Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which side of this story do you believe?

Thomas Veil

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,636
8,862
Much greener pastures
Normally I wouldn't bother putting a purely local news story here, but this one is quite oddball:

A prominent lawyer on Friday denied charges that he attempted to fondle a 16-year-old girl on a Ferris wheel last year.

Daniel Roth, 59, of Willoughby, is facing two counts of attempted gross sexual imposition.

According to Strongsville police detectives, Roth accompanied the girl to a carnival in July 2005. As they rode the amusement park ride together, the girl told police that Roth attempted to force his hand down her pants.

Roth "only stopped after she threatened to scream," the police report said.

Roth's attorney, John Luskin, said his client is being falsely accused as part of a scheme concocted by his estranged son, Jeffrey, 35, and his 16-year-old girlfriend - the accuser.

"Mr. Roth is a victim of character assassination," Luskin said outside the arraignment room in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. "Jeffrey Roth is trying to manipulate the system in an attempt to have his father drop criminal charges against him."

Luskin said the elder Roth sought charges against his son for stealing his credit card and running up a large debt that he has refused to pay. A grand jury indicted the son in December for receiving stolen property and misuse of a credit card. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Daniel Roth ran unsuccessfully for judge in Cuyahoga County in 1996, 1998 and 2000. From 1978 to 1995, he worked in a legal clinic that he started with brothers Anthony and Basil Russo. He has practiced law for nearly 30 years.

Luskin said his client continues to work in private practice, but was injured in a car accident and is collecting disability insurance.
Click to expand...
What's odd, of course, is that it's really hard to guess who's telling the truth here.

On the one hand, what the hell is a 59 year old lawyer doing taking a 16 year old girl to a carnival? Much less his son's girlfriend? What's he even doing at a carnival which took place in Strongsville, which is way on the other side of town from Willoughby?

On the other hand, why is a 16 year old girl voluntarily going to a carnival (presumably) alone with her boyfriend's dad...unless she's setting him up? And given the fact that the son sounds like he's no good, couldn't it be true that the dad is being framed? If the lawyer were some kind of pervert, isn't it conveniently coincidental that it's coming out now? And what's the 35 year old son doing with a 16 year old girlfriend?

I hope further evidence becomes available. Otherwise I wish good luck to whichever judge or jury has to sort this one out.

Cleveland Plain Dealer article
 
bizzare is right. i can't help but think that the girl is a pawn in all of this though for some reason.
 
At least the charge against Mr. Roth includes the word gross. In these cases it is always difficult getting to the truth.
 
I agree that the whole story is fishy. It also occurs to me that regardless of whether Mr. Roth (Sr.) is found innocent of the charges, he will be forever smeared as a pervert. People will never hear his name again without thinking to themselves, "Oh yeah, Daniel Roth; that guy they caught messing around with a 16 year-old girl." :rolleyes:
 
iTwitch said:
Maybe she liked the son so much she thought she'd try the original. Bizarre.

Bunch of idiots.
Click to expand...

Puahah, thanks for the laugh.

Too bad the topic itself remains extremely disturbing...
 
One fun aspect: this is exactly the kind of story that rag sheets love: lurid on all sides.

I can't wait to see the take our local "Action News!" station, channel 19, does with this. Probably lots of fire engine-red graphics, blurred faces and hushed voices. :rolleyes:
 
Up until reading this, I was convinced all the stories on Jerry Springer were made up :eek: :rolleyes:
 
Innocent until proven guilty. Her word isn't enough to convict him without her providing PROOF that he done this. And he shouldn't have to prove his innocence, but after this is over, should counter-sue like a mother****er because of his name being drug through the mud.
 
FrankieTDouglas said:
Innocent until proven guilty. Her word isn't enough to convict him without her providing PROOF that he done this. And he shouldn't have to prove his innocence, but after this is over, should counter-sue like a mother****er because of his name being drug through the mud.
Click to expand...

By legal standards perhaps, but these days it seems that whomever speaks up first wins, and/or accusations alone are enough.

Who thinks OJ did it? Not guilty in court.
Who thinks Michael Jackson did it? Also not guilty in court.
Who thinks the Duke lacrosse team should be strung up? That hasn't even gone to court yet.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

You're absolutely right, though. If this guy gets cleared he should do some legal dragging of his own.
 
Who cares if age of consent is 16, how sick a male do you have to be to screw a 16 year old who is not even out of high school yet? can't get women closer to his own age to date him...hmm maybe there is a reason why.

Now don't get me wrong 15+ year age gaps do work but when both are little older.

As for this case I think she was dating them both and decided the younger was better... ;)
 
Leareth said:
Who cares if age of consent is 16, how sick a male do you have to be to screw a 16 year old who is not even out of high school yet? can't get women closer to his own age to date him...hmm maybe there is a reason why.
Click to expand...

People used to get married and have children at this age with the women often being much younger than the men. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still going on in villages and weird countries I don't even know about. And who said they are "screwing"?

Now don't get me wrong 15+ year age gaps do work but when both are little older.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who's to say when that gap is "right" and when it's "wrong". Certain ages [below consent laws] are obviously grossly illegal but if she was 18 and he was 36 would it be the same? 18 and 50? Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall?

I know what your saying though, my grandpa is married to someone almost thirty years younger. She's 58 and he is in his late 80's. But where is that cut off point?

As for this case I think she was dating them both and decided the younger was better... ;)
Click to expand...

By that rational the boyfriend probably came to that same conclusion.


Now, I'm not condoning anything here. Just playing devil's advocate.
 
Leareth said:
Who cares if age of consent is 16, how sick a male do you have to be to screw a 16 year old who is not even out of high school yet?
Click to expand...

:eek:
 

Attachments

  • 200px-Elvis_Presley_1970.jpg
    200px-Elvis_Presley_1970.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 329
madog said:
People used to get married and have children at this age with the women often being much younger than the men. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still going on in villages and weird countries I don't even know about. And who said they are "screwing"?

The key here was "used to" , Its not an uncommon practice in rural parts of eastern europe still , I still think its a little creepy in the modern day and age for a 35 year old - who should be married with kids according to stats- to be dating a girl who is not even out of high school


Yes, but who's to say when that gap is "right" and when it's "wrong". Certain ages [below consent laws] are obviously grossly illegal but if she was 18 and he was 36 would it be the same? 18 and 50? Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall?

Again I am not talking about legality but rightness, morality, something...
the life experience a person has at 15, 20, 30 is exponentially different, after a point-and I don't know where, I think it must be individual- people will have a level of maturity and experience that makes age irrelevant[/COLOR]

I know what your saying though, my grandpa is married to someone almost thirty years younger. She's 58 and he is in his late 80's. But where is that cut off point?

See above answer. correct me if i am wrong but that is a 22 year difference not 30...


By that rational the boyfriend probably came to that same conclusion.

My comment about dating both men was tongue in cheek but we dont have asmiley for that.


Now, I'm not condoning anything here. Just playing devil's advocate.
Click to expand...

Stupid case, next...
 
It's clearly bad for the lawyer, if the public makes its own opinion. Although the whole case looks very suspicious on the son's side.

There was a case in France 30 years ago (or something like that), where a girl accused a teacher of raping her. The teacher's career and life were ruined. Even though it was proved later that it was a scheme from the girl, who got unhappy about some marks or treatment. :(
(Since then, any interview between a teacher and a student has to be done with the class-room door open).

Regarding the 16 years/31 years: I don't condemn automatically (big) age differences, but this one looks ridiculous. There's a high chance you be a jerk to date a 16-year old girl when you're 31 in 2006 - while you could easier date a 30-year old when you're 45. At 31, it just means your brain stopped evolving since high-school, and you don't mind the chit-chatting about school problems / parents relationships / teenage issues. Or she wants a new daddy.
 
Arnaud said:
Regarding the 16 years/31 years: I don't condemn automatically (big) age differences, but this one looks ridiculous. There's a high chance you be a jerk to date a 16-year old girl when you're 31 in 2006 - while you could easier date a 30-year old when you're 45. At 31, it just means your brain stopped evolving since high-school, and you don't mind the chit-chatting about school problems / parents relationships / teenage issues. Or she wants a new daddy.
Click to expand...
He's got a car and Daddy's credit cards. Therefore he can easily impress her 16 year old mind. Older girls see through all that pretty quickly, and my guess he's got nothing much else to offer.

The guy sounds like an absolute loser to me. He's probably manipulated her into doing this, and of course with her only being 16 she's all willing to please her man and gone along with it. Whether or not Daddy took advantage is another point entirely.

Whatever, it's a real insight into the pond scum that we share the planet with.
 
As has already been stated, the question really is WHY were they at a fairground together? She must have gone through choice, because you don't kidnap someone and take them to a public (i.e. Neverland excepted :)) fairground. The article doesn't say why they were there together but when that is established I imagine this could be more straightforward to solve than appears at the moment.

Was the son down below waiting for them? Who suggested they go? If it was the father then it would reduce the chance of it being a set-up; unless they arranged it enough in advance for the son or girl to conceive the plan. If it was the girl's suggestion then I think even an impartial judge would see a red light (and not in her favour). If the son wasn't there, then big red light regardless of who arranged it.

Regarding the age difference issue, as someone already mentioned, the conversation of a 16 year old is unlikely to interest an older man, even a 20 year old. But that is a sweeping generalization because of the 6.5 billion people on the planet there must be such relationships that are made in heaven. Needless to say this all boils down to society's views at this moment in time. Homosexuality was on a par with bestiality just a generation or two ago. Now famous pop stars of the same sex can marry in celebrated public carnival, a la Elton. To condemn those people openly would be very politically incorrect. In fact there are parallels between the sexual orientation/age difference issues with regard to society's views of yesterday/today:

"It's disgusting. Completely unnatural"
"Why? They both want it and no-one gets hurt"
"But it isn't normal. What's wrong with someone their own [sex/age]"

I'm pretty pragmatic with most things in life. That''s not to say I like everything that happens, but I hope I would try not to condemn out of narrow-mindedness. I would rather condemn if people are getting hurt.


dynamicv said:
Whatever, it's a real insight into the pond scum that we share the planet with.
Click to expand...

Is this a world view or based on living in Camden :D
 
MrSmith said:
I hope I would try not to condemn out of narrow-mindedness.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't judge (officially, as in giving an official verdict) anyone in this story "guilty" or "innocent" based solely on the article we read. But my view is biased by my own perception of the elements.

We all have pre-conceived opinions. I hope being "narrow-minded" means sticking to these pre-conceived opinions, instead of willingfully confronting them with the other possible scenarii. I hope I'm not that narrow-minded to say "I know what happened there, come on".

So far, I just think it looks bad and dubious on many points :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back