Jump to content
PlzCoolerMe

Maurice Washington Faces Charges

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Personally I’d like to see her mother charged with falsifying information, making a false report and defamation of character. IMO, as far as who did the worst things, the mother is 2nd in line to the two boys.

giphy.gif?cid=8fc3c89716374e25997f6ec03c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Personally, I give this girl and her mother's account zero credibility. You should have to prove sexual assault or rape before you refer to it as such years later. 

 

Someone needs to freshen up on why victims don’t always come forward immediately.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

I'm sure it been mentioned but i don't want to read through everything to find the answer. But when were the guys from the video convicted? Was is before or after Washington sent the video?

One of the boys, as a minor, was given probation for the distribution.  At the time, it was not charged as a sexual assault because the girl did not claim it as such and all parties involved were minors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Why did the 2 boys not get charged with a felony for distributing child porn? 

 

Shouldnt the mom get charged for requesting mo send her child porn? 

Then the officer videotaped the video of the clip off the iPad on his device therefore possessing child porn and the mother then distributed the child porn to an adult male police officer. He then took it back to the station and burned a copies of it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CapoValley said:

They weren’t the same age. She was a minor and he wasn’t. So maybe throw in some burpees too. 

absolutism FTW!

8 hours ago, 30-50 Feral Hogs said:

They should probably aggressively pursue every 18 year old that distributes sex videos of minors, for sure.

Absolutism FTW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dewiz said:

 

Just skimming the report, the prosecution will have issues authenticating the video. It will be interesting to see who they put on their witness list. Mom states she’s never seen and can’t see her daughters face but “knows” it’s her daughter. Thats not based on personal knowledge and inadmissible. The prosecution will need to list someone who has seen the video or one the boys involved to authenticate it otherwise there’s not evidence it’s a minor. 

 

Mother also solicited distribution of child porn and appears to be driving the bus behind prosecuting it. There are multiple inconsistencies in the police statement that would make it an ugly trial for v1 and the mom.

 

Based on what I’ve gathered as well is Mo’s attorneys have been granted continuances due to prosecution not making timely disclosures. This will continue to get dragged out and decent chance judge throws it out. However, I think a judge at preliminary hearing will allow to go to trial and at that point a plea will be reached before trial. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 30-50 Feral Hogs said:

One of the boys, as a minor, was given probation for the distribution.  At the time, it was not charged as a sexual assault because the girl did not claim it as such and all parties involved were minors.

 

There could be a valid reason for that,  but with all I’ve read on this one and think I know, i just doesn’t seem likely. A couple big clues imo;

 

1- the girl and her mom do not want to and have not pursued charges against either of those two boys. Instead they’re content with seeing a former boyfriend charged with a felony. Once again, no charges for the supposed rapists but book thrown at another kid who did not assault their girl. Seems weird. As a parent, I would sure as hell go after anyone who sexually assaulted my daughter long before I’d go after a kid who just sent a video after the fact.

 

2- The reaction of people who actually saw the video or were presented evidence?

-Girl expelled from school

-Only probation for kids the mother now calls rapists

-Law enforcement saw the video and took reports. What did they do about a now claimed rape?......nothing.

Is it a California thing to expel students from school who have been sexually assaulted? Seems problematic. Why aren’t they pursuing charges against the school district for wrongful expulsion?

 

3- The mother’s report to the police does not seem to jive with what they have for evidence on Mo. And it really seems like the girl isn’t too bothered by it but her mother doesn’t want the police talking to the daughter because she’s too fragile and “recovering”. Once again, the claims get more serious after the mother finds out.

 

Its the magical morphing case. No problem at all until a video gets sent around the school. Girl doesn’t complain but rather her mother does. The more uncomfortable it gets for the mother, the claims of what happened get more serious. But not serious enough to actually charge supposed rapists with sexual assault. Only serious enough to try to ruin the life of a kid who did not rape a girl and who did not shoot and distribute the video. Why? Because they can now claim it was sexual assault, because they were minors and records are sealed, without having to press charges or prove a thing.

 

I find it all too incredulous. It has all the markings of yet another “not my little angel” story. I saw so much of this while my kids were in school it made me sick. Some parents will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid facing the truth about their own children. And yeah I know, we’re supposed to bend over backwards believing girls who claim they were assaulted. I’d really like to but I just can’t in this case.

 

There, that outta get things fired up again :lol:

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Red Dead Redemption said:

 

*oughta

Thanks. But seriously, the auto correct function on my phone and tablet are WAY out of control. These things completely make up words I am not typing. It's not mild adjustments for typos, it's like it's trying to tell a completely different story. Ive been spending so much time going back to correct posts before hitting submit, I'm starting to just let stuff go. Kinda frustrating. Oughta and outta is just minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"no I don’t want to do that. I just want to prosecute mo for sending it to me”.  Interesting statement from the victim on the sherrifs report when she was asked if she wanted to persue charges against the alleged rapist(s).

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

3- The mother’s report to the police does not seem to jive with what they have for evidence on Mo. And it really seems like the girl isn’t too bothered by it but her mother doesn’t want the police talking to the daughter because she’s too fragile and “recovering”. Once again, the claims get more serious after the mother finds out.

I missed this part but at some point she recovered enough to talk to the local TV station.  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/University-of-Nebraska-Football-Player-Maurice-Washington-Faces-Revenge-Porn-Child-Porn-Charges-Over-Video-of-Bay-Area-Teen-505666711.html?akmobile=o

Since the beginning, I've wondered if Mo wasn't a "star football player", would he be in any trouble?

 

None of this is meant to deflect from what Mo did.

 

*jibe, BTW

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

I missed this part but at some point she recovered enough to talk to the local TV station.  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/University-of-Nebraska-Football-Player-Maurice-Washington-Faces-Revenge-Porn-Child-Porn-Charges-Over-Video-of-Bay-Area-Teen-505666711.html?akmobile=o

Since the beginning, I've wondered if Mo wasn't a "star football player", would he be in any trouble?

 

None of this is meant to deflect from what Mo did.

 

*jibe, BTW

Good catch. Jive was all me. Can't even blame auto correct for that one. But in my defense, according to Merriam Webster, jive has been commonly misused for jibe since it was introduced in the 1920's. So I'm not alone :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...