Hey, there! Log in / Register
Allegedly grabby state senator charged with assaulting four women in Lowell
By adamg on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 5:29pm
A Middlesex County grand jury today indicted Arlington state Sen. James Marzilli on charges he went after four women in Lowell on June 3, the Middlesex County DA's office says.
Marzilli is formally charged with "annoying and accosting" three women and indecent assault and battery, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and annoying and accosting a person of the opposite sex in connection with a fourth woman.
Prosecutors allege he complimented one woman on her butt, asked another if she were wearing underwear and started coming at the third. In an attempt to get him away, prosecutors say, the first woman yelled "Listen, take $20, go up to Merrimack Street after 5 p.m. and get yourself a hooker" at him. Prosecutors claim he then sat on a bench next to the fourth woman and attempted to "grab her in a sexual manner," at which point she screamed and fled into a nearby building, outside of which Marzilli then allegedly began waiting for her. When police arrived, he attempted to flee, prosecutors say.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Reminds me of a line
from Equus:
Grabby Marzilli was on a rampage.
But he still gets off for
But he still gets off for the original accusation - the one that got deep-sixed. He got away with that one like a Kennedy.
Mulligan
That's called a mulligan. Everybody in the party gets one.
Interesting ...
I realize that Jim likely did some seriously cracked things while fully manic and actually physically assaulted a couple of women (which is very serious), but it seems sometimes that I and any other area female cyclist could put half the local male population away for this kind of stuff!
Okay, so that is exaggerated ... but there is a fair amount of truth to it.
Please translate into
Please translate into English...
Interesting Dichotomy
Funny how all men (especially those in authority) are guilty before proven innocent in Swirly's mind save for those who she considers her friends.
I think you misread Swrrly.
I think you misread Swrrly. I think her point is that this stuff happens a lot and more of it - compliment, question about underwear - should be disregarded, not prosecuted.
Take a look at her comment
Take a look at her comment history.
Anon got it right
Manic and mental, Jim did some bad stuff he has to answer for no doubt. As a long-time female cyclist, I've heard my share of butt "compliments" and underwear queries and they are not a big deal compared to groping someone. Given the frequency of such things in the general world - even from cops - I found it amusing that they would be piled in with the more serious charges.
Geesh, driveby, I guess you are here representing the "all feminists MUST hate men" contingent. There's some nice, cold vinegar and water at the bar for you, since you are the designated driver.
Swirly, what were your
Swirly, what were your archived responses about the Armenian doctor on the T? How do they differ from your archived responses regarding this person in question?
Ad hominems are not accepted real world responses.
can you?
make it yourself?
Don't ask Swrrly to make your argument for you, make it yourself.
Villagers with torches
It's essential that the DA is prosecuting him, but schadenfreude and haste seem the guidelines here. The reports are also that those who know him say this behavior was sudden and unlike him. Moreover, he's been through psychiatric testing and apparently is bipolar.
If this fellow made three verbal assaults and touched some poor woman -- and then it turns out that he had a chemical imbalance and was not in control -- will all those who pig piled on him post their shame and regret?
I don't know him. But his behavior was a major personality shift say all who do know him. This typically fits those with serious brain problems, chemical or tumor based. So, if he does have a serious illness and loses his seat and livelihood on top of it, how righteous will it have been to have kicked him when he was down?
How about we let this play out a bit?
I wonder...
... if the jury will take into account how he had just developed a mental illness? I feel bad for the women. But it seems that his mental illness was something rather new and not known to him. If that's the case, that could be a strong defense. I could see the criminal complaints going away in some capacity, but a civil case being rather strong against him.
And how common is it that someone older than 50 develops bipolar disorder later in life? Usually the onset is during early adulthood.
Possible ...
It is more likely that he has been living with this all along, and it got out of control.
Speaking generally, people reaching their 50s sometimes become unable to take certain effective medications because they develop potentially dangerous side effects with age. Switching things around sometimes doesn't work.
For those at home still keeping score...
The grabby (until proven guilty) State Senator is
still our employee.
- Marzilli (poor victim!) is still on the payroll,
drawing a paycheck. And health insurance. Which
we're paying for.
- Marzilli (he has a DISEASE!) is still on the payroll,
building pension months.
And we're paying for it, until he checks out in January
2009. And for years afterwards.
For those who care to learn more ...
Biopolar Disorder for the lay person.
Bipolar disorder is no more the fault of the person who is ill than developing multiple sclerosis is.
Bob, I'm frankly more than a little tired of your petty, ignorant, and mean-spirited diatribes that imply that mental illnesses do not exist. Please try to learn a bit about what is going on before commenting, as your comments reflect your utter lack of knowledge and compassion - unless you really think that anybody who develops any illness (e.g. has a heart attack) should immediately be booted by their employer.
May you and your family never have to go through any of this torment.
More than a little tired?
You are, more than a little tired? Really? So
sorry!
I'm more than a lot tired of paying for a fraud
like Marzilli's victomhood of the day. If I thrust
myself on some woman and don't show up for
work as a result of that behavior, you don't pay for
my lost hours, or my health insurance, or my SEP plan.
I do. It's called the Dreaded Private Sector, and can
sometimes be "mean-spirited".
When you are ready to cover that for me, then you have an
argument with me about my doing the same for Marzilli.
Until then, you have no standing on this one.
Reiterating ...
I am amused by your dittohead carr-wreck lecture, given your extreme ignorance of how health care and health insurance and disability work by aggregating risks even in the private sector (my brother is an actuary for Standard Insurance and works with such Dreaded Private Sector policies) ... but maybe you will just have to learn that the hard way when your employer dumps you and your risks over a situation beyond your control.
I hope you never have a heart attack or a car accident and get fired for it. No matter how much you would deserve that fate, given your ridiculous ignorance about mental illnesses, I wouldn't wish that hell on anybody.
Perhaps you will learn the hard way someday ... or just conveniently abandon anybody near you (citing financial concerns, your wallet, their illness not existing, etc.) who, heaven forbid, develops cancer or loses their mind. I suppose Newt Gringrich is your role model in such things.
dear cyclist swirly
i think it is interesting how much you are defending this guy.if a boston cop groped a female would you be so quick with all the bipolar, men in their fifties, out of control behavior bullshit?
If a cop had a diagnosed illness
and were in a critical period (such as mania) I would definitely not consider that person responsible. Even if I were on a jury. (of course an out and out rapist would need to be held as potentially dangerous, regardless of culpability).
There are pretty standard and rather strict diagnostic criteria for bipolar and several other organic affective disorders, and plenty of research into why they respond to drugs that produce subtle alterations in biochemistry. Sucking down a subtoxic amount of lithium doesn't affect a non-bipolar person, but it sure changes the behavior of a bipolar person.
Overdosing on testosterone, not so much.
Please. Swrly has an advanced Degree!
The rest of us only went to Suffolk or Northeastern
or BU. What could we know?
Education is irrelevant
Just look at Pres W.
Anybody can continue learning about the world, regardless. My grandfather read insatiably even though he had to quit school in 8th grade.
Yet even college grads can be so wedded to their hate that they refuse to learn how even a private risk pool operates.
suddenly BobMetcalf is the victim
Wow, suddenly BobMetcalf is the victim. Good try Bob.
But you're the one always
But you're the one always touting your Ed Creds.
Don't you have like a PhD at MIT and work at Harvard or something? Again, maybe we should check the comment archives or something. I'm sure there's a reference there.
So, when presented with
So, when presented with logic and facts, your counter-argument is to disparage the speaker by making fun of her education?
3rd grade
The last time I saw the willfully ignorant torment the informed was third grade but I've learned its Unoversal here in the Hub.
Thanks for wishing me a terminal disease
And on the role model thing, I'm more in line
with U.S. Grant and W.T Sherman. Newt never was big on
my list. Sorry to miss your Stereotype Top Ten.
Since you're happy to ask me to pay for Marzilli's
"disease" and the after effects, please provide billing
information for the rest of us so we can bill you for
our health and pension costs when necessary. If you don't
we'll have to assume that you're as mean-spirited as
Newt.
There's Ignorance and then there's Willful Ignorance
Go look up how insurance works in the private sector ... start with the part about "shared risk". Try googling "actuarial data" and "calculating premiums".
I'm bored of dealing with your willful ignorance about some pretty basic stuff.
Thanks, so I shouldn't get cancer now?
But get a dictionary instead? And I'm
not Newt Gingrich anymore? Sha-zam!
Thanks. Was having a real hard time
with being a Georgia troglodyte. And please
provide billing information. You're clearly
willing to pay for Mazilli and me as well.
We and You
"We" are not asking you to pay anything.
"You" are complaining about your taxes paying for some bi-polar elected officials health care. "You" are bitching that "you" do not have the same health benefits as him. "You" think mental health is an illegitimate joke. "You" are not interested in learning anything about it. "You" want to battle with Swyrrl and make the issue about something else.
comparitive benefits
I don't know if you have short term disability that pays you partial income when you're out of work for a mental health problems such as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder but your job is protected as long as you seek care.
If your resentment was truly reserved to issues about benefits Mazzila gets and you don't, then I'd be more persuaded by your argument. As it stands, I'm still inclined to got with Swyrrl's take.
pow boom bap
Swrrly hits Bob hard, where it counts right in the gut and with substance.
Bob knows mental illness only as stigma and politicians only as grifters.
Think of it like this, we don't shun people or deny people with pneumonia the care they need to get better, we treat them. Also, the number one battlefield injury in Iraq is brain damage and we do our best (or we should) to treat them.
Ok, he's got a legit disease.
Unlike Swirly and other folks, I'm not
clinically qualified, so I can't differentiate
between a clinical psychological disorder and illegal,
anti-social behavior.
But I'll stipulate that, yes, in fact, he's
clinically ill. It's not a swerve for the sake
of the upcoming trial--he's disabled. Can't
function as a State Senator. He's 100 per cent
disabled by a legitimate medical condition.
So, that being the case, why hasn't he resigned, and
gone out on short term disability? That to be
followed by long term disability, supplemented by
SSDI? For most of us on this blog, should we lose
our hands, our eyesight, or our minds, that would be
the path that we would follow. And I'm willing to
pay for that, through my SocSec and Medicare contribs.
Because if I was equally disabled, that's what I would
be seeking.
Or does running the pension calendar out until January,
2009 maybe have something to do with not exercising
his disability options?
Nah, never happen. Not here in Massachusetts.
You bring up some good points, sort of...
I am a licensed mental health clinician, and I can tell you that whether someone is responsible for their behavior and whether they have a disability are two different issues.
(FWIW, antisocial personality disorder is a legitimate psych disorder. This doesn't in any way mean that antisocial behavior is acceptable, since, well, it's antisocial.)
In terms of whether someone is legally responsible, there needs to be proof that they were unable to discern right and wrong at the time of the crime. This doesn't actually occur that often, and someone has to be quite impaired. It's different than being in a state where one is unable to control impulses or think clearly.
In terms of whether certain behavior leads someone to be qualified for a particular position or not, we need to focus on behavior exhibited relative to the person's responsibilities. Sure, a person with bipolar disorder can be capable and appropriate for any sort of job, and appropriately, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of diagnosis. But it's legal and appropriate to say that anyone who is going around harassing people and groping people, if he in fact did do this, is behaving in a way that isn't appropriate for his job. Or for anyone, really. If someone has a disability that leads to lapses in judgment, it's his/her responsibility to be aware of signs of impending difficulty and have some way of coping appropriately, whether it's that s/he has extra meds that help in these situations, or a previously arranged plan that s/he can go home for a day or two when feeling on edge.
It's important to remember that disabilities don't "excuse" any inappropriate behavior. Yes, we need to have compassion and acceptance for behavior that might seem odd or make us a little uncomfortable, but not for someone hurting someone else or being outright incompetent. It really does everyone a disservice when someone is doing a job they're not able to do appropriately, for whatever reason.
Oh, also...
Whether someone chooses to accept government- or corporate-sponsored disability benefits is completely inappropriate to use in determining whether someone has or has had a disability. A lot of people prefer not to accept any benefits, and it's illegal to force anyone to go on disability. I've worked with plenty of clients who don't want to accept disability benefits because an important part of their psychiatric recovery is that they make their own living and aren't dependent on anyone. It should absolutely be the individual's choice.
Mental illness isn't a blank check
Bipolar disorder doesn't turn a person's body into a robot whose actions are outside his conscious control. You seem to think that the existence of "mental illness" (a vague term at best) directly implies that people who have it are no longer capable of choosing their actions. This is nonsense.
Equating "mental illness" with multiple sclerosis and heart attacks shows a serious deficiency in understanding of the nature of physical illness. A person with a heart attack isn't someone who's suddenly made a senseless decision to stop his heartbeat. A person with multiple sclerosis isn't someone who's chosen to stop using her muscles normally.
There are huge numbers of bipolar people who don't assault people on the street when they're in their bad phase. It's hard to function when your brain is yelling it you that the world sucks, to be sure; but when someone takes that out on women on the street, that isn't a "symptom" of "illness."
health care benefits. Is that a bad thing?
The guy won an election or two, gets paid and has health care benefits. Is that a bad thing?
I'm glad he has health care, even if we all pay for it, especially now because he needs it.
Someone close to me developed Alzheimer's. You wouldn't believe the change in this person over the years the disease took its course. But one thing never changed, he was always my father. You also wouldn't believe how hard it is to get good health care for mental health conditions and how hard it is on the care giver; my mom for many years, until dad went into a nursing home. They paid their own way but they had the resources. I can't imagine what happens to people who do not.
Thanks, SwirlyGrrl
For reminding us that mental illness is every bit as real as physical illness. I've lived with it in my own family:
severe depression (bordering on suicidal). And, yes, thank God, for good health insurance to cover treatment and medications!
I'm disappointed in those who would kick Marzilli when he's down. I hope he gets the treatment he needs and recovers.
Love the reality
I've been away from UH and didn't realize SwirlyGrrl ended up taking heat for her very reasoned and compassionate statement. That's not right and you put it well.
Marzilli is being prosecuted and investigated. We'll find out (very publicly) whether he was a willful molester or ill in mind or body.
Reasons
I think one of the reasons people will go after Marzilli for this is that whereas he may have suffered from mania that made him go on a grope rampage, he also denied his depredations, and had his PIs and lawyers go after the first woman to blow the whistle on him.
Marzilli didn't just abuse once, he abused twice. First he abused her body and then he abused her rights and reputation. "The defense investigation of her background would be very painful..." Is there any way to interpret that other than as a threat?
Are we going to write that threat off to a bipolar disorder too? He knew perfectly well what he'd done, and he sent a thug over to intimidate and bribe that woman. That makes him not just sick, but a scalawag to boot.
intimidating the victim
If these allegations are true, that's pretty disturbing.
No doubt about that
If what Gareth says is true, it could be bipolar disorder, an aggressive lawyer, pure assholery, or some combination. I will say that this sort of behavior is consistent with the trajectory of the disease.
It will be interesting to see how the court system handles this. If my experiences with mentally ill family members and courts are not exceptional, the judges will have quite a bit of experience dealing with bipolar disorder and the assorted legal issues it tends to spawn. I have heard (anecdotally) of judges referring people to mental health care on suspicion of manic behavior, and getting it right. It is really that common - and that likely to result in shoplifting, groping, drug abuse, driving recklessly, etc.
ok, fine. he needs help.
ok, fine. he needs help. now please give me one good reason why he should not resign right now and deal with his problem.
Because he was elected and
Because he was elected and his term of office is not up.
Resignation is legally binding
If you are not mentally competent, you can't sign a contract, you can't make certain decisions ... in short, you cannot undertake a legally binding action without a sound mind.
There is also a legal case to be made: if he resigns, then he would be competent to resign and it could be taken as an admission of guilt. Not resigning is consistent with being out of his gourd in that respect - regardless of the actual situation.
It would be interesting to see if there is any legal opinion on this ... can you resign if you are insane? A very strange kind of catch-22, if you think about it. Is there is legal precedent for this? A mentally ill person resigning? Anybody know?
Swirrly Whhaaaaat???
Swirrly Whhaaaaat??? Resigning from office would be an admission of guilt? That is a bizarrely swirrly statement, even by your swirrly standards. Resigning from office is just as much an admission of guilt as entering a hospital to be treated for his illness. He may be manic, but he is sane enough to pad his pension. Your swirrly defense of his actions, despite his illness, exposes your swirrly hypocrisy.
You mean-spirited BASTARD! How could you?
Marzilli claims a mental health disability. But if he's
mentally disabled, he can't claim that he's
mentally disabled, because he's mentally disabled?
Is that what you're saying?
That seems like an awful mean-spirited
interpretation to me.
You must be the Newt Gingrich of the
Eighth Congressional!
Of course, he remains compis mentis enough to
stay on
our payroll, draw a salary and benefits,
and run the pension
clock out to 2009. But just not compis
mentis enough
to be responsible for
his actions.
Any other questions, google Joseph
Heller and Catch 22.
Or ask his excellent attorney.
why not resign: some guesses
Resigning now would not speed up the process of replacing him, since it is too late to call for a special election. (The regularly scheduled Democratic primary is less than 11 weeks away.) It might also force the closure of his constituent service office, leaving the residents of the district without any representation at all.
What might make sense is for him to resign immediately after the November election, in favor of his elected successor. I do not know whether state law allows this.
Grabby Marzilli fights Sexism!
IT's just not fair. Poor Marzilli is targeted by this unfair and sexist law. If he were a lesbian chasing women down the street and grabbing their breasts and crotches, he'd never have to suffer such indignity. He's a fighter for human dignity and equality, and suffering heterosexual perverts everywhere should thank him for it.
The Glob.
why?
Why do gay men pick on lesbians, even while constructing arguments about how lawyers (in this case a lawyer with a mentally ill heterosexual client) defend his client?
I couldn't tell you.
All I can tell you is what the Globe reports, which is that Grabby's lawyer will argue that he shouldn't get a particular charge for sexually assaulting women, because if he were a woman sexually assaulting women, he wouldn't get it.
Are you suggesting that it is a wild jump of logic to imagine that a woman who sexually pursued women would be a lesbian?
He had a bad day
Sounds to me like he had a bad hair day. Did anyone think that maybe he was trying to be nice and the only thing he could find nice to say about the first woman was she had a nice butt. As for the 2nd woman, maybe his wife told him about there being a sale on underwear and he just wanted to know if she wore any so he could tell her about the sale going on. As far as assaulting the other one, darn haven't you ever lost your footing and fallen. I'm sure he apologized for reaching out to her as he was falling. Man Life is Sure a Hassle.