November 13, 2001

8:00 AM

"I became known as the first "cybersex fiend"Finally cleared and released Oliver Jovanovic in his own words in the NY Post: "...Thankfully Steve Dunleavy, a reporter for the New York Post, saw straight away that the whole prosecution was completely rotten. And he wrote that again and again until he finally had my named cleared...I believe in the police, I believe in the government and believe in the United States of America. But I need District Attorney Robert Morganthau or Fairstein, the outrageous self-promoter, to please explain how I did 20 months in prison, cost my family more than half a million dollars in legal fees, and got stabbed in the neck by some wacko while I was eating corn flakes. " Honest journalism by Mr Dunleavy and the NY Post in the noble pursuit of justice, or sly schemers boosting circulation as the tech bubble burst ?
posted by Voyageman (13 comments total)

It could have happened to anyone.
posted by Voyageman at 8:06 AM on November 13, 2001

Well, anyone who has freaky bondage sex with women they've only communicated with over the Internet.

I went to high school with Oliver, and though I only knew him at a social remove he always seemed like a decent enough guy — no more socially inept than most of the geeks at our school. And I'm glad he's been cleared, and horrified that his academic career has been interrupted for so long.

But we already knew that grandstanding DAs and judges sometimes railroad innocent suspects in high-profile cases. So let's also learn to get some kind of written indemnification when we tie up and torture our casual-sex partners, OK, kids?
posted by nicwolff at 8:42 AM on November 13, 2001

> So let's also learn to get some kind of written
> indemnification when we tie up and torture our
> casual-sex partners, OK, kids?

Arranged marriages. Back to arranged marriages.
posted by jfuller at 8:44 AM on November 13, 2001

My comment has little to do with the jailbird but with the fact that bigmouth right winger Steve D. works for the paper that features this story. My comment about the reporter seem ill tempered? Go back and read him during the /Clinton impeachment hearings and you will see I have been in fact gentle.
posted by Postroad at 10:00 AM on November 13, 2001

This link does not specify the charges against this person nor any info regarding the case at all. How can we form any conclusions from this article?
posted by DBAPaul at 10:01 AM on November 13, 2001

Good old Google, straight to The People vs. Oliver Jovanovic (and what a site "IANAL"?!)
posted by Voyageman at 10:19 AM on November 13, 2001

yeah, calling steve dunleavy a 'reporter' is more than a bit of a stretch.
posted by maura at 10:36 AM on November 13, 2001

NY Post article too brief? Court ruling too long? Try Nat Hentoff's Village Voice column, Rashomon in the Bedroom.
posted by Carol Anne at 12:26 PM on November 13, 2001

DBAPaul, some of us have known about this case from the beginning, that's how. Remember, MeFi is about presenting interesting links, not necessarily presenting the full facts of a case. Google is at your fingertips as much as anyone's.
posted by dhartung at 2:45 PM on November 13, 2001

This story reminds me of Janet Reno's trajectory to power.
posted by Real9 at 4:21 PM on November 13, 2001

The tech bubble burst/circulation boost has nothing to do with it -- Dunleavy was at it a good two years ago, complaining in his column about Jovanovic's treatment in the courtroom.

I started following the case in earnest shortly before Jovanovic's conviction, and I was as surprised as the next guy that Dunleavy was *the* force behind the outcry over the judicial mis-steps. But there you have it.

As recently as six weeks ago, the DA's office was still pressing Jovanovic to plead, but he refused. When both parties had to account for themselves in a court appearance, the judge really read them the riot act about wasting the court's time in light of 9-11. I think that court appearance was the straw that broke the camel's back for the DA's office.
posted by debrahyde at 5:54 PM on November 13, 2001

...the judge really read them the riot act about wasting the court's time in light of 9-11

I fail to see how 11 September has anything whatsoever to do with this case. Geezz, is it becoming the excuse of the year.

"Yes officer, I ran over that person, but it was because of September 11."

"Damn rain, it's those bloody terrorists at it again."
posted by Option1 at 9:26 PM on November 13, 2001

Option,

Check the New York Times. It's in its archives.
posted by debrahyde at 4:11 PM on November 14, 2001