The Sordid Tale Of Cyntoia Brown

[Toni]

The age of consent in Tennessee is 18. She was a rape victim the night she killed her trick—who was committing statutory rape against her. The fact that she was working as a prostitute does not excuse the rape nor does it provide any cover to presume that the John did not know her age. In fact, he was in all likelihood looking to have sexual with an underage girl.

Everything about this case from every source however unfavorable to the girl tells the story of a girl who was the victim of a great deal of sexual abuse. It is absolutely unsurprising that she would also use drugs, lie, suffer mental illness and have a host of emotional problems.

It is absolutely unsurprising that Derec would be outraged at a prostitute killing a John who she feared or out of fear for her pimp. It is 100% unsurprising that Loren and Derec would be outraged st a 16 year old black teenager killing a white man. White men are allowed to kill black children on any pretext but no black teen is allowed to defend himself or herself against any threat from a white man, however credible the threat.

In fact, Allen was such a creep that waitresses would avoid having to serve him because he made them so uncomfortable. He had a habit of pursuing underage girls and is accused of raping at least one other girl.

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

Crime scenes may not lie but sometimes police and prosecutors do.

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since he picked her up after seeing her and did not pick her out on line, he saw what she looked like and surely knew that she was young. I am certain that you are aware that there are men who specifically wish to have sex with underage girls. In my area, there are annual stings conducted by local law enforcement where a 15 year old 'girl' is advertising her services to men who are arrested when they show up and it's actually a cop. The men are always at least late 30's, usually in their 40's and up to in their 80's.

Of course they're older--how many men in their 20's have the money to pay for sex?

How does having money entitle a 50 year old to sex with a 15 year old—who is underage???

FFS

You were presenting the age difference as if somehow that made the men perverts. I was pointing out that the age difference is almost inevitable--it's usually younger women working as prostitutes, it's usually older men who can afford them. Of course the women are younger!

Now, it seems this guy really was a perv but so what? That doesn't justify shooting him. If she had actually shot him in response to a threat I would be ok with that but her story of how it went down was very, very different than what the crime scene said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

Crime scenes may not lie but sometimes police and prosecutors do.

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

That would have been a question for her to bring up at the trial. If she doesn't bring that up at the trial and instead decides to bet her freedom on a bullshit self-defense story which is directly contradicted by the forensic evidence, then it's not a relevant question.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

Crime scenes may not lie but sometimes police and prosecutors do.

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

Historically, now that cameras are so common, I would, yeah. Also, based on my experience with cops, and knowing some (friends of family), I would definitely believe that the cops are willing to lie, often for no real reason other than to get a conviction that looks good on their record.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

Weren't you arguing in the other thread that rapes aren't really all that under-reported, and that it's the women's fault for not reporting them?

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

Personal experience?

 

[Toni]

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

Crime scenes may not lie but sometimes police and prosecutors do.

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

I’m assuming nothing. A minor who was being pimped out by the pimp who abused her—ALL sexual assaults as she was under the age of consent—after a lifetime of abuse and mental illness and zero history of ever being violent or attempting to rob a client makes the allegation that she decided to rob and murder this one client a bit suspect.

People don’t kill people for no reason. If he were sleeping, she could have robbed him without shooting him and saved herself a lot of trouble. I’m saying that not everything adds up in the nice neat package the police and prosecutors laid out.

 

[Toni]

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

That would have been a question for her to bring up at the trial. If she doesn't bring that up at the trial and instead decides to bet her freedom on a bullshit self-defense story which is directly contradicted by the forensic evidence, then it's not a relevant question.

I don’t buy that it was bullshit. I also don’t see how an abused, traumatized, mentally ill 16 year old is someone who can effectively mount a defense.

In no way does the sentence she received reflect customary sentences —unless you are black and killed a white guy who was some sort of ‘minister.’

 

[Toni]

Defend herself against what? The crime scene says there was no threat, her story of self defense is totally bogus.

I perfectly well accept that a prostitute could need to defend herself against a trick, it's just I do not believe that she did so.

Furthermore, a prostitute is not going to carry a gun on their person. The clothes come off, it's going to be pretty much useless for self defense. Weapons are going to be where he won't find them--her purse.

Crime scenes may not lie but sometimes police and prosecutors do.

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

She was 16–not an adult. Through adolescent brain into the mix of abused, raped, sexually abused, drugs and serious mental illness.

Prostitutes don’t have sex with clients because they like them. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Toni]

How does having money entitle a 50 year old to sex with a 15 year old—who is underage???

FFS

You were presenting the age difference as if somehow that made the men perverts. I was pointing out that the age difference is almost inevitable--it's usually younger women working as prostitutes, it's usually older men who can afford them. Of course the women are younger!

Now, it seems this guy really was a perv but so what? That doesn't justify shooting him. If she had actually shot him in response to a threat I would be ok with that but her story of how it went down was very, very different than what the crime scene said.

Yes, I believe that middle aged and elderly men attempting to have sex with 15 year olds does make them perverts.

You think that is ok behavior?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also: she had no history of robbing johns. What would motivate her to murder and rob this particular guy—a guy who creeped out and frightened other girls..

That would have been a question for her to bring up at the trial. If she doesn't bring that up at the trial and instead decides to bet her freedom on a bullshit self-defense story which is directly contradicted by the forensic evidence, then it's not a relevant question.

I don’t buy that it was bullshit. I also don’t see how an abused, traumatized, mentally ill 16 year old is someone who can effectively mount a defense.

In no way does the sentence she received reflect customary sentences —unless you are black and killed a white guy who was some sort of ‘minister.’

In what way was it not bullshit? The coroner's report stated that the guy was lying facedown with his hands underneath his head like he was asleep and her claim was that she shot him in self-defense while he was reaching for a gun. When one states something which is at direct odds with the observable facts, the description of that statement is that it is called "bullshit".

I agree with you fully about the sentencing. She should have gotten a couple of years in prison and then counselling and treatment, due to the extenuating circumstances, and then when she gets out of prison, the mayor should bake her a pie to say thanks for helping to clean up the city by removing this dude from it. That doesn't change the fact that she murdered a guy and then robbed him.

 

[Toni]

I don’t buy that it was bullshit. I also don’t see how an abused, traumatized, mentally ill 16 year old is someone who can effectively mount a defense.

In no way does the sentence she received reflect customary sentences —unless you are black and killed a white guy who was some sort of ‘minister.’

In what way was it not bullshit? The coroner's report stated that the guy was lying facedown with his hands underneath his head like he was asleep and her claim was that she shot him in self-defense while he was reaching for a gun. When one states something which is at direct odds with the observable facts, the description of that statement is that it is called "bullshit".

I agree with you fully about the sentencing. She should have gotten a couple of years in prison and then counselling and treatment, due to the extenuating circumstances, and then when she gets out of prison, the mayor should bake her a pie to say thanks for helping to clean up the city by removing this dude from it. That doesn't change the fact that she murdered a guy and then robbed him.

If he was reaching under the bed for the guns he had hidden there, he would have been face down, right?

I don’t know if it was really self defense or if she thought it was self defense or how much the trauma and mental illness influenced her perceptions. I think that murder was an over charge, plus she was a juvenile who had just been raped by the guy she killed.

I do know that George Zimmerman flat out murdered a black child the same age and that was all fine. We don’t like it much when black people kill white people but whites killing blacks? We’re kinda ok with that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If he was reaching under the bed for the guns he had hidden there, he would have been face down, right?

Not really how one reaches for things and unless the coroner forgot to mention his prehensile tail, it would be tough for him to do it with his hands underneath his body. Her story about what happened doesn't match up with the facts and her theft afterwards and lying about it to the police gave the jury no reason to find her a credible person to be giving an account despite this. They were right to find her guilty.

 

[Toni]

If he was reaching under the bed for the guns he had hidden there, he would have been face down, right?

Not really how one reaches for things and unless the coroner forgot to mention his prehensile tail, it would be tough for him to do it with his hands underneath his body. Her story about what happened doesn't match up with the facts and her theft afterwards and lying about it to the police gave the jury no reason to find her a credible person to be giving an account despite this. They were right to find her guilty.

I see your point--I'm just not certain that he wasn't moved after he was shot. It's a weird way to lay on a bed of your own choice.

I understand why she was found guilty but I don't agree with the murder charge or charging her as an adult. We both agree that the sentence was excessive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I see your point--I'm just not certain that he wasn't moved after he was shot. It's a weird way to lay on a bed of your own choice.

That would make sense in light of the coroner's findings about how there's evidence of the body being disturbed. Please indicate the part of the coroner's report which mentions something like this. Otherwise, murder trials aren't the place for idle and baseless speculation.

Now, I don't know why she killed him. What I do know is that she didn't do it as an act of self-defense.

I understand why she was found guilty but I don't agree with the murder charge or charging her as an adult. We both agree that the sentence was excessive.

I assume that the judge is a pedophile and wanted to send out a strong message about how it's not cool to shoot people who rape underaged sex slaves, just for self-preservation purposes.

 

[Toni]

I see your point--I'm just not certain that he wasn't moved after he was shot. It's a weird way to lay on a bed of your own choice.

That would make sense in light of the coroner's findings about how there's evidence of the body being disturbed. Please indicate the part of the coroner's report which mentions something like this. Otherwise, murder trials aren't the place for idle and baseless speculation.

Do you have a link to the actual coroner's report? I have only read reports of part of what the report supposedly said. Look, I've been in the position to know that sometimes, things are not accurately reported in the press.

I've read that the coroner's report said he was laying face down, on his hands and then elsewhere, read that his fingers were interlocked. That's weird--either or both. It's weird to lay face down, with both your hands underneath your body. It's not comfortable and I've never seen anyone do that, ever. One arm: sure, if you sleep on your stomach or if you pass out drunk. Both? That's weird and a bit suspect, imo. With fingers interlaced? That's even weirder. It could be that he had interlaced his fingers in prayer? I don't know. I only know that the coroner's report is said to have concluded that he was laying on his hands when he died. It is not the coroner's job to speculate how it came to be that he was laying on his hands, face down, with or without fingers locked. But it makes so little sense to me that it makes me wonder how that happened. Did she move him? Did she place his hands on his chest after she shot him, and then, in guilt, roll him over because she couldn't stand to see his face? Did someone else move him? Is the report inaccurate in any way?

Now, I don't know why she killed him. What I do know is that she didn't do it as an act of self-defense.

I don't know why she killed him either. I don't know for certain that it was not self defense. The coroner's report of his body position seems odd to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

I’m assuming nothing. A minor who was being pimped out by the pimp who abused her—ALL sexual assaults as she was under the age of consent—after a lifetime of abuse and mental illness and zero history of ever being violent or attempting to rob a client makes the allegation that she decided to rob and murder this one client a bit suspect.

People don’t kill people for no reason. If he were sleeping, she could have robbed him without shooting him and saved herself a lot of trouble. I’m saying that not everything adds up in the nice neat package the police and prosecutors laid out.

You're still left with explaining the bullet that appears to be from behind while he's laying down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So when faced between the possibility of a woman lying or the police lying you assume it's the police.

As for whether she robbed other johns--how would we know? They're generally not going to report it.

And I could easily see the situation being that she didn't like him as a client so she decided to kill him.

She was 16–not an adult. Through adolescent brain into the mix of abused, raped, sexually abused, drugs and serious mental illness.

Prostitutes don’t have sex with clients because they like them. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Of course they don't. That doesn't mean she didn't find some client particularly distasteful.

- - - Updated - - -

How does having money entitle a 50 year old to sex with a 15 year old—who is underage???

FFS

You were presenting the age difference as if somehow that made the men perverts. I was pointing out that the age difference is almost inevitable--it's usually younger women working as prostitutes, it's usually older men who can afford them. Of course the women are younger!

Now, it seems this guy really was a perv but so what? That doesn't justify shooting him. If she had actually shot him in response to a threat I would be ok with that but her story of how it went down was very, very different than what the crime scene said.

Yes, I believe that middle aged and elderly men attempting to have sex with 15 year olds does make them perverts.

You think that is ok behavior?

If they know they're 15, yes. The age difference as such, no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don’t buy that it was bullshit. I also don’t see how an abused, traumatized, mentally ill 16 year old is someone who can effectively mount a defense.

In no way does the sentence she received reflect customary sentences —unless you are black and killed a white guy who was some sort of ‘minister.’

In what way was it not bullshit? The coroner's report stated that the guy was lying facedown with his hands underneath his head like he was asleep and her claim was that she shot him in self-defense while he was reaching for a gun. When one states something which is at direct odds with the observable facts, the description of that statement is that it is called "bullshit".

I agree with you fully about the sentencing. She should have gotten a couple of years in prison and then counselling and treatment, due to the extenuating circumstances, and then when she gets out of prison, the mayor should bake her a pie to say thanks for helping to clean up the city by removing this dude from it. That doesn't change the fact that she murdered a guy and then robbed him.

If he was reaching under the bed for the guns he had hidden there, he would have been face down, right?

I don’t know if it was really self defense or if she thought it was self defense or how much the trauma and mental illness influenced her perceptions. I think that murder was an over charge, plus she was a juvenile who had just been raped by the guy she killed.

I do know that George Zimmerman flat out murdered a black child the same age and that was all fine. We don’t like it much when black people kill white people but whites killing blacks? We’re kinda ok with that.

In other words, you are assuming she was at least in her perception in the right. Of course, she's female, she can't be wrong.

And we have no indication he raped her. Statutory rape isn't perceived as rape by it's victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If he was reaching under the bed for the guns he had hidden there, he would have been face down, right?

Not really how one reaches for things and unless the coroner forgot to mention his prehensile tail, it would be tough for him to do it with his hands underneath his body. Her story about what happened doesn't match up with the facts and her theft afterwards and lying about it to the police gave the jury no reason to find her a credible person to be giving an account despite this. They were right to find her guilty.

I see your point--I'm just not certain that he wasn't moved after he was shot. It's a weird way to lay on a bed of your own choice.

What part of "when he was shot" do you not understand? The coroner looks at the path the bullet took--which will be a straight line unless there's a deflection off a bone. If having his hands under him is what it takes to get the straight line that's where they were.

And it very well might be because he put them there at gunpoint.

I understand why she was found guilty but I don't agree with the murder charge or charging her as an adult. We both agree that the sentence was excessive.

Murder by 16 year olds is usually tried as an adult. This isn't a one-time juvenile mistake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know why she killed him either. I don't know for certain that it was not self defense. The coroner's report of his body position seems odd to me.

The position seems quite reasonable if she was holding him at gunpoint.