May 2, 2005
Give Me a Break, Duluth
Having passively observed the Jennifer Wilbanks "runaway bride" saga last week and over the weekend, I now see that authorities are considering both civil and criminal charges against her.
The mayor of Duluth, Georgia, a niggling busybody if I ever saw one says, "We feel a tad betrayed and some are very hurt about it." Well boo hoo. "In addition to the potential for criminal charges, Duluth Mayor Shirley Lasseter said she is looking into the possibility of suing Wilbanks to recover the cost of the search that was mounted after her disappearance. Lasseter estimated the cost at $100,000."
Then there's the local DA Danny Porter. "Porter said Wilbanks could face a misdemeanor charge of false report of a crime or a felony charge of false statements. The misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to a year in jail; five years in prison is the maximum sentence for the felony. "If there's criminal responsibility, that's something I have to do something about," Porter said.
But who launched such a wide-ranging government search effort within 24 hours of her disappearance? Certainly not Wilbanks. No, that honor likely goes to whichever family member decided the national media needed to run semi-hourly updates on the status of her "abduction." And when Wilbanks finds out about the hullabaloo 3 days later (the typical waiting period before police will act on missing persons reports) and adds that to the sense of shame she feels for what she's done to her extended family, she makes up a false report of kidnapping that she recants only hours later. For this she could go to prison for 5 years? Get real people.
In typical western fashion, Albuquerque authorities are more circumspect. "We have discretion. We are human beings. We have feelings and we are professional at the same time," said Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Ahrensfield.
Less effort should be expended on investigating "the circumstances on how this was done" than figuring out the specifics of the intended nuptials. It has many hallmarks of an arranged marriage, and given our distant introduction to her fiancee, Mr. Personality, I can see why she'd have misgivings.
Thanks. jg, I was afraid the great minds of ThreeSources were going to be silent on this pressing topic...
Instapundit has asking why perpetrating a hate-crime hoax is not prosecuted as forcefully as a hate crime.
You can blame the family and the media all you want, but alleging a non-existent crime is going to cause outlays of government resources and I am all for throwing the book at the bride -- her book deal and Barbara Walters Interview will more than cover the fine.
Being hospital guy, I haven't seen any coverage but Yahoo. The hopeless romantic in me was touched that "Groom Still Wants To Marry Runaway Bride." Ahh, twoo love!
Posted by: jk at May 2, 2005 5:00 PMI suppose that is fair. All the outlays of government resources that occurred AFTER her panicked 911 kidnapping story late Friday, and BEFORE her recantation a couple hours later are her liability. The rest can be billed to 'Fox News Live!' (Probably CNN and MSNBC too but I wouldn't know. Did you say CBS news? Pppptht!)
Posted by: dagny at May 3, 2005 2:02 AMYou'd assume that this white, 40-something Conservative male would be a big FOXNews fan. But their love of these tabloid stories has completely turned me off.
I'm glad FOXNews exists, but I cannot watch it. I TiVo "The Belway Boys " and "FOX News Sunday" and watch both every week. I also record Brit Hume's newcast and watch it two or three times out of five.
But the rest of the lineup? Chandra Levy/Laci Peterson/Michael Jackson... Can't take it!
Posted by: jk at May 3, 2005 1:02 PMI have no sympathy for Wilbanks. The whole charade is the sort of thing a teenager would do - run away without any advance planning, then, when things get tight, make up some wild story instead of facing the truth. If she wanted to dump the guy that dramatically, there were a million better ways to do it. Did it occur to her that her fiance would be treated as a murder suspect? What if she had been pressed for a name when she phoned in her kidnapper story, and had blurted out some real person's name? And I'm sure that the situation was at least partially of her own making. I doubt that the groom was the party who insisted on a wedding with 600 guests.
Having said that, I don't really think there is a legal matter here. Yes, there was a search-and-rescue expense, but we have to accept a certain amount of that as social overhead; otherwise, all behavior with a non-zero risk would cease and that would be bad for all of us. The most I can see her facing would be a misdomeanor charge of filing a false report. But that should take place in New Mexico, where it actually happened. I don't know what grounds Georgia would have to file that charge, since she didn't make any report in Georgia.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at May 3, 2005 2:23 PMThanks for the comment, Cousin Dave! It's always great to see a little new blood around here -- maybe you can set some of them other guys straight...
Posted by: jk at May 3, 2005 5:38 PMI agree with Cousin Dave that Willbanks displayed poor judgement. And Cousin Dave agrees with me that there is no legal exposure for the woman.
Sure, Willbanks "should have" done many things differently. One thing she didn't do, however, was ask to be plastered all over television and newspapers. How many of us honestly expect that would happen to us if we decided to go 'walkabout' for three days?
I feel no sympathy for Willbanks for the embarrasment she feels in the eyes of her family, but the torrent of disdain, outrage, and just plain hurt feelings from government officials and media talking-heads is entirely undeserved.
[The earlier comment by 'dagny' in this thread was actually mine. Sorry Dag. :)]
Posted by: johngalt at May 8, 2005 10:20 AM | What do you think? [6]