Chris court appearance

[AnOminous]

It's all hugely prejudicial and there's plenty of previous instances of OPL getting so wrapped up in troll attempts even to his detriment in the past that an easy defence is "he made it up to please her."

If they did a rape kit on Barb and Chris's jizz was in her, there was other physical evidence of rape, etc., it's pretty hard to say it was just made up. There are a few issues. Hearsay, because these are out of court statements used to prove the truth of what Chris said out of court, but it probably falls under the adverse admission exception, and Chris is actually in court to rebut the evidence if he chooses, and if Chris actually does choose to testify and denies he did what he admitted to, it would be a prior inconsistent statement.

Since it probably is admissible, it is up to the court to decide whether it's more prejudicial than probative. It is hugely both. However if there's also physical evidence, that context makes it much more probative than prejudicial, because the physical evidence would speak for itself and overshadow any potential prejudice. If there is zero physical evidence, though, and Barb claims it never happened, then I could see excluding it based on prejudice.

In any event, what Chris described would very likely lead to physical evidence, so the lack of physical evidence would be strongly suggestive it was in fact made up. And if Barb gets cold feet and refuses to testify or actually testifies on behalf of Chris, something that happens fairly often in domestic cases, that really nukes the prosecution's case.

I'd say though that barring such unlikely events, the audio will be admitted, if a chain of custody is established, at least.

If Queen Ween ends up in legal trouble in Texas for the other crimes she committed, it's possible the agencies cooperate and cut her some kind of bullshit plea in return for confirming the legitimacy of the chats (and providing the rest of them) and testifying. It's pretty unusual for that to happen but so is the entirety of this situation.

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

Colin Stagg. I just remembered. That was the big one here and once the judge threw out on the basis of entrapment there was nothing left because everything including his confession came from those interactions but once it had all been declared verboten the prosecution couldn't even refer to it and they had nothing else; the entire case was built on that foundation so it was all inadmissable. And seems the bloke didn't actually kill her either. Oops.

Ehm, the difference is that Chris wasn't arrested on the basis of those recordings alone, otherwise he would be in jail without any PO. If they had found nothing on Barb, he would be back in 14BC two days ago. It seems that either they found evidence of Barb having sex with someone or outright pointing out that it was Chris or she isn't completely senile and admitted to having sex with Chris. Otherwise there would be no case.

 

[AnOminous]

If Chris confessed that would have to be watertight, and confessions are notoriously dodgy anyway. Barb may not be competent (or even remember) so, dependent on the laws pertaining to entrapment and the prejudicial nature of that, confessions and anything stemming from, it's not difficult to see a scenario where once the central pillar is toppled there's nothing left.

For the exclusionary rule to apply, the misconduct has to be by the police. So for instance if your landlord went into your apartment and found contraband there, even if he was illegally there, and he turned it over to the police, it would still be admissible.

It could still be thrown out for other reasons, like if it can't be proven it's legitimate. The fact that what we have is incomplete also casts its reliability into question. For all we know, the parts not posted to the Internet are her coaching him to make this shit up or even giving him a script to read.

Ehm, the difference is that Chris wasn't arrested on the basis of those recordings alone, otherwise he would be in jail without any PO. If they had found nothing on Barb, he would be back in 14BC two days ago. It seems that either they found evidence of Barb having sex with someone or outright pointing out that it was Chris or she isn't completely senile and admitted to having sex with Chris. Otherwise there would be no case.

If there's physical evidence and Barb says it happened, that could really moot the issue of the audio recording since it becomes pretty open and shut with that. Even if Barb is a complete gibbering vegetable but there's physical evidence, the audio might not matter.

I recall in Nick Bate's case, there was a lot of damning stuff on the Internet the prosecution didn't even bother entering. They just had such a solid case there wasn't any point running off into the weeds.

 

[BurningPewter]

Anyone here ever rode out a prison sentence? I'm objectively curious about whether a nasty chud of a person like Chris would actually be targeted by prison rapists. I imagine that if they have any standards at all, they're gonna be low, but I also expect that Chris would fall well below their range of "acceptable hygiene". Imagine peeling Chris' MLP special edition panties down his shit-caked square ass and seeing the fudge stripes peel downward like some abominable adhesive from hell. I can't imagine anyone maintaining an erection.

tl;dr- is it even possible to prison-rape Chris due to his inordinately low standard of hygiene?

as well as what Chaotic said, someone else mentioned that most outside of hard lifers just want to get through their sentence without any trouble, a middle class sex offender guy doing a few years for getting caught with an underage rent boy isn't gonna double his sentence for the chance to rape Chris

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

For the exclusionary rule to apply, the misconduct has to be by the police. So for instance if your landlord went into your apartment and found contraband there, even if he was illegally there, and he turned it over to the police, it would still be admissible.

It could still be thrown out for other reasons, like if it can't be proven it's legitimate. The fact that what we have is incomplete also casts its reliability into question. For all we know, the parts not posted to the Internet are her coaching him to make this shit up or even giving him a script to read.

Overall, just based on everything you've seen, how strong of a case does the prosecution have against Chris?

 

[Nobody Important]

I'll put the over/under at 18 months, minus time served and good time credits, if Chris ever manages to earn any.

 

[Slick]

For the exclusionary rule to apply, the misconduct has to be by the police. So for instance if your landlord went into your apartment and found contraband there, even if he was illegally there, and he turned it over to the police, it would still be admissible.

It could still be thrown out for other reasons, like if it can't be proven it's legitimate. The fact that what we have is incomplete also casts its reliability into question. For all we know, the parts not posted to the Internet are her coaching him to make this shit up or even giving him a script to read.

If there's physical evidence and Barb says it happened, that could really moot the issue of the audio recording since it becomes pretty open and shut with that. Even if Barb is a complete gibbering vegetable but there's physical evidence, the audio might not matter.

I recall in Nick Bate's case, there was a lot of damning stuff on the Internet the prosecution didn't even bother entering. They just had such a solid case there wasn't any point running off into the weeds.

You're right, we cant assume the courts are gonna play as fast and loose as some of us would imagine. However, given how his trial is going, I think Chris has a real chance of being found in contempt of court

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

If there's physical evidence and Barb says it happened, that could really moot the issue of the audio recording since it becomes pretty open and shut with that. Even if Barb is a complete gibbering vegetable but there's physical evidence, the audio might not matter.

That's the problem, since Chris claimed to use condoms. That way without her admission they have to prove that it was Chris actually having sex with her, right?

I recall in Nick Bate's case, there was a lot of damning stuff on the Internet the prosecution didn't even bother entering. They just had such a solid case there wasn't any point running off into the weeds.

IRC they had victim's testimony and... Nick's tape where he "proved" that he couldn't be a pedo under any circumstances.

 

[ChaoticNeutral]

Autism is a spectrum and Chris has always claimed to be 'high functioning'.

He may not be speechless in a diaper, but compared to some bona fide Aspies I know, he ain't much better than a 5 out of 10.

 

[Slick]

That's the problem, since Chris claimed to use condoms. That way without her admission they have to prove that it was Chris actually having sex with her, right?


IRC they had victim's testimony and... Nick's tape where he "proved" that he couldn't be a pedo under any circumstances.

Could medical examination reveal anything on a woman that old? especially a woman who's given birth?

 

[Ser Ciappelletto]

I don

How much you wanna bet Chris already all but confessed? He's really not that smart and the cops are pros. Hell, all they'll have to do as ask "so you raped your mom huh?" and he'll probably say it was consensual, in effect admitting to it. Chris is not smart enough to keep his mouth shut. Poor lawyer has his work cut out for him, indeed.

I don't think he even realized he commited a crime. That is part of his problem.

 

[Cure Milquetoast]

That's the problem, since Chris claimed to use condoms. That way without her admission they have to prove that it was Chris actually having sex with her, right?

I guess at that point, we would have to look at Chris's cleanliness and willingness to throw away garbage.

 

[Ser Ciappelletto]

He may not be speechless in a diaper, but compared to some bona fide Aspies I know, he ain't much better than a 5 out of 10.

In Chris's time, Aspergers and Autism were different, unrelated diagnoses. Autism was the term specifically for children with cognitive delay. That is wjy he was given the term "High functioning Autistic." He has cognitive delay but not to the extent that actual low functioning autistics are at.

 

[ChaoticNeutral]

Could medical examination reveal anything on a woman that old? especially a woman who's given birth?

The gruesome truth is that rubber or not, old skin tears easy. An examiner will know if they see signs of shenanigans.

 

[Juan But Not Forgotten]

Could medical examination reveal anything on a woman that old? especially a woman who's given birth?

Yes. Barb is old, her tissues are frail and thin, so it's easier to leave a mark. Even without that, if a woman has a regular sex life gynecologist can usually tell it and, let's be honest, Barb is not in a condition to have one. Also, considering all the stuff that Chris claimed to have done to her, which may or may not be true, there is bound to be physical evidence. However, I am not sure that it can be contributed to Chris, because, like I've said, he claimed to be using condoms.

I guess at that point, we would have to look at Chris's cleanliness and willingness to throw away garbage.

Yeah, it all depends on that if there is no other evidence. I am already feeling bad for the guys who have to or already had to traverse their hoard.

 

[shubniggurath]

Could medical examination reveal anything on a woman that old? especially a woman who's given birth?

yep, if hes been doing it as much as he says there will b some tearing in her vaginal walls due to her being nigh on ancient.

 

[ThickRichard]

Yeah, it all depends on that if there is no other evidence. I am already feeling bad for the guys who have to or already had to traverse their hoard.

I feel worse for the guys who have to traverse Barb to look for remnants of Chris.

 

[sibling issues]

yep, if hes been doing it as much as he says there will b some tearing in her vaginal walls due to her being nigh on ancient.

also let's be honest Chris lies...there has to be semen in there

 

[1guy1drill]

As far as whether Chris used condoms or not, it won't matter when it quickly becomes evident that the residence never receives visitors and there's evidence of penetration. With or without DNA, it'll be damning enough to convict, I bet.

 

[shubniggurath]

also let's be honest Chris lies...there has to be semen in there

i dunno about that, he might be saying it because he knows he might get caught
or hes doing that to prevent her getting pregnant (??) or he knows shes old as fuck and wont be self lubricating because i think thats stops after the menopause