Just had to chime in on this case. I was hired to do some of the investigative work for the defense on this case and just spent the last three days in court assisting Rowland and his defense team, which I'm glad to report he was victorious.

This case should outrage all Oklahomans ~ that our Attorney General Drew Edmondson would waste so much time and resources on this prosecution.

Literally, while we are facing the reality of closing schools, firing teachers, police officers and firemen, and this is what he chooses to spend our tax dollars on..... A titty-twisting incident between two male co-workers.

While I agree 100% that there were, are and continue to be huge problems with the M.E.'s office and that Mr. Rowland can be blamed for some of those problems, it does not excuse this travesty of justice.

To think our AG would charge and attempt to convict any Oklahoman of a felony sex crime for office horseplay is unthinkable.

I really hope this comes back to haunt Edmondson in the upcoming election.

In November Rowland faces a trial in Tulsa for rape and that case is flimsier than this one.

I'm with you, Brian, and congratulations. Anybody wanting to read a good story on this verdict needs to read the Associated Press article (found it in the Wichita Falls paper) as opposed to the horrible excuse for a "story" from Nolan Clay and The Oklahoman. Anybody else, feel free to compare the two, It's an embarrassment.

Here's the AP story in the Wichita Falls paper:
Jury acquits ex-investigator of sexual battery : Times Record News (http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2010/may/26/jury-acquits-ex-investigator-sexual-battery/?print=1)

Here's what's on NewsOK:
NewsOK - Jurors return not guilty verdict in Oklahoma County case against former medical examiner’s investigator

(http://www.newsok.com/kevin-rowland-found-not-guilty/article/3463831)

I think it's a shame we did not have any of judge along the way in this case step up and dismiss this case.

This case is living proof that more adults need to learn the concept of suck it up and laugh it off.

Regardless of what every over protective mother says, everybody is going to get picked on at some point and time. Some of us a little more than others.

When you act like a spaz people are going to screw with you even more just for the entertainment value.

When you learn to laugh it off people screw with you less. Not to mention having the ability to laugh at yourself can be more soothing then any pill or therapist could ever be in a million years.

Of course, if during the act of horseplay the man twisted a woman's nipple, he would have been found very guilty. As highly homophobic as so many Oklahomans are why isn't a man who has his nipple twisted by a male entitled to feeling as offended as a female would?

Isn't that the same thing Eric Massa, former NY congressman did, also called it "horseplay" and also faced charges? To me, bringing this level of charges in court was waaaay over done but Mr. Rowland should have simply been relived of his duties. Bet he doesn't do it again.

Of course, if during the act of horseplay the man twisted a woman's nipple, he would have been found very guilty. As highly homophobic as so many Oklahomans are why isn't a man who has his nipple twisted by a male entitled to feeling as offended as a female would?


No, because men are supposed to be the strong enough to take a little teasing. Not to mention there is nothing sexual in nature about this. It's just horseplay that takes place between men. It is just as common as giving somebody wedgie, a wet willy or a nuggie.

Any man who had older or younger brothers or took a gym class during their school days has done this or had it done to them. The second it happened you got payback and had a good laugh about it.

As Mug said, the most that should have happened is termination that is it.

No, because men are supposed to be the strong enough to take a little teasing.

Wow is that sexist.

Of course, if during the act of horseplay the man twisted a woman's nipple, he would have been found very guilty. As highly homophobic as so many Oklahomans are why isn't a man who has his nipple twisted by a male entitled to feeling as offended as a female would?

Certainly part of it was the fact it was man-on-man. However, the jury was clear when questioned after the verdict that it really didn't matter to them the sex of the victim or the perpetrator. It came down to the elements of the crime - there are 6 and all except number 6 applied in this case. Number 6 states the act had to be lewd a lascivious and provided a definition of both. Based on the relationship of Mr Rowland to the 'victim' the jury in no way believed the act was lewd or lascivious.

In reality, it was clear the prosecutors did not believe this was truly a sexual assault. They planned all along on convicting him of misdemeanor simple assault and battery. The felony sexual assault charge was to get media headlines and pressure him into a plea deal. However, the rug was yanked from under the prosecution when the judge refused to allow misdemeanor A&B as a lesser included possible sentence.

Prosecutors often over charge a defendant and this is a rare case where the judge would not go along with it. Probably because this judge is very new to the bench.

They shulda' just fired the chump......

He shouldn't have had to face criminal charges for this behavior, I completely agree with that, but clearly his behavior was more than enough to get him a corrective action or flat-out fired at almost every major corporation I am aware of. Horseplay is for 12 year old kids, not adult professionals.

I think the part of this story that bothers me the most is the defendant's quote about "God having a plan" for him. How self-righteous can you be. The fact that you didn't commit a crime doesn't excuse the fact that what you did was morally wrong. No you shouldn't go to jail, but no that doesn't mean God is on your side either. How wonderfully classless.

Certainly part of it was the fact it was man-on-man. However, the jury was clear when questioned after the verdict that it really didn't matter to them the sex of the victim or the perpetrator. It came down to the elements of the crime - there are 6 and all except number 6 applied in this case. Number 6 states the act had to be lewd a lascivious and provided a definition of both. Based on the relationship of Mr Rowland to the 'victim' the jury in no way believed the act was lewd or lascivious.

In reality, it was clear the prosecutors did not believe this was truly a sexual assault. They planned all along on convicting him of misdemeanor simple assault and battery. The felony sexual assault charge was to get media headlines and pressure him into a plea deal. However, the rug was yanked from under the prosecution when the judge refused to allow misdemeanor A&B as a lesser included possible sentence.

Prosecutors often over charge a defendant and this is a rare case where the judge would not go along with it. Probably because this judge is very new to the bench.

You guys did a very good job. Congrats.

I served on the jury on the Kevin Rowland case. We felt Mr. Rowlands behavior was inappropriate but not to the extent that he should be convicted as a sexual offender.

I served on the jury on the Kevin Rowland case. We felt Mr. Rowlands behavior was inappropriate but not to the extent that he should be convicted as a sexual offender.

And that was an excellent call. Should he have been fired? You bet. Should he have been prosecuted? No way.

Rowland's pending rape and sexual assault trial in Tulsa was dropped yesterday. http://www.newsok.com/tulsa-rape-case-dismissed-against-former-m.e.-investigator/article/3547384?custom_click=headlines_widget

Again, a perfect example of abuse of power on the part of the state. This case has cost him well in excess of $100,000 in legal fees, not to mention lost wages and an unrepairable reputation.