" For years I have call for the State Attorney General to conduct a investigaton into Ed Caleb and his office.

I'm not condoning this yound man's actions and he does have the right to an appeal but I think there was a ball was drop on part of the defense attorney add it to a DA's zeal for clearing a docket.

If more people in the county would complain then someone in Salem has to listen.

Of course, the bottom line is DON'T RE-ELECT CALEB!!! "

" Readers, yes, it's difficult to communicate the pain, sorrow, disappointment, and regrets that our family is feeling. I think now we should just let this go, because we're just pouring salt into open wounds. I will never look at our legal system in a trusting manner again, but hopefully this will be our one and only encounter with the courts. I wish everyone a peaceful holiday season and hope that the healing can begin soon. "

" i really believe these letters on behalf of Patrick are a way in which the family is mourning. I think all should let them be. Patrick has been convicted, he is doing his time, he has admitted to doing wrong, and feels guilt because of it. The family is wracked with grief for their lost son and his life. What parent wouldn't be.

Let what happen be a warning to all. Don't let your daughters text endlessly, put monitors on their computers and, and watch what your sons are doing. Do you not see the evil in the world? Do you not pay heed to the bible when it says we are in the days of wickedness.

Don't blame the family. "

" whew,
How can you be so judgmental and self rightous as to say that? You obviously don't know Patrick- He would never have done anything to that girl and will never do anything as stupid as sending obscene pictures again. It doesn't matter now though, because people like you group everyone together, wheter it be a hard core sexual predator or a good person doing a ONE TIME, dumb ac t.
What gives you the right to judge someone without knowing all the facts? Patrick was railroaded to make a name for Mr. David Groff, plain and simple. Yes, he needed to account for his actions, but come on- 6 years in prison? Unbelievable!! "

" Carol: You said that he has never once been in trouble with the law. I think what you probably should have said is that he has never been caught once.

He's a sexual pervert and you know that he has offended before in the past, and you know he will offend again when he gets out.

Thank God there are police out there that are proactive in getting these people off the streets before they can hurt anybody. It would have only been a matter of time before he would have hurt someone.

Thanks to the Police and the District Attorney. "

" From what I am reading, he took a plea bargain. That means, that he admits to the charge and agrees to the sentence.

I personally feel that 36 months on both charges is a slap on the wrist. I hope that there comes a day where people like this person is given life in prison for these type of crimes.

Who in thier right mind would take a picture of his private parts and send it to a person they don't even know? This is a sick individual.

I think the family should be glad he is only getting 36 months on each charge, because if he did this to one of my familiy members, I would be the one getting life in prison. "

" Perplexed, it's not just about stupidity. It's stupidity which results in prison and lifelong stigma and rejection. I suspect there are many Gen Y & Millenials who don't know they can be sent to prison for misuse of their cell phones, MySpace, Facebook, and e-mails. I would hope this doesn't happen to anyone else.... "

" I'm not sure if an H&N investigation about someone's stupidity is really worth it. "

" As another of Patrick's aunts, I'll add a few comments. Please don't think that we're trying to say Patrick is innocent. We know he's not and he knows he's not. As a family, we've been stunned and horrified twice in the past 2 years. First, by Patrick's extremely bad choice to send lewd messages to a stranger. We hope the young recipient will not be adversely affected in her future. And second, we were stunned by the final sentence he received. The crime did not change over the 2 years, while he pursued options and listened to legal council. But the punishment level changed dramatically. We can't help but feel now that he is not being punished for the crime, but IS being punished for resisting pressure from the DA. It's too late for Patrick now, but perhaps his case will prevent other young people from inappropriate use of the internet and their cell phones. In the meantime, perhaps the Herald & News could do an investigative, thorough piece on the prevalence of these internet crimes. It might help, instead of harm. "

" ray w,
Thankyou for pointing out that the D.A.is a politician. We all seem to forget that but it is very evident that he and his deputies will sacrifice anyone to make a name for themselves.Although it is becoming more widespread, this county's D.A.'s office seems to be one of the worst! "

" I have had dealings with Ed Caleb and his office and if anyone in the county is smart you would be wise to hire an attorney from outside the area.

I'm still trying to resolve a matter from three years ago that was a minor manner but as Ed Caleb stated "politically sensitive!"

Remember DA's a politicians and the deputies are trying to make a name for themselves. "

" I do have to agree with you on one point, Susan, and that is cases such as Patrick's are more and more common, which is why folks need to apply that oxymoron known as common sense to their lives, more often than they have before, since what may have been a simply mistake or misunderstand can change someone's life, permanently. Sexual predation has become so wide-spread, so rampant, that law enforcement is more knee jerk about it, thus the harsher sentences.

Sadly, it is a case of better safe than sorry, as plenty of teens disappear under such circumstances and, generally, the Internet is a tool that should be used with a modicum of common sense. Too often, as you can see, there is the potential for misrepresentation, misunderstanding and, in some case, wrong doing, thus why you had best be careful.

I use the litmus test of "would I do this in the real world or in public?"

Generally, I am not going to talk sexually or present myself in a sexual manner to someone I have never met, as it is just not right. If you expose yourself to strangers, or in public, you are generally arrested, thus you should not do it online.

People often mistake the sense of privacy, while being online in our own home, as intimacy, and they just shouldn't. "

" Robert E.,
It shounds like you are an intelligent man and still believe in our "justice" system. I did too until all this with Patrick happened.
The district attorney's office seems to hold all the power here.Yes,Patrickwas offered plea bargains but on the advice of his attorney (whom he trusted-[big mistake) he turned them down.The first plea was for a misdemeanor charge and since that was turned down, the next agreement was for 3 years in prison, a felony conviction, and mandatory registration as a sex offender with a clause thatsaid Patrick head to give up all his rights in regards to this case and if he didn't take it then his case would go federal whick would get him 10 years in prison. Since Patrick didn't take that, thefinal agreement was for 6 years in prison with no rights to appeal or go after his attorney and all federal charges would be dropped.
Tell me it's justice when 2 days before a sentencing, th D.A. has the right to add charges that add 3 years to a sentence and send someone to prison for in other county or state would be a misdemeanor!
Wake up, People!!! "

" Robert,

Yes, this case could have been charged federally due to the fact that a text message was relayed through Kansas City. What is a misdemeanor through state carries a mandatory sentence of 10 years with a federal conviction. This fact was used as "judicial blackmail" in the plea bargains. The first plea bargain was dismissed so the district attorney could persue federal charges. This is part of the reason the case went on for so long.

He did have to sign a statement stating he cannot appeal or come back on his attorney so you are mistaken.

I know I won't change your mind but I will never believe he deserved 6 years in prison for this, nor does he deserve to be an outcast for the rest of his life. In this age of cell phones and computers you are going to see more and more cases and the sex offender registry is a joke because you cannot tell who the real predators are on there.

The district attorneys control the media as well as everything else so an article is a very one-sided thing.

Believe it or not, I have been on the other side of this with my daughter. While I was angry, I took responsibility and made her take accountability for her part. Would I have wished 6 years on the guy? No I wouldn't. It all comes back to making the punishment fit and he was willing to take responsibility which is more than I can say about alot of people. "

" I did read the letters, Susan, as well as much of the information about the case as I could find, including media reports, and what I get out of all of it is that Patrick made a series of mistakes, starting with his correspondence with the girl and it continued downward from there.

By turning down various plea agreements, especially with a worry or focus toward later appeals, it does not seem that he was fully accepting of his wrong doing, at least not always. Now if his lawyer mishandled the case, regardless of the eventual plea, and it can be shown, I am fairly sure he has the ability for an appeal, assuming someone can prove or show that he received negligent counsel.

While I can understand his desire to not be painted as a rapist and sexual predator, however that is the crime that he committed, whether he thought she was 18, 16 saying she was 18, or what not. Patrick messed up, big time, and thus he is paying for his crime.

While I am sure the defense would like to paint the victim as a co-conspirator, especially with talk of her misrepresenting herself, there are rules governing the avoidance of attacking the victims in that manner, the so-called "asked for it" defense has no grounds, nor should it.

As for giving up his constitutional rights, Patrick is not able to do that, although he can put himself in a position to lose some of them, one of the only times you can renounce those rights is either by enlisting in the military or renouncing your citizenship.

Patrick, via his lawyer(s), accepted a plea bargain, thus the no contest plea, however he should have accepted the plea bargains much earlier, with less focus on avoiding guilt later. Although I was not there, not part of any discussions, or a party to detailed conversations about it, it sounds to me as if Patrick's defense tried to duck guilt as much as possible, attempted negotiations only to deny the offer, and eventually found themselves lined up for a much harsher sentence. Technically, Patrick's offense could have been federalized due to the usage of wireless communication and the Internet, but it was most likely avoided due to it having not crossed state lines.

As to the extreme nature of the crime, honestly, Patrick seems to be getting what he asked for, although I would not think that if it had happened after accepting the first plea bargain, but after denying them several times, seemingly to avoid true guilt and set himself up for an appeal, he then got the sentence that his defense earned him.

If he is truly innocent, then the one who did Patrick the greatest disservice is not the government, but Patrick himself, in a long line of self-disservice and mistakes. "

" Robert, I think you need to reread the letter. Patrick's family is not in denial and Patrick himself took full responsibility for his actions. He has felt remorse for the last two years. The one thing he wanted heard is that he is not a rapist and that was not his intent.

Not one attorney he spoke with felt that he deserved 6 years in prison. The first plea bargain was 30 days in jail and probation. His attorney didn't take it. On bad advice from people he did not take the second plea bargain because he was told he would be giving up all rights to an appeal. 2 DAYS before his sentencing the district attorney added an additional charge so he could add on 3 years because he was upset this had gone on too long. He also stated at the sentencing that the girl did "misrepresent" herself.

You give up all your constitutional rights when you plead no contest and an appeal is out of the question.

Is Patrick the victim? Of course he is not and he regrets his actions every single day, not because of his punishment but for the sadness this has all caused.

However, vindictiveness and abuse of power should not have played a part in all this. Our judicial system has become seriously flawed and if you do some reading on the internet you will see this. The public has become the judge and jury without knowing all the facts and the district attorneys can pretty much do what they want.

So, yes he deserved punishment for his actions, just not to this extreme. "

" Thanks to Ed Caleb, a dangerous sex offender is off the streets. This vicitim could have been your 12 year old daughter. Unfortunately, he will be out only to re-offend again.

Hopefully by then, the laws will change and make the second offense the death penalty. "

" There must be more to the story than just sending a nude picture to someone. You do not get 5 years for that. He must have scheduled a meeting with this underage girl or something. You must be leaving out some facts. "

" It is a sad series of events that culminated in Patrick Kenney's life forever being changed, however is not the victim of a crime, he was its perpetrator, irregardless of his inexperience. While the sentence is harsh, Patrick could have avoided it by pleading out, which he was offered and denied, thus the harsh sentence.

Whether he thought the girl was 16, or 18, she was 12 and he should have known better, but he took a risk and now he is paying for it. It was this girl and her family that was the victim, not Patrick. Whatever sense of security they may have had is gone now, because of Patrick's choice.

Patrick texted the girl, Patrick decided to go to the park, Patrick decided to turn down one plea, only to plea no contest later and receive a harsher sentence. Patrick decided.

While it is most definitely human to make mistakes, it is most definitely justice to pay for those mistakes, and to consistently allow for sympathy and emotion to somehow make it seem as if Patrick was the victim in this situation, as if Patrick did nothing wrong, is more likely an injustice than his conviction.

Ineptitude and inexperience are not a moral blank check, Patrick Kenney made a huge mistake, one that changed quite a few lives, but it was his choice to make and now he is facing the consequences of those choices. If, at this point a big if, but, if he is wrongly convicted and innocent, then he has a course for appeals and he should push for them, period.

But, at this rate, I would say it is less likely that he is innocent and that he thought he was going to meet a young girl, just not that young, but either way, it was, is, still wrong. He kept it a secret, thus he knew something was less than seemly about it, thus his grounds for innocence is shaky.

I feel for his family and friends, who are obviously going through an emotional time, but Patrick should focus on showing regret for his actions, so that he comes out of this for the better, not the worse.

Truly, would this even be a defense if it was another crime? Police do stings for murder for hire, drug deals, misuse of government funds, and plenty of other crimes, yet we never hear claims of the accused not having done this before presented as anything valid, only a simple attempt to avoid conviction.

I do not wish to sound cruel about this, it is not my intent, but it has become quite clear that those who know and care for Patrick are not willing, or at least not capable, of accepting the fact that he did something stupid and wrong and must now pay for it. "