20 Comments

1. Terry says:

   February 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm

   This just boggles the mind……Convicted of a crime which didn’t occur….Liberty and Justice for All!
2. Russell says:

   February 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm

   I’m certainly no legal expert and I’m not even exactly sure what the term means but leaving a 13 year old home alone with enough cocaine to kill her and possibly with a man of questionable character at best still sounds like depraved indifference on the part of a parent to me. There has to be some crime in there somewhere.
3. Dan Meyer says:

   February 13, 2008 at 3:10 pm

   “You need an license to drive, you need a license to get married, hell, you even need a license to fish. But they will let any asshole be a father.”

   - Keanu Reeves from the movie “Parenthood”

   ———————————————–
   Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Lynn Dejac loves her children, including the daughter that she tragically lost. But I agree with Russell, the previous poster, that there has to be some kind of punishment for allowing her daughter to have access to that much coke. Not too mention the “various” men that she reportedly hung around with, including questionable characters like Dennis Donahue.

   Yes indeed, they will let any asshole be a father OR a mother.

   I’m trying not to be hurtful, but I think we all need to think realistically and honestly.

   She did 13 years behind bars for a crime she did not commit. I believe that is time served for an incident that I believe she played a part in allowing to happen.

   Final thought – I also think it’s safe to say that we will never truly know what happened the night that Crystallyn Girard lost her life. God Bless her and let’s hope there is finally some closure with this whole twisted and tragic story.
4. Andrew Kulyk says:

   February 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   Yes let’s all head over to the Babcock Street Grill, order a couple of pitchers and sit in the back pool room while we all try to figure out how this could have happened.

   If we stay there long enough, chances are good that we’ll see the Mother Of The Year drop in in person and start slobbering over every bum and loser sitting in the joint, anyone who will buy her a drink. Who is she going to go home with and bang that night? I’m in charge of the pool…buck a ticket!
5. steve says:

   February 13, 2008 at 4:40 pm

   Once again, so many appear to have missed BP’s less than subtle point. Lynn DeJac was not charged with being a bad mother, or a bum, or any of the other things many believe she is. She was charged, and convicted, with the strangulation death of her daughter. WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN. On what evidence was she convicted? How big a screw-up must there have been to get the cause of death so apparently wrong? Makes me wonder how many others have been convicted of crimes because of their lifestyles?

   Rationalizing what appears to be a monumental foul-up because you don’t like her lifestyle is sad, and just a little frightening.
6. Russell says:

   February 13, 2008 at 5:35 pm

   She was convicted of depraved indifference. That is precisely why I said what I said. I got the point and I think you’re missing it.
7. Russell says:

   February 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm

   Oh, and let’s not forget, all the evidence that was used to drop the charges today was available to Ms. Dejac and her defense team all those years ago and throughout her entire time in the slammer.

   And to help with the point a little more, she was not convicted specifically of strangulation. She was convicted of depraved indifference that led to murder. I’m saying that personally it sounds to me like a mom who leaves a child with that kind of person and that much cocaine could still be guilty of depraved indifference that led to murder. I’m no legal expert and I’m not sure what the technical definition of that term is. I’m just saying it sounds like it could still apply.
8. mike says:

   February 13, 2008 at 5:47 pm

   HA HA HA, I am so sick of hearing about the weather and cut hockey players, this should give the local news 2 weeks worth of stories, even Paul C. is throwing in his 2 cents. Please more interviews with Frank Clark he looks great in HD.
9. Becky says:

   February 13, 2008 at 6:31 pm

   I’ve read a lot of the articles leading up to this point, although no where near all of them. However, I’m pretty sure that while it was verified that DeJac left her daughter alone, I don’t remember reading anywhere that she left her daughter with cocaine, or that she left her with Donahue (the opposite actually).

   Although I’m not a lawyer I think perhaps that the legal definition of “depraved indifference” is different than that used when by common folk.

   DeJac was a really lousy excuse for a mother, but she didn’t kill her daughter, which is what the charges revolved around. Science is constantly evolving, and perhaps that brought about more definitive conclusions. Then again, it’s not like she had private funds to pay for more autopsies/opinions and other tests, is it?

   I agree with Steve – “Rationalizing what appears to be a monumental foul-up because you don’t like her lifestyle is sad, and just a little frightening.”

   On the other hand, compared to the idiots that own computers over on the comments at WGRZ, you all are downright civil here.
10. maggie says:

    February 13, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    How sad that this woman has spent 13 years in jail for a crime she did not commit. It just seems to me that the DA, whoever it was at the time, was out to get her, whether there was a crime or not, or whether she was guilty or not. And what was Andrew LoTempio doing – if the cocaine overdose was on the original autopsy report, why didn’t he bring it up at trial? I would love to see the transcripts from that trial. Too bad no one paid attention 13 years ago.
11. Dan says:

    February 13, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Becky – Maggie and Mike – she wasn’t convicted of being a bad mother or for Murder. She was convicted of depraved indifference. This is just another Clark cop-out. It was a crime that she was (and is) guilty of. Clark doesn’t have the guts to try it.
12. Peggy says:

    February 13, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    Go Lynn!!! She has finally been vindicated. If every BAD parent was sent to jail for being lousy parents than my own mother should spend life in prison and if that were the case than the jails would be so filled there’d be no room for the true criminals.

    Now, Lynn must prove her daughter was NOT a bad kid. Maybe I’m wrong but Donahue had sex with her daughter. DNA proved this already. In my minds eye he must have been the person who also gave Crystal the cocaine than raped her otherwise you’d have to say she was already a bad kid. All her friends said she was a good girl, responsible and intelligent.

    Donahue can be charged with lying to the grand jury and perjury in the court case that convicted Lynn of killing her daughter. If I were Clark I’d try to save face too and now go after him with these charges, but he won’t.
13. Russell says:

    February 14, 2008 at 8:08 am

    Becky, this has nothing to do with evolving science. The doctor looked at the crime scene photos, the weight of the lungs, fluids in the body and the analysis of the blood. This was all from the original case. There was nothing new here.

    And I figure “depraved indifference” probably means something different in legal speak than common speak. That’s why I’m asking.

    Furthermore, the cocaine thing just came up so you wouldn’t have read it in previous articles. The question should now be where a 13 year old girl got enough cocaine to kill herself. If nothing else, I would think the mother would be guilty of gross negligence or something connected to this death considering she was responsible for this minor. And whoever supplied the cocaine would be guilty of worse.
14. Buffalopundit says:

    February 14, 2008 at 9:00 am

    From NY Jurisprudence:

    Murder in the second degree, a Class A-I felony, is committed when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life:

    a person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.
    a person at least 18 years of age recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than 11 years old and thereby causes the death of such person.

    NY Penal Law §125.25.

    The state must prove that the defendant:(1) recklessly engaged in conduct (2) which created a grave risk of death to another person (3) thereby causing the death of another person (4) under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life. Depraved indifference murder involves a killing in which defendant does not have conscious objective to cause death but instead is recklessly indifferent, depravedly so, to whether death occurs.

    Examples:

    Evidence that defendant pulled out a gun and fired it five times in direction of fleeing men, including victim, who defendant did not seem to know, after approaching the men and having brief conversation with one of them, was sufficient to support finding of depraved indifference required for conviction of second-degree murder.

    Evidence was sufficient to support conviction of depraved indifference murder; after argument with victim over which team would play the next basketball game, defendant left community center and returned ten minutes later with a gun, which, after an argument, went off, resulting in victim’s death, from which jury could have found that defendant held gun close to victim and then pulled the trigger and concluded that shooting was instantaneous and impulsive, meant to perhaps disable or frighten the victim.

    Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for depraved indifference murder; six eyewitnesses testified that defendant fired his gun directly into a crowd of people, and one of those shots killed a person.

    In other words, the defendant didn’t have the intent to kill any person or people; he engaged in conduct that was so reckless and indifferent to the potential harm, and his act resulted in another’s death.

    No one knows how the girl got the coke, so it is beyond speculative to even suspect her of child endangerment, much less depraved indifference murder.
15. Russell says:

    February 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Thank you for the explanation.

    I do not agree that it is beyond speculative to think that a parent of a young child that died of a drug overdose was negligent or suspicious of child endangerment. I think the question of where she got the coke needs to be asked and perhaps some charges should follow. That said, I highly doubt that’s going to happen at this point. I think they just want this over and behind them.
16. Greg says:

    February 14, 2008 at 11:11 am

    My guess, the guy sexually assualted her and in the process gave her a ton of coccaine to alter her behaivor during the act, probably did some choking since there was some evidence of bruising on teh neck and the hemoraging in the eyes that I can’t spell well enough to get a google hit on.
17. hank kaczmarek says:

    February 15, 2008 at 5:09 am

    Just because Russell WANTS it to be Depraved Indifference does not make it so.

    If she had been convicted of Reckless Endangerment, Criminally negligent homicide–Well those things could easily been proven in this case. But neither of those crimes together equals depraved indifference murder.

    You could have even gotten her on that had she been in the house, and let her boyfriend sexually assault her daughter.

    Was she a terrible parent, and not a very good person? No doubt. But they can’t put you in prison for that. Apparently the BOYFRIEND killed the girl.

    I’m not saying she didn’t deserve to do some time, that she was a factor in what happened, but if a man strangles and rapes your kid and she dies, and you didn’t kill her, you should not be charged with murder.

    This”Clark doesn’t have the balls to prosecute” shit, though probably considered moral outrage by some, is still not the law. Injustice happens when good people let their outrage and morality, not the proper application of the law, take charge.
18. Haterade says:

    February 15, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    The previous ME, who was no slouch himself, stands by his original findings. He actually examined the body – the latest ME just looked at records, and formulated a theory, no ? How could they have such differing opinions ? I think I’d go with the guy who actually examined the body.
19. HELOW says:

    February 17, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    I don’t know, I don’t think any of us think Lynne DeJac should have been sentenced to 13 years for being a bad mother. However, I think the two points most of us who have a lack of pity for her are trying to make are, number one ~ she was SUCH a bad mother that she left her child in a situation that any reasonable person would realize is horribly unsafe and at risk of at least assault, which was apparently not uncommon for her to do. Left her young daughter alone ALL night, to get drunk and have a one night stand, while her pissed off, dumped, abusive boyfriend was on the loose looking for her. And second, although she shouldn’t have been sentenced to 13 years for a murder she didn’t commit, we’re saying it’s a little difficult to feel sorry for her. She certainly deserved some kind of punishment…maybe not 13 years but a few years would have been fair. She may not have physically murdered her daughter, but her actions and choices certainly had a large part in how things went down and she should definitely be held accountable for that. She is responsible for putting her children in danger…and unfortunately, the worst happened.
20. Jojo says:

    February 26, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    I’d like to add one more salient point to this most edifying conversation….makes me really reconsider the death penalty.It’s scary how wrong things can go in a murder case. Perhaps this will lead to a new law re: giving protection from future legal action to someone who testified as a witness for a previous trial. Call it the Dejac addendum or something……