>Thanks Ann for pointing me at this one. When I first saw it, I was too angry to write about it. But seeing it a second time, I could form a thought or two.
The thing that makes me the most angry about this story involving District Attorney Kenneth Kratz is that it’s looking like he may not have any consequences for what he did.
The story goes that he was the district attorney involved in prosecuting a domestic violence case against Stephanie L. Van Groll’s ex-boyfriend. Van Groll came to see him, and immediately after she left, he started texting her.
At first, the texts were harmless, if not a little weird. He told her she had so much potential, and to text him any time during the day. But over the course of 3 days, he sent her 30 texts that degenerated into telling her she may be a hot nymph, but he was the prize, and asking her if she wanted “secret contact with an older married elected DA.”
She got sufficiently freaked out, and went to the police, which takes one hell of a lot of guts. Think of the position Kratz put her in. He was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend. So, if she told him no, and to stop, she would logically think that maybe the charges would get dropped or he wouldn’t work as hard to prosecute him. This puts her in a dangerous spot, and I think Kratz knew damn well what he was doing, even though he swears up and down that he told her any relationship would start *after* the case was over. Yeah, right. Sure.
Kratz seems like a giant skumbag, saying that this is a non-news story, and that she sent him 23 texts back, so come on, what’s the big deal? What he neglects to realize is that police have those texts too, and they were not trying to encourage him. In fact, in one of them she asks what his wife would think about this. I love all the worming he does, telling Department of Justice officials that the texts were not sexual (so how else would you describe calling someone a hot nymph?) and asking them to keep the texts out of the media. That didn’t work so well. I also chuckle that he says that the state office of lawyer regulation had deemed that no misconduct had occurred, but when they spoke to the office, the director would not confirm that statement. Hmmm. That could mean maybe it was confirmed, but maybe not so much.
He’s also a republican who is up for re-election in 2012. So, women, you know what to do when you vote.
What a manipulative scumbag. I hope that after this “non-news story” gets out everywhere, he’ll get a stiffer penalty than the slap on the wrist he initially got, and people might remember this when it comes time to mark their x’s.