Community Chat

[Pearlee]

If there is a trial I'd love to be at the voir dire. I can just imagine the questions for the prospective jurors: First question - Do you watch the Hallmark Channel?

[Puppy Lips]

I hope they both go to jail. But if they don’t, I hope she never works as an actress again. No come back for Aunt Becky. Her behavior has been appalling.

[DbinMD]

---

@LuvmyLab wrote:

I think out of all the parents involved, they are the worst.  They seem so "entitled", like they didn't do anyting wrong and they know darn well they did.  I hope they both get the maximum sentence.  Originally they were supposed to go to trial in January of this year (that's what it said last year) but now their trial date is October 5.  Well, they now have 8 months to sweat and worry what will happen.

---

   I agree.. It makes my skin boil..why is their trial so far away? Others have gone to trial and have been sentenced. They are just playing the system.

[Krimpette]

I just don't understand why the trial date is so far away.  Makes no sense to me.

[gardenman]

---

@MarkeieMark wrote:

I wouldn't count them out getting off with their kind of money.  Just saying.

---

The money helps. The trial location could help them also. Massachusetts is about fifth in per capita income, so lots of potential jurors have gone through the college admission process and chances are more than a few have seen similar events take place. Either they've bought their kid/kids into a college or know someone who did. If the jury has a few recent college grads, they'll have had classmates who didn't earn a spot but got in by someone paying their way into the college. It's not an uncommon event.

They do have a decent defense. "We were just doing what we were told to do. We didn't know it was illegal." I'm pretty sure they didn't look up their middle-man in the Yellow Pages. Someone referred them to him. That someone was likely a school counselor at their private school or another parent who'd used his services. If they can show any evidence supporting a claim that they were just doing what they were advised to do by people they trusted, they might just sway a jury. They clearly knew they were gaming the system, but people game the system all the time, and at what point does gaming the system become criminal?

Most criminal enterprises don't operate out of a storefront in plain sight of the authorities. The fact that their middle-man had a storefront and openly promoted his services could help them in front of a jury. "We thought it was legitimate." The well-to-do tend to hire people to do everything for them so hiring someone to get their kids into the colleges of their choice wouldn't seem that unusual to them. We're talking about a parent who makes her living playing dress-up and assuming roles. Would it seem that unusual for her to have her kids dress as rowers and assume that role?

I wouldn't be surprised to see them walk. I know nearly everyone here has tried, convicted and sentenced them, but they've got a defense. It's not the worst defense I've ever seen either. I would put the odds at 60-40 favoring a conviction, but it's not the slam dunk sure-thing conviction many seem to think it is. A good defense attorney and the right jury could find them acquitted. Truth be told, if we put every parent in jail who cheated to get their kid into college, we'd need to build a whole lot of new jails. All it takes is one juror to acquit. 

Proving criminal intent is going to be the real challenge here for the prosecution. The Loughlin's will argue they were just doing what they'd been told to do. What others they knew had done. They had no idea they were doing something illegal. This was just how people they knew got their kids into college. Maybe they have emails or texts assuring them that this is all perfectly legal and how things are done. It's going to be an interesting case to follow, but I wouldn't count on a conviction. I think a conviction is more likely than not, but it's far from a sure thing.

[proudlyfromNJ]

They had to know that their daughters were never on rowing teams and wouldn’t even know how to get into the boat.

I don’t know if Lori or her husband went to college, but if they did they should have just made a huge donation to that particular school without any lies about sports or having someone take tests for them, etc. just hand over the money and they could have attended legally.

Also, the little darlings didn’t even want to go to college. 

[MamaWick]

Oh, I think their girls did want to go to college...to party.

[lovesrecess]

Huffman wrote and signed the check. Macy, her husband, was sitting on the sofa next to her when she paid the guy....so he can’t say he wasn’t aware or involved....I’ll bet she looks at him differently now. I know I would if I had spent some time in jail while he was sleeping in his own bed at night and I had to sleep on a cell mattress, even if it was just for a stew nights. Another perk for separate checking accounts...

[MarkeieMark]

---

@gardenman wrote:

---

@MarkeieMark wrote:

I wouldn't count them out getting off with their kind of money.  Just saying.

---

The money helps. The trial location could help them also. Massachusetts is about fifth in per capita income, so lots of potential jurors have gone through the college admission process and chances are more than a few have seen similar events take place. Either they've bought their kid/kids into a college or know someone who did. If the jury has a few recent college grads, they'll have had classmates who didn't earn a spot but got in by someone paying their way into the college. It's not an uncommon event.

They do have a decent defense. "We were just doing what we were told to do. We didn't know it was illegal." I'm pretty sure they didn't look up their middle-man in the Yellow Pages. Someone referred them to him. That someone was likely a school counselor at their private school or another parent who'd used his services. If they can show any evidence supporting a claim that they were just doing what they were advised to do by people they trusted, they might just sway a jury. They clearly knew they were gaming the system, but people game the system all the time, and at what point does gaming the system become criminal?

Most criminal enterprises don't operate out of a storefront in plain sight of the authorities. The fact that their middle-man had a storefront and openly promoted his services could help them in front of a jury. "We thought it was legitimate." The well-to-do tend to hire people to do everything for them so hiring someone to get their kids into the colleges of their choice wouldn't seem that unusual to them. We're talking about a parent who makes her living playing dress-up and assuming roles. Would it seem that unusual for her to have her kids dress as rowers and assume that role?

I wouldn't be surprised to see them walk. I know nearly everyone here has tried, convicted and sentenced them, but they've got a defense. It's not the worst defense I've ever seen either. I would put the odds at 60-40 favoring a conviction, but it's not the slam dunk sure-thing conviction many seem to think it is. A good defense attorney and the right jury could find them acquitted. Truth be told, if we put every parent in jail who cheated to get their kid into college, we'd need to build a whole lot of new jails. All it takes is one juror to acquit. 

Proving criminal intent is going to be the real challenge here for the prosecution. The Loughlin's will argue they were just doing what they'd been told to do. What others they knew had done. They had no idea they were doing something illegal. This was just how people they knew got their kids into college. Maybe they have emails or texts assuring them that this is all perfectly legal and how things are done. It's going to be an interesting case to follow, but I wouldn't count on a conviction. I think a conviction is more likely than not, but it's far from a sure thing.

---

@gardenman And there it is, very well presented.  Just think your odds may be high.  I'd split the baby down the middle 50-50.

[Pearlee]

I think a jury will find wrongdoing and find them guilty. I understand most criminal acts require the element of intent for conviction but hopefully a jury will see through the surface "I didn't know" and realize Mossimo and Lori were savvy enough people to know they were intentionally doing something wrong (and ignorance of the law is no excuse).