Since I know how much some of you guys like to follow the Vigilante's case...


Prosecutor is replaced in video case

By Jay F. Marks
Staff Writer

A new prosecutor has been appointed to the pandering case against video vigilante Brian Bates and his wife.
Bryan Slabotsky, the Kingfisher County prosecutor, will handle the case after Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater disqualifying himself.

Prater wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the case, which involves one of predecessor Wes Lane's most vocal critics, Assistant District Attorney Scott Rowland said.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson appointed District Attorney Cathy Stocker of Enid as Prater's replacement.

Stocker then assigned the case to Slabotsky, who runs her office in Kingfisher County.

Stocker also had been assigned to determine whether Bates, 36, broke any laws in September when he handed out political fliers critical of Lane. The files allegedly were given to prospective jurors.

She said prosecutors will review all the files in the Bates case before making any decisions.

Bates' attorney, Scott Adams, said last week Prater made the right decision in allowing another prosecutor to take over the case.

Bates and his wife, Vickie, are accused of paying prostitutes to lure clients to areas where he could film them.

I can just picture Brian crying because his buddy Dave did not dismiss the case.:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Actually, I think Bates was quoted in the media (can't recall which ones right now) several times asking the case not be dismissed. If I recall, he stated that if the case was dismissed his chances of suing the county would not be as good. Personally, this was a land mine for Prater and a no win situation. I have no idea if Prater and Bates are "buddies" but I find it ironic that the same prosecutor who determined Bates broke no laws by passing out his fliers at the courthouse (and providing lots of entertainment for us downtowners at the same time) is the same one who got his case. I detect a hint of dismissal with the comment, "prosecutors will review all the files in the Bates case before making any decisions." Personally, I hope they try him and he wins. He certainly stands an even better chance of winning going up against prosecutors who have no horse in this race than Lane's office. The question will become will Bates and his lawyers go after the county, Lane personally or both?

Bailjumper, why do you think that he should not be convicted of his charges??? What makes you think that he is not guilty as charged???

Bailjumper, why do you think that he should not be convicted of his charges??? What makes you think that he is not guilty as charged???

I love it, basically you've just admitted that innocent until proven guilty has no place in your mind. I have no desire to dredge up my opinions on the Bates case in this forum. I simply placed the post as an update. The all too predictable Anderson response was inevitable and I figured I'd yank his chain a bit.

Not specific to Bates, but in response to your question in general - I don't think anyone should be 'convicted' of a crime (in the mind of the public or otherwise) unless/until they have actually faced a jury of their peers, both sides of the case have been presented and a ruling has been made. I know in today's society that may be a foreign concept, but maybe I'm just oldfashioned that way.

On the other hand I heard Lane blew a gasket when he paid his pollster and consultant, Chris Wilson of Wilson Research Strategies of Oklahoma City and Washington to assess why he lost the election. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when he read reason number 3...

Excerpt; "...The study also found that some believe the DA's office under Lane exuded an "air of incompetence," citing the departures of assistant DAs, the Crystal Dittmeyer case, the Brian Bates prosecution and other, less public, incidents..."