Chris's incest charge is dismissed

[Duke Nukem]

Someone unironically thinks chris is innocent just because the case was dismissed
View attachment 5299860

"Sewing distrust in the judiciary system"

Coming from someone who probably called Clarence Thomas a racial slur after his RvW decision, that's rich.

And all to defend an autistic fatass who fucked his elderly mother because he can't get laid with a woman who isn't a family member like most sane people do.

 

[Bearmumrik]

I'm gonna have to disagree. I think it's much more likely it was not consensual and here's why. Imo, if Barb really wanted it they would have started having sex in 2011 shortly after Bob died. Chris has always been horny, and their inappropriateness predated Bob's death, so why didn't they start soul bonding right after he died? The fact that it didn't happen until nearly 10 years later is very suspicious to me. And then there's Barbs age. While it's not completely unheard of for a 79 year old woman to still be sexually active, most however aren't since that's well after menopause. Imo Chris really lucked out on the charges.

My obvious answer is that Chris didn't fucking want to get close to Barb for years. Being horny is a long way from fucking your mother, and I do not believe Chris would do this on his own honestly. He's a retarded manchild who doesn't know social boundaries, but I don't believe he would "rape" his mother. I believe that years of loneliness and grooming on Barb's end ended up with Chris either responding to or make a countermove on the relationship with Barb, leading to sex.

The saddest and most devastating fact on all of this is if the Barb thing had just been pushed back a few months, it's very likely that Chris would have gotten together with Fiona at the Everfree NW convention, and possibly continued the relationship. Fucking ironic that Chris' overall reputations and fame was increasing in the time before the Barbussy incident, with increasing interest in interviews etc. And even Null was looking at giving him a steady income.

 

[Elaine Benes]

Someone unironically thinks chris is innocent just because the case was dismissed
View attachment 5299860

They can both be true, though. Chris raped his mom, and since he wasn't proven guilty, he's technically innocent according to how our legal system works.

 

[Savage Randy]

Godspeed sweet child.

 

[Übertroon]

My obvious answer is that Chris didn't fucking want to get close to Barb for years. Being horny is a long way from fucking your mother, and I do not believe Chris would do this on his own honestly. He's a retarded manchild who doesn't know social boundaries, but I don't believe he would "rape" his mother. I believe that years of loneliness and grooming on Barb's end ended up with Chris either responding to or make a countermove on the relationship with Barb, leading to sex.

The saddest and most devastating fact on all of this is if the Barb thing had just been pushed back a few months, it's very likely that Chris would have gotten together with Fiona at the Everfree NW convention, and possibly continued the relationship. Fucking ironic that Chris' overall reputations and fame was increasing in the time before the Barbussy incident, with increasing interest in interviews etc. And even Null was looking at giving him a steady income.

95% of autists end up committing rape just before they make it

 

[Marvin]

They can both be true, though. Chris raped his mom, and since he wasn't proven guilty, he's technically innocent according to how our legal system works.

Our legal system doesn't really say that. It doesn't determine guilty vs innocent. It determines proven guilty vs not proven guilty.

The latter isn't the court claiming that the person factually didn't do it, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove they did it. Basically the court doesn't know either way.

 

[Artaius]

Found a really interesting channel that talked about how insane people are treated in lockup and it makes so much sense now as to how Chris got worse after being incarcerated. When troons and psychos get moved in they aren't allowed anywhere near gen pop. So where do they go?

Well it seems like the system in every state really doesn't know what the fuck to do with not only Chris, but every borderline schizophrenic in general. Preferring to just take them into what is described as "The Hole" by inmates. Which is basically four concrete walls, no windows, and all your meals get delivered through a slot in the door that they also lock off. This is meant to be a punishment for violent offending inmates but people like Chris? They just don't know where else to keep someone like that. There's nicer facilities with better methods which explains why Chris got transferred that one time. But there's no long term solution and every day they keep someone in there like that it's just costing time and money. Think about it. You got a whole correctional institution to run and you are on a shoestring budget because the state keeps threatening to dock funding over stupid shit. Do you really have time to dedicate resources to one autistic schizo out of hundreds of other offenders?

Conclusion: State didn't want to deal with Chris. He is too tardy for trial and too tardy facilitate.

 

[Depressed_Oni]

Chris Chan is the autistic equivalent to OJ Simpson holy shit. How does he do it?

 

[Pedophobe]

Our legal system doesn't really say that. It doesn't determine guilty vs innocent. It determines proven guilty vs not proven guilty.

The latter isn't the court claiming that the person factually didn't do it, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove they did it. Basically the court doesn't know either way.

And in this case they're not even claiming that, only that it's not "necessary" for Chris to be prosecuted.

 

[Lancelot]

Our legal system doesn't really say that. It doesn't determine guilty vs innocent. It determines proven guilty vs not proven guilty.

The latter isn't the court claiming that the person factually didn't do it, just that there wasn't enough evidence to prove they did it. Basically the court doesn't know either way.

"the presumption of innocence is a guiding principle in criminal trials and a foundational standard for the assessment of the evidence."
The american legal system is founded on the idea that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its the foundation of the american legal system., a system where the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. Now we all know that sometimes guilty people go free but the foundation of the system is the belief that in the eyes of the law someone is INNOCENT till proven guilty.

 

[Marvin]

"the presumption of innocence is a guiding principle in criminal trials and a foundational standard for the assessment of the evidence."
The american legal system is founded on the idea that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Its the foundation of the american legal system., a system where the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. Now we all know that sometimes guilty people go free but the foundation of the system is the belief that in the eyes of the law someone is INNOCENT till proven guilty.

That's really more of an informal use of the word "innocent" in that context. Not a technical, legal use of the word.

So for example, someone acquitted of incest couldn't necessarily argue their acquittal is absolute proof that calling them a motherfucker is false and defamation. The court that acquitted them doesn't claim to know that the accused is factually innocent; the court doesn't claim to know they factually didn't do it.

The court only claims to find them "not guilty", that there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty.

 

[Rain Team Pepe]

"the presumption of innocence is a guiding principle in criminal trials and a foundational standard for the assessment of the evidence."
The american legal system is founded on the idea that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Chris did admit to doing the act in a conversation that was recorded. Not that he's a reliable source most of the time*.

Innocent by his own admission isn't on the table.

Spoiler: *

All the Ween calls forcing him to say specific things. All the dumb stuff Chris says on his own that isn't true.
Dimensional Merge, Magichan etc.

Edit: to clarify.
I also know everyone knows about the recording but for the future farmers.

 

[Lancelot]

Chris did admit to doing the act in a conversation that was recorded. Not that he's a reliable source most of the time*.

Innocent by his own admission isn't on the table.

Spoiler: *

All the Ween calls forcing him to say specific things. All the dumb stuff Chris says on his own that isn't true.
Dimensional Merge, Magichan etc.

Edit: to clarify.
I also know everyone knows about the recording but for the future farmers.

I’m not sure your point. People can be innocent of crimes they claimed to have done. That also doesn’t change the truth regarding innocence until proven guilt being the core of the American adversarial legal system

Th

That's really more of an informal use of the word "innocent" in that context. Not a technical, legal use of the word.

So for example, someone acquitted of incest couldn't necessarily argue their acquittal is absolute proof that calling them a motherfucker is false and defamation. The court that acquitted them doesn't claim to know that the accused is factually innocent; the court doesn't claim to know they factually didn't do it.

The court only claims to find them "not guilty", that there wasn't enough evidence to find them guilty.

That’s actually false.

1. Motherfucker is a generalized term commonly used against people as an insult who you aren’t claiming actually fucked their own mother

2. If you are literally saying someone is a murderer even after they are found not guilty in a court of law you absolutely can be hit with a defamation lawsuit . Murder is a legal distinction and the trial where you are found not guilty is going to be brought in as evidence. This was brought up after the rittenhouse trial as well

My obvious answer is that Chris didn't fucking want to get close to Barb for years. Being horny is a long way from fucking your mother, and I do not believe Chris would do this on his own honestly. He's a retarded manchild who doesn't know social boundaries, but I don't believe he would "rape" his mother. I believe that years of loneliness and grooming on Barb's end ended up with Chris either responding to or make a countermove on the relationship with Barb, leading to sex.

The saddest and most devastating fact on all of this is if the Barb thing had just been pushed back a few months, it's very likely that Chris would have gotten together with Fiona at the Everfree NW convention, and possibly continued the relationship. Fucking ironic that Chris' overall reputations and fame was increasing in the time before the Barbussy incident, with increasing interest in interviews etc. And even Null was looking at giving him a steady income.

Wait till Chris realizes many of his conventions will have him on banned list now

 

[Optimus Prime]

The saddest and most devastating fact on all of this is if the Barb thing had just been pushed back a few months, it's very likely that Chris would have gotten together with Fiona at the Everfree NW convention, and possibly continued the relationship. Fucking ironic that Chris' overall reputations and fame was increasing in the time before the Barbussy incident, with increasing interest in interviews etc. And even Null was looking at giving him a steady income.

Just goes to show that while Chris somehow remains the teflon tard because this whole legal shitshow ultimately is getting dropped, he also remains his greatest enemy because as he has proven time and again he will fuck himself over for short term gain over long term benefits. He even seemed smug about the whole affair, since he mentioned his relationship with an 'older woman' to Null maybe a month before it all came out into the open. It's when Chris thinks he's being the smart one, taking everything for granted and usually at face value, that he will end up losing everything.

 

[BPD Gunt Rider]

My obvious answer is that Chris didn't fucking want to get close to Barb for years. Being horny is a long way from fucking your mother, and I do not believe Chris would do this on his own honestly. He's a retarded manchild who doesn't know social boundaries, but I don't believe he would "rape" his mother. I believe that years of loneliness and grooming on Barb's end ended up with Chris either responding to or make a countermove on the relationship with Barb, leading to sex.

Chris admitted to dreaming about fucking Barb soon after Bob died, and he had way too much knowledge and interest in Barb's sexual past. I think he wanted to for a long time, and we know about the spooning and inappropriate public touching.

As far as people assuming Chris raped Barb... I think people are seeing Barb as your common old lady, or like their mother (God, I hope yours wasn't, I'm sorry if so). Barb was a terrible, abusive, manipulative mother and that's just from things we know.

Like someone said in this thread, Chris and Barb are both scum and sideshows for us to gawk, laugh at, and attempt understanding their unusual ways.

 

[Marvin]

Th

That’s actually false.

1. Motherfucker is a generalized term commonly used against people as an insult who you aren’t claiming actually fucked their own mother

2. If you are literally saying someone is a murderer even after they are found not guilty in a court of law you absolutely can be hit with a defamation lawsuit . Murder is a legal distinction and the trial where you are found not guilty is going to be brought in as evidence. This was brought up after the rittenhouse trial as well

I did mean accusing someone literally of fucking their mother. You can do that despite an acquittal.

It doesn't mean anything that someone can file a defamation lawsuit against someone else. They can do that even with a guilty verdict, they'll just lose. And they still might lose with an acquittal.

Yes, an acquittal can be brought up as evidence in a defamation lawsuit, but it isn't a final trump card in that lawsuit.

The reason being, criminal cases need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for defamation involves knowingly publishing false statements about someone (and actually the standard for defamation is higher for internet nobodies like Chris). Or being completely reckless with the truth, ie making no attempt to provide reasonable evidence for the statements.

An acquitting jury is only claiming "based on the evidence available, we have a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime".

It's totally legal for me to say that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. The only thing his jury said was that they had a reasonable doubt that he did that.

If he wanted to sue me for libel, he couldn't claim that I'm knowingly publishing false claims about him just because his jury said they had "reasonable doubts" that he did it.

Until I violate the much stricter standard of "knowingly publishing false statements", I have a first amendment right to disagree with those reasonable doubts and to discuss them publicly.

In fact, he was sued and held civilly responsible for those deaths despite the criminal acquittal.

 

[Brutality]

There must be some unknown law of the universe that deflects all consequences away from him. I thought for sure he'd be committed

 

[Lancelot]

I did mean accusing someone literally of fucking their mother. You can do that despite an acquittal.

It doesn't mean anything that someone can file a defamation lawsuit against someone else. They can do that even with a guilty verdict, they'll just lose. And they still might lose with an acquittal.

Yes, an acquittal can be brought up as evidence in a defamation lawsuit, but it isn't a final trump card in that lawsuit.

The reason being, criminal cases need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for defamation involves knowingly publishing false statements about someone (and actually the standard for defamation is higher for internet nobodies like Chris). Or being completely reckless with the truth, ie making no attempt to provide reasonable evidence for the statements.

An acquitting jury is only claiming "based on the evidence available, we have a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime".

It's totally legal for me to say that OJ Simpson murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. The only thing his jury said was that they had a reasonable doubt that he did that.

If he wanted to sue me for libel, he couldn't claim that I'm knowingly publishing false claims about him just because his jury said they had "reasonable doubts" that he did it.

Until I violate the much stricter standard of "knowingly publishing false statements", I have a first amendment right to disagree with those reasonable doubts and to discuss them publicly.

In fact, he was sued and held civilly responsible for those deaths despite the criminal acquittal.

Again you are conflating different aspects of law and going back and forth between different legal standards within criminal law and then between civil and criminal law .

First you compare Chris chan to OJ , ignoring that oj is a public figure and Chris chan isn’t ( or may or may not be ) before then admitting that the standards for public figures are far more lax than for private individuals. Even still after this you proceed to continue to the civil case against OJ .

I don’t know why you acknowledge the issue with the comparison and then continue to hedge your bets on that conparison.

1. Defamation is a high standard to reach. I just pointed out that you absolutely can be slapped with a defamation lawsuit over such a scenario which is undeniably true and you have admitted as such

2: civil liability does not = guilt . Hence why someone found not guilty in a criminal case can still be civilly liable

Here my issue is this

Our legal system doesn't really say that. It doesn't determine guilty vs innocent. It determines proven guilty vs not proven guilty.

This was your original claim. My issue with it is that it’s an inversion of how courts work. The court doesn’t claim not guilty proves innocence because the outset presumption legally is innocence. You have this hang up that a not guilty verdict can’t prove innocence but that claim sidesteps the legal reality that the outset presumption is innocence .

Hence

“A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty.”

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Again this was over two years is the thing. As I recall there was a bunch of letters shortly into incarceration. Then chris got dragged into loony bin for like half a year. He came back out followed by a couple of low energy letters reiterating jesus talk.
Then very nearly nothing. It was assumed that his ability to send and recieve letters had been harshly curtailed but the relative silence has continued since his release.

Its also not just the cutting off but the combination of things. We dont know the timeline of his medications and its important to realise that if some of his medications have had impact on his lucidity that would in term cause him to evaluate his situation differently. Imagine coming out of a coom daze and realising you have been in jail for 2 years for fuckin your mum lol

He was sent there because he was mentally incompetent to stand trial...that's really, really far gone.

I don't think anybody can call two years in jail "getting away with it" - he would have basically served that sentence if convicted. All this really did was help him dodge an RSO requirement which would guarantee homelessness.

 

[AnOminous]

2. If you are literally saying someone is a murderer even after they are found not guilty in a court of law you absolutely can be hit with a defamation lawsuit .

And if it’s OJ he’ll lose because there’s a reasonable basis for saying it notwithstanding a not guilty verdict.

Chris is a motherfucker who fucked his mother.