Jump to content


Maurice Washington Faces Charges


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

That’s not how it works. On the child porn charge, they (likely) have proof he possessed the video, because he sent it to her. The others merely received the video unsolicited and there is no proof they still possess it.

That’s only if they all received it from the same person. 

 

Which, I highly doubt. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

That’s only if they all received it from the same person. 

 

Which, I highly doubt. 

 

 

There are still other reasons why Washington's case is different. E.g., he did it in March, not 2 and a half years ago. He also was an adult at the time, so the consequences are different.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

58 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There are still other reasons why Washington's case is different. E.g., he did it in March, not 2 and a half years ago. He also was an adult at the time, so the consequences are different.

 

Good point . . right on target regarding the real issue.   Just as a side note . . . these cases are a PITA for the local PD's & district courts.   So, as interstate transmission of child porn is a Federal crime & can be transferred to that system, it's way better to treat the Locals nice.    The Feds don't mess around . . . the average sentence is 5 years, and the Fed system doesn't do probation or early outs (parole).   So, keep it local and basically, beg for the courts leniency . . . conviction rates are near 100% because of multiple device forensics (like a fingerprint level of proof).  

 

 

Link to comment

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The university has released an updated statement, and it contradicts a lot of what the first statement and AD Moos originally claimed. How could they think this wouldn't get out?

 

https://www.1011now.com/content/news/University-of-Nebraska-provides-updated-statement-on-Maurice-Washington--505853301.html

 

Still drunk from the Wisconsin game, sorry. I'll issue a new statement during lent when I'm sober. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Billsantosa said:

It does??? I didn’t think it did

The original statement claimed the university didn't know any details. And I'm pretty sure Moos said in an interview that he and the athletic department didn't know anything other than an investigator wanted to talk to Mo. Here's the first statement:

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

The original statement claimed the university didn't know any details. And I'm pretty sure Moos said in an interview that he and the athletic department didn't know anything other than an investigator wanted to talk to Mo. Here's the first statement:

 

Still really not seeing it. I’ve read the reports and timelines. what Moos said still seems valid and not contradicting IMO.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The university has released an updated statement, and it contradicts a lot of what the first statement and AD Moos originally claimed. How could they think this wouldn't get out?

 

https://www.1011now.com/content/news/University-of-Nebraska-provides-updated-statement-on-Maurice-Washington--505853301.html

Meh.....Moos, Vaughn and Frost can handle it however they deem best.

 

What good does trying to snare Moos on his statements do?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...