the doctor produced the label.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or that someone else produced them on his equipment...</p>

150

<p>Ah Bill - I was hoping you'd lend your expertise. Thank you for clarifying the standard. "Reasonable" doubt still seems difficult to nail down...</p>

<p>GA - It's bad enough that there would be one bad guy - now you ask me to believe that there are two bad guys!! (But, if the situation exists that the doc did make the tapes, and then the mid, discovering their existence, attempts to use them for selfish gain in some way - then yes, there would be two bad guys). </p>

<p>It's a bummer any way you slice it.</p>

<p>Zaph - Good point about CD-R v. CD-RW. I liked your lessons of the story - way to turn a negative into a positive by examining what can be learned from any situation, no matter how dismal it seems. You an academy grad or something? ;)</p>

151

<p>^^^^^
I think we are talking about handwritten labels. That's why the prosecutor brought in a handwriting expert as a witness.</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
Or that someone else produced them on his equipment...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's part of the problem in this case - and opens the door to "reasonable doubt" - apparently the mids had such complete access to the doctor's house.</p>

153

<p>


</p>

154

<p>The comment was made earlier that typewritten documents were easy to forge. This is what caught my attention.
A forgery is a document fraudulently made or altered to be used as genuine. While the concept of forgery may apply to the content--unless using a font that was not available at the time--of a message, the statement is less applicable to the document itself.
A determination can be made with relative ease whether a document is a copy or an original; and from what machine it was produced. To a trained eye, therefore, forged documents are not as easily passed as you might think in this computer age.</p>

<p>Mind you this standard is for criminal cases. "Reasonable doubt" can be a difficult standard but you have to remember that it is a standard that is "reasonable" to the jury. A jury of your peers.</p>

<p>That is why discussions of an out of control judiciary are, for the most part, ignorant. It is the JURY--a jury of your fellow citizens--that believes a defendant is not-guilty or guilty. Furthermore, in most circumstances, it is the JURY--a jury of your fellow Americans--that decides to award dollars to claimants in cases, i.e. personal injury cases.
Attorneys may assist--and in sometimes encourage--claimants in filing cases but fine Americans are the ones that make the ultimate award. So, rather than blame the attorneys, the culprits--if there are any--are the juries that make the awards that some find so egregious.</p>

<p>"Rreasonable doubt" then is whatever citizens, at that time, based upon the evidence provided to them decide it is.</p>

<p>"Reasonable doubt" . . . is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not a mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.
Comm. v. Webster 59 Mass. (5 Cush) 295, 320 (1850)</p>

<p>It is beyond a reasonable doubt. Proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt. If, after consideration of all the evidence, there is still reasonable doubt in the juror's mind as to the truth of the charge, that juror MUST vote not-guilty.</p>

<p>I have not really kept up with this case.
I don't know wha tthe charge is against the doctor. That is, what is the criminal charge being brought?
I would guess there are also administrative charges being brought against the Dr. The standard for sustaining this charge may be by a preponderance of the evidence. A lower standard.</p>

155

<p><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan03nov03,0,7972683.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.ronan03nov03,0,7972683.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A Navy physician's home computer stored gay pornography in a folder titled "lectures" -- the label of one of the sex videos of Naval Academy midshipmen that the doctor is accused of secretly recording, a computer specialist testified yesterday.</p>

<p>The file on Navy Cmdr. Kevin Ronan's computer contained pictures of young shirtless men and more than 2,000 still frames from gay pornographic movies, said Michael Wavada, a specialist with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Washington....

[/quote]
</p>

156

<p><a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/11/navy_courtmartial_update_07110w/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/11/navy_courtmartial_update_07110w/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The court-martial of a Navy doctor accused of secretly taping the sexual encounters of several Naval Academy midshipmen at his Annapolis home packed some drama into its first week, with allegations that the prosecution’s chief witness could be a deserter and was trying to blackmail the accused, and that that doctor was sexually attracted to the “young, athletic men” he treated.</p>

<p>The proceedings also included the airing of a sex tape on a film screen before a jury made up of senior Navy officers....

[/quote]
</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
Zaph - Good point about CD-R v. CD-RW. I liked your lessons of the story - way to turn a negative into a positive by examining what can be learned from any situation, no matter how dismal it seems. You an academy grad or something?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep. I play one on the intraweb, too! :D</p>

<p>Thanks for the clarification of the labels, GA. :)</p>

158

<p>No</a> shortage of drama in academy court-martial - Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times</p>

<p>
[quote]
The court-martial of a Navy doctor accused of secretly taping the sexual encounters of several Naval Academy midshipmen at his Annapolis home packed some drama into its first week, with allegations that the prosecution’s chief witness could be a deserter and was trying to blackmail the accused, and that that doctor was sexually attracted to the “young, athletic men” he treated.</p>

<p>The proceedings also included the airing of a sex tape on a film screen before a jury made up of senior Navy officers....

[/quote]
</p>

159

<p>Midshipman testifies in court-martial of officer charged in making of sex videos</p>

<p>Ex-Mid</a> asked woman to do porn film, she says -- baltimoresun.com</p>

<p>
[quote]
A former Naval Academy midshipman who appears in sex DVDs allegedly recovered from a Navy physician's house asked his former girlfriend to make a pornographic movie with him when they were dating, the woman testified yesterday.</p>

<p>The woman, a senior midshipman testifying in the court-martial of Navy Cmdr. Kevin Ronan, said her ex-boyfriend asked on several occasions to film them having sex and made her feel guilty when she declined....

[/quote]
</p>

160

<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The plot thickens. Wow. Just Wow.</p>