http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779 If Michael Lewis Ratcliff accepts a plea agreement next week, as those close to the case suggest is likely, what  happens to the evidence the public would learn had the case gone to trial? That's a tricky question. I talked to a renowned media attorney tonight, and while I'm still a bit confused, here's my layman understanding: If Mr. Ratcliff accepts a plea agreement, and is sentenced to prison, much of the evidence is public. If he is given deferred adjudication, or probation, then much of that evidence is sealed. Mind you, that is a layman's understanding. But it's safe to say that we won't learn all the evidence -- or all of the prosecutorial points, as it may be -- if the case doesn't go to trial. Either way, though, the ethical question still is there: Does a community who voted for, and paid the salary of, a public official deserve answers? What, if anything, did Mr. Ratcliff do? Who else was involved? Greg Cagle, a League City attorney who is representing Victoria Police Chief Bruce Ure in an equally high-profile case, offered his thoughts. “In a case where the charges are of this nature – where the victim is a child and the offense is of a sexual nature – no, I don’t think there’s an overwhelming public interest in the case,” Cagle said. Cagle makes a compelling point. Laura Prather, though, offers a different perspective. Prather is an Austin media attorney who represents the Advocate, among many clients. She suggests that in a high-profile case, the public deserves to know who is involved, and the manner in which they were involved. “When a community votes an individual in to public office, they’ve expressed faith in that individual,” Prather said. “When there’s a breach of that trust, the public should have the right to know what happened to create that breach.” As a journalist, I'm biased on this question. I instinctively feel the information should be public. But, it's my job to get such information to you. What do you think? Thanks, Gabe Semenza/Advocate public service editor If Michael Lewis Ratcliff accepts a plea agreement next week, as those close to the case suggest is likely, what  happens to the evidence the public would learn had the case gone to trial? That's a tricky question. I talked to a renowned media attorney tonight, and while I'm still a bit confused, here's my layman understanding: If Mr. Ratcliff accepts a plea agreement, and is sentenced to prison, much of the evidence is public. If he is given deferred adjudication, or probation, then much of that evidence is sealed. Mind you, that is a layman's understanding. But it's safe to say that we won't learn all the evidence -- or all of the prosecutorial points, as it may be -- if the case doesn't go to trial. Either way, though, the ethical question still is there: Does a community who voted for, and paid the salary of, a public official deserve answers? What, if anything, did Mr. Ratcliff do? Who else was involved? Greg Cagle, a League City attorney who is representing Victoria Police Chief Bruce Ure in an equally high-profile case, offered his thoughts. “In a case where the charges are of this nature – where the victim is a child and the offense is of a sexual nature – no, I don’t think there’s an overwhelming public interest in the case,” Cagle said. Cagle makes a compelling point. Laura Prather, though, offers a different perspective. Prather is an Austin media attorney who represents the Advocate, among many clients. She suggests that in a high-profile case, the public deserves to know who is involved, and the manner in which they were involved. “When a community votes an individual in to public office, they’ve expressed faith in that individual,” Prather said. “When there’s a breach of that trust, the public should have the right to know what happened to create that breach.” As a journalist, I'm biased on this question. I instinctively feel the information should be public. But, it's my job to get such information to you. What do you think? Thanks, Gabe Semenza/Advocate public service editor en-us Gabe wrote:  I instincutally feel the information should be public. But, it's my job to get such information to you.   I agree.  So, when will the Grimsinger information be made public.  Grimsinger pled, and was never heard from again.  Where is this scum bag?  Why didn't he explain his actions?  Just wondering.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54248 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54248 Gabe wrote:  I instincutally feel the information should be public. But, it's my job to get such information to you.   I agree.  So, when will the Grimsinger information be made public.  Grimsinger pled, and was never heard from again.  Where is this scum bag?  Why didn't he explain his actions?  Just wondering.   Great question, Ragman. I had a conversation about that tonight. I'm going to look deeper into that. Thanks, Gabe http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54249 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54249 Great question, Ragman. I had a conversation about that tonight. I'm going to look deeper into that. Thanks, Gabe NO, thank you.  You guys always do a good job. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54252 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54252 NO, thank you.  You guys always do a good job. The public WANTS to know...   Trust me.  They'd love to know.  Dig up the dirt, Gabe.  Somebody knew that "that was his boy" in the cell.  Birds need to sing. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54255 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54255 The public WANTS to know...   Trust me.  They'd love to know.  Dig up the dirt, Gabe.  Somebody knew that "that was his boy" in the cell.  Birds need to sing. First of all, we do not know what information will be released.  Second, once the information is released, you need to decide are you going to publish it or not? If you publish it, then you have an obligation to begin publishing the information on every case that is out there.  Remember, the Advocate is being "fair and balanced" about all this, right? So, why treat this case differently? Only now that someone raises the question regarding the Grimsinger case are you going to go back and "look deeper".  Why  not before? By the way, from my understanding, there will be another grand jury ending their term next week.  When will the names of the members of the grand jury be published on the front page of the paper?   If you are going to publish the names of the grand jury that indicted the city officials, then you need to publish the names of all grand juries...on the front page.  Fair and balanced, remember? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54278 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54278 First of all, we do not know what information will be released.  Second, once the information is released, you need to decide are you going to publish it or not? If you publish it, then you have an obligation to begin publishing the information on every case that is out there.  Remember, the Advocate is being "fair and balanced" about all this, right? So, why treat this case differently? Only now that someone raises the question regarding the Grimsinger case are you going to go back and "look deeper".  Why  not before? By the way, from my understanding, there will be another grand jury ending their term next week.  When will the names of the members of the grand jury be published on the front page of the paper?   If you are going to publish the names of the grand jury that indicted the city officials, then you need to publish the names of all grand juries...on the front page.  Fair and balanced, remember? Hmm... Well, TomC's obvious sarcasm aside.... Of course the public WANTS to know. The public loves to rubberneck and any train wreck for some morbid reason. The question is whether or not the public has a right or need to know. In general I believe the public has a right to know the details about situations in which they were directly affected or in which they could reasonably expect ot be affected in the future. In the matter of Ratcliff, the people of this city and county voted for and elected the man to public office so I'd have to agree with Ms. Prather. The voters put their trust in this man and he apparently broke that trust in a most abhorent manner. The public that elected Ratcliff have a right to know how and how badly they were used. Furthermore it should somehow be assured that should Ratcliff relocate and attempt to run for public office in another area that the information surrounding this incident should be made available to the constituents in that location. I know people can change and I also know that the stigma of something like this can dog a person for the remainder of his life but I still believe people that were or may be affected have a right to know. Sometimes those people also have to be big enough to accept that people CAN change and may deserve a second chance... but keeping a wary eye out is never bad advice. Ernie http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54301 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54301 Hmm... Well, TomC's obvious sarcasm aside.... Of course the public WANTS to know. The public loves to rubberneck and any train wreck for some morbid reason. The question is whether or not the public has a right or need to know. In general I believe the public has a right to know the details about situations in which they were directly affected or in which they could reasonably expect ot be affected in the future. In the matter of Ratcliff, the people of this city and county voted for and elected the man to public office so I'd have to agree with Ms. Prather. The voters put their trust in this man and he apparently broke that trust in a most abhorent manner. The public that elected Ratcliff have a right to know how and how badly they were used. Furthermore it should somehow be assured that should Ratcliff relocate and attempt to run for public office in another area that the information surrounding this incident should be made available to the constituents in that location. I know people can change and I also know that the stigma of something like this can dog a person for the remainder of his life but I still believe people that were or may be affected have a right to know. Sometimes those people also have to be big enough to accept that people CAN change and may deserve a second chance... but keeping a wary eye out is never bad advice. Ernie Well put, Ernie Cash. TomC: We don't have the resources to cover every court case. We pick those we feel are the most important to the public. I'd argue a case involving an indicted longtime former sheriff fits that bill. As for your Grimsinger question: I have reports from that file and have had them since after the trial ended. Nothing I read looked suspicious. I didn't write a story because to have done so would have been salacious. You are welcome to visit me at the newspaper, though, and read the papers I do have. Decide for yourself if the reports, including the autopsy report, should be reported on. I am going to look deeper into that story for additional reports, however, because I learned other reports should be public that I initially thought were not. This doesn't mean I'll report on what I find. We'll have to find something that is important to the public. When I get those reports, you're welcome to view those, too. Thanks, Gabe   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54308 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54308 Well put, Ernie Cash. TomC: We don't have the resources to cover every court case. We pick those we feel are the most important to the public. I'd argue a case involving an indicted longtime former sheriff fits that bill. As for your Grimsinger question: I have reports from that file and have had them since after the trial ended. Nothing I read looked suspicious. I didn't write a story because to have done so would have been salacious. You are welcome to visit me at the newspaper, though, and read the papers I do have. Decide for yourself if the reports, including the autopsy report, should be reported on. I am going to look deeper into that story for additional reports, however, because I learned other reports should be public that I initially thought were not. This doesn't mean I'll report on what I find. We'll have to find something that is important to the public. When I get those reports, you're welcome to view those, too. Thanks, Gabe   David Fischer, an Austin-based legal consultant and researcher, follows high-profile cases across Texas. He's followed local cases such as the Sally Blackwell murder and the Ratcliff case. I regularly call him to pick his brain about cases. Here are Fischer's thoughts, which he e-mailed to me today. I should note that just because I am posting his thoughts doesn't necessarily indicate I agree with them. The following is simply Fischer's opinions: It is very, very rare an abuser has only one victim, especially when the abuser is in a position of power and control, to say nothing of the way he used his computer to impersonate a woman. Clearly that computer or others in Ratcliff's control would have evidence of other such contacts, which would have come out in a trial.   I think it is a disservice to the community for a prosecutor to plead a public official's case without disclosing all the evidence and allegations, proven or not against that official. Unlike a citizen defendant, an elected official's crimes effect the physical victims, the governmental system and every person who was investigated during the term of that (sheriff) official.   The only remaining question is: will the judge accept the plea deal, or will he believe as I do, the public needs more accountability and answers first? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54344 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/GabeSemenza/7779/#c_54344 David Fischer, an Austin-based legal consultant and researcher, follows high-profile cases across Texas. He's followed local cases such as the Sally Blackwell murder and the Ratcliff case. I regularly call him to pick his brain about cases. Here are Fischer's thoughts, which he e-mailed to me today. I should note that just because I am posting his thoughts doesn't necessarily indicate I agree with them. The following is simply Fischer's opinions: It is very, very rare an abuser has only one victim, especially when the abuser is in a position of power and control, to say nothing of the way he used his computer to impersonate a woman. Clearly that computer or others in Ratcliff's control would have evidence of other such contacts, which would have come out in a trial.   I think it is a disservice to the community for a prosecutor to plead a public official's case without disclosing all the evidence and allegations, proven or not against that official. Unlike a citizen defendant, an elected official's crimes effect the physical victims, the governmental system and every person who was investigated during the term of that (sheriff) official.   The only remaining question is: will the judge accept the plea deal, or will he believe as I do, the public needs more accountability and answers first?