Hey, there! Log in / Register

BU student radio station canceled fundraiser for Massachusetts Bail Fund

The Daily Free Press reports the station, WTBU, canceled an online benefit, scheduled for this past Friday, after learning the fund paid to bail a man charged with rape who is now charged with another rape following his release.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Is the TUB a new college station?

up
Voting closed 8

A long time ago (i.e. when I went there) TBU broadcast from Myles Standish Hall, which was my dorm. I believe Howard Stern DJed there a long, long time ago.

up
Voting closed 13

Stern was on WTBU as was Pete Gustin of WEEI.
It's online and carrier current.The much bigger
BU station is NPR affiliate WBUR of Car Talk fame.

up
Voting closed 14

Stern was also on the long forgotten WNTN out of Newton which was a fantastic rock music station in the early 70s that operated on the AM dawn-to-dusk model. Stylistically it was similar to the original WBCN of the late 60s/early 70s. Those of us in high school knew we were REALLY hip if we listened to NTN. :-) Stern was on towards the end of it's existence and I thought his more abrasive style (it existed even then)was a bit at odds with the other "I'm so mellow and high on pot" style of other DJs of the time, even though he did play cool music. One day in 1975 the station just stopped existing as such. I turned on the radio and it wasn't there. That was a sad day. I think the call letters exist to this day but I don't know what the station does.

up
Voting closed 9

I hate how NPR took over so many college radio stations. And to make things worse, they then cancelled local programming including fb music shows, in favor of canned national news shows.

up
Voting closed 14

I never thought I'd say it, but at this point it's no great loss. Boston's college stations seem to be caught in some strange and irrelevant punk rock time warp and do not reflect current tastes. The death of terrestrial radio has even reached college stations now.

up
Voting closed 10

WERS (Emerson) is great. WMBR (MIT) is pretty good. And WHRB (Harvard) has a few good shows, though much of their programming is pretty stuck on obscure classical, jazz, and punk.

up
Voting closed 6

At least in the 1970s, you could receive it only inside BU buildings, not outdoors.

up
Voting closed 9

I could never get a good signal, and I was in the building (okay, next to the building, since it was broadcast from the Annex)

up
Voting closed 11

Attention Comm. Gross...

Brandy Henry, clerk, is quite the grant application writer. If there is any Federal or state government funding for this 'free them all' organization, that should be investigated and funding canceled.

Oh, there are a bunch of pics of them in their 'free them all' tee shirts. They knew exactly what they were doing.

up
Voting closed 49

Ensuring poor people have the same access to privileges as rich people do? What a terrible thing to do.

If this accused rapist had the money on his own to post bail, that would have been completely cool with you?

up
Voting closed 69

Either the judge sets a bail amount or he/she doesn't. That is entirely the responsibility of the judge.
So I don't criticize any organization or individual for posting bail.

up
Voting closed 40

Being set free from jail so you can rape another person is not a "right" or "privilege" but rather an example of the justice system failing to protect innocent people from known criminals.

Can you give us some examples of "rich" people repeatedly robbing, murdering, raping, or carrying guns illegally in the Boston area after being released on bail? Your "rich people" doing this too claim doesn't even appear to be a problem or standard we can even consider here given it so rarely occurs.

up
Voting closed 55

You're asking me to defend arguments I am not making.

up
Voting closed 44

Typical lame response when someone completely destroys your argument.

up
Voting closed 26

BAIL IS FOR ENSURING COURT APPEARANCE ONLY.

You have no argument - you are just an ignorant fool with an opinion.

up
Voting closed 8

Where "completely destroying" consists of throwing out a bunch of strawmen, then asserting that the other commenter must argue as though they were relevant. Now that's lame.

up
Voting closed 23

Not particularly hard to destroy an argument that surmounts to a whataboutism defense for rapists!

up
Voting closed 14

You misunderstand me.

"Ensuring poor people have the same access to privileges as rich people do? What a terrible thing to do."

Nope. That's not what I said and it's not what I'm implying. First of all, the serial rapist we're talking about was first convicted in 1994, I believe. He's 39 now. Think about that. It's not rocket surgery. Whoever decided to bail him out was an experienced Federal defense attorney, I'll wager. Really clear and excellent thinking on his or her part.

None of them should be let out, if they have multiple convictions. You confuse being poor with being influential. The color line is green, absolutely, but the money is a tool used to buy influence.

Harvey Weinstein got away with it forever because of his influence, casting power and raw piles of money, not to mention the support of the Hollywood and progressive community.
Epstein, who didn't kill himself, probably, had aristocratic royalty in his creepy pockets. He had such luminaries as President Clinton solidly on his side, if for no other reason than he probably had some interesting videos. Our noble President committed the extreme indiscretion of having his name recorded on the flight manifest of Epstein's Lolita Express to pedo island no less than twenty six times. Don't believe me? Look it up. The flight log is online. Not difficult to find. Oh, believe me, the pilot ain't gonna lie on that document.

So, let's knock it off with the 'double standard' bullshit. The Massachusetts Bail Fund (bail up to $2,000) owns this serial rapist, as they should.
There are a bunch of pics of them in their 'free them all' tee shirts. They knew exactly what they were doing.

They should be held accountable for it.

up
Voting closed 28

...the judge set bail.

There are a bunch of pics of them in their 'free them all' tee shirts. They knew exactly what they were doing.

This is the sheerest idiocy.

up
Voting closed 19

MBF certainly had the option of not bailing this guy out, and probably should've used their discretion. But the judge also had the option (duty, really) to actually hold a dangerousness hearing. The actions of both parties are why this guy got out, but while I think MBF did a stupid thing that got innocent people hurt, so did the judge, and only the judge swore an oath and must answer to me.

I urge MBF to hang their heads in shame for their dangerous, harmful mistake. I hold the judge responsible.

up
Voting closed 7

Until YOU are the one who is accused and held despite not being CONVICTED of anything.

But your community isn't overpoliced as a money generating racket.

up
Voting closed 43

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial

up
Voting closed 49

What's to stop people from accepting bail from the fund and skipping town? Unlike when friends/family or traditional bail bondsmen post the cash, there is less incentive to return for trial if no one is going to come after you to get their cash back.

up
Voting closed 47

This was my thought exactly.

The problem is the two sides look at it two different ways. The side we are on see bail and believe it is to ensure they show up for court. The other side sees bail as punishment and would rather it not exist.

I can not speak for you but I am willing to admit that sometimes the bail system is out of whack and needs to be updated. Every so often you hear about a rich person killing someone and getting 10k bail and a poor person is accused of the same thing and gets the same bail or higher. IF bail is not a tax but rather insurance then it should be directly attached to wealth and income. Bail should force you to show up, not cripple your entire support network until the court date. I assume judges sometimes set bail so high as a way to keep people from posting bail but if they believe the person is a threat to society enough to do that they should fight to keep them in jail without the bail overhead.

I would possibly donate to a fund if I had heard someone got a huge bail for a relatively minor offense but not for this case. Did nobody get any crazy vibes from him when he was being vetted, did they bother? Did they even look at his history? I saw the DA was upset at the bail fund but she is very outspoken why hasn't she spoken up about this before? Were there no avenues for her to try to increase bail ? "unleash onto our community" was a word she used, but he just paid bail... He could have gotten the 15 thousand from any number of other sources. Plus he has been waiting for two years to go to trial, did she want to keep him in jail without a trial for that long. Why does it take so long?

up
Voting closed 6

"BAIL is not punishment
BAIL is to ensure someone shows up for trial"

Bail has something to do with showing up, yes.

But, repetitive one, you are a buffoon.

Bail can have any number conditions attached to it. Passport revocation, alcohol restrictions, ankle bracelets, you name it.

Bail can be revoked for a number of reasons...robbing a liquor store, carjacking, kiting checks, beating the shit out of some poor woman, strangling her then raping the hell out of her are also bail violations.

up
Voting closed 18

Is a tax on crime.

Should this guy have been allowed out? No.

But a judge set him free once he paid his tax. Your problem is with the judge, not with the Mass Bail Fund

up
Voting closed 49

Nope.

My problem is with the Mass Bail Fund. They have at least two people in their organization that work for the government as defenders. They had no idea that this guy was dangerous? Nope, not buying it for a second.
The various governments involved would be well served to take a closer look, and ask some sharp questions of Samia Hossain, who is an attorney at the Federal Public Defender Office in Boston according to their website and Jessica Thrall who is an attorney at the Federal Public Defenders Office in Boston.

Both working for the feds, but it's a small office, so they must know something. Or maybe Norma Wassel, who is the 'Directory of the Social Services Advocates for the Public Defender Division at the Committee for Public Counsel Services'. Not sure if that's state or Fed.

Ask her.

But...Michael Cox is their Bail Fund Administrator. So, he signed off on this travesty. Ball's in your court, Michael.

Please tell us you knew something of this serial rapist's record before you decided to commit seven and one half times above the maximum bail your esteemed organization will set.

That, boys and girls, sounds like it's a tad neglectful.

up
Voting closed 26

The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) is the state public defender office, for state criminal matters and also civil matters where attorneys are appointed (commitment, guardianship, family court, etc).

The federal public defender office is called just that, the Federal Public Defender Office.

up
Voting closed 14

Your problem is with the judge, not with the Mass Bail Fund

I think it's ridiculous that anyone is completely condemning bail assistance and ignoring the judge's decision to allow bail, but that doesn't mean that the Mass Bail Fund acted appropriately.

The primary failure was allowing a repeat rapist bail at all, however, it sounded like MBF also acted outside of their own guidelines in this case. If that is true, there are two issues here.

up
Voting closed 21

A failure of the system that failed to hold a hearing on the danger the suspect presented to the public based on the prior record.

Bail is generally nonsense anyway. It is a tax on being accused by cops in heavily overpoliced communities. Look at how many places will hold young men for years without even charges? Like NYC? Like Mississippi?

Bail has nothing to do with what happened here - guy should not have been eligible for it.

up
Voting closed 45

A better system would be to require a friend or family member to vouch the accused will return for trial. Should the accused run or commit another crime while out, the person who vouched for the accused also faces jail.

If no one is willing to vouch for the accused, it's an indication they should stay imprisoned.

up
Voting closed 17

what if you've been wrongly accused but have no family? and your friends dont want to get involved in the legal system? were visiting from out of town and dont know anyone locally?

and whats to stop someone from convincing a gullible family member to "vouch" for them and then skipping town? then you have an innocent, well-meaning person in jail for... what?

plenty of people would be screwed over in that scenario.

up
Voting closed 25

We don't do that bullshit in the US. Why not? Because it is odeous to pin the crimes of one person on a relative - something the founders HATED before they did away with it.

You need to go back and study some US history. Totally outrageous that you are so ignorant that you would even suggest this.

up
Voting closed 7

We could just invest in the system so people are not waiting two or more years for a trial for violent offenses.

I say keep low level bail for low level offenders that is attached to income somehow and get rid of bail for the worst alleged offenders. Then speed up the process so you are not waiting in jail for years. If keeping people in jail is supposed to keep us safe then why are alleged offenders running around on the street for years? It's also not fair to keep someone in jail for years without a trial so the only reasonable solution is to speed this show up . If they did it I want them behind bars, if they are innocent I want them to be given their freedom.

It cuts both ways. Imagine being out on bail for three years but you are innocent? How could you lead a normal life with that over your head?

up
Voting closed 14

No attempt to get a comment from the Bail Fund is mentioned in the story, which is not good journalism.

up
Voting closed 16

No comment on the Globe or Herald stories, nothing on their website or Twitter account. I seem to remember they had a "Who We Are" section on their website, but it's not there now.

up
Voting closed 18

The Bail Fund is taking a very rational and logical position.

1. Bail is supposed to ensure that people come back for trial. It is not supposed to be used to hold people because they can't afford to pay it.
2. If someone is dangerous and should not be released before trial, bail should not be set. They should be held without bail.
3. How is the Bail Fund judge who is dangerous and who is not? And if someone disagrees with their judgement on a particular case, is there a way to appeal that decision? I can see why the Bail Fund does not want to go down this road. They are not in a position to make that determination. That's the responsibility of the justice system. So if a bail is offered, and the fund can pay it, they will. Makes sense to me.

up
Voting closed 7