F.A.Qs about Jail, State Hospital, and Court

[Jon Osterman]

This might be a fabrication of my own making, but I could of sworn someone said semen was found in Barb.
You've got about 6 days with a cervical swab for forensics. Rape kit is only a few days.
Also I'm a bit rusty with my crime knowledge. Is implication of a crime enough to push the strong arm of the law?

Doing some quick reading, I believe the answer is that if a law enforcement officer, judge, or potential victim says something bad happened, then an EPO lasting 3 days can be filed. Also

F. The issuance of an emergency protective order shall not be considered evidence of any wrongdoing by the respondent.

So the answer is they can file an order with no actual evidence as long as someone in authority says it's good. The police didn't need anything more than people calling in saying that Chris banged his mom to get them separated, but would need more to actually arrest him, say the results of a rape kit. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Chris actually did the deed and didn't just imagine it, because if the police couldn't prove that he wouldn't have gone to jail.

 

[Ophelia]

This might be a fabrication of my own making, but I could of sworn someone said semen was found in Barb.

Afaik, there has been speculation but no confirmation on that front. Chris used rubbers.

 

[AnOminous]

Afaik, there has been speculation but no confirmation on that front. Chris used rubbers.

We don't know that. Also even if he did he probably just threw him in the trash that I doubt he was even diligent about taking out on time.

So there very well could have been plenty of condoms from Chris continually raping Barb that had both his semen in them and Barb's girl slime on them.

Also why would he even bother using rubbers? It's not like he was going to impregnate her.

 

[Huge Fuckin Nerd]

Do

We don't know that. Also even if he did he probably just threw him in the trash that I doubt he was even diligent about taking out on time.

So there very well could have been plenty of condoms from Chris continually raping Barb that had both his semen in them and Barb's girl slime on them.

Also why would he even bother using rubbers? It's not like he was going to impregnate her.

Do you honestly think Chris knows what menopause is? His dad had him when he was like 60. That’s his frame of reference for childbirth.

 

[AnOminous]

Do

Do you honestly think Chris knows what menopause is? His dad had him when he was like 60. That’s his frame of reference for childbirth.

I just don't see him doing it even if he claimed he did as some sort of way to look less terrible.

 

[True Gunt Radio]

They found out that Chris was raping his mom and that unless they did something, he would continue to rape his mom.

This should not be hard to understand.

literally what I said

 

[Kyuss]

Afaik, there has been speculation but no confirmation on that front. Chris used rubbers.

but were they ribbed for her pleasure?
we gotta ask the tough questions.

deed and didn't just imagine it, because if the police couldn't prove that he wouldn't have gone to jail.

My local state laws correlate with this, an emergency (no evidence, magistrate signature), and the more definitive EPO which requires a judge signature and evidence. So we are looking at seminal evidence, vaginal abuse, or an outright statement from Barb that they indeed have sex which correlates with the perceived threat from Chris own mouth.
Thanks for helping to clarify.

 

[Dustlord]

I think what he's saying is that Chris could have been so delusional that in his mind, Barb had consented to it and it wasn't rape. In reality he obviously did rape Barb, but it could be that Chris thought she consented and it was "ok". And if that is what Chris actually believes, then he'd be found not guilty by reason of insanity because he didn't understand what he was doing (well not guilty for rape, still guilty for incest cause he clearly knew that was wrong).

That's...not at all how that works. If the court decides that she was unable to consent, it won't matter if he thought she could consent. She could've verbally communicated her desire to have sex with him, and it would still be rape under the law if the court decides she wasn't competent enough to understand the implications of what she was doing.

Being ignorant of the law, and believing something incorrect doesn't make you unfit to stand trial. He understood he was having sex with her, he understood that she was mentally impaired on some level, and he understood it was wrong, since he lied about it, but even if he didn't understand it was wrong, that would not make him insane. Plenty of people commit crimes and believe their act was justified or acceptable. It really doesn't matter.
Not guilty by reason of insanity implies he was not in control of his actions. We know he was in control of his actions.

To put this into perspective, this situation is very similar legally to an adult having sex with an underage teen. The prosecution will not even bring up their participation or consent because, legally speaking, they cannot consent no matter they said or did. Plenty of those creeps would say "but but she didn't fight me!".

If the other party cannot consent legally, your belief that they consented will not be taken into account at all.

 

[Jon Osterman]

That's...not at all how that works. If the court decides that she was unable to consent, it won't matter if he thought she could consent. She could've verbally communicated her desire to have sex with him, and it would still be rape under the law if the court decides she wasn't competent enough to understand the implications of what she was doing.

Being ignorant of the law, and believing something incorrect doesn't make you unfit to stand trial. He understood he was having sex with her, he understood that she was mentally impaired on some level, and he understood it was wrong, since he lied about it, but even if he didn't understand it was wrong, that would not make him insane. Plenty of people commit crimes and believe their act was justified or acceptable. It really doesn't matter.
Not guilty by reason of insanity implies he was not in control of his actions. We know he was in control of his actions.

To put this into perspective, this situation is very similar legally to an adult having sex with an underage teen. The prosecution will not even bring up their participation or consent because, legally speaking, they cannot consent no matter they said or did. Plenty of those creeps would say "but but she didn't fight me!".

If the other party cannot consent legally, your belief that they consented will not be taken into account at all.

If Chris' delusions included a Barbchu coming from CWCville to give the go ahead to plow her mortal body, then he would get out because he didn't know that she didn't consent. That is very unlikely and I don't believe it happened myself. Obviously if that didn't happen he can say whatever he wants about not knowing rape was bad, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[Dustlord]

If Chris' delusions included a Barbchu coming from CWCville to give the go ahead to plow her mortal body, then he would get out because he didn't know that she didn't consent. That is very unlikely and I don't believe it happened myself. Obviously if that didn't happen he can say whatever he wants about not knowing rape was bad, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

If she has dementia or another severe mental impairment, she cannot consent legally. His belief in her consent would not even be a factor. The only debate would be if he actually had sex with her, not if she consented or if he believed she consented.
I'm sure he did believe she consented, but in that case, he was just wrong.
The only way insanity would come into it is if he was in some kind of impaired state, and unable to stop himself from doing it.

His mental issues would likely come up more during sentencing, though. If his defense is at all competent, he's going to point out that his client is clearly mentally handicapped and might be a better fit for some kind of mental health program than prison.

 

[Jon Osterman]

If she has dementia or another severe mental impairment, she cannot consent legally. His belief in her consent would not even be a factor. The only debate would be if he actually had sex with her, not if she consented or if he believed she consented.
I'm sure he did believe she consented, but in that case, he was just wrong.
The only way insanity would come into it is if he was in some kind of impaired state, and unable to stop himself from doing it.

His mental issues would likely come up more during sentencing, though. If his defense is at all competent, he's going to point out that his client is clearly mentally handicapped and might be a better fit for some kind of mental health program than prison.

First of all Barb was assumedly ruled as able to consent, considering that Chris has yet to be charged with felony rape. If the investigators ruled that Barb did not have the capacity to consent, then his case wouldn't jump to a felony immediately, and it's still only a misdemeanor.
Second of all you didn't at all understand what I said. If Chris' mental disorders made him believe that Barb had consented when she did not and it was all in his head, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he can convince a jury of that. I was not saying that simply him believing Barb consented was enough, and if that was not clear then that was my fault.
Again I don't believe Chris qualifies as criminally insane with the evidence provided. My original post was explaining a scenario in which he could have been found insane, but was only hypothetical and highly unlikely to be the truth.

 

[Dustlord]

First of all Barb was assumedly ruled as able to consent, considering that Chris has yet to be charged with felony rape. If the investigators ruled that Barb did not have the capacity to consent, then his case wouldn't jump to a felony immediately, and it's still only a misdemeanor.
Second of all you didn't at all understand what I said. If Chris' mental disorders made him believe that Barb had consented when she did not and it was all in his head, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if he can convince a jury of that. I was not saying that simply him believing Barb consented was enough, and if that was not clear then that was my fault.
Again I don't believe Chris qualifies as criminally insane with the evidence provided. My original post was explaining a scenario in which he could have been found insane, but was only hypothetical and highly unlikely to be the truth.

I'm arguing against the hypothetical. Obviously he has not been charged with rape, and probably won't be at this point.
Getting back to the hypothetical, I just think that's really pushing it. Unless he was totally detached from reality or not in control of actions, it would be an uphill battle for the defense to pursue that. Its extremely rare for someone to be found not guilty that way, even if they have a documented history of mental illness.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Unless he was totally detached from reality or not in control of actions, it would be an uphill battle for the defense to pursue that. Its extremely rare for someone to be found not guilty that way, even if they have a documented history of mental illness

That's why I added the extra part of convincing the jury. It wouldn't just be a psychiatric evaluation and Chris saying that he believed gave the go-ahead, he would need solid evidence that he truly believed his delusions and that one of them impaired his judgement. If he had said something in the Bella call about it that might help, since that was a private conversation Chris believed wouldn't get leaked, but even then the jury would question that.

 

[AnOminous]

literally what I said

Yeah you sort of did. Sorry. [rates self dumb]

 

[Kyuss]

Somewhat on-topic to the Jail Saga.
So I'd like to see if we can steer the conversation to the intricacies of what Barb has experienced/is experiencing.
Some of the points I'd like to bring up for conversation starters that we can just get out of the way since they are rehashes.
1. If incest is a felony and as far as we know Chris is not charged with any non-consensual violation. Was the possibility of Barb also being charged with incest ever on the table as a consensual action between the two?
2. The details of her current living conditions as far as we know. State of the house. Animals. ETC.
3. How likely is it that Rocky Shoemaker is regularly involved with aid to her.
4. Did Barb have to borrow more money against the house (HELOC) for Chris defense in any way or her own care?
Feel free to speculate, drop answers, or add your own questions.
Don't really feel it justifies its own thread (yet).

 

[Jon Osterman]

1. If incest is a felony and as far as we know Chris is not charged with any non-consensual violation. Was the possibility of Barb also being charged with incest ever on the table as a consensual action between the two?

I believe what's happening is that Barb is not cooperating with the investigators and isn't giving any information. If they wanted to get info out of her they could probably start throwing around the idea of charging her too, but they don't seem to need anything from her and probably don't want to charge an old lady who got porked by her son, even if she agreed.

3. How likely is it that Rocky Shoemaker is regularly involved with aid to her.

The newly restored CWCki (hooray) says Shoemaker retired in 2018, so unless she cares especially about the Chandlers, she's not helping.

4. Did Barb have to borrow more money against the house (HELOC) for Chris defense in any way or her own care?

Despite how much effort he's put into getting Chris a good deal, Heilberg is a public defender, so he's not costing Barb a dime. Her own care I don't know, but I believe she's still at 14bc getting presumably free care from Tom and Harriet

 

[Kyuss]

I believe what's happening is that Barb is not cooperating with the investigators

I agree completely, in fact Chris own defense could have easily talked to her later and explain pleading the fifth. Which at this point is honestly their best route. As for the speculation on not wanting to charge her I've seen this before in older persons who aren't considered a real danger. However it really throws up a viable argument in the case of Chris. If you're not going to charge one it's hard to argue the charge on the other. That or it's a hand-toss and the prosecution/defense/judge have already discussed it behind closed doors and the court proceedings are more for show.
Everyone knows the truth and the defense has just argued we can stop wasting time and cut for the plea deal without jumping through hoops. Unless the DA is really going to hound them everyone will agree to it rather quickly.

Shoemaker retired in 2018

I hate to say it, but I think Shoemaker sadly is in this ride for the long haul. We all know Chris isn't going to let go one of the few people who interacts with him in a completely positive light. As for Shoemaker herself, I think it went beyond work. I'm usually too pragmatic and cynical for being around the religious community. However Rocky in my opinion was actually trying to help beyond just the duties of her community work. I can see her at-least checking in with Barb after she found out.

 

[AnOminous]

1. If incest is a felony and as far as we know Chris is not charged with any non-consensual violation. Was the possibility of Barb also being charged with incest ever on the table as a consensual action between the two?

They're not charging it as nonconsensual, which doesn't mean that it was consensual, just that for whatever reason they aren't charging him with it, either because they can't prove it or out of some prosecutorial discretion. That could be because it actually was consensual, because Barb wasn't cooperating (or is totally gone to the point they can't get useful testimony out of her), or they otherwise just don't have enough of a case to justify it.

It's unusual enough for the adult child to be the one charged, to the point the actual charge reads "INCEST W/OWN CHILD" even though it's the motherfucker being charged. It could have been charged if it were consensual and it usually actually is a parent, although the father is more common.

I think the situation just may be ambiguous enough that she's not all there but not enough to justify a rape charge.

This is pure speculation based on my belief that if she actually were a total gibbering vegetable drooling and shitting herself they would have charged Chris with the more serious offense.

 

[Phalanges Mycologist]

They're not charging it as nonconsensual, which doesn't mean that it was consensual, just that for whatever reason they aren't charging him with it, either because they can't prove it or out of some prosecutorial discretion. That could be because it actually was consensual, because Barb wasn't cooperating (or is totally gone to the point they can't get useful testimony out of her), or they otherwise just don't have enough of a case to justify it.

I honestly think that they know it was non consensual, but they either don't want to cause Barb any more hurt than she already has (small town old lady who's local oaf son diddled her and want to save her the embarrassment) and they also seem to be treating Chris with kid gloves yet again because he's viewed as "Special" be it needs or because of the nature of the case they don't want any more attention being drawn on them than they already have.

I think she's either just given up at this point and just wants it to all just go away so hasn't said more than she needs to, or more likely just isn't capable of co-operating be it through mental decline or some perceived form of shame she has about being known as the old woman who's special needs mentally ill son molested her.

If Chris was slightly more functional as a person they wouldn't be treating him so nice, and he's been infront of the court a few times now and each and every time it's been a escalation of criminal activity, the local Police are well aware of who Chris is and his notoriety online and have quietly filled in the prosecution on the lay of the land and they are thinking OK we have to deal with this now in a more permanent way.

But due to the modern attitude towards mental health, competency and incarceration of the perminatly mentally challenged they can't just toss him into a mental facility for the rest of his life and be done with it and because of the nature of his crime, and well just being him he's not easy to find a tard farm to warehouse him in and even then that might not be as long lasting as they want it to be and any mental health treatment he get's will only be marginally effective at best so just keep him in as long at they can till they can figure something out and the judge quietly agreed and set his next court date a year out to give everyone involved (apart from Chris) a chance to work something out.

 

[Ophelia]

It's unusual enough for the adult child to be the one charged, to the point the actual charge reads "INCEST W/OWN CHILD" even though it's the motherfucker being charged.

Our long lost anchuent crying Cherokee* told us the text of that charge was part of a drop-down menu, so we couldn’t see the whole thing. He assured us that a more accurate charge would be included if we could read the entirety.

*(I’m pretty sure it was him and not another of the lawyer kiwis)