Looks like 24-year-old homophobe and accused gay basher Kathryn Knott will need to stay out of trouble for the next two months before she’s due back in court, a task that shouldn’t be too hard considering her recent termination from her job as an ER technician.
She, along with 24-year-old Philip Williams and 26-year-old Kevin Harrigan, were taken into police custody last week and charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal conspiracy for their involvement in the violent September 11th gay bashing in Philadelphia that left a gay couple hospitalized with severe injuries.
All three are expected back in court for a preliminary hearing on December 16th, where a judge will determine whether there is enough evidence in the case to prosecute the assailants.
If the case goes to trial, Harrigan’s attorney Josh Scarpello tells Philly magazine that “the earliest [trial date] would be February or March.” He adds that “if it’s scheduled to be a jury trial, it could take even longer.”
The three were released on bail to the court of public opinion last week — though details about the two male assailants are scarce, Kathryn Knott became the center of a media firestorm in the weeks following the crime. She is the daughter of Chalfont, Pennsylvania Police Chief Karl Knott, has a well documented homophobic past, and was fired from her job at Lansdale Hospital in Lansdale, Pennsylvania for violating physician-patient privileged policies.
Skeptics have questioned her involvement in the beating, but an affidavit made available after the trio’s Tuesday court date shows that both victims and a witness identified her and her two male co-assailants as the group who brutally attacked them.
According to that document, made available by Philly mag:
Both complainants positively identified Philip Williams through photo arrays. Williams was identified by Complainant #2 as punching him. Williams was identified by Complainant #1 as being part of the group and being one of the “main aggressors”.
Another member of the group, Kathryn Knott, was positively identified by Complainant #1, after viewing a photo array, as calling them “faggots”. Complainant #2 identified Kathryn Knott from the video as screaming “faggots” at both complainants and striking Complainant #2 in the face. A witness at the scene who was interviewed by detectives further positively identified Kathryn Knott from a photo array as striking Complainant #2.
All three assailants are maintaining their innocence and claiming they fought in self-defense. Scarpello added that “there certainly is another side to this case…and it’s going to come to light,” as if there were anything the victims could have said that justified a vicious gang assault like this.
For more information on the assault, check out our previous coverage.
They are rich, well educated, good looking, and have VIP parents. They can get away with anything. Just look at what hapenned with OJ and MJ during their trials.
What a waste of time.No justice.
Easy, kids. It ain’t over yet.
@David: agreed…these are not rich kids of power parents from the Main Line or Chestnut Hill, but grads of a mid-tier middle class Catholic school in a White Flight suburb of Philly…. precisely the kind of snotty twerps that Philly residents detest…..
given the absence of state legislation including gender bias as a basis for a hate crime, it is clear that every charge short of littering was thrown at these three brats..furthermore, some of the kids in the brat pack may well flip and turn State’s Witnesses….
It will be interesting to see if any harassment by police buddies of her father starts up against the two victims once this is all over.
@vonric: Your assessment of their class is correct. However, they have not been charged with every potential crime. Most notably, they have not been charged with robbery. I assume this is so because it would have to be classified as a felony (based upon value of items stolen). The robbery charge is also much easier to prove, as their self-defense claim would serve no purpose in connection with a robbery charge. They hit us first is no defense to robbery.
@jar: My understanding about the robbery defense is that one of the perpetrators is claiming that she saw the items on the ground and assumed it belonged to one of her friends, so she scooped it up. When she realized it didn’t belong to any of the others, she dumped them. Apparently a homeless person started using one of the credit cards.
Still, I agree with you. The prosecutor should charge them with this and let the jury decide whether it was an accident or not. (Even if it were an accident, I believe the law requires that a reasonable effort be made to return the items. For the wallet, simply dropping it in a mailbox with its ID inside would suffice.)
Question: When President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard hate-crimes act, wasn’t there something said to the effect that if states didn’t prosecute gay-related hate crimes, the federal government would?
Comments are closed.