Anybody Else Creeped Out By This Whole Dinkel Thing?

[Dom Heffner]

There's a front page story on the Enquirer's website talking about how the Dinkel's life is anything but normal now and how her son thinks she should be spared any jail time so she can take care of him.

You guys can help me out here, but can you imagine a story about one of those teachers from West Clermont Schools a few years back posted in similar fashion?

What- are we supposed to feel sorry for Mrs. Dinkel because her husband played football?

I find the family photo on the article absolutely creepy.

And then Paul Daugherty writes a- I'm not sure what you'd call it- a non-opinionated piece about Mr.s Dinkel taking care of her son who has cancer. Is this piece trying to sway public opinion? Make us appreciate what we have (and then maybe our mothers won't have sex with our friends if they come over for a party?)?

Someone who lives up there help me out here. Did the woman break the law or not?

[RedFanAlways1966]

Someone who lives up there help me out here. Did the woman break the law or not?

Yes, Dom, she did. I hope this is not political, but we tend to see this double-standard when punishing men vs. women in these matters. Chalk this up as another woman who got a slap on the wrist for having sex with a minor. Bottom-line... she had sex with an underage BOY. That is a crime. She was found guilty, but spared jail time.

Anyone ever see Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"? Most have. Some of those losers get jail time for those crimes despite not having had sex with a minor GIRL (a ficticious girl at that). They get no sympathy from me, but compared to Mrs Dinkel it makes you think something doesn't seem right.

I feel bad for the Dinkel son who is ill. But this should not give a parent a get-out-of-jail-free pass when they commit a crime.

[cincinnati chili]

The South park episode on this topic (featuring Cartman as "Dog the bounty hunter") was pure genius.

[Redsland]

The South park episode on this topic (featuring Cartman as "Dog the bounty hunter") was pure genius.

"Tom, I'm standing outside the courthouse at this hour, where people are shocked today, mostly because the teacher involved (pause) is pretty hot."

[vaticanplum]

Yes, Dom, she did. I hope this is not political, but we tend to see this double-standard when punishing men vs. women in these matters. Chalk this up as another woman who got a slap on the wrist for having sex with a minor. Bottom-line... she had sex with an underage BOY. That is a crime. She was found guilty, but spared jail time.

Anyone ever see Dateline's "To Catch a Predator"? Most have. Some of those losers get jail time for those crimes despite not having had sex with a minor GIRL (a ficticious girl at that). They get no sympathy from me, but compared to Mrs Dinkel it makes you think something doesn't seem right.

I feel bad for the Dinkel son who is ill. But this should not give a parent a get-out-of-jail-free pass when they commit a crime.

I totally agree. I saw one of those Dateline shows once and I almost lost it, it made me ill...just strikes me as testosterone-fueled anger looking for a place to lash out. Sensationalism, if you will. Not saying that they don't deserve it to a degree, but the women need the same punishment as men who commit the same crime. An adult woman preying on a child is no more sympathetic than an adult man; an underage boy is just as vulnerable and damageable as an underage girl.

She has my sympathy that her son is ill. But in the matter of the crime she committed, my sympathies lie elsewhere. The two are unrelated and she should not be spared punishment regarding one because of the other.

[Dom Heffner]

I just don't get the public relations ploy and the fact that the Enquirer is publishing it turned me off.

Can you imagine somebody else posing with their happy family in a plea to get a lighter sentence for sex with a minor?

I'm lost on this.

[Falls City Beer]

I actually don't think this has as much to do with gender as it might appear on first blush; I think the reasoning is as follows:

1. She likely has very strong legal representation seeing as her husband is a former pro athlete and a high-profile citizen.

2. (And this is where gender figures into it) Her son's cancer could not have come at a better time for this woman--not to sound callous, but let's face it: if it weren't for the convenient "sentimental narrative" of "brave mother coddles sick child" she'd be looking at quite a few years in jail, IMO.

So it's a slamdunk for her on two fronts--missing one or the other probably isn't enough to keep her out of trouble, but having both is a perfect storm that will likely keep her out of jail altogether.

Still, there's no rescuing her reputation from freaksville, at any rate.

[Redsland]

I just don't get the public relations ploy and the fact that the Enquirer is publishing it turned me off.

Can you imagine somebody else posing with their happy family in a plea to get a lighter sentence for sex with a minor?

I'm lost on this.

Ditto.

[Falls City Beer]

I just don't get the public relations ploy and the fact that the Enquirer is publishing it turned me off.

Can you imagine somebody else posing with their happy family in a plea to get a lighter sentence for sex with a minor?

I'm lost on this.

Yes, it's inexcusable. It's likely that Daugherty's piece would not have made a difference anyway, but even to help the process along in this way is indefensible.

[Dom Heffner]

Yes, it's inexcusable. It's likely that Daugherty's piece would not have made a difference anyway, but even to help the process along in this way is indefensible.

I'm normally on the up and up, but I couldn't figure out what was even the point of the Daugherty piece. It's like he's trying to rev up some sympathy ahead of sentencing while trying to remain neutral on the subject. I can't stand when editorialists write an article and don't take a stance. Why is Daugherty even commenting on this- because Tom played football (Wow, he was a real honest to goodness football player, let's stand in awe of him and his criminal wife!)?

Sorry to harp, I'm just puzzled as to why the Enquirer does this for a family because one of its members played for the Bengals.

The child having cancer is the worst part. Like Barry "Please don't boo me because I cheated- it hurts my daughter's feelings" Bonds, these are all arguments we need to think about before we commit the crime. It's sad that these people use their children to tya nd get out of doing the time.

I was a classmate of one of the fallen West Clermont teachers from sixth grade through high school. And while I'm not condoning their behavior, they were ran through the grinder while this lady gets a family portrait on the front page with at least 3 stories trying to get this predator a non-sentence.

I like the one headline: "Report: Dinkel Would Not Do it Again."

Funny thing is, you could have gotten a report to say she was in no danger of doing what she did the morning before she did it.

And I don't care if she does it again or not. She did it before, and that's what we she should be punished for.

To have the Enquirer try and tell me sad tales of cancer and a family's no longer normal life- how awful.

[Redsland]

Sorry to harp, I'm just puzzled as to why the Enquirer does this for a family because one of its members played for the Bengals.

Beats me, but this episode does not mark the first time Mrs. Dinkel has graced the pages of the Enquirer. The Fourth Estate has seen fit to publish a few puff pieces about her over the years, including these two, courtesy of google.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...ics_queen.html

http://www.enquirer.com/columns/knip...062297_jk.html

[Dom Heffner]

Just sent this to Daugherty. He'll never respond, but I had to get it off my chest.

Huge fan, Paul, but I'm not sure I get the piece on the Dinkel family. Is the point that Jeni Dinkel shouldn't serve prison time because her kid has cancer and her husband was a former Bengal?

I'm lost, here, really.

Are there any other articles you guys have written where you've done a family feature complete with family photo (love the sick child right in the middle, have to hand it to you guys) for other criminals?

What strikes me odd is that when ********** was arrested for having sex with a 17 year old when he was 26 (West Clermont School scandal), you guys posted his mug shot and the community was appalled by the whole story.

Jeni Dinkel ****** a minor and here you write a touching tale about the trials and tribulations of two local celebrities and how mommy might have to go to jail and leave her cancer-ridden son to tend for himself (something she should have thought about beforehand, eh?).

Your article makes me want to become famous and adopt a sick child so I can avoid punishment for any crimes I might commit.

Sad, Paul. Sad. You've skewered athletes for much less.

I'll await your next masterpiece, though a bit jaded.