MA - Essie L. Billingslea, 46, Convicted Rape after 20 Yrs in Prison for Rape

PastTense

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
4,250
As a teenager, Essie L. Billingslea was convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl at knifepoint in 1986. Two years later, he and two other boys took turns raping a 13-year-old in her home. But last year, after almost two decades in custody for a third rape conviction, he was released from a treatment center for the sexually dangerous when a jury determined he no longer posed a threat.

But that was not the case, say authorities. Billingslea is accused of breaking into an Arlington woman’s home on Sunday evening, beating and raping her at knifepoint.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...rous-person/vbGzewQ5gf7pvZFLRomKJI/story.html

A jury found Essie Billingslea guilty of breaking into home of an Arlington woman and raping her at knifepoint in 2014, according to the Middlesex District Attorney’s office. Billingslea, 46, of Boston was found guilty on three counts of aggravated rape, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault in a dwelling, home invasion, and breaking and entering in the daytime.
http://www.boston.com/news/2016/01/...e-arlington/I44QdBVMoo9i7unFIq3m7N/story.html
BookingImage.jpg
 
What kind of jury determined he no longer posed a threat? They should be locked up in the same cell as him, one by one.
 
This turns my stomach. The system just doesn't protect society from rapists!

After how many rapes is it concluded that a person just can not be rehabilitated? How many people become victims and have their lives destroyed unnecessarily?!
 
The jury voted 12-2 to release him... declaring the serial rapist no longer a "sexually dangerous person."

I'm confused about the type of people who made up the jury responsible for this decision. Were they all suitably qualified to make the type of decision that could lead to people being raped, threatened with a deadly weapon and robbed?

Well they decided he was no longer dangerous, but he raped another woman after his release. It doesn't seem like he did anything to prove he wasn't dangerous either. He briefly participated in sex offender registry but was terminated for poor attendance. A board of five psychologists decided he was likely to re-offend (and we know he did soon after release). So what in the world made these people on the jury to decide he wasn't dangerous anymore? And victims don't have any recourse for bad jury decisions.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
804
Total visitors
893

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,755
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top