He had the same Constitutional rights to not speak to investigators and he must have chosen not to waive those rights weather he has exercised his rights to counsel or not.
Washington update
- Thread starter Huskerfan2112
- Start date
Sounds like a lawyer to me. Cops call my house, I answer their questions. I don’t ignore calls like a person avoiding collection calls. Especially if I did nothing wrong
We all have the presumption of innocence. It is the states burden to prove all of the elements of the charges filed beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the state meet its burden? I sure don't know. I have not seen any of the evidence.
Oh Lord Tuco, I thought you knew that from long ago. Its in my name for Pete's sake. Of course I am a lawyer.
I cannot see what you see when watching a football game. I don't see pulling linemen or different coverage and so forth. I like reading thoughts from people who can see that to try to learn. So believe me here. Anything you say to investigators can and will be used against you. Any statements made to police against your own interest can be presented to the trier of fact (judge, or jury). Anything you say to investigators that tends to help your case is hearsay and cannot be presented to the trier of fact.
There are lots of reasons not to speak to police, here is one I tell my folks to watch.
Oh I agree with you completely. I'm just making the point that just because someone doesn't want to see Washington burned at the stake, it doesn't mean we are insisting he did nothing wrong. And I'm damn sure not going to form an opinion on his guilt or innocence based on the fact that he (gasp!) hired an attorney.
Why would you say anything to police or investigators? Have you ever seen the show Cops? Half of those people wouldn't even be arrested if they just shut their mouths. Cops and investigators will lie to you to get a confession or get evidence, I don't see any reason why you should make their jobs easy.
Not an Iowa fan. I can look at things without rose colored glasses. I am objective. So you would be okay if Jonathan Taylor from Wisconsin was accused of the same things and playing?
Not only that, but the detectives that walk in to the interrogation room are veteran cops that have worked their way up the ranks and have shown a propensity to develop leads and uncover evidence. They are good at prying information out of witnesses and suspects. Most people would be surprised to find out how many criminal cases get resolved via confession.
Most logical people should be okay with it. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, you butt sniffing cross dresser
Truth. I had a client once who was an old con. On an interview video he stated that he was going to invoke his Miranda rights and then just kept on talking and talking and talking.
Not according to the timeline I read. Perhaps you can find me a link. I’m open to being shown I’m wrong.
Plus if I recall correctly, the individual (s) that filmed it and sent it originally have already been through the courts and got probation
Maurice is a black teenager. You are, making an assumption, a white middle-aged man. Your worldview regarding law enforcement are vastly different.
Funny you say that, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....and tonight so be ready for some great info.
Absolutely. College football players take the field every week who have committed assault or sexual assault, driven drunk or done any number of other things that can inflict great physical harm on other people. But a player who (allegedly) texted a video shouldn't be allowed to play?
Washington will likely serve a suspension due to this incident, as well he should. But the underlying offense doesn't make him a violent criminal, no matter which team he plays for.
Fair enough. Can't remember if I saw it linked in here or read it somewhere else.
But at the time I read it, it fit the narrative because Coach Frost said he wanted a quick resolution so everyone could move on. Well this has been anything but quick.
After reading the quotes from the prosecutor working the case something tells me that either they don't think it's as big of a deal as some on this board do OR they don't have the physical evidence they need to feel confident in getting a conviction on the more serious charge. It seems unusual to me for a prosecutor to be talking about negotiations, reaching a resolution and "discussing the parameters of the charges" so early in the process. Sure sounds like a guy wanting to strike a deal. They've got way more serious things to deal with than this thing.
Today on 1620 they had someone write in who had been a DA at one time and kind of gave some insight into the thought process of this case in CA. He basically said that the defense team is probably the ones delaying this case because they want to draw this into the offseason that will probably get some out of court settlement. He said that as high profile as this case is here, that this is barely a blip on the radar there and is pretty low on the totem pole for the court system there. He said that the judge and prosecution have no issue delaying this because they have more pressing issues than this case. He said that the county alone has more people than the whole state of Nebraska and that the county attorney’s office is swamped with other crap.
Well at least one of the men who you say are Washington’s friends, and who you say raped the girl, pled to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to probation. If you’re truly concerned about the girl’s well-being and not just someone playing the part of a sanctimonious troll, why aren’t you picketing daily on the steps of the Santa Clara County courthouse, bringing attention to this injustice?
I find it amusing that you seem to think I’m blinded by the fact that Washington is a football player. So if he wasn’t a football player, would you be here blowharding about how his actions call for a more severe punishment than the men who made and distributed the video in the first place?
Yeh - didn’t think so.
I find it amusing that you seem to think I’m blinded by the fact that Washington is a football player. So if he wasn’t a football player, would you be here blowharding about how his actions call for a more severe punishment than the men who made and distributed the video in the first place?
Yeh - didn’t think so.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5737501-Nebraska-Report.html
Are you proud that he represents the university?
If Washington was on another roster, would you support playing him this Saturday or season?
Are you proud that he represents the university?
If Washington was on another roster, would you support playing him this Saturday or season?
You seem confused and think the other 2 individuals were charged around the same time or at the same time as Mo. You keep calling them men, which they weren’t at time they were charged and tried. Those idiots committed their crime 3 years ago when they were minors and were tried in juvenile court. Which most often results in a lighter sentence. Our idiot waited over 2 years, after which he had reached the age of majority. Then took a video of minors engaged in sexual act, that he had held onto even though police had advised all students to delete, and sent it to the girl. At this point he was an adult in the eyes of the law, so yes his charges and consequences are going to be different than the 2 who were boys.
Surprise, consequences are different for acting idiotic as an adult, as opposed to acting idiotic as a minor.
Yes I completely understand that’s why Washington could face a harsher punishment, but it doesn’t mean that he should. You’re right that being tried in juvenile court often leads to lighter sentences, but not always and hopefully not in a way that makes no sense.
So if the troll I was responding to really believes these guys raped the girl, which he states as a fact, why isn’t his head exploding about them being out on the streets?
If there was even a remote chance the girl was raped in that video, the 2 boys would certainly have been charged. It's obvious to me since the boys weren't even charged for it that no rape actually happened.
I’m not saying that, because I have no Earthly idea whether they assaulted her or not. But stating that she was raped for the sole purpose of making Washington’s actions seem worse is not a good way to make your case. He also states that they were Washington’s friends, apparently for the same purpose. Those two apparently sent the video to a lot of people, so Washington having the video doesn’t mean they were his friends. That’s just a cheesy way of trying to tie him more closely to what’s depicted in the video.
I checked in for my evening HO scan of threads and was surprised this thread isn't locked yet. All the legalese and talking to cops stuff aside, I had some more basic thoughts. If the girl hadn't had consensual sex with two boys in a car and let one of them film it (which in my opinion is what happened), this thread wouldn't exist. Maybe if the mom had thought about that real hard if in fact MW sent the video as alleged, she might have spent more time thinking about possible parenting deficiencies that indirectly led to the situation and less about making a big deal with the DA about charging somebody. But then....pointing the finger at someone is a hell of a lot easier than pointing the thumb. I just get tired of everybody thinking he/she is a victim nowadays.
By this reasoning, did Washington not have the pics on his phone and send the text if he is found not guilty?
Rape and sexual assault cases are notoriously difficult to prove to a jury unless you have a very strong and convincing victim and even then, juries can be leery of the victim's truthfulness and/or motives. The defense would surely argue that the act was consensual and although I don't know the girl involved in this matter, from what I've read she does not seem like the type of individual who would hold up well under cross-examination. That's just my speculation. She may be reluctant to testify as well, as rape victims often are.
In any event, a decision not to charge a crime is not necessarily a concession by the government that no crime was committed but typically an indication regarding the strength of their case.
The question(s) I have after reading the report are as follows:
A) The detectives said the video arrived via iMessage and not via SMS. The mom had iMessage on her iPad to monitor the daughters texts. I'd assume she could send/receive iMessage from the iPad. Is it possible the same could be true of Washingtons account? Could his account be accessed from a device that he's not in control of and sent the video?
B) The Mom has changed the story- First she said she asked her daughter to delete the video, later in the testimony she said she did it when she had control over the phone.
C) The mom or daughter asked Washington to re-send the video after they deleted it. The best I can tell the video was never re-sent and Washington said something to the effect of "what video" Future messages were blocked since they blocked his number and his Apple account, so no one will ever know if the video was re-sent.
D) It appeared that they didn't go after the rapists since they didn't have video evidence as it had been deleted on all devices they knew of. Now that the video is available, the mom was ambivalent about going after the rapists, and only wanted to pursue Washington. This doesn't seem normal to me.
Those are my $.02
A) The detectives said the video arrived via iMessage and not via SMS. The mom had iMessage on her iPad to monitor the daughters texts. I'd assume she could send/receive iMessage from the iPad. Is it possible the same could be true of Washingtons account? Could his account be accessed from a device that he's not in control of and sent the video?
B) The Mom has changed the story- First she said she asked her daughter to delete the video, later in the testimony she said she did it when she had control over the phone.
C) The mom or daughter asked Washington to re-send the video after they deleted it. The best I can tell the video was never re-sent and Washington said something to the effect of "what video" Future messages were blocked since they blocked his number and his Apple account, so no one will ever know if the video was re-sent.
D) It appeared that they didn't go after the rapists since they didn't have video evidence as it had been deleted on all devices they knew of. Now that the video is available, the mom was ambivalent about going after the rapists, and only wanted to pursue Washington. This doesn't seem normal to me.
Those are my $.02
I haven't followed this as closely as others, but was the video rape or was it consenual? I keep seeing rape being brought up, but was curious if that was the case of if it was just a threesome.
This just goes to show how ignorant people are about the law and facts. And this is from a case that is more than 20 years old. Phillips never slammed Kate McEwen's head (or any other part of her body) into a mailbox. Didn't happen. Everyone's testimony at trial was firm. LP dragged KM down the flight of stairs. Frost was hot on their trail (putting the lie to the 'he hid in the closet' group). Also, 2 downstairs neighbors heard the commotion and came out of their apartment. SF and one neighbor pushed between LP and KM to separate them, while the other neighbor went back into his/her apartment and called 911. In a bit of irony, the only PHYSICAL injury KM suffered was when her 2 good Samaritans knocked her away from LP, she fell back and struck the back of her head on the stair bannister, causing a small cut. After LP and KM were separated, SF hustled KM back upstairs. The neighbor (or both neighbors, I can't remember which) then watched LP beat the crap out of the mailboxes with his fists, while yelling about how he had "f**ked up". He tore his hands up doing so, and sprayed blood all over the wall. This was covered in detail at the trial, as it had to be determined who damaged the mailboxes and how, as part of LP's sentence, he had to pay $348 for their repair.
I am not pointing this out to exonerate LP. That ship sailed. But instead to point out how very few posters on this site have any clue as to facts in criminal cases, how those facts interact with the law, and how the judicial process works. 95% of the comments here are utterly ridiculous, as JDskibum has accurately pointed out in a few instances. Oh, and you NEVER, EVER voluntarily talk to the cops. They are not your friends. They are looking to clear the case, period.
Finally someone else who actually read the report and not just the first few pages.
HBD,
perception.
we were on top and it was more newsworthy without the truth.
perception.
we were on top and it was more newsworthy without the truth.
Thanks for this, again. I really appreciate all the work you put into bringing actual facts to the L.P. case. It's too bad you have to constantly repeat yourself to combat the completely uninformed blowhards.
