The consequences of no consequences

Well, El Coyote is more or less back on his feet now, and has been pawing through the comments on yesterday’s blog. Thanks to all for your best wishes, and he promises he will no longer eat entire chickens, feathers and all, as they seem to disagree with his digestive system.

Meanwhile, though, it seems that Neelu Berry has been up to her old tricks, and has published yet another Facebook post that flies in the face of her restraining order.

Let’s just review that restraining order once more, shall we?

It seems pretty clear to us that this is a blatant violation, and it’s not the first Neelu’s done since the day the trial ended, on 18th July. We really feel she ought to have had her collar felt by now.

It would appear that Neelu believes that because she ‘won’ her trial—i.e., she and Sabine were given verdicts of ‘not guilty’ because the prosecution was not able to prove that they intended to intimidate witnesses, nor that they conspired to do so—she is now entitled to carry on as before.

And since the police have done nothing about it to date, they’re just reinforcing her belief that she is untouchable.

It’s a reasonable assumption on her part, we regret to say.

We’re reminded of the sad story of a young man from Texas, Ethan Couch.

At age 16, Mr Couch stole beer from a store and sped away at 70 miles per hour in his pickup truck. He ran into four pedestrians, killing them all, and hit two other vehicles. One of his passengers was left paralysed and brain-damaged.

When he was apprehended, Mr Couch’s blood alcohol level tested at 0.24%; he pleaded guilty to four counts of manslaughter. His defence was that he suffered from a condition called ‘affluenza’, which his psychologist described as “a condition fostered by wealthy and permissive parents who encourage their children to believe that normal rules do not apply to the affluent”.

While this ‘condition’ is not recognised by the American Psychiatric Association and has no legal standing, the District Judge in the case sentenced Mr Couch to 10 years’ probation. During an investigation for probation violation, Mr Couch and his mother fled Texas, and were later arrested in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Mrs Couch was returned to the USA facing charges of hindering apprehension, while Mr Couch remained in Mexico, having been granted a delay in deportation. Eventually he was successfully deported, and he’s currently in prison, serving four consecutive terms of 180 days apiece for each of the people he killed.

What has all this to do with Neelu?

It’s about consequences.

Ethan Couch received a very light slap on the wrist for having killed four people and seriously injured another. His strange defence argument ought to have given the original judge a clue: this was a person who required stern consequences in order to learn that the rules do, in fact, apply to him. Instead, he received the very clear message that he could do as he pleased, with no consequences.

Neelu seems to have absorbed the same message. Having been handed a ‘not guilty’ verdict, which in her addled mind means ‘I’m free and clear to carry on my insane campaign and continue harassing people at will’, she’s now discovering that no matter how blatantly she defies her restraining order, the police will turn a blind eye.

We’d very much like to be proven wrong on this, but as it stands, our initial optimism about the power of the restraining orders to put an end to Neelu and Sabine’s shenanigans seems to have been misplaced. Instead, the people the orders were meant to protect will continue to suffer; and Neelu and Sabine carry on without facing any consequences for their wrong-doing.