This forum is being stopped. Many of the posts are off topic and personal attacks.

And what does all this prove.....that there can be lies on both sides. Predators lie most certainly but sometimes those that proclaim to be victims also lie. We have a couple of excellent examples here....one of them from someone who is so certain that Ratcliff is guilty in spite of the fact that there is only very doubtful and ancient evidence.

Darn! I was takng notes for my soap opera script.

This is nuts. Does anybody care besides these two. Lets get back to the point, this Ratcliff case should be tried.

Woohoo, I'm not sure that you are really helping the situation here. I understand the need for you to defend yourself and your family, but please just let it go. I'm not sure, but I think that is what a true Christian would do.

Rainwater, is there any way you can give this a rest? I don't know either of you, but I think your attack is vicious and uncalled for. Let's just see how big a person you can be and back off.

Does anyone other than me see the saddness in all of this? I'd almost bet that all of you are decent people under most other circumstances, but look where you are going! You are attacking with the most hurtful words without thinking about "what if the shoe were on the other foot". Doesn't it break your heart to be mean and hateful? If it doesn't, what kind of monster are you? Discussion is one thing; verbal abuse is entirely another.

WooHoo, for someone who was once falsely accused you are so judgmental. Podunk shared a story with us freely to illustrate a point and you jump all over him like he was Jeffrey Dahmer....You know; I hate to quote the Bible because it will bring Luminary out of the woodwork but Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Also.

Have you ever considered the fact that perhaps there might be something about your attitude that might make people not actly kindly toward you

You have got to have some place to house your hound dog. So come on lighten-up on the code.

Rags....do the cars have to be operational to pass "code"?

Ok, ok....this must be a "bleed over" from some silly, stupid high school crap....

Tim...time to lock the boards....the loonies from the past have returned and some others have gone to making up stories......

More salacious drama from Victoria, and the "elite" of that country club neighborhood of---NORTHCREST.
Can you park your car in the yard and the garage there?
I'll get you and your little dog too.

"social elite circle"  
In Victoria?
Please! LOL, ROFLMAO  Lots of wannabes maybe.

oh the tangled webs we weave

Careful, Woo...Nowhere was sex mentioned.....

The DA became the asistant DA.

And I always "wanted to shove it in the face" of someones name I don't recall.

Apparently no bond was allowed, or could be secured. Therefore....

I waited ten months in jail, pled out to 3 years in prison?

Hate the place you live and all the people there are stupid.

Since this is a "Victoria" board, sponsored by the Victoria Advocate, and no indication was given that the story relayed took place in another venue. My mistake, and that of at least one other poster.

You are correct. Apparently my reading comprehension is lacking....I never quite "get" your posts.

Someone sure IMPLIED that their "life altering event" happened in Victoria.....
You can bet I'd remember the name of someone who had me locked up for half a year....

Well, I would like to have the matter settled in my own mind. But noooo, Podunk has to go rain on my parade. Lucky for me I am not losing sleep over this case. And I am now going to give it even less of my brain power and move on to some other juicy topic.

Yes, News....as hard is it to believe, I believe Ratcliff is not guilty of any wrongdoing other than making some powerful and wealthy people uncomfortable and maybe a little fearful.

Podunk your story was a single tragic event and the whole thing sounds awful. As far as Ratcliff is concerned, it sounds to me like his behavior was more than a single event but rather a pattern of behavior. I have nothing personal against him, but after all that I have read it just seems painfully obvious that he is guilty of having an improper sexual relationship with this young man.

STX – Are you saying he is not guilty of any wrong going? You have got to be joking! My goodness, wake up! Innocent people don’t plea to this sort of thing. He may not be guilty of all the charges but he definitely is guilty of something and the DA and Defense spelled it out in the plea bargain.

News...A guilty plea on a plea bargain means nothing except that both parties want the whole mess to be over with.

I happen to believe that Mike Ratcliff is innocent of the initial charges. And you, News, don't KNOW anything but your own name and your own business.

He has pled guilty. I hope no one here is claiming he is innocent. He pled guilty. The reason he took the plea is he cannot afford the dollar cost of a long drawn-out trial. I bet it would have cost him at least $100,000 in attorney's fees, and attorneys want the money up-front prior to any work being done. He pled guilty to save money, not to save his reputation. If he went to trial he would never have admitted to any criminal activity. The plea lets us all know he is guilty and his victim has been vindicated. If he had the cash for the trial then he would have gone that route.

You and I both know that Mike Ratcliff's name and reputation have already been destroyed. Even if this case went to trial and he was found innocent, he would forever be felt to have manipulated the system or gotten off because he was an ex sheriff by many, if not most of the people in this town.
He would never be able to work in law enforcement again; he would be pointed at in stores and made fun of in private conversations. In other words...found innocent or accept a plea bargain....when you really evaluate, there is very little difference.  So cut your losses and lessen the sorrow for those you love.

Obviously none of us really knows what we might or might not do in a particular situation until we're actually *in* that situation, but on this account, STX, I believe - and hope - you're wrong about what I would do.

I've paid my money and taken my chances on a few instances albeit in cases with far less at stake than this present one holds for Mr. Ratcliff. But my name, my reputation and the integrity of my family's name hold more value to me than the cost of a trial or my health issues or pandering to my family's psychological complacency.

My momma's 74, she's not a very big woman and she don't get around as well as she used to when she used t' have to chase me around the house.... but she's a pretty tough ol' bird. I know too that if I were in Ratcliff's shoes she'd come to the jail house to visit me.

with a willow switch!

Ernie

Ernie...I feel relatively certain that you, as a rational individual who cares about those who love him, would have done exactly what Mike Ratcliff did faced with the same circumstance.

Mr. Ratcliff is indeed destitute, and ill, and sick that his family has had to go through the publicity and shame of this garbage charge against him.

The plea bargain is what it is. It's not a done deal yet. Not until Aug. 15th when the judge is scheduled to give it his blessing, or not.

In most cases of sexual abuse of a minor I wouldn't think the sentence Ratcliff has bargained for would be an appropriate one. In this instance though perhaps it is.

However, I can't agree with the conclusions that Ratcliff accepted the deal to spare himself or his family further pain and embarassment nor that he's destitute and cannot afford a trial. While every person is different, if it were me and I *knew* I was innocent I'd fight the charge and take my chances with a jury. If, as some have postulated, there is no evidence, no witnesses, no other victims to show a "modus operandi," it would seem almost a foregone conclusion to expect an acquittal of all the charges. And protestations to the contrary, our system guarantees the right of trial by jury to everyone, even the destitute. Even if some public defender might not have been Clarence Darrow, with no evidence - no CASE - it wouldn't seem as if Ratcliff would hardly have needed much better than a second year law student.

And frankly, I'd rather have died during the course of the trial than live "peacefully" under the stigma of child abuser.

Ernie

Southtexas - As I stated in the other post, we have differing opinions and I respect yours.

Podunk, dude, what's with you anyway? You don't have anything pleasant to say to anyone... This forum is about posting opinions... we all have them. I don't always like yours, but I don't resort to snide remarks or insults. If you don't like my comments, then ignore them and move on.

Mimi...the reasons you mentioned for Mr. Ratcliff accepting a plea all hold true....but I am relatively sure that the main reason he accepted the plea is that he did not want to expose his family and friends, some of them children and teenagers, who have stuck by him every inch of the way, knowing he is incapable of what he was accused of, to any more pain and suffering and embarressment.

And Huckleberry....man where did you come up with that intricate conspiracy theory. The prosecutor and judge didn't know Mike Ratcliff and were certainly not a part of any local gang of public officials out molesting at will. They were the ones that made the decision to plea bargain. If there was a conspiracy it was the other way around....a conspiracy to see that Mike Ratcliff was ruined totally and completely.

The fact is there WAS NO EVIDENCE for the charge of having sex with a minor other than a repeat criminal's word after a 10 year silence. The DPS carried on an investigation lasting almost a year trying to find something to back up the charges and obviously ended up with nothing.

You can bet in a case like this with an out of town prosecutor who could get his name in headlines for getting a conviction that it would be taken to trial if the prosecutor wasn't sure there was going to be a lot of money wasted with him most likely losing the case and it looking bad on his record.

Will Mike Ratcliff leave Victoria? I hope not. There are a lot of people here who love him, however it is certainly understandable if he does.

I really, really think the best bet now is for the people who know the alleged victim and who feel that justice has not been served should get together, set up a legal fund and hire an attorney to try this in civil court. The other alleged victims can then come forward with no fear of reprisal. If there were others involved with Ratcliff, they could be called as witnesses against him if they bargained for immunity. Y'all all really need to put this to rest once and for all. Sounds as though it is tearing your souls completely up.

Had Ratcliff not taken the plea he would have maintained his innocence and gone to trial and would have been acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Going to trial is very very very expensive and Ratcliff cannot afford exorbitant attorney's fees. So, he took the plea to avoid becoming homeless and destitute. The victim has been vindicated. Had they gone to trial, the victim would likely not have been vindicated, because Ratcliff would have never told the truth.

i thought it was nice to share it... sorry if I annoyed you

You know this  is only what I think happened ..I think the reason they didnt come down on Ratcliff is because he knows alot of stuff that could bring more than himself down..so if he has 10 fingers of people he can bring down and can really do it.. I think Ratcliff said ok..I am only one you can ruin but I can ruin alot people.. cut me a deal.. where I wont have to do jail term or I am spilling the beans..My thing is .. why was that guy whatever his name is trying to kill himself not to long ago..under the hill..something smells fishy in Delaware I think.. My thoughts .. Ratcliff knew some serious stuff....drugs/money or whatever.....and they dont want it to come down around them and ruin their reputations or what is left of it.

Pat, there is proof, otherwise Ratcliff would have never accepted a plea.... Oh people can go on and on ad nausem, about how wretchedly ill Poor Ratcliff is, and how this would have "killed" him to go thru a trial ... and how the poor man is in financial ruin over this.... oh boo hoo! cry me a river!
Any Whoooo, there was proof of "something" out there... Still skeptical? Ok, ask yourself this question: IF Ratcliff wasn't guilty of some sex crime, then why, as part of the proposed plea, is he prohibited from visiting Internet chat rooms and porn sites? What has THAT got to do with perjury? hmmmmmmm? As for "slap on the wrists" plea, well, no.... the man is pretty much ruined. He will NEVER be able to work in law enforcement ANYWHERE. He has been outed as a homosexual. He will be leaving Victoria.
I know many people think he is getting away with what he has done, but after thinking it over, no, I don't believe he has. He ruined the life of his victim and in return, his life has been ruined. Just Desserts! IMO

Ladyinpink:
There must be an awful lot of you who believe the victim. That seems to be what most of the posts are about. I'm not saying I don't believe the victim. I'm saying that there is not a shred of evidence so far that proves Mr. Ratcliff is a pedophile. If you were accused of being a pedophile, I'll bet you would want your accuser to provide proof so you wouldn't be judged on his/her word alone. Why do you have such a hard time with this? Would you rather I just believe that you are a pedophile based on someone's accusation? We can do all of the "there may be's" that we want, but until there is an eye witness, DNA or a video tape produced, we will never know the truth.

I think that was his plan!! Thanks for the stars!!

Ragman....the only thing I KNOW for sure is that quote gives me a headache thinking about it.

Of course a deal was made to get Ratcliff.
I'll have you know, you don't know. There are knowns and then there are unknowns.
“As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know." — Donald Rumsfeld

Somehow a little spot of DNA on a navy blue dress was considered proof. Where is the DNA evidence here? And I really don't mean to be mean, JMO31, but who has found Mr. Ratcliff to be guilty of pedophilia? I think that your statement just speaks to the mindset of a lot of people on this forum who have become judge and jury without a shred of evidence.

"Bill Clinton handbook?" That's a fairly ignorant comment.

There were NO witnesses.

Well, there wasn't witnesses in his case. I think it is a fair statement.

Ratcliff needs to be registered in the sex offender data base,period.He is a sexual predator just like the rest of the predators and shouldn't get all this special treatment that he doesn't deserve. I bet he does leave Victoria after all this is over with.Who's child is it going to be next?
Coming to a town near You.

I just may have the solution to this whole problem although I'm not a lawyer and may not have a clear understanding of the law in this case. I got to thinking about O.J. Simpson. He was aquitted of a felony by a jury of his peers. Then the Goldmans hired an attorney and filed a civil suit against him and won. Why couldn't the same be done here? There are a lot of people on this forum that want to see Mike Ratcliff get what they feel he's got coming to him. Why don't they set up a fund to hire the best of the best lawyer for this young man and have him file a civil suit against Mr. Ratcliff? That would seem to be the next step in this process to see justice served in the eyes of the people who post here. I'm sure that, given the circumstances, the young man cannot afford an attorney and given the circumstances, the people on here who feel as though justice has not been served would be quite willing to provide him with the best lawyer money can buy to see that he has his day in court. I am waiting for this to happen.

I will say again, I don't know if Mr. Ratcliff is a pedophile or not. I do know that he admitted to lying to the Grand Jury, but not about having sex with a minor. I can only draw inference from his plea that he is guilty of having sex with another man. That is between Ratcliff and his God. It is not for us to judge. If there had been a trial and there had been photos or DNA evidence or an eye witness to Ratcliff having sex with a minor, you darn right there should have been a trial; however, all I have seen from the lawyers and the DA pro tem is that it is a he said/he said thing and that just ain't gonna cut it!

My suggestion is that you people get out your wallets and get the kind of justice you think this young man deserves.

Yes, to a lie. Not a lay.

he pled guilty end of story, rebut that.

JINX

In the Rodney King case there was a video of the crime. There is only one person's word against another in this case. I hardly think the Federal Government is going to take on a case which cannot be proven.

You think the feds care about something that maybe happened 10 years ago in Victoria?  They wouldn't have any more evidence than they do now.
 Rodney King had a video of his arse wippin'.  

Ratcliff may have saved himself on the State level, but the federal government can pick up the charges. See Title 18 Us Code 242. Remember those Rodney King boys. If justice is not found here then the feds need to step in, or maybe they just don't know.

To the writer of the letter...the plea was not to lying about having sex with a minor, but lying about having sex with the young man after he was over 18....there is a very big difference.
Also, in a plea bargain, a plea of guilty does not always mean the person is actually guilty. It may in some cases mean he is saying he is guilty in order to end the whole process. Why would one do such a thing and not fight to the bitter end? To end the trauma to family and friends, to keep from suffering a long and tortuous trial even if proven innocent in the end, because he he is destitute and has no more money, because his health is so bad he might not survive the stress of a trial.  A plea bargain would not have been offered if it was going to be an easy case to win.  Ten year old accusations are difficult to prove.

You are right--I think. I would move if I were him. Which I thank God I am not! He will be outed anywhere goes. He won't be able to keep it quiet, who he is/was. He will lay low.

Ragman, I'm not disagreeing with you or attempting to be contrary, but IMO, I don't believe Mr. Ratcliff will stay in Victoria much longer after the judge agrees (and it's most likely he will) to the plea deal. Why would he really? Prior to July 3rd, it there was only "speculation" as to his sexual orientation. The prosecutor "outed" him. So yeah, he is ruined.

"Bill Clinton handbook?" That's a fairly ignorant comment.
There were NO witnesses.  Of course a deal was struck. He said, he said.  Two people made a deal--not just the former Sheriff--who I never voted for or supported. The "victim" cut a deal as well.  Everyone wins, except the lynch mob. Ratcliff is ruined.  I think you will recognize him, if he moves next door. He was only your Sheriff for 12 years, elected by Victorians

To see if you can influence the process, you can write an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Hon. Mark Luitjen, Criminal District Court, Third Floor, Justice Center, 100 Dolorosa, San Antonio, Texas, 78205. You should title it Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to Plea in State of Texas v. Michael Ratcliff or words to that effect. Don't worry about the format, a simple letter will do, but you should caption it to let the judge know up front that you are attempting to write a brief, as a party interested in the outcome in the case.