Of course. And even the local papers initially said that the blood on the walls was KM's, although they corrected that with the next issue. But when there were newspapers in large metropolitan markets saying KM was so badly injured her parents brought in a priest to perform last rites and that she was in a coma for 5 days, I can only scratch my head.
Washington update
- Thread starter Huskerfan2112
- Start date
Of course. And even the local papers initially said that the blood on the walls was KM's, although they corrected that with the next issue. But when there were newspapers in large metropolitan markets saying KM was so badly injured her parents brought in a priest to perform last rites and that she was in a coma for 5 days, I can only scratch my head.
Years ago I use to work in a PC repair shop. Randomly we would come across kiddie porn on peoples computers. We would call the cops. The cops always said before calling them to make sure we could pull up actual pictures these people have viewed. So I think you are probably right, if it wasn't still on his phone. They could have a tougher case.
Appreciate the clarification of the "facts" of the LP case. It was still a violent act against a woman which IMO was much more serious than what MW was alleged to have done. In MW's situation, they were clearly fishing for evidence.
On the "never talk to the cops and they aren't your friends". I agree that IF you've done something or are suspected of something you should seek legal counsel before you talk to the cops. That said, I've had very few occasions where the cops weren't my friends and those were just a couple of instances where they were a little over zealous in their enforcement of traffic laws. I was always in the wrong. That said, they aren't without fault. They're human. I feel a lot better knowing that they're out there trying to do their job.
Okay, my bad. I have never thought or said that Katie McKeown was badly injured in that incident, nor was it my intent to re-hash the whole Lawrence Phillips saga. But I still think there's a huge difference between Phillips's crime and what Washington is accused of, and most people will get that. That's why I don't think Frost is going to endure nearly as much criticism for playing Washington as TO did for playing Phillips. Time will tell, I suppose, but I don't see it.
Given the nature of the stepmom's involvement and what would seem to me like maybe her dislike for MW, I'm not sure that her verbal testimony would be all that valuable to a judge. I don't know how that would all play at trial. Obviously if both the mom and girl testify that he sent the video that helps the prosecution, but they still have to prove what was in the video and that presents problems for the prosecution I would think. Would a jury want a young man labeled as as sex offender for the rest of his life for doing what was alleged? Would a judge feel that was just punishment? I dunno. By the way the prosecutor talked in his interview one has to think that a cooler head may be prevailing. This shouldn't have been nearly as big of a deal as it has been made in to. Even IF this had been my daughter, I wouldn't want a kid's life messed up for the rest of his life by what was alleged to have happened. A guy rapes my daughter? Different story.
You are right, my response wasn't as clear as it could have been. You are absolutely right, LP wasn't playing patty-cake. I also agree that a strong argument can be made that there is a significant difference between the crimes of LP and Washington's alleged crime(s). The point I was trying to make is that we have a bunch of people here who are basing opinions on some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of the law and the legal process. Frankly, it would be like me trying to rationally discuss the method a neurosurgeon should use to excise a tumor from someone's frontal lobe. Much of what is on here is laughably ignorant.
When the cops are trying to solve a crime, they most definitely are not your friends. I don't recall if it is in the video JDskibum posted, but there is an example of the detective questioning A about a serious assault. The detective asked whether the victim was the A's friend. A said "he is now." The detective immediately took that as A saying the victim at one time had been A's enemy. A possible interpretation, but not really a reasonable one and A immediately clarified that he had known the victim for 10 years but had only become real friends with him over the last few months. The detective refused to accept that and so A became the prime suspect because his response supposedly indicated that he had once hated the victim. A went through hell until, by a fluke, the actual criminal was caught. And that is not an isolated example. That sort of thing happens with regularity. Cops believe that everything they are told is a lie or at least a partial cover-up. All you have to do is talk to cops who have been on the job for more than a few years to know that. Which means that you can reasonably expect that anything you say to a cop questioning you about a crime to be twisted to put you in the worst light possible. So it's better to just keep quiet. That's just the way the system works.
I don't know the answer to that, but the ages of the persons involved probably have some bearing on the answer to your question. In Nebraska a person 15 or younger cannot consent to sexual contact with someone 19 or older as a matter of law. That is sex assault even if the 15 year old (or younger, I guess), was an eager participant in the act. The old saying I heard when I was younger, "15 will get your 20" is no joke. I don't know the ages of the people on the recording, but that probably plays a role in how this case was adjudicated previously.
All 3 of the people in the video are underage, none of them were charged with sexual assault all 3 were expelled from school for the video.
They have video evidence. How many rape cases have video evidence? It should be much easier to prosecute based on video evidence, yet that didn't happen. Pretty clear that an assault never happened.
I don't know how to respond to this other than to say that it is not so easy to jump to conclusions in these cases. it is my understanding that the video in question, from beginning to end, lasts about 10 seconds or a very short period of time. I think its safe to say that those 10 seconds did not encompass the entire encounter between the parties.
It apparently was not clear in the video that it wasn't consensual. What would most teenage girls say after their stepmom saw a video of that? I would think there could be a tendency to claim rape especially considering the parents had her in a private Christian school. This kind of a case is just a mess. I've been called a scumbag on this site for trying to present both sides of this issue, but it's just the fact. Teenagers do stupid things including girls. I won't begin to start telling all of the stories of things I've seen and heard of girls doing let alone the boys. It hasn't changed in the 60+ years I've been alive except that girls have become WAY more aggressive. I can't believe some of the things I hear come out of teenage girls' mouths.