E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Munson / AP
Ravi Pazhani, left, walks to the courtroom with his son Dharun Ravi, Thursday in New Brunswick, N.J.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- They never knew Dharun Ravi to say anything bad about gays. But they also never discussed it with him.
That was what seven character witnesses had to say Friday in the trial of Ravi, a former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man.
Ravi, now 20, is accused of using a webcam for the central crime, then using Twitter, instant messages and texts to tell friends about it. He's charged with 15 criminal counts, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy.
His roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide in September 2010, just days after the alleged spying.
Most of the men called by defense lawyers were software engineers and current or former business associates of Ravi's father. All of them said they had never known Ravi to express any anti-gay views.
But on cross-examination, they all said they had never discussed the issue with him.
"Why would that come up?" said one of the men, Anil Kappa, a business partner of Ravi's father when First Assistant Middlesex County Prosecutor Julia McCLure asked how often he had discussed homosexuality.
The men, all of whom appeared to be middle-aged, said they never followed Ravi on Twitter, or exchanged text messages or instant messages with him.
Those communication means are central to the case.
Analysts: Prosecutors' case strong in Rutgers trial
The seven men testified in a total of about one hour. Their brief appearances on the witness stand were a contrast to the prosecutor's case, in which nearly two dozen witnesses were called over 10 days.
Defense lawyers also said they intended to call two detectives to testify. One, Frank DiNinno, an investigator with the Middlesex County prosecutor's office, was mentioned often by prosecution witnesses.
A handful of the Rutgers students who testified referred to him as "Frank," and Ravi's lawyers appeared to be trying to raise the idea that he was too friendly with the students.
It's not known yet whether Ravi will testify, according to nj.com. Ravi is not charged in Clementi’s death but if convicted on the top bias charges, he faces up to 10 years in prison.
The Associated Press and msnbc.com staff contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
It doesn't matter if he doesn't like gay people or not (at least it shouldn't) the valid charges against him should be entirely centered upon invasion to privacy, which is very objective.
It matters because the lynch mob is trying to pin hate crime charges on him.
What happened to Tyler is tragic, and it's terrible he chose suicide over counseling. Let's face it, meeting strangers online and inviting them into his dorm room wasn't the smartest move. No doubt, Ravi invaded Tyler's privacy, was stupid, and maybe mean-spirited. However, it is clear, Ravi did not want to drive Tyler to his death. Some of you can hurl the term "hate crime". What happened to Matthew Shepard, in Laramie Wyoming, was a vicious hate crime. What Ravi did was not. He must show remorse and probably deserves some sort of punishment...but 10 years in a New Jersey jail?
-
Motz,
I'd like to point out that there is practically no proof that Clementi committed suicide because of the invasion of privacy. And we will never 100% know if what Ravi did was the cause or just coincidence.
Fortunately, that's entirely irrelevant to the charges.
It does matter if he has an issue with gay people as he is facing the charge of bias intimidation. His texts and tweets indicate that his motivation in using the webcam and showing to others was the fact that Clementi was gay.
Motz - Clementi didn't invite a stranger into his dorm room. He had been talking with M.B. online and on the phone for a few weeks and had a few dates with him before this incident. Hate crimes are about the motivation for the crime, not whether or not the crime is violent.
I don't understand how it can be invasion of privacy, when it was his room too.
Clementi asked Ravi for private use of the room for a few hours. Ravi agreed to it. Within minutes of leaving the room Ravi went across the hall and used the computer of Molly Wei to activate his webcam, which was pointed at Clementi's bed. He and Wei watched Clementi becoming intimate with his date. Ravi then began texting and tweeting to tell others about what was going on and also allowed other students to see the video feed. He agreed to give Clementi privacy again two nights later and then began arranging a viewing party online for over 150 people.
There is no doubt that this is an invasion of privacy. A husband cannot secretly record his wife getting undressed and show it to other people without her permission or knowledge, even though they share a bedroom. Ravi agreed to give Clementi privacy when it was requested, so a reasonable expectation of privacy existed and was then violated by Ravi.
I disagree. It was his room too. There can be no expectation of complete privacy when you share a room. It doesn't matter what was said.
This isn't a case of Ravi accidentally walking in on Clementi and his date. This is a case of Ravi intentionally setting up a webcam to be able to watch Clementi and his date being intimate. That is a complete invasion of privacy. There is no one who would reasonably think that when sharing a room with someone, that it is ok to secretly watch them via webcam. Also, since Ravi allowed people who did not share that room to watch the video feed, he is violating Clementi's privacy again. Clementi does have a reasonable expectation that individuals who do not reside in that room would not have access to that room in any way. It does matter what was said. They had a verbal agreement that Ravi would give Clementi privacy during an agreed upon period of time. He never indicated to Clementi that he felt uncomfortable about the agreement or that he changed his mind. Regardless, you cannot watch someone via webcam without their permission or knowledge. It doesn't matter if it is husband and wife. There must be consent, particularly if you are going to allow others to view the video.
note,
the last person to say or do something bad to a gay guy who kills himself is in BIG trouble. i do hope he will be freed upon appeal to the higher NJ courts.
this reminds me of the Diane Whipple case in San Francisco. Defendants were railroaded by everyone from the media to the courts. Lives ruined to satisfy the vitriolic blood lust of the gay community. Tragic how broken our legal system is. Before any charges of this nature can be filed they should be first vetted by a objective legal committee.
Good luck to Ravi.
I'm not anti-gay as far as they live their lifestyle and I live mine. All my gay and bi-sexual friends know and respect this. They shared a room and both should have respected each others rights. My reaction when a gay hit on me was anything but nice.
He is not charged with a hate crime, nor has the prosecution ever postulated that his motivation for invasion of privacy was motivated by hate. The first poster was right that it's completely irrelevant to any part of this case, the author of this article is just trying to sensationalize it to get more website hits.
what are we watching tonight Dharun?
-
I wonder what would happen if Ravi were to commit suicide. Who would the lynch mobs go after? Themselves? Nah, hardly anyone would care because he's not...
So, if Ravi were to commit suicide then we should blame who? The police for arresting him for committing a handful of crimes? The district attorney for prosecuting him for those crimes? The media for covering the trial? The public for being disgusted by a person who would use a webcam to watch someone else in an intimate situation and showing the video feed to others? Who would be to blame?
The bottom line is that your "point" is meaningless. Ravi is not being legally held accountable for Clementi's suicide. How much weight this situation had in Clementi's decision to end his life is not known. But given the timing, clearly it had something to do with it.
Ravi needs to answer for the crimes he committed. Constantly bringing up the suicide is just smoke and mirrors.
@KevNC
I'm not sure how bringing up the suicide is smoke and mirrors. If Mr. Clementi hadn't killed himself, this case wouldn't exist.
Mr. Ravi might have gotten suspended or even expelled from Rutgers but 10 years in jail for watching two guys make out on a webcam? That seems a little extreme
This entire case is very weak, and gay people and the pro gay community want to make an example out of Ravi. First both were roommates when you share a living space with someone you surrender a certain amount of privacy. Clementi knew Ravi had streamed the video, yet he invited the same guy over to have more relations. Clementi was openly gay, in the entire case there is no bias what so ever from Ravi. If ravi was biased or hateful towards gays he would have asked to moved out. No one knows why clementi killed himself, obviously he didn't care enough to leave any indication of what was bothering him.
I my self studied at Rutgers and lived in the dorms and the kind of stuff that goes on in dorms is far more shocking than this, shenanigans like this are an every day activity. One of my suite mates had a different girl over every other night, and we were all aware of what was going on, there were walks of shame happening every morning, why should gays be any different? isn't equality what they want?
Ravi shouldn't be punished for a thing the likes of which happen on campuses across the nation daily. The reason why this is even a case because is clement was gay and he killed himself for whatever reason.
This guy has been on the other side of the lynch mob, now its his turn. As a minority himself you would think he would be more understanding of others. Quite frankly i think he was trying to stear attention away from himself being gay.
If he is gay himself I think that would throw the whole malice toward gays thing out the window. Can you be convicted of a hate crime against a group of which you belong?
averon1 - if the motivation for the crime is based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, it can be considered a hate crime. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator of the crime is of the same race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
There is no concrete evidence that Ravi is gay, people are merely speculating based on some of his actions. So, as far as the trial is concerned, this is a heterosexual male who targeted a homosexual male to be the victim of humiliation.
And Hitler didn't seem like such a bad guy...
comparing ravi to hitler is like comparing apples to radiators. it just is so far out there to even suggest the two even somehow connect. when you have something competent to add to the discussion, you can come back but for now...go sit in the corner.
I wonder how different this case would be if the roommate tried to tape Ravi making out with a girl would people say he had malice towards heterosexuals and deserved 10 years in prison? I doubt it. Just because Ravi was a jerk to his roommate doesn't mean he despised his lifestyle.
If somebody did this to me and my girfriend there would a whole different kind of trial going on, and the idiot that set up the camera wouldn't be available to testify.
Averon - Ravi did a lot of texting and tweeting about the situation. In many of them, he pointed out Clementi's sexuality. When he was setting up the "viewing party" for Clementi's next date, he used Clementi's sexuality as an advertising point. In one text he even used the phrase, "I'm going to get him this time." The prosecutors aren't just grasping at straws with these charges. Ravi has provided ample evidence to justify them.
I'm just trying to say that if the victim was heterosexual that this case would be receiving much less attention.
If Ravi's roommate was heterosexual, he probably wouldn't have done any of this.
averon, you would be right if there was a bias against heterosexuals in our society. Have you ever heard someone say: "Do you know that X is heterosexual?" like that could be the starting point of a conversation or a statement aimed at hurting someone's reputation in any way? Now try: "Do you know that X is gay?" See, that works much better. Being in part of a dominant group or majority keep anyone from being discriminated against. If Ravi had recorded his roommate with his girlfriend, there would still be invasion of privacy, but there wouldn't be bias because you cannot have a bias against mainstream. Is that really to difficult to understand?
Do you have any idea how preposterous you sound?
Just a note, Ravi is allowed to despise homosexuals.
This entire case is very weak, and gay people and the pro gay community want to make an example out of Ravi. First both were roommates when you share a living space with someone you surrender a certain amount of privacy. Clementi knew Ravi had streamed the video, yet he invited the same guy over to have more relations. Clementi was openly gay, in the entire case there is no bias what so ever from Ravi. If ravi was biased or hateful towards gays he would have asked to moved out. No one knows why clementi killed himself, obviously he didn't care enough to leave any indication of what was bothering him.
I my self studied at Rutgers and lived in the dorms and the kind of stuff that goes on in dorms is far more shocking than this, shenanigans like this are an every day activity. One of my suite mates had a different girl over every other night, and we were all aware of what was going on, there were walks of shame happening every morning, why should gays be any different? isn't equality what they want?
Ravi shouldn't be punished for a thing the likes of which happen on campuses across the nation daily. The reason why this is even a case because is clement was gay and he killed himself for whatever reason.
How is it impossible to have a bias against the mainstream?
I know several Native American males who despise whites only because they are white.
Explain how this is not a bias, please.
Averon, I just heard a female caller to a talk show on this subject portray Ravi as "being victimized". Really?? In previously reported cases of spy cams filming women undressing in locker rooms, using the bathroom, etc. There was a huge outcry from the female community to throw the book at the culprit. Is there some double standard here- when it's men being filmed, it's not a big deal, but women being filmed is an outrageous invasion of privacy?
Lenwood, do you know whites who despise whites because they are white? That would be bias against mainstream. What you describe is the reaction of a once persecuted (to say the least) minority against the majority. That's a completely different story.
I don't really get the defenses tactic with these witnesses. They put a bunch of Ravi's father's friends on the stand to say that they never heard Ravi say anything anti-gay? People who have never been on his Twitter feed or exchanged text messages with him. People who never witnessed anything having to do with the events of September 2010.
Why not put students from the college on the stand? People who were witnesses to what happened. Oh wait, the prosecution did that already. They testified that Ravi did mention that Clementi was gay when he was showing the video. They talked about his texts and Twitter feed which had many comments wbout Clementi being gay too.
Sounds like a great defense. Good luck in prison for the next 10 years!
You said what I was going to say. These men don't know him as anything more than their friend's son. The witnesses they need to put on the stand are Ravi's classmates and other friends, not these men who have no idea what Ravi is like with his peers. I am sure the topic of homosexuality and his feelings towards it was discussed with those at Rutgers. His social media accounts also show his feelings on it.
They should just deport him back to his parent's homeland....this is what's wrong with this country to many immigrants.....we've lost our way
You want to deport him back even if he and his father are legal immigrants? You want to apply this brilliant immigration policy to only people with different sounding names and looks only or would you like your family sent back to Europe if they commit any crime too?
I defy you to prove how deporting 5th, 6th, and 7th generation American-born people of European descent is a realistic option.
I understand you are probably being facetious, but really! What of those who have had one black, Native American, or Hispanic anscestor a few generations back? Should we "deport" them to Europe, or to the land of that minority ancestor? In the case of the Native American, that would be kind of silly, as the one you would deport is already in his homeland!
And what of the Hispanic ancestor? Back to Mexico with him, or to Spain? And as Hispanics are descended from Native Americans, what then?
"I'm so confused!"
All Americans are immigrants... duh!
if that ginger offed himself because this kid spied on him then he probably would have offed himself if the movie he was going to was sold out later that evening.
this kid acted like a jerk, but he didn't cause the gingers suicide....the ginger did that to himself.
punish him for practically being a peeping tom, but what else do you have?
Viewing party of roomie's homosexual act, free beer and rum included? The act in and of itself is - as the Bible correctly states - abomination, plain disgusting. I wouldn't watch it for all the beer in the world. Hell, to make me watch that someone would need to offer me a lot of cash for it, I can't even figure out how much would be tempting enough to overcome the disgust of it.
This is the problem I see - for prosecutors to be going after the bias intimidation charge, they need to have solid evidence that such took place. From what I have read of the trial so far, I'm not seeing a substantial amount that is able to prove the bias intimidation charge. If Ravi has not discussed his opinion on gays or openly shown he has a level of prejudice against them, he's most likely going to be found innocent on this charge. As far as the privacy issue goes, it's overwhelmingly clear that he did invade the privacy of his roommate. Especially when he had planned to do another peek-in and challenged others to video chat him between specific times. Whether you have a roommate or not, you respect the other person's privacy. If you have a fear of your items being stolen, you need to at least have enough common sense to discuss the matter with your roommate or someone in administration if it is that much of a concern. If you still feel your property is in threat of being stolen, then arrange to have it be taken with you when you leave or left with someone you trust. There were options available to pursue prior the incident taking place if theft was really an issue. There was no need for Ravi to jump to spying. Odds are, he won't be spending 10 years in prison, but he may spend a portion of that time behind bars or another less severe punishment regarding the privacy issue.
how much privacy can you expect in college dorm room..??? that tyler kid killed himself because he was weak, his family did not support him being gay, he was meeting strangers on line and hooking up for sex in acollege dorm room...he obviously had issues...and now everyone is out to ruin another smart kid's life....???? waste of NJ taxpayer oney.
How do you know his parents didn't support him being gay? Can you refer to a source?
Yes, the kid had issues, but don't try to assume you know so much about him. You are only getting as much as the rest of us from what is being shared in the court room. Secondly, Ravi was smart enough to not think past his own entertainment values. Regardless of his reasoning behind doing it, it was something he shouldn't have done and he will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
It seems that many of our youth have lost sight of consequences. It looks to me as if Ravi has commited a crime and should pay for it but a jury will decide that. He should be made to take owner ship of his mean humiliating acts.
Hate case is a bit extreme especially if he has not ever done anything concrete against gays except for this one and it looks more like he was trying to leak the secret out more than anything else.
But meanspirited and invasion of privacy -- yeah totally. Very mean spirited and disgusting.
being tried on a baseless charge is what you a "a bit extreme?" and what would be extreme.
Good Luck Ravi,
but gays and special interest groups have their own system of justice that get played out in court. the fox hunt will be successful come hell or high water. they jury can't find you not guilty; they can't find you not so-called homophobic. the media powers demand want your head and they will get it.
"...but gays and special interest groups have their own system of justice". What are you talking about? That's the most ignorant statement I've read on here all day (and I've read A LOT of ignorant statements). I don't believe there is a separate legal system for the gay community. In fact, I'd even go as far to say it's probably harder for a gay individual to get a unbias trial with a jury composed of a majority of heterosexuals - but of course we can't measure that because no juror is going to admit to bigotry.
well, then i guess we disagree because i very much do believe that gays have a much easier time having their cases heard and resolved in their favor due to the massive social forces in play favoring them.
Can you sway me and give me an example? I'll give you an example: How about the Proposition 8 case where it was challenged that a gay judge couldn't rule on a gay matter? His sexuality was actually being challenged as something impeding him from ruling as a judge - and a court had to actually rule whether he could lay down a decision. That would be like saying a black judge couldn't rule on black issues. Talk about 2nd class citizens. Your example please??
that's one example, mike.
As a gay individual I never saw this as a gay-bashing/hate crime - and it's not. The guy was using his webcam to invade someone's privacy - that's the issue at hand here. He could have been recording a variety of things, such as a student/teacher relationship - but that doesn't warrant a hate crime - it just means he doesn't understand the severe repercussions of invasions in privacy. Sorry, but this is a privacy issue and whatever the penalties are for that should be handed down to him in full force. Beyond that I don't think his intention was to specifically target a gay individual and drive him to suicide. If something innapropriate was going on in his room I would imagine he was just being a moron and decided to tape it without really thinking of the consequences.
Point: If it was a female cheerleader, who was having a sex outing with the captain of the football team and their actions were put on line.
It would possibly an invasion of privacy as the cheerleader expected her encounter to be private. OTOH, if the encounter was shown on laptops, then someone or somebody must have told the cheerleader that she and her date were watched by 150 people, then it would be embarrassing to her.
Even if comments were made to her about what a nice "set" she had, there probably would be little or nothing she could do about it except complain to the college that she was being harrassed.
Now if she went out and committed suicide, unless someone directly caused her death they could not be charged with murder. they also probably could not be charged with manslaughter. manslaughter is for when you get drunk and run grandma over in a crosswalk. you did not intend to do it but shes still dead. So i doubt anyone could be charged with manslaughter.
and taking into account how much hetero "hooking up" goes on campus, then therefore there must be enough gays on campus that also "hook up".
A college campus is not a place to expect privacy rilly.
So the option left is that because he was gay, they can possibly charge the person who set up the camera with a hate crime. course they would have to prove that he intended for the guy to die, like drag him behind his truck on a chain. Cant say that they can do that.
The sad point is a hetero does not have the availability of a hate crimes act to try to fry someone. If this had happened to a hetero they could not use the hate crimes act. So what happened to equal and fair treatment for all?
I agree with you Thomas. And the attorneys here are going to have to prove it was a hate crime. Unfortunately it's too early to answer your last question. And come on, let's be real for a second: Anybody who knows anything about our legal system knows there's no such thing as fair and equal treatment for everyone - fairness in this country is based primarily on the attorney you can afford.
If guilty, don't imprison him but please deport him.
you can't have the kind of privacy being sought by prosecution in a shared small dorm room. if you want privacy rent your own exclusive apartment all your own.
it is really sad this happened but a gay thing still is thought to be a novelty that amuses a lot of people, and a raw college kid just wanted to show off his find.
I don't know if the hate crime aspect is worthy, but the case definetly is about an invasion of privacy, and an especially egregious one at that, since it was not for private consumption, but broadcast to an audience.
You seem to say that college campuses should some how be a "privacy free zone"? What about the gym, workplace bathroom, and the like? I don't see how you can split hairs on this. When the guy closed the door of that dorm room, he had as much right to his privacy there as you do in your own bedroom.
How would you have felt, if you realized that your sexual escapades were being broadcast on the internet?
Ravi's keeps smiling as he heads to trial. Must be funny to him that freedom extends to people to whom he would deny the most basic respect. This is a hate crime. This is exactly why we have the laws he's being held accountable to.
There's also a Higher court he'll have to plead to, at the point may Mr. Clementi sit with God in judgement on him. He'll be begging those Two for mercy rather than smiling about all this.
The media slant in this case is mind-boggling. A sexual predator almost twice Clementi's age found him online and preyed upon his young age, naivety, and vulnerable position, and came to a dorm to have sex with someone he had NEVER MET except online. Where is the outcry about this? The fact that the roommate viewed this predator interacting with Clementi in his own room should be a non-issue. I would argue that ANYONE who was 18, was living away from home for the first time, had lived with someone new for less than 30 days, and then heard that some old sexual predatorwho even the roommate had never met was coming to the room to have sex, had every right to check in on what was occurring...seriously, put things in context....
Glad to see bias against gays is alive and well in the dear ole USA. I would like to ask a couple of questions to all of you:
1. Would you object to having yourselves filmed having sex without your knowing it.....even if you asked your roomate for private time?
2. How would you feel if you found out and reported it to the University staff, who did absolutely nothing about it?
3. How would you feel if your sexcapades were shown to a large audience of 150 and you were ridiculed after the performance?
Honestly answer these questions before you start judging this situation. Especially if you are not attractive or cannot perform well sexually, are not well endowed, are not physically attractive?
This is a test of your consciences folks...I hope you stop and think about this.