Maurice Washington Faces Charges

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

Which, I highly doubt. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
That’s only if they all received it from the same person. 

Which, I highly doubt. 
Click to expand...




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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...


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).  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
Click to expand...
Still really not seeing it. I’ve read the reports and timelines. what Moos said still seems valid and not contradicting IMO.

 
Back
Top