Wait for all the facts on teen party at Holloway’s house


Screen Shot 2013-09-20 at 2.13.05 PM copy

In Sunday’s column, I said it’s time to slow down and wait for all the facts on the now-infamous teen party at Brian Holloway’s house in Stephentown, which has attracted an astonishing amount of media attention.

A few points:

• Some of the teens say Holloway’s 19-year-old son played a role in arranging the party. Holloway calls the claim patently false.

• It’s reasonable to believe teens who say they had no idea whose house it was, or that they weren’t welcome there. They simply heard about a party and went. In my opinion, that doesn’t make them “teen savages.”

• The amount of damage has been wildly exaggerated. News programs, for example, prominently displayed a wall of graffiti as evidence of the destruction, and Brian Holloway has been photographed power-washing the wall (see below). But that barn wall was covered with graffiti long before the party. (The photo above was posted to Facebook weeks prior to the party.) I toured the house this week, after some repairs had been made, and I saw little evidence of lasting damage.

• Holloway says he’s been threatened by parents with a lawsuit, a claim that’s been trumpeted as an example of horrible parenting. But I’m not aware of any parent who has publicly discussed any such thing — or defended the teens in any way. Holloway’s claim that there were sexual assaults at the party is also unconfirmed.

• Holloway lost the house to foreclosure last year, although he retains ownership until the property is sold. With Holloway owing $1,006,348 on the mortgage and $45,131 in back property taxes, an auction is scheduled for Oct. 29.

Click here for the full column.


Chris Churchill

49 Responses

  1. etc says:

    I just hope these kids get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    I support Mr. Holloway 100%!

    • Chris Churchill says:

      Point of the column: Wait for all the facts on this one. There’s much we don’t know.

    • Jackson says:

      But Mr. Churchill – Don’t you know the reason for blogging about something like this is to convict someone before trial and express a presumption of guilt? You know, American values. Just look at the Crime Confidential blog.

    • Fred Gamble says:

      What more facts do you need? Lets assume that all 300 kids thought they had a personal invitation to the house. Would that make it okay to trash the house? Lets say there was graffiti on the walls, that that excuse them writing more? The fact (unquestioned) that some of the kids posted their behavior is enough to identify them in the papers, on-line or in a police report.

    • Chris Churchill says:

      The primary fact we need is who was actually there. Some kids are identifiable in photos, but most are not.

    • Fred Gamble says:

      If there were anywhere near 300 kids there, you’ll NEVER identify most of them. You have enough pictures of who was there to begin prosecution. If you wait for ALL the facts, nothing will be done. So at what point will you feel you have enough facts? No crime has ever come neatly wrapped with all the facts.

  2. Fran says:

    “But Holloway, at least, didn’t have vigilantes attacking him online. He was granted the presumption of innocence and due process of law.”

    Where was this column in December as the Times Union spent such a large amount of time and resources convicting Dennis Drue? I think what is important here is the role media (particularly this outlet) is able to play in the “public trial” of many individuals. Rather than exploit loose details to sell a quick paper, why not “let police decide” and gather conclusions from that? Journalistic integrity has certainly hit a historic low in recent years.

    Both cases are sad examples of poor decision-making. However, both cases are also examples of how media can intentionally and selfishly exacerbate unfortunate events at the expense of public justice and people’s lives.

  3. Albert J says:

    Where are you trying to go with this? Does is make any difference, WHATSOEVER, that Mr. Hollaway had previous problems in his marriage, does it make any difference if “some of the partygoers” thought Mr. Hollaway’s son (rightly or wrongly) authorized the party?

    Is it somehow permissible to write whatever you want on a wall, because someone else has already written on it? Is it EVER allowed to destroy someone else’s property, for fun or because you “feel like it”?

    The behavior of these “partygoers”, totally and completely regardless of who they thought invited them, why they thought the party was being held or any other childish excuse they can try and manufacture to justify their totally unacceptable and criminal behavior, was outrageous.

    This behavior deserves punishment, punishment that HURTS, punishment that will leave a lasting memory of consequences. How about 208 hours of Community Service, spread out at 4 hours per weekend for 1 full year, painting, fixing and providing maintenance for Community Service facilities around the Capitol District. For every weekend missed, 4 weekends, each of an additional 4 hours, added to the sentence. No exceptions for dances, birthdays, holidays, vacations, celebrations, NOTHING.

    No excuse for, “I didn’t actually break, or deface, anythin, I was just there”. Those who participated by attending the “festivities” earned the consequence, and while they’re paying the price, thay can seriously consider the cost/value ratio of their behavior as a valuable life lesson.

    If transportation to various work sites is necessary, thet’s where parents get into the mix. During the travel back and forth, provides valuable time for contemplating missed opportunities in parenting and how to rebuild the missing character components they failed to implant in thier progeny.

    Of course counseling might well be appropriate, and a detailed interaction behind the nearest woodshed might prove to be a long overdue and practical place to begin sessions. As the farmer, with the 2 X 4 advised, “when dealing with a really stubborn mule, you first need to get their attention”.

    Some things are simply unexcuseable, there are no “reasons”, no “circumstances” that justify this behavior. Somewhere along the line every child has to learn, “never touch fire”. There are other lessons of equal importance that MUST be taught and MUST be learned. Never, ever, behaving like this is one of them.

    • Jackson says:

      Albert – Your comment nearly touched on every point that this column exposed about the problems with the mob mentality on the Internet when it comes to this sort of story.

      “No excuse for, “I didn’t actually break, or deface, anything, I was just there”. Those who participated by attending the “festivities” earned the consequence, and while they’re paying the price, thay can seriously consider the cost/value ratio of their behavior as a valuable life lesson.”

      So, being not guilty of a crime is “no excuse”? Mr. Churchill pointed out rather flatly in his column that it’s reasonable that *some* of the kids who went to this party were under the impression that they weren’t unwelcome, that *some* of the kids who went probably thought Mr. Holloway’s son invited everybody and that *some* of the kids who went didn’t damage a single thing. These are all reasonable conclusions, and until the investigation and evidence reveals that *every single* kid who attended was responsible for damaging something, your conclusion is entirely basis. Assuming that every last kid who was there did something wrong and not a single kid stood by and uncomfortably watched the mayhem unfold without participating is a far more unreasonable assumption, and your rush to judgment and presumption of guilt is a disturbing symptom of the problem Mr. Churchill outlined.

      It was pretty clear in the column the reason for bringing up Mr. Holloway’s past – his alleged acts occurred in a time predating social media and as such he was afforded his constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. These kids are suffering a violation of that constitutional right by people like yourself who attack each and every one of them with a presumption of guilt. Not only have you already tried and convicted each and every one of these kids without knowing the evidence, you’ve also sentenced them *and* their parents under the assumption that bad parenting was the cause of every kid’s behavior at that party.

  4. Bamster says:

    Why are we waiting for the facts? The media hasn’t waited for any facts in the Dennis Drue Northway crash. The media can’t even report the facts correctly in the DC Navy shooter event. The media has ignored the facts in Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the Zimmerman case but now I am being told to withhold judgement on a bunch of punks in Columbia County?

  5. whoareyou says:

    I don’t know – unless you know something we don’t (and if you did, why not just spit it out?), I think this is pretty obvious and fairly straightforward – kids who were parented poorly enough such that they felt it was ok to go to a house, not knowing who owned the house (at best, because some probably did know who owned the house or, at least, that the homeowner would not be anywhere to be found), party, and trash the place.

    What am I missing? I’d press charges and obtain financial restitution from the attendees – and their mommies and daddies… If you don’t raise your kid to know right from wrong, then you (mom and dad) can, quite literally, pay for it.

    • Chris Churchill says:

      I’ve reported most everything I know, but again: How do we know they weren’t invited in, as they claim? And how do we know which teens actually did this? Brian Holloway compiled a list of teens he believes were there, but hasn’t provided evidence. Should we just take his word for it? And if Brian Holloway is exaggerating the amount of damage while asking for donations to help repair the damage, isn’t it fair to question that?

  6. ann says:

    Oh please. He should have reported them to the police in the first place, instead of being nice and just asking for help cleaning up. No good deed goes unpunished, Mr. Holloway.

  7. Walter White says:

    Leave it to the Times Union to make sure someone acts as an apologist for young vandals.

    They must have found out that Brian Holloway was a Republican or something.

  8. Snapdragon says:

    Regardless of the fine points of the story, when 300 kids show up at a vacant house for a “y’all come” party I have to think more than a few of them knew they were doing something wrong. IMHO most of them fell victim to “mob mentality”, and that has its consequences, too.

  9. etc says:

    So some teenagers got a little rambunctious. What’s the big deal?

    Mr. Holloway is going WAY overboard here. I think he owes some of the kids a big apology.

  10. Jango Davis says:

    Chris-Exactly who are you advocating for? Ignorance is no defense. If they were there, they are guilty. If they can’t get into college, tough luck.

    And I want more than your opinion on how bad the damage was.

    Holloway noted the parents who said they were going to sue him said so in e-mail and voice mail, that’s were you should start looking-however, you seem more interested in shooting down the claim than investing it (other than surfing the internet).

    Your whole column seems geared to suggest that Holloway was not the victim, or at least not greatly victimized.

    So, in the interest of full disclosure Mr. Churchill I must ask that you reveal to the public whether or not you own any property.

    • Jackson says:

      Jango – I don’t think he’s advocating for anyone in this instance. He’s advocating for waiting for the truth before you ruin some kids’ lives. As he said, some have claimed that they weren’t even there, so if that turns out to be true, it would be a travesty to have their lives ruined. It would also be a travesty to ruin the life of a kid who went there under the impression that it was a “legit” party only to witness but not participate in whatever vandalism occurred, which also has been claimed. The investigation has not been concluded, so it’s an absolute affront to these kids’ due process rights to say “If they were there, they are guilty” when open question remain as to who was actually there and whether everyone that was there is in fact guilty of a crime. I’d sincerely hope that if any of these kids are proven to have been falsely accused, that they sue whoever is responsible for defamation. What is so complicated or hard for people to understand about the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” that has been one of the foundations of this country?

    • Chris Churchill says:

      Haha. Yes, I do own property. I don’t disagree that they’re guilty of trespassing if they were there (although if Holloway’s son encouraged them to go, that might complicate things.) But who was there? Holloway published a long list of suspected attendees, but provided scant evidence to back his claim, and he was initially asking people to email him names of people who were there. All I’m saying is let police decide who should be charged.

      Holloway was victimized, and the initial columns I wrote on this were very sympathetic. But when he begins exaggerating the damage while asking for donations for repairs, then it’s fair, I think, to raise that point.

    • Willie says:

      To say that Holloway is trying to damage the lives of these children is plain nonsense.

      Holloway is trying to instill a sense of right and wrong in these children. He’s offered every one of them a chance to admit their part, acknowledge their mistake, and an avenue to make amends. How many crime victims do you know who allow the criminal to come in and make things right on their own. He’s offered a means to make things right that does not involve the police. And people want to make him out to be a bad person?

      And the way the laws work, it doesn’t matter if you were the one who robbed a bank or if you were just sitting in the car without any knowledge of a crime taking place, you’re still charged with the same crime. While there are plenty of kids who probably had nothing to do with the crime that took place, they could still be reasonably expected to be held accountable.

      What bothers me the most here are the real crimes that have been unaddressed.

      1. Why did a member of the police force break up a party with 300 teens who had been drinking and never ask to speak with the owner of the house?

      2. How did 300 drunk teens get allowed to find their own way home?

      3. Who supplied enough alcohol to get 300 teens drunk? We’re not talking stealing a 12 pack here, there had to be a significant amount of alcohol here.

    • Jackson says:


      So, you want to punish someone who did nothing wrong. Great. I’m all for teaching my kids discipline, but I absolutely would not want them “held accountable” for something they “had nothing to do with”. Also, Holloway plastered kids’ names on the internet and used his status as a former NFL player to turn it into a national story. All this despite the fact that none of these kids have been convicted of anything yet and some he identified are making a case that they weren’t even there, let alone one of the ones who actually committed vandalism. He has succeeded in character assassinating minors who have not yet been determined to have violated the law and some who may have had nothing whatsoever to do with this.

    • Willie says:

      Holloway did not put these things on the Internet, these kids did. Holloway did nothing more than put it all in one place.

      And you may not like that innocent people get included with the crimes of others, but that is the way the law works. If your friend asks you for a lift and needs to stop at the bank, who would say no. But if that friend goes inside and robs the bank, guess who’s just as guilty of armed robbery? If they kill someone, guess who’s just as guilty of murder? You might want to look up the term accomplice.

      I am not suggesting that this should happen, merely that it can happen. If you do not separate yourself from people who are in the process of committing a crime you are going to be included. It is a very harsh lesson to be learned but there are plenty of people in prison today who learned it the hard way.

      But Holloway hasn’t tried to press charges. In fact, he’s gone out of his way not to do so. Think about how this turns around for all of the kids who stop in and say, “I was here when something bad happened and I feel bad that I was a part of it. I want to do what I can to make it right. Please accept my apology as the first step.” How fast would this narrative change?

      Too many people are concerned with crime and punishment and they forget about right and wrong.

    • Jackson says:

      Willie – You may want to educate yourself more on the concept of intent and what actually constitutes aiding and abetting. If someone doesn’t even have knowledge of the crime, does nothing willingly to assist someone in committing that crime, then they are not an accomplice. Your logic would have it that a bus driver would also be guilty of robbery if the perpetrator decided to take the bus to the bank. What this comes down to is people are simply angry at these kids for attending a party and don’t want to draw any differentiation between the ones who just showed up to a party and the ones who knew they weren’t supposed to be there and/or decided to trash the place. This is nothing more than the general public being outraged about the conduct of some kids and not keeping that anger in check, which has resulted in the possibility that some kids have been wrongly associated with the acts of others.

    • Willie says:

      Jackson – I am educated in what constitutes an accomplice. Any one of those teens who walked onto that property without permission was in the process of committing a crime. Any one of those teens who knowingly consumed alcohol was committing a crime. A person who agrees to drive a getaway car for a robbery is still charged with murder if someone inside brought a gun and kills someone, even if everyone agreed there would be no weapons.

      Further, I could argue that every one of the teens who was present at the party who later heard about Holloway but did not come forward was at the very least an accessory after the fact. Certainly any of them who deleted their tweets, trying to conceal the actions of the party…

  11. Patricia King says:

    What do you call a person who goes to a party with no host, sees trespassing, illegal drinking, theft and property damage and says NOTHING? Shouldn’t you have learned by age 18 (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt)that such behavior is, if not illegal (just “being there”), immoral, and unethical? How about accessory after the fact?

    Where are your questions on the other side?

  12. elmer says:

    Chris, I give you a ton of kudos for this piece. No, I don’t support hooliganism, and yes, teenagers can be dreadful people. But there seems to be much, much more nuance to this story.

    For example, I don’t believe for one minute that professional motivational speaker Holloway had any intention of “Saving 300″. I do believe that professional motivational speaker Holloway is a nationally known figure now.


    • Jackson says:

      Would a washed up professional athlete with financial problems take advantage of a nationally publicized incident for monetary gain? Of course not!

  13. hounder says:

    Chris, I have to question if you have a teenager or someone close to you that was at that party, or if you know someone that had a teen at that party. Because your thread seems a very defensive piece, rather than a search for the truth. First, you said “It’s reasonable to believe teens who say they had no idea whose house it was, or that they weren’t welcome there. They simply heard about a party and went.” That’s exactly the point, Chris. They went, therefore they are culpable regardless of what excuse any enabling adult tries to attach to it. Secondly, you said that “The amount of damage has been wildly exaggerated.” So what? There was still damage. This is an experience in which every teen at the party needs to be taught consequences and accountability, not excuses. You’re right when you say “wait for the facts”, but then again that applies to everything in life so that really goes without saying, but you’re also wrong because so far the undisputed facts are that teens were at a party in someone’s home without permission, and damage was done. Period. Splitting hairs about any further details is pointless and enabling. This mentality that “hey my kid thought he was invited” or “hey my kid was there but she said she didn’t do any damage and I believe her”, is exactly what’s wrong with parents today and in my opinion, the tone of your thread is contributing to that sort of enabling. Maybe there were plenty of kids that didn’t specifically go out of their way to purposely damage that property, but there is no way that there was not one single kid at that party that could claim that they didn’t spill any of their drink on the floor, or ruin the lawn with their vehicles, or throw up on the floor, or urinate on the floor, plug up the plumbing, etc etc etc. This are the results of a party gone wild, and like I said, every single one of them has a responsibility to Mr. Holloway’s offer.

    • Jackson says:

      No person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law”
      - Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution

      “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him”
      - Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution

      I’m sure if you were accused of a crime you would be perfectly okay with everybody saying you’re guilty and should be punished before the police even finish their investigation? All Mr. Churchill did was point out some open questions about the facts within the context of public accusations made against these kids who have been publicly identified. I guess you would prefer our justice system to operate by way of lynch mobs rather than courts?

    • hounder says:

      Jackson, you’re missing the point entirely. Actually you are missing many, but I will only mention a couple of them. First, the constitution applies only to gov’t and its agents against the citizens. It doesn’t apply to a private citizen trying to give guilty parties the opportunity to come forward to avoid prosecution. The gov’t hasn’t denied any rights to anyone; they are now investigating. Second, the most basic point here is that there were hundreds of kids that partied at this house and only two showed up to answer for their actions. That is not disputed. Their own photos implicate them at the scene of the crimes. There is no lynching going on here, only a public display of their own pictures, so drop the dramatic wild west colloquialism. And congratulations for contributing to the enabling of our youth instead of accountability for their actions. Maybe you also would like to argue that grounding and confining a teen to their room without supper is denying them their basic rights and liberty. Unlawful imprisonment perhaps? But these parents will get what they asked for. No public displays anymore to compel them to come forward. Instead, the law will now pursue them by the book and prosecute them accordingly. Yay, I guess that was worth not coming forward because “they don’t have to”. I guess you, Jackson, would rather have them constitutionally prosecuted to the full extent of the law rather than shame them into simply coming forward and taking responsibility for their actions so that they can avoid a criminal record due to a reckless youthful action. It’s the job of parents, and also a responsibility of society in general, to teach kids accountability and responsibility for their actions instead of teaching them how to hide behind the law. p.s. police post pictures of “persons of interest” all the time on the web looking for the public’s help to locate said persons; Mr. Holloway’s actions are no different.

    • Chris Churchill says:

      Don’t know any teens who attended the party or their parents. Not trying to defend the actions of irresponsible teens, either. Just saying we need to wait for the facts.

    • Jackson says:

      hounder – And you’re missing the entire point of Chris Churchill’s column. He is absolutely not apologizing for the acts of the kids who were responsible. He’s calling for the actual kids who were responsible to be identified and the investigation to be complete before people rush to judgment and call for people to be punished who may have done absolutely nothing wrong, which is what you are currently guilty of. Of course after an investigation the kids who are identified as the responsible parties should be held accountable. However, Mr. Holloway has identified people by name who have not been confirmed as the perpetrators, and people are taking his word for it that those kids should have their reputations trashed even if it turns out they did nothing wrong, weren’t there, etc. If I were the parent of a wrongfully accused, publicly ridiculed teenager who was not even there that night, I’d be right to sue for defamation. Chris pointed out some of the horrible comments posted on social media related to this, and it shows a mob mentality foaming at the mouth and calling for blood before anything has been proven. Feel free to defame these kids before the truth comes out, but you’d be just as liable as Mr. Holloway if a wrongfully accused teen seeks damages.

    • hounder says:

      Mentioning people of interest by name to come forward as being suspected (by their own pictures) of being at this party does not quite constitute defamation, whether slanderous or libelous. There must be some level of willful malicious intent to constitute defamation. Furthermore, I never once said that Chris was “apologizing” for these kids.

    • Jackson says:

      What happened is that these “people of interest” were identified publicly by Mr. Holloway and then presumed guilty by the people who started calling for those “people of interest” to be punished before any conclusion was made as to the veracity of Mr. Holloway’s claims. The police are investigating, and they’ll talk to whoever they deem of interest, and after that is done, whoever is determined to be at fault should be punished. Everyone here who is arguing otherwise is essentially saying someone should have the right to trash the reputation of someone before there is any determination that they were responsible, just because the underlying incident (i.e. the vandalism) was abhorrent. They don’t care if the right kids are punished for this crime, just that someone, anyone, pays for this.

  14. David says:

    Bottom line – these kids were in place they had no business being doing the wrong things at the wrong time. Their “parents” need to accept appropriate responsibility for these underage revelers instead of whining and pointing fingers.

    • Jackson says:

      Bottom line – we don’t know which of the accused kids were actually at the party or whether they actually were the ones responsible for the damage. Didn’t anyone commenting here actually read this column? Because it sounds like most people here just want to lock these kids up and attack their parents because some guy listed them as a perpetrator on the internet without any proof.

  15. johnny sample says:

    I wonder if a Times Union staffer had a youngster at this

  16. Albert J says:

    To begin, Jackson, it doesn’t seem ANYBODY has suggested, or inferred, that anyone who wasn’t involved with this event should be singled out, or blamed for something they were not involved with. Of course, that exclusion DOES NOT APPLY to those who were, in fact, present, but deny taking part in any of the actual valdalism. Like it, or not, that simply NEVER flies.

    As we all MUST LEARN at sometime, being present during a crime equates to anything done during that criminal act. If that is a revelation, you’re quite welcome, it’s too bad that life lesson wasn’t taught to you earlier, by someone a lot closer to you.

    Even those, if anyone, who may have been specifically invited to the party under false pretentions, once you arrived and recognized what was going on they made a personal and conscious decision to leave, or stay. Those who decided to stay, made a really bad choice because in doing so they bought in to any and all consequences resulting from the misbehavior of anyone there.

    I would suggest, Jackson, you stand closer to the coffee pot when sniffing the air, because every single partygoer knew full well what was going on that evening and decided to participate. Free will is a significant gift, and an equally significant responsibility.

    Your snarky reference to Mr. Holliway, Jackson, was unnecessary, inappropriate and does not paint you in a favorable light. It’s more indicative of a frustrated child who simply had nothing more significant to say and made a fool out of himself in doing so.

    We all make mistakes, and bearing the full load of the consequences those mistakes produce, can be one of the most effective teachers of the value of avoiding repeating similar mistakes.

    Children are not born knowing, or understanding, appropriate behavior, thay have to be taught, which sometimes runs contrary to instinct. Avoiding teaching those important qualities does nobody a favor, because life lessons have to be taught, and learned, eventually.

    There are life lessons we all MUST learn; ideally by a loving parent, if that fails a kind teacher, if that fails hopefully a caring friend, when that fails it may fall to a policeman, or in some cases a Corrections Officer, but inevitably they will be learned.

    The causal failure can be traced back to the first level of instruction that failed, because that was the best, and most appropriate, time to teach them.

    • Jackson says:

      Albert – So, even if a kid went there but didn’t break anything, didn’t condone breaking anything, should be convicted of vandalism even if they didn’t commit the crime of vandalism? That self-defeating argument defies logic and is dead wrong. If I go to a bar and two strangers get into a bar fight and one is killed, I’m also guilty of murder just because I was present for a criminal act that I in no way foresaw? I would be as guilty in that scenario as a kid who is invited to a party under the assumption that whoever lives there sanctioned it and then watched a bunch of other kids smash the place up. I can see you back pedaling on your argument already – now it’s not just the kids who didn’t go at all and were falsely accused who should be vindicated, but also the ones who showed up and left once the vandalism started? How about the ones who showed up and stayed for one hour but not two hours after the vandalism started? Or ones who stayed while vandalism was going on elsewhere in the house that they were unaware of?

      How badly do you want to pick at the issue to defend your right to prejudice and presume guilt to destroy some kids’ character in public before it’s proven they did anything wrong? You claim that “every single partygoer knew full well what was going on” and “decided to participate” – Do tell, how do you know this fact? Were you there? How do you know that x-number of the kids who were named were not elsewhere on the property while the vandalism happened? How do you know that EVERY person who went to the party participated? Did you observe or are you aware of any report that implicated every kid in a criminal act of vandalism that night? If so, I’d love to hear where you got that information. Oh, wait, you’re just drawing an assumption and jumping to conclusions again, right?

      You also say that every parent of every kid who did do something wrong is a bad parent. I’d like to know how you know this as well. Are you closely acquainted with all 300 kids’ parents? Do you know how they discipline their kids and the values they teach them? Of course you don’t because that is impossible, and again your assumption and prejudgment that a good parent cannot possibly raise a kid who makes mistakes or does bad things is just that – an assumption and a rush to judgment that is without any factual support.

      Everyone drawing conclusions about who was responsible, who is guilty and who should be punished is being completely prejudicial and is doing more harm than anything – harm to the reputation of any of the kids who may not have done anything wrong, and harm to the reputation of their parents. I guess in this day and age of rabid, yelling punditry, Mr. Churchill’s call to wait and see what shakes out from an investigation before screaming for blood falls on deaf ears. That’s a real shame.

    • hounder says:

      “We all make mistakes, and bearing the full load of the consequences those mistakes produce, can be one of the most effective teachers of the value of avoiding repeating similar mistakes”. Very well put Albert. Your entire post was spot on, but this particular statement was very well put.

  17. cindynunyab says:

    Here is a link to a website that was selling the home :
    (if you click the pictures you can see them much better)


    When I questioned the stained rugs, scuffed floors and graffiti in these photos on the facebook help me save300 page, I was promptly blocked from my page and my post taken down….and the website disappeared as well (so I went to webarchive to retrieve it)

    I will wait for complete judgement, but had heard about the son arranging the party with friends and it seems like an awfully convenient time for him to have his home repaired for free and for the whole thing to be publicized (with just a month left to foreclosure) The help me save 300 page is post after post of their achievements in getting THEIR story told to the media.
    Either way, he has misrepresented a lot of things since the beginning…especially the amount of damage to the property and calling it his “vacation home”.

    …and no I do not have a child that went to the party (that is what I get screamed at me along with other insults when I post anything negative regarding this whole thing)
    I also do not condone breaking and entering and underage drinking….I just think it should have all been turned over to law enforcement instead of the media.

    I’m also upset that he is naming his work party days…honor veterans…now honor breast cancer survivors and firefighters….using people’s sympathies to get them to come and help him make repairs when he is the only one benefiting from it.

    Thanks for telling another side of the story that no one seems to want to hear.

  18. jimmy b says:

    After the Sheriff’s department broke up the party, how many drunken teenage drivers were allowed behind the wheel?

  19. Albert J says:

    Your bar analogy is a little lacking, Jackson, to make your analogy just a tad cloer to what happened in Stephentown may I suggest changing the initial premis to, “If I burglarize a bar, and two of the other burglers, who I really don’t know….

    Presuming that, “your elevator goes all the way to the top” I would expect you, like 99+ percent of those party goes, including those who might have been duped into attending under false pretenses, would require less than 5 seconds to fully and completely recognize what was going on arter first arriving at this “party”, at which point they individually decided to leave or participate. Those not competent to recognize what they were walking into, should have been abiding by an 8:30 curfew.

    I never suggested or inferred that, “every parent of every kid who did do something wrong is a bad parent”, that is a figment of your imagination, and perhaps your fruedian slip. I believe that, “every parent of every kid who did something wrong AND IGNORES WHAT THEIR CHILD DID, AND FAILS TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION is a bad parent, and worse is guilty of failing to educate their child in valuable life lessons, they will likely need for survival.

    Forgive me, but your deep concern for the damaged reputations and personal embarrassment of those (forgive me, really STUPID) partgoersn who plastered pictures of their party experience all over Facebook, falls on tone deaf ears. To quote Forrest Guumpm, “Stupid is as stupid does”, and those who are sadly so desparate for personal recognition to publicly post photos of themselves misbehaving are pathetically STUPID. Associating with idiots who take a lot of dopey pictures of themselves and anyone around them, is a somewhat lesser, but just as STUPID behavior.

    You are trying to defend the indefensible, which has become an unfortunately all to common happening. At some point, Jackson, we all have to accept (whether we like it/agree with it, or not or believe it “fair”) there are consequences to acting out. Whenever we choose to dance, someone is going to have to pay the piper, and rarely do we know what that price may be.

  20. Just a Thought says:

    Everyone who comments or talks about this party is doing exactly what Mr. Holloway wants…to get publicity! The more we talk or comment, the more publicity he receives.

  21. yngwiek says:

    What a hypocritical column. This is the same ‘Advocate’ that wrote the following regarding an allegedly vandalized tree in Pine Hills:

    OK, so here’s the part of the column where I note that most college students don’t behave this way. The vast majority are thoughtful youths who work hard, respect their neighbors and add to the region’s vibrancy.
    What we’re really talking about is a narrow group of dolts. You know them. They didn’t light up their high schools, but somehow got into UAlbany. They wear their baseball caps backward. They think puking is hilarious. They grew up downstate. They think they’re better than upstate.
    “Albany is not a home to these kids,” said Daley, who graduated from Albany High and has degrees from UAlbany and Saint Rose. “And I shouldn’t call them ‘kids,’ because they’re really adults.”

    Of course, no rush to judgement, the Advocate has simply decided that a downstate dolt did it. The Advocate even has the extremely specific knowledge that it was a downstate dolt wearing a backwards baseball cap who barely made it through high school. The Advocate also knows that this dolt has an internalized opinion that he/she is ‘better than upstate’…that, of course, is what all the downstate dolts think. No rush to judgement there.

  22. Albert J says:

    All in all yngweik, albeit unfortunate, you have to admit the description of a typical “downstate dolt” is pretty accurate.