Actually, the victim was 14 at the time of the first molestation. At 17, subsequent molestation and official suppression was committed by the accused when the victim was incarcerated.

Also, on Steve Tyler's behalf -- he didn't screw up or cover up anything with the Ratcliffe investigation. When he was informed of the investigation about Ratcliffe, what was he supposed to do, fire him and send him back to the Juvenille facility where there could potentially be more victims?? No, he kept him at the DA's office and kept him away from young kids!

Did the city officials conspire to damage Tyler's reputation? Here's another argument that we'll never win.

So let's all agree to disagree and move on.

He was 17 at the time the first molestation took place.

I thought the guy Ratcliff molested was 17. ??

Even the DA has given up trying to prove that City officials ruined his case. Of course, we haven't heard the end of Tyler's conspiracy theory that said officials were plotting to ruin his reputation - which is kinda funny, since he did it all by himself. Rest assured, Tyler won't let that rest.

Run for hills everybody.

Here comes: “THE FATAL FUNNEL II”

Why has this been dragged out again?? It's over and done with and no good can come of re-hashing it.

Mr. Ratcliff has been punished by law for committing purjury. The victim in this case has gone on with his/her life. In jail, out of jail, in rehab? Who knows --

This case isn't even a dead horse that we're beating, it 's just sensationalism!

Let this go people!

this is old news he had his day in court!

There will be no trials related to this case. No law official, district attorney, judge, victim or accused will ever be able to see the evidence (contrived or otherwise).
This is a right guaranteed every person by The Constitution of the United States of America.We wrote that in because we didn't want ithe same to happen to us. (WHEW!)

The culprits, not the victims. You know "the cirlce."
Boy............oye..........

What would we gain by publishing the names of the victims?Ratcliff would just deny the accusations and get a slap on the wrist! Again!

Excuses and innuendo..........
Name--names, get them of off the street.   If they exist.

The posters that refuse to tell what they claim to "know" ARE the good old boy system.
Please stop blaming everyone else.

 
Luminary,You may want to share the following with some folks, especially the two paragraphs about "false arrest and fabrication of evidence" which as I interpret it likely includes trumped up indictments.
On the web site listed, the FBI explains it's duties under the "Color of Law"
Color of LawU.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, tobring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.
Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas: • excessive force; • sexual assaults; • false arrest and fabrication of evidence; • deprivation of property; and • failure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Luminary We will be waiting patiently!

If there is a ring in Victoria and "everyone" knows it and are allowing it to continue, then those that "know" and won't tell (or at the very least list the names to protect others)are just as criminal as those in the ring.
Glad I left Victoria.

If these folks know of other victims, they would be remiss if they don't contact law enforcement immediately. Let's go, get down there now and get these people off the street that are molesting children. It is shameful that you let these people, with your silence, continue this horrible scourge on Victoria's children.
OR, are you just blowing smoke up peoples arses.

Southtexas, you misunderstood me --- I DO NOT BELIEVE there was a cover up nor is there conspiracy afoot. The case involving Ratcliff and the alleged victim is over. Yes there are many unanswered questions, but those will never see the light of day. I respect the fact that you believe Ratcliff was the victim of a false accuasation, and I believe otherwise. I DON'T BELIEVE there is something sinister lurking in the shadows of Victoria. Are there others in power who may have committed sexual assaults? Who knows, I've heard no credible accuasations... so I cannot say...

Give it up Luminary. The FBI is not going to come here for this rinky dink case.

Strawberry and Mimi can rant all they want, but there is no conspiracy, there is no "ring", there is no proof that any minor was ever molested; there IS a whole lot of insanity among those who love the gossip and the flash, and love making vague and unfounded accusations.

In this case, the only person who has had their civil rights violated has been the alleged victim. I seriously doubt, at this point in time, that they are going to be investigating it. A plea bargain was offered by the prosecution, the defense accepted and the judge approved it. It's over. No need for the FBI. As far as the "Fab 4" as they have been called -- well, I just don't see how any civil rights were violated.

So Mr. Know-it-all, explain to me how the FBI has nothing better to do than to investigate the conspiracy theories in Victoria County or how it even falls under their jurisdiction!

If any entity needs to be made aware of, and launch an investigation into, the antics of Victoria County, that will be the Texas Rangers --- AND I DON'T MEAN THE BASEBALL TEAM!

Must be meds time.

Again, Luminary, the FBI (stands for FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation) investigates crimes of a FEDERAL nature. To my knowledge, in the case(s) involving Ratcliff, the victim, the Chief of Police, Police Lt., The Mayor and Former City Attorney, and the missing Bloomington coach, are NOT under federal jurisdiction.

Neither the FBI nor the CIA or even Homeland Security will be visiting Victoria County! Luminary, you are loosing your grip... so here's a link to make you feel better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TksAGz...

Luminary maybe you need to give up your position at the  DA'S Office. Were you born and raised here! The rumors about Ratcliff has been going on for years and years. The rumor about the Bloomington coach has been out there to. We all know that Ratcliff had an on going relationship with a minor.I am sure ratcliff could write a book of all the hidden secrets in Victoria Co. Mind you if it would have been your son,grandson,bother etc. would you still think of ratcliff as innocent. Ratcliff still stands as a Pedophile in my book!

***** * *******
******* * ********
**** * ***

LET THE "CIRCLE" FILL IN THE STARS FOR ALL OF YOU RATCLIFF LOVERS!!!

GAMES PEOPLE PLAY

Ladyinpink and strawberry have alluded to the fact that there are other "victims" of not only Ratcliff, but other high-ranking officials but are afraid to come foward --- well, when you take into consideration the fact that the current victim's name was published on this forum, nearly a year ago, repeatedly, and has since been accused of being a liar (even though he passed a polygraph) a junkie with a vendetta, a scorned lover.... can you blame the others (if any in fact do exist) for remaining silent?

Luminary, the FBI isn't going to investigate this case. Primarily because -- well, Mr. Cash has sufficiently spelled it out in his post, but also, this is not a federal case. Therefore, the FBI has no jurisdiction on this case at all. It's my belief that the Texas Rangers would be the proper entity to investigate alleged cover-ups by law enforcement; alleged pay-offs to judges and prosecutors or as you want to believe, someone in either VPD or VCSO leaking confidential information to civillians on this discussion forum. (But to what end are they doing that if there is nothing to hid???) So, I'm not looking for any G-men to show up anytime soon. For someone who is so smart, Luminary, you missed that one by a mile!

The leadership of this county is a complete disgrace. Given the nature of the allegations on this board, nothing would surprise me.

Or that the accusers are full of beans. Makes a fella happy want to move to Goliad.

strawberry1:
I'm not exactly sure why the attack mode. I could give a rat's a** about any of this except that people like ladyinpink and now you keep making inferences that there are others that were involved, but are afraid to come forward. I don't know any of the "players" in this, but I do know that there is not a shred of evidence that has been submitted to a grand jury or in a court of law that gives a prosecutor any reason to believe that a conviction of child molestation could be had. If no one wants to come forward with proof of the allegations, then wouldn't it be one's moral duty to mothers and grandmothers in this town to at least have the names of all of the alleged ring members so we could protect our children? No, no one has that moral obligation? How very sad this community seems to be. I think it is a shame that, if there is a pediphile ring here, there is NO ONE with the guts to expose it. In this case, I feel like that if there are people who could name names (not necessarily the alleged victims), the names should be posted for all to see. If it is done anonymously, why worry?

Were it not for family obligations, I would never have set foot back in this town that I left in 1999.

to SOUTHTEXAS....AND HONESTLY, I HAVE NO REASON TO LIE!! BELIEVE WHAT YOU WILL, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THERE WILL BE MANY MORE VICTIMS!

Strawberry....the video you linked has absolutely nothing to do about this case. I'm sorry I do not believe all this conspiracy theory. If this was horrible and rampant as you claim, do you really believe that this would not have been discovered in over a year's worth of investigation by the DPS....or someone would have come forward.

I don't know what bone you had to pick with Sheriff Ratcliff; but honestly I don't believe a word you say.

to PAT....Yes I can definitely tell you haven't been in this town long. I know exactly who LadyInPink is talking about and why should she need to name any names. The ones involved in the "ring" know exactly who everyone is. There was a case that went to court in 2000 but ALL charges were dropped. Now it's your turn to try to figure out what everyone is talking about. You don't even know the half of what has gone on in this town for so long whether you care or not doesn't concern me or the others that know the truth. You need to go back and read the posts from when this case first came to light and read the posts from some of the people that have worked for him i.e. Sundance and others. Ratcliff was a LIAR, is a LIAR and will die being a LIAR. He's a "JUNKIE" just not the kind that goes to jail for drugs. His parents knew he was homosexual and that is not what this case is about. I could care less about someone's sexuality, what I DO care about is assault of a minor. No one has the right to do that, I don't care if you are the Sheriff in town. Maybe after ten years there wasn't enough physical evidence but there was evidence, why would Ratcliff be wiring a "criminal" on the run from the law money? Answer that one will ya????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYBkMz...

So, ladyinpink. Name these powerful men. No accusations have to be made. Nothing can come back on you. Certainly nothing can come back on the alleged victims. That is what Victorians really seem to want to know. They want you to name names. They want to know EVERY male that was involved in this alleged pediphilia ring. You have the answers. Just list the names. That is all you have to do. You don't have to comment. You don't have to justify. You don't have to accuse. You don't have to name the alleged victims. Besides Mike Ratcliff which you "know" was part of the group, who were the others?

Luminary, you've got to be kidding. It's called the Freedom of Information Act and, in Texas, the Texas Open Records Act.

Oh wait... you were being sarcastic. I missed that. Sorry. But I'll play along....

You're right! What's with the public questioning LE officials? Why the very thought! I'm outraged! So what if this case is closed and the public is putting two and two together. It's just deplorable that people question the officials they've elected and expect them to be open and honest. Harumph!

And the thought that they could question investigative techniques when they've never been to law school or the police academy. So what if it's only figuring out what anyone who's seen two episodes of Law and Order would have seen. That's beside the point!

Geeez, next thing you know people are gonna want to know where their tax money's going.

I'm aghast!

Ernie

OMG!!! dont you people know how to let something go?? and im addressing both sides of the issue not just one.

Ladyinpink...If the people of whom you write are indeed victims of criminal sexual abuse and they did not and will not now speak up about it, then it is as if it never happened. I don't know if there is a statute of limitations on this sort of crime, but if there is one, it surely must be approaching the end of the time when people can be prosecuted for such crimes. I have said before and I will say it again, if you are assaulted, raped or find yourself in any other way the victim of a crime, the only way to get justice is to report it. If you don't say anything, the authorities can do nothing because they won't know about it. If you wait a decade, and only speak up when you are in jail, you come across as self-serving, lying, and wanting to better your situation in jail. If something actually did happen and you don't speak up about it, you are facilitating the same thing happening again to others. You would then share the blame. Yeah, it's hard to do the right thing, but by not doing it, you stand a very good chance of not being believed years later. You stand even less chance of being believed if you are, or become, a junkie.

On a personal level, I believe that those who rape others should spend their lives in prison. But there must be more to an accusation than a person with little credibility saying that ten years ago, this person did this thing to me. There MUST be some evidence of the crime. This is where coming forward at the time is important. My attitude toward the guy who accused Ratcliff is that if he wants me to consider it important, then it should have been important enough at the time for him to say something when it happened. As for now, I think this is just a junkie who wants to cause trouble for the sheriff who ran the jail. He had a bad time and wants the former sheriff to have bad times too. Well, he has succeeded. Ratcliff is having bad times and probably will for the remainder of his life. Congratulations, the junkie won.

ROFLMAO @ Lawsuit....Pleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz
Eww....let's throw a lawsuit on the one's that know more then some others do on the victim's behalf.Watch out for what some of you guys say because if your not on Ratcliff's side then your going to get in "BIG TROUBLE"...
I will speak my mind until the end of time.
One thing we can all agree on is that he is a liar and was found guilty of being one.
Where's the lawsuit cus I'm ready.
Goodnight.

can we PLEASE just let this issue die already??? all of you are beating on a dead and decaying horse and its not getting us anywhere. their's nothing we can do, the deal's already been given, with both sides accepting terms and conditions. lets move on.

Ladyinpink and justmyopinion...You say there are more "victims." Name one. If there are more, present the evidence to the District Attorney. I'm not a lawyer, but, in my humble opinion, if you keep spreading tales of uncounted and unknown victims of the former sheriff, you could be leaving yourself open to a libel lawsuit. Yeah, the truth is an absolute defense to such a lawsuit but you'd have to prove it.

I think most of you know where I stand on the Tyler issue and at least part of that position is related to the Ratcliff case. We said our piece about that in the justice system and we lost - for whatever reason - and since that time I've chosen to remain mute on the Tyler/Ratcliff issue. Putting myself in a reader's shoes, any negative remarks I'd make would only appear to be sour grapes.

That being said though, I'm still entitled to an opinion on this matter so.... tough it out. :-)

Fact: Tyler employed a suspected child molester in the office of the Victoria County DA *knowing* (by his own admission) that he was doing so.
Fact: The DA's office had access to the New World Database in which information on all active and closed cases being investigated by VPP, VCSO and DPS is archived. That means that quite possibly Ratcliff was being afforded access to information on his own case - a case he was not at the time even supposed to know was going on.

Supposition is that the DA's office access to the NW db being interrupted was the start of the rift between VPD and the DA's office. Or at least was a factor in the disagreements.

Tyler may rightly have felt his ability to investigate the case was being impaired by the lack of access. The VPD may rightly have felt this action was necessary to insure the Ratcliff investigation was not being compromised by the suspect himself. Who had the valid argument is now something we'll likely never know. One thing I know is that most networks keep access logs. If I had been an investigator I would have made it a priority to first determine whether everyone in the DA's office had access to the NW db, whether each user had his or her own logon criteria and then peruse the logs to see which user had accessed which cases. I would have considered any information from that source absolutely vital to the Ratcliff investigation as well as to any allegation of a coverup.

Someone made a comment about Tyler being a witness in the Ratcliff trial being a non-issue; what could he have known about an alleged crime that was committed well before he even came to town. Likely not much and anything he might have heard "through the grapevine" would have been hearsay and inadmissable in any case. Using that logic however then begs the question of why would Tyler have been urged to go ahead with Ratcliff's employment to assist with the investigation? You can't have one without the other. If Tyler was indeed asked by DPS to go ahead with Ratcliff's employment, it would then only be immenently logical to assume he would be called to testify as to his role in assisting the investigation.

In spite of that almost inevitability, Tyler absolutely refused to recuse himself from the prosecution table for SIX months before it finally dawned on him that he would likely be a witness. C'mon.... I was born at night. It certainly wasn't last night. And to top that off, now someone wants me to believe he finally *did* step down only because of political expediency?

I seem to recall as well that Tyler sought out Ratcliff for the job in the DA's office. Ratcliff didn't apply, he was offered the job. While Tyler claimed Ratcliff was only an office manager (big step down from Sheriff, I might add), publicly available information we presented in our petition at least infers otherwise. There are emails and documents galore from Tyler's office with Ratcliff's signature all over them having to do with active investigations.

I seem to remember a campaign plank that Tyler would be DA without the political vagaries. Something in all that smacks to me of not being all on the up-and-up. Either his campaign was a bunch of empty promises or his finally stepping down was because he simply couldn't legally refuse once his name was finally officially added to the possible witness list. Fortunately though in the interim he had managed to 1) further disrupt an already 16 month old investigation and 2) negate the actions of a sitting Grand Jury in an active investigation. Tyler adamantly blames the VPD for compromising the Ratcliff invstigation yet, it seems to me, had accomplished exactly that with his own actions. I have difficulty believing that was purely coincidental and unintentional on his part.

STXGuy regurgitated Tyler's admonition that had he (Tyler) remained on the case there would have been no plea bargain. Uh huh. And if I weren't so busy being oilfield trash I'd have run for president. It's easy to claim what one would have done when it's impossible to prove or disprove now. More empty campaign rhetoric?

Did anyone notice that DPS Investigator Schlinger is maintaing absolute radio silence on this subject? Why is that? The case is closed and I, for one, would like to know just how much investigating was done. Were the jailers who escorted the victim to Tyler's office in the dead of night interviewed? Were any of the former sheriff's deputies questioned? Were the NW db access logs perused? The list goes on but it would seem fourteen months is plenty of time to at least accomplish that much and yet.... nothing.

For that matter, did the replacement DA conduct any of the above fact finding? Not so far as I've been able to determine and I've talked to at least one of those who should have been questioned and know someone who knows a couple of others who at least claim they were never approached by *either* prosecutor.

Sorry, but you'll have a *really* difficult time convincing me there's not something rotten in the state of Denmark here. Really rotten.

Ernie

Mike Ratcliff's mother was dead when this started coming to a head....his father was not; his brother was not; his nieces and nephews were not. And you really think they would not know what he admitted to?

The alleged victim came up with the fairy tale of a molestation just as he was getting ready to be put in jail for parole violations....the story was told and he was released. Of course it was just a few weeks until he commited another crime....and damn; he couldn't come up with another story this time so he had to go to jail that time.

You can doubt what you will. My daughter's friends are not "friends" with the victim.....they know who he is....the word gets around as far as the stories he has told and the bragging he has done. No these are l...and no they are not wide-eyed, picking and loosing teeth. ate 20 and 30 something young people with families and jobs and college degrees. In fact some of them even council kids with problems..

thewaywardwind wrote:

Justmyopinion says, "Must be nice to get a slap on the wrist for the damage he has caused to a lot of people."
Uhhhh, just who are these "lot of people" you speak of?

The victim's.

So according to your theory every single fat, drug addict/alcoholic, workaholic, sex fiend was sexually abused as a child. Can you say COP OUT?

Southtexas, I disagree with your theory that Ratcliff lied to the Grand Jury about a consentual homosexual relationship with an ADULT in order to spare his aged and ill parents. First of all, by the time this was presented to the GJ, Mr. Ratcliff's mother had already passed away. PLUS, that information would have NEVER been made public... The ONLY reason it was made public now was because that is the lesser included charge that he pled guilty to.
Another hole in your theory is this: When you are a parent, you KNOW your children... You KNOW if they are homosexuals or not. You may not want to admit it because of antiquated stereotypes and taboos, but you KNOW.
As far as the victim "bragging"... I seriously doubt that. You stated that you have friends the same age as the victim that know him (the victim). How is he bragging when, as you've repeatedly pointed out, he is incarcerated??? Could the old adage be true -- birds of a feather? Maybe your "friends" are talking trash so you aren't noticing their eyes are a bit glassy, or they have lost weight, have more energy... hmmm....
I respect your opinions, Southtexas, but you are way off base in your feelings about the victim. You are adament that he is not to be believed and had some ulterior motive for not only outing himself, but Ratcliff as well. To what end? This is not just an adult relationship gone bad. And from all reports, the victim gained NOTHING! ZIP, NADA, from coming forward. He is, according to the Advocate, behind bars and has been, periodocially, since the GJ indictment.

TO waywardwind....you sure do use the word "junkie" a lot when referring to the "victim" of Mike Ratcliff. I will say again as I have said before, Mike Ratcliff is a "junkie" but of a different kind! All some of you people that don't believe what the truth is are so concerned about Ratcliff's family & what his "poor choices" did to them. Well, what about the "victim"? Don't you think that he has family? There are many "victims" in this case not just Ratcliff and the "accuser". You should just be glad that what he did didn't happen to your son, your grandson, your nephew, your Godson, your cousin.......

JD....the grand jury does not find you guilty of anything....they simply say that this case should be brought to trial.
Of course Mike Ratcliff had a reason to lie about the adult relationship.  He was admitting to a homosexual relationship in a conservative homophobic community and exposing his family which included elderly and very ill parents to horrible stress and hurt.

T. Michael's Moustache,

To clarify, the grand jury had not even heard the Ratcliff case when our reporter talked with city officials about their concerns regarding the investigation. They said they weren't even sure a grand jury would ever hear the evidence.

Should the city officials have talked about an ongoing investigation? Presumably, that's what the upcoming cases will decide.

Should a reporter have listened to city officials express concerns about an investigation? Absolutely, certainly, always. In this case, we didn't even report on the case until after the grand jury had indicted Ratcliff.

But that's just my opinion. I encourage you and others to write letters or guest columns to the contrary.

Southtexas: "Mr. Ratcliff pleaded guilty to lying about having a homosexual relationship with an adult male of very dubious character. That is what he was found guilty of. There was no evidence of any other charges".

A grand jury investigating inappropriate conduct with a child does not ask questions about adult relationships, nor do they care. They only care about the charge in front of them. Ratcliff would have had no reason to lie about an adult relationship...

Can you fellas dust of a cupacabra story?

Chris Cobler
My opinion is the grand jury system was subverted in the meetings attended by VA reporter where grand jury testimony was revealed or discussed. These meetings compromised the case whether the VA reporter listened or participated. MY OPINION.
Revealing testimony or information before a grand jury in session should not be made public to anyone, including VA reporters. My understanding is that this is illegal and it certainly is wrong. I do not believe LEO investigators approve, Tyler’s position is obvious.
City officials are accused of interfering with an investigation and VA repoters were present at these meetings. THATS MY BEEF WITH THE VA. The so-called victim was used by all; this was not in his interest. This investigation was in the DA’s and Grand Jury’s hands, regardless of the DA’s popularity.
These meeting should not have taken place.
The VA is not only reporting the new, it is creating the news. Like Tyler, the VA should have considered recusing.
To clarify, your reporter was never accused of subverting the grand jury system. That is my opinion.
I will give the VA credit for allowing my to be one of your critics.

Did Ratcliff actually have the young man escorted to his office while he was incarcerated? If that actually happened, did the prosecution ever interview the jailer who took the inmate to Ratcliff's office? That is one detail I am still curious about.

Justmyopinion says, "Must be nice to get a slap on the wrist for the damage he has caused to a lot of people."
Uhhhh, just who are these "lot of people" you speak of? Has someone else made a ten-year-old accusation of which we've not been made aware? Heck, we're still not aware of who made the first one. Other than "The Junkie" there is no identification in the paper. Here's a piece of advice for anyone who is attacked, raped, molested, or otherwise finds him/herself a victim of a crime. CALL THE COPS!!!! You want justice, tell the police what happened, provide the evidence of the crime, and work with the DA to put the creep behind bars. If you wait a decade to say anything, and then only when you're in trouble yourself, you come off self-serving and hopeless. Of course, the people in Victoria might still believe you if you sound pitiful enough. Many here don't need any sort of proof.

Dear T. Michael's Moustache,

To clarify, our reporter was never accused of subverting the grand jury system. Rather, he listened to city officials who told him of their concerns about the Michael Ratcliff case. The city officials are accused of interfering with an investigation.

South Texas Guy, certainly you know that this is an opinion of the Advocate editorial board. By definition, an opinion is biased. We welcome you and others who disagree to express your opinions here and, even better, as letters to the editor or guest columns.

Chris Cobler

The editorial asks: "If no physical evidence was available in the case, just what kind of prosecution could be constructed?"
Well, from reading the posts in the Advocate forum for the last several weeks, it wouldn't matter WHAT kind of prosecution could be constructed. If the trial was to be held here, the jury pool would seem to be from folks who had already made up their minds the Ratcliff was guilty based on nothing but the ten year old accusation of a junkie. The fact that there was no physical evidence notwithstanding, most of the people posting here "KNOW" that the former sheriff is guilty of this accusation and probably others even though no one else has come forward. Damn, I'd HATE to be accused of something in Victoria. "Don't bother with evidence and facts, the grand jury indicted so he must be guilty. Send him to the Huntsville Hilton anyway. If he didn't do this, he probably did something else."

STOP THE PRESS VA.
This is old news.  We don't need another Fatal Funnel Series (no pun intended).  This is a done deal and not even you can change it.  At that, it was your reporters who subverted the grand jury system on this case.
STOP THE PRESS!!!

Mimi....have you forgotten that in the Blackwell case the family of Sally Blackwell wanted Tyler to accept the plea bargain. They wanted the whole mess over and said so. They were angry with TMichael because of his seemingly total disregard for the dead woman's family's wishes.....and even more angry about his rudeness to them.

Mimi.....of course the alleged "victim" has the right to file a civil suit even if he is in jail....Anybody can file a civil suit about anything. What I did say was that IMO it would not happen because the kid continues to be in and out of jail and any civil suit is probably going to bring up more dirt on the Victim than on Ratcliff.

If the original criminal case would have went to trial this would not have been allowed, but in a civil suit, much more information is allowed to be presented.

I happen to have friends that know this young man and are his age....he is not ashamed of anything, in fact the story is that he has bragged about being the victim and getting law enforcement over. I hardly think the public knowing who he is is going to prevent him from suing in a civil court. He doesn't care who knows.

I just find the milking of this story by the Advocate near criminal.

I am waiting to see if the same vigor will be exhibited by the Advocate when our illustrious Chief of Police who was fired from his last job for stealing, along with the arrogant and hateful Mayor of our city, the City attorney who had stepped down from his job because of a blatant overstepping of bounds and the other gentleman who everyone says is a pretty good dude, but just got caught up in the frey, are all brought before the court. What do you bet the constant demand to know every dirty bit of information doesn't happen?

And on another related subject; thanks to the poster who provided the link to the video site where we can watch our City Council meetings. Not all of us are able to go to the actual meeting and it was extremely interesting to observe these guys at "work".....if you want to call it that.

It is pretty obvious that Hagan is not as popular amongst his peers as he is among the voters. I found the Mayor's demeanor arrogant and rude.....and even my pre-pubescent kids never rolled their eyes and feigned disgust as clearly and blatantly as this group when Mr. Hagan takes up for the taxpayer.

I say we need to keep Hagan and vote the rest of the bums out.

Southtexasguy, for the most part, I agree with your post. However you stated: "Tyler has said he would not have accepted a plea bargain. If he had stayed on the case it would have gone to trial. Maybe there would have been a conviction...maybe there would have been an innocent verdict...we will never know." I disagree.
We do know -- Tyler WOULD have offered a plea bargain... He's done it before. There was physical evidence -- DNA, that led to the arrest of the murderer of Sally Blackwell -- Grimsinger could have and should have gotten the death penalty for that horrific murder, but Tyler offered him a deal. With all the evidence, it would have been a slam dunk. Tyler took the easy way out, IMO.
 No lawyer, prosecutor or defense attorney, likes to loose cases. In Tyler's case, this is especially true. In recent months, he's gotten several convictions, and has gotten dangerous criminals off the streets in our city (and for that I am very glad), but they are not getting the punishment they deserve. So would he have offered a plea bargain to Ratcliff? Absolutely! Maybe he would have made an offer that would have not been so deplorable as the one McDonald made.
 Let me also add that in this case (Ratcliff's) I do NOT blame Tyler for the outcome. The fact that he recused himself was the proper action and is not the fault of the "Fab 4" nor the Advocate's. Not only was it the proper action, morally, but was also a brilliant career move for Tyler -- If Tyler HAD prosecuted the case and offered a plea bargain, many would have screamed, (100 times louder than they already are), of cover-up, favoritism, etc. If he'd gone to trial and Ratcliff was found "not guilty", well, the same thing. If he'd gone to trial and received a "guilty" verdict, then the Ratcliff supporter's would have cried foul, accusing Tyler of bias. It was a no win situation for Tyler. He took the proper action!

The real truth in Victoria is that you apparently need NO proof of anything to judge a person guilty. The mentality here appears to be "Forget about the justice system. Get a rope!" I still say that the only way the people of Victoria are ever going to be satisfied (and that is WAY doubtful) is to bring in every minor that was abused by Ratcliff with proof of the abuse (not just he said/he said crap). I find it totally shameful that the Advocate would call into question the outcome of the Ratcliff case. You would think, as a NEWSPAPER, it would want proof of the wrongdoing. Guess not in Victoria.

I see where the Advocate has started its campaign of trying to influence potential jurors in the upcoming trials of the city officials with their "viewpoint". How many more editorials will be seeing in the upcoming months that will be critical of the DA and the Ratcliff case?

Remember the Advocate came out strongly against Tyler staying on the case. Now, they seem to want to continue to blame him for its outcome and to discredit the work that he did.

Also, remember it was the Advocate who, within only a couple of days of the indictments, proclaimed the city officials innocent of the charges. This was without seeing/hearing any of the evidence against them.

Tyler has said he would not have accepted a plea bargain. If he had stayed on the case it would have gone to trial. Maybe there would have been a conviction...maybe there would have been an innocent verdict...we will never know.

I do believe the idea of calling Tyler as a witness in the Ratcliff case (which would have precluded him from prosecuting the case) was a defense lawyer tactic to get Tyler out of the picture and put someone in who would negotiate a plea bargain.

The crime that Ratcliff was charged with occurred ten years ago. Tyler was still in law school at that time, I believe...I do know he was not living in Victoria. How could he have been a witness to anything to do with the crime? Ratcliff's tenure in Tyler's administration may have been poor judgement, but it had nothing to do with a crime that had occurred 10 years prior. Does anyone have any proof...any proof whatsoever...of any type of coverup?

I hope this story never dies down.He deserves a daily reminder for the nasty little games he played with his victim.

He lied and is guilty as sin.Must be nice to get a slap on the wrist for the damage he has caused to a lot of people.

Southtexas, I know you are a great supporter of Michael Ratcliffe. I respect that. And like you, I think that this case should be over. It's not though. It will be rehashed during the "trial" of the 4 city officials.... unless they get a plea deal. And probably even beyond that.

There are two sides to every story, Southtexas and you are chosing which side you believe. Many of us believe in the victim. Yes, yes, I've heard your opinion that he's an addict and an addict will say or do anything for his next fix. While that may be true in many instances, I also know that people who were abused sexually at a young age, tend to try and cover the guilt and shame with drugs and alcohol.

As far as a civil suit is concerned, no I don't think the victim will file. Simply for the fact that his identity will be made public and that there is nothing that can be gained from it. There is no amount of money that would ease that pain. But I wanted to point out to you that just because the victim is in jail does NOT mean he isn't entitled to file a civil lawsuit. Prison walls do not separate us from the protections of the US Constitution.

I am not going to argue with you about whether or not Ratcliffe is guilty or not...The State of Texas has accepted his plea and he will now pay his debt to society. This is as close to the truth of the matter that the rest of us will EVER know. And no, I don't want to know the lurid and play by play details. Unless Schlinger decides to speak, and we all know he won't, and tells us what compelling evidence was found to even bring it to the GJ, there will always be lingering doubts and speculation.

I thought this was over....nahhh....the Victoria Advocate has to drag one more story out of it....topped of course with a large serving of bias.

Mr. Ratcliff pleaded guilty to lying about having a homosexual relationship with an adult male of very dubious character. That is what he was found guilty of. There was no evidence of any other charges.

However, it is the Advocate's opinion that someone lying about a gay affair should receive punishment equal to the Unibomber or Ted Bundy murders?

Do we know every juicy bit of dirt attached to this case...No, and who says the public has the right to.

Does the public know every juicy bit of information about any case that is pled out? No...and the public has no right to.

The courts have been satisfied and sentencing has been mandated. If you must have your daily dose of juicy dirt...read the tabloids. And you might as well give up on the possibility of a civil suit by the alleged victim....the kid is not going to get out of jail long enough to file a civil suit against anyone.

I suppose you know that there is an chain e-mail making the rounds about the Ratcliff case?....the title is "Would you like to live in this Texas Town?" It gives a one sided version of the case and since I got it from a friend of mine in the valley will soon be all over the U.S. if not the world. Wonder who started that piece of garbage?

I can just picture you guys at the Advocate sitting around the day the sentence came down and the last story was printed.

"Damn, Chris.....what are we going to do. It's going to be so boring with no more Ratcliff stories."

"Well we can milk the Chupacabra story for at least 5 or 6 more hits....maybe more if someone sees it again."

"Nah....just not the same....no sex, no drugs, no Brokeback Mountain stories...it's just not the same...circulation is bound to drop."

"Well maybe someone will come up with something really nasty on Obama or McCain."

"Yeah, but it was so much more fun when it was someone local."

Sad, guys.....really, really sad.