Maurice Washington Faces Charges

JJ Husker said:
I can't answer this honestly without getting in trouble with the mods. I'll just say it has everything to do with specific posters and nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...


Then maybe tap out of the thread?  There’s a clear discourse on whether or not he should play or if it’s in his best interest to play. 

 
CapoValley said:
Then maybe tap out of the thread?  There’s a clear discourse on whether or not he should play or if it’s in his best interest to play. 
Click to expand...
Thanks for your advice. I was waiting for you to summarize things so they would make sense to me. Maybe if someone, anyone....you would make a valid point as to why he shouldn’t play I’d feel better about the “discourse”. Hint, please don’t repeat anything you’ve already said prior. That wouldn’t fall into the category of a valid point or clear discourse. Feel me?

 
JJ Husker said:
Thanks for your advice. I was waiting for you to summarize things so they would make sense to me. Maybe if someone, anyone....you would make a valid point as to why he shouldn’t play I’d feel better about the “discourse”. Hint, please don’t repeat anything you’ve already said prior. That wouldn’t fall into the category of a valid point or clear discourse. Feel me?
Click to expand...
You’re on record with saying you don’t think he’s doing to be a difference maker. In this thread. 

Yet you’re ok with playing him with this hanging over the university. 

Even though the university, and staff are taking heat for ham fisting this. 

I mean I guess I’d like to know why. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CapoValley said:
You’re on record with saying you don’t think he’s doing to be a difference maker. In this thread. 

Yet you’re ok with playing him with this hanging over the university. 

Even though the university, and staff are taking heat for ham fisting this. 

I mean I guess I’d like to know why. 
Click to expand...
I’ll cover this one more time. I doubt it will help but hey, can’t say I didn’t try.

#1- I don’t feel it matters if he’s a difference maker or a 5th string walkon. The player should be treated the same in either case and it depends on what the coaches know and think. Since we do not know what they know, I think most of this discussion is stupid and based on assumptions and conjecture.

#2- You may think something is hanging over the University. I do not. You may be concerned about a handful of comments on social media. I am not.

#3- You are the one making allegations of ham fisting. I don’t feel it was ham fisted at all. You may be concerned about “taking heat”. I think you are sensationalizing a few comments to bolster your position. If they took the course of action you want them to, there would be others giving them heat for taking that action. Basically somebody is going to b!^@h no matter what they do. Problem is the people complaining about it know way less than the people who are actually deciding what to do with him. That tells me it’s just noise that needs to be ignored.

I will always be on the side of supporting players until it is proven they don’t deserve that support anymore. You may feel Mo has gone past that point, I do not. I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting him play if and until it is determined he should not be allowed to play. Pretty effin simple. Much better imo than assuming guilt and administering punishment that may never be deserved. But you do you.

I’ll also explain what I think about what he allegedly did and the charges he is facing.

My gut feeling is that this girl was not sexually assaulted by the two boys. I mean there was a video of it for proof. I feel pretty comfortable saying those two kids would have received much more severe punishment if anyone actually thought she was assaulted. They received probation. Minors or not, I have to believe 15-16 year olds who sexually assault a girl get a lot more than probation. I think it only became “assault” and an issue for her when the video got out and her parents became aware.

Based on that thought, I also think Mo may have felt/known it was not rape or sexual assault. And that really reduces the gravity of him sending her that video in my mind.

If I’m wrong about these things then I’m a jerk. But I want someone involved in this whole mess to get more than a slap on the wrist before I’ll believe it is worth more than a slap on the wrist. Further, I think child pornography charges in this case are ridiculous. I don’t think there is a chance in hell that charge won’t be dropped or severely reduced. That leaves the other charge against Mo for sending her the video. If it was a sexual assault or if he thought it was sexual assault then he is a POS for sending it to her. But at this time I think it is much more likely it was more of a jilted teen thing than any heinous action on his part. I know there are sick mean people who could do something like that but I will always give someone the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves otherwise.

Now you know why your opinion and thoughts on the matter irk me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PoloWearingBeaver said:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5737501-Nebraska-Report.html
Click to expand...
I read the whole thing.  

1.  It sounds like they've got the goods on Mo with all the electronic records from AT&T, Apple and Instagram but when Mo was first contacted he said he knew nothing about what they were talking about.

2.  I believe the victim at one time told the police that Mo was trying to get romantic with her and then in a subsequent interview admitted that he had not.  I believe that in the subsequent interview the victim either knew they had the whole conversation or suspected it since the investigator told her later in the interview and asked her specific questions about the conversation.. If I had to guess, this was an attempt by the victim to make Mo look bad.

3.  The victim initiated contact with Mo with "What's up stud?" and I don't think Mo was too interested in conversing with her and didn't seem to know or pretended not to know who she was.  Her parents had previously told her to leave Mo alone.

4.  Mo threatened to send her the video shortly after the alleged sexual assault.according to the victim but didn't. 

5.  The victim didn't want to pursue sexual assault against the 2 boys in the video but is angry at Mo and wants him prosecuted.  I forget what the 2 boys were charged with.

6.  Before the alleged sexual assault took place one of the boys asked the victim out to eat but her father said no.  The boy later went to her house to ask the victim's father directly.. That seems very off.

7.  The video was about 10 seconds long and based on the description it might be difficult to prove that any actual sexual intercourse occurred.

8.  The document doesn't include any police interviews with Mo.  Only the victim and her mother.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
4skers89 said:
I read the whole thing.  

1.  It sounds like they've got the goods on Mo with all the electronic records from AT&T, Apple and Instagram but when Mo was first contacted he said he knew nothing about what they were talking about.

2.  I believe the victim at one time told the police that Mo was trying to get romantic with her and then in a subsequent interview admitted that he had not.  I believe that in the subsequent interview the victim either knew they had the whole conversation or suspected it since the investigator told her later in the interview and asked her specific questions about the conversation.. If I had to guess, this was an attempt by the victim to make Mo look bad.

3.  The victim initiated contact with Mo with "What's up stud?" and I don't think Mo was too interested in conversing with her and didn't seem to know or pretended not to know who she was.  Her parents had previously told her to leave Mo alone.

4.  Mo threatened to send her the video shortly after the alleged sexual assault.according to the victim but didn't. 

5.  The victim didn't want to pursue sexual assault against the 2 boys in the video but is angry at Mo and wants him prosecuted.  I forget what the 2 boys were charged with.

6.  Before the alleged sexual assault took place one of the boys asked the victim out to eat but her father said no.  The boy later went to her house to ask the victim's father directly.. That seems very off.

7.  The video was about 10 seconds long and based on the description it might be difficult to prove that any actual sexual intercourse occurred.

8.  The document doesn't include any police interviews with Mo.  Only the victim and her mother.
Click to expand...






I don’t remember exactly what the boys were charged with except that it wasn’t rape. She’s calling this rape in dealing with Washington but not pursuing that against the boys she alleges raped her.

Nothing in the statements makes it sound like he knew/thought that’s what it was, and it’s stated by her or the mom that they think he threatened (their word) to send the video 6 mos. after the incident because he thought the video meant maybe she also cheated on him while they were dating. This sounds like an ex whose feelings were hurt. Not someone sending a rape video to a rape victim. And it’s important (morally, maybe not legally) which it is.

 
Moiraine said:
I don’t remember exactly what the boys were charged with except that it wasn’t rape. She’s calling this rape in dealing with Washington but not pursuing that against the boys she alleges raped her.
Click to expand...
The OP had this link 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

Washington is the second person to be criminally charged in connection to the video, which was recorded in 2016 and depicts Taylor engaged in sex acts with two male classmates, both 17 at the time. One of the teenage boys depicted in the video was arrested in 2016 and placed on probation for distribution of child pornography after he recorded the video and sent copies to classmates, which soon spread like wildfire across the school.
Click to expand...


Moiraine said:
Nothing in the statements makes it sound like he knew/thought that’s what it was, and it’s stated by her or the mom that they think he threatened (their word) to send the video 6 mos. after the incident because he thought the video meant maybe she also cheated on him while they were dating. This sounds like an ex whose feelings were hurt. Not someone sending a rape video to a rape victim. And it’s important (morally, maybe not legally) which it is.
Click to expand...


This information makes me feel better about Mo.  When it came out that Mo tried to hook up with her and was rejected before sending the video made me think poorly of Mo.  I think he didn't want anything to do with her and had blocked her (on Instagram?).  It's hard to tell since the names or user ids are censored and the document font is small.  Mo probably still believes the video is not of sexual assault.  If it is, the boy in the video is very bold and stupid by going to the girl's house to ask her father to take out his daughter when the plan was to rape her and then filming it and distributing the evidence.  I suppose it's possible...

 
OK...everyone agrees Mo did something stupid.  The staff has been open to the investigation and it's going through the courts.  The staff made a judgement call on playing him.

There is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do to change people's minds on this.  The staff has made a decision they will need to live with..good or bad.

It's time to concentrate on football.  I'm sure there will be more discussion after it's done in the courts.

 
Back
Top