Man claims to be target of probe into Steubenville hack
LOUISVILLE — A central Kentucky man who goes by the online name KyAnonymous said on Tuesday he is the target of an investigation into who hacked into an Ohio high school's computer and posted a video related to the rape of a teenage girl at an alcohol-fueled party.
Hacker activists helped propel coverage of the Steubenville rape case, in part by re-posting a 12-minute Internet video showing a former student joking about the attack and the victim, a West Virginia teenager.
Deric Lostutter, 26, said he posted the video on the school's athletics boosters website, but he said he didn't hack into the site or any computers. He said someone else, who he wouldn't identify, hacked into the website.
Two football players were convicted of rape. Ma'Lik Richmond, 16, was sentenced to at least a year in the state juvenile detention system. Trent Mays, 17, was sentenced to at least two years in juvenile detention. He was also convicted of photographing the underage girl naked.
Lostutter believes he could go to prison for posting the video.
“I'm facing 25 years in prison when rapists face one,” Lostutter said.
Lostutter's attorney, Jason Flores-Williams of New Mexico, works with the Whistleblowers Defense League. He said he expected his client to be indicted in as soon as a few weeks.
“Deric is innocent, and this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. We'll be battling,” he said.
It's not clear whether he will face any charges. Kyle Edelen, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Lexington, declined to comment.
The Steubenville case gained international attention through the work of bloggers and hacker activists who alleged a cover-up to protect football players. The suspicions hinged on the presence of other students when the attack happened, including at least two who captured it on their cellphones.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.