Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

[NIA-DOA 2.0]

Call me an optimist, but I think if there is any depiction of minors it is in the form of hentai. Would it be disgusting? Absolutely! Could he be charged? Possibly with obscenity charges. But I can't see him going for IRL cheese pizza only because of his fascination and ideation of adult women.

 

[Calamari Cock Ring]

First time poster, please be kind etc. etc., thread was well-written and interesting enough that I had to make an account because I have a question concerning an angle I haven’t seen addressed yet. It skews a little philosophical and I’m curious to know what (if any) impact it would have on the legal proceedings, both for the prosecution and for the defense.

I’ve been following this shitshow for over a decade and something that always struck me about our autistic hero is that he has, to put it extremely delicately, a colorful relationship with the truth. Way before the Merge, way before the tomgirl shit, and even absent the fact that he's a compulsive liar with a massive ego he'll say anything to protect, there is something deeply and inherently flawed with his understanding of both what truth is and how it works. The best example I can remember off the top of my head is on the Chris and Autism page of the cwcki, which I screencapped to save everyone the trouble of trying to get the page to load [highlighting mine]:

I don’t know how else to explain this, except that it reads to me as though Chris views “truth” as a relational property similar to “consent”: specifically, that it can be granted or revoked. To use the example cited above, Chris sends Clyde a video of him smashing up his PS3. This video has the property “truth,” because Chris has bestowed that property on it (in his divine benevolence, of course). However, this property is conditional: the video is “true” only so long as Clyde does not show it to anyone else. If Clyde breaks this condition, then the video- in Chris’s mind- loses the property of “truth” and is no longer True or Honest™. As I said, this is the only example I can cite off the top of my head at the moment but I am absolutely certain this isn’t the only time he’s demonstrated this particular understanding of what truth fundamentally is and how it interacts with reality.

I bring this all up because I cannot help but think the exact same thing is going to happen with the texts and calls. Assuming for the sake of argument that all this evidence is completely genuine, I see it like this: Chris sends a bunch of graphic texts about getting his fingers chalked up on Barb’s dusty crumbling bits, but does so “On the Strictly Confidential just between you and I.” The recipient leaks them, Chris revokes his consent to have them read endorsement of truth, ergo the messages are not true anymore. Chris messages a confession to Dillin, but tells him not to screencap or share it. Dillin does both, Chris acts like it’s some kind of test that Dillin’s failed, revokes the property of “truth,” thus the confession is no longer true. I didn’t listen to the uncut version of the Bella call because if I had to sit through 10+ minutes of Chris describing how he plowed his meemaw’s barren crotchfruit fields I’d follow it up with a nap on a railroad track, but I’d be willing to bet the exact same thing applied: at some point he’d have given some indication that the details of this call were STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL, and thus, if leaked, they would cease to be true.

Now while I absolutely agree that there is a 100% chance that Chris would, with or without provocation/being asked directly, spew verbal diarrhea at (and utterly incriminate himself to) the first person who walks into a room with him, I have to wonder. If an investigator gets that subpoena for the digital records etc. and says to him “Look at these texts, that you sent, from your phone, confessing to this thing we are asking about,” given this past behavior I feel very confidently that Chris would say “those are not true.” He might not deny having sent the messages/made the calls, but would absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, deny that the content of those messages/calls was in any way true: this, not because the deeds did not occur (which he may well end up incriminating himself on anyway and/or evidence may be discovered that corroborates the allegations), but because the property of truth was conditional and he has revoked it. And if he absolutely insists that the evidence is untrue, and then comes to the conclusion that any charges stemming from these pieces of evidence must be unjust by the virtue OF being based on something untrue, I don’t see it being entirely unlikely that he’d refuse a plea bargain and insist on a trial.

How the FUCK do you approach that kind of thing in court?

 

[A Grey Cat]

The thing is if Chris did make some... "Personal" drawings of zapina rosechu over the years or download sailor moon pics off rule 34 hell he could have every shädbase drawing the guy made and it will be inadmissible as cp or evidence.

We live in a (clown) world where big mouth can run on Netflix showing naked minors so long as they don't resemble human beings. They can't do jack shit unless photos or videos of living humans who are clearly or at least could potentially be underaged.

 

[Coleslaw]

seperate sovereigns doctrine

Is this an exception to double jeopardy?

 

[failson-lawguy]

Is this an exception to double jeopardy?

yes, sort of. Because the state and the federal government are technically two seperate entities, if you commit a crime that counts both as a state and federal crime, both can charge you. This is fairly rare, but it does completely wipe out the standard of double jeopardy in charging the same offense twice because you're being charged with one offense by two seperate entities.

 

[Coleslaw]

yes, sort of. Because the state and the federal government are technically two seperate entities, if you commit a crime that counts both as a state and federal crime, both can charge you. This is fairly rare, but it does completely wipe out the standard of double jeopardy in charging the same offense twice because you're being charged with one offense by two seperate entities.

So that's why they were planning to indict Derek Chauvin federally if he had been acquitted in the state trial?

 

[Vaclav]

How the FUCK do you approach that kind of thing in court?

You make a good point, and moreover I want to ask legal Kiwis: if Barb says Chris didn't do it, and she's found to be of reasonably sound mind, what are the chances of the state wanting to prosecute him?

Without an accusation from Barb, the incest/rape case seems very shaky to me. Unless there's physical evidence, the only proof for it is Chris's words, and how much stock can you put in anything he says?

Now, I strongly suspect he did it, through knowledge of his history and a reading of his messages, including the strange brags to Null. But prosecutors aren't going to spend years researching him like Kiwis have. His defense can say that people are pressuring him to confess to crimes that he didn't commit and that he's a victim of stalking and harassment by people, the recent video by the guy who stole Chris's license plate and shot the car up with BBs proves that there are people who get their kicks harassing him. Combine that with the trans Teflon and I could see the state just wanting the case to go away.

Chris could even claim that the messages, if not the phone call, are forged by trolls. If they search his computer and confirm the messages that defense is out the window. The theft charge could also be tricky because Barb has apparently dipped into Chris's money quite a bit, so the issue of theft could be very murky.

The main thing I see it hinging in Barb's testimony. If she says he did nothing and she's not totally senile, the prosecution could be tough. Or will the textual evidence hold up better than I think?

 

[Coleslaw]

This is one of the big frustrations public defenders have to deal with in their job, even with people who don't have imaginary friends.

Sequence of events usually goes like: Prosecutor gives good offer.
PD conveys to client, recommends accepting.
Client speaks to fellow guests in the jail.
Jailhouse lawyer convinces Client they shouldn't take the deal because they're gonna get off at trial/if their lawyer files the right motion.
Client wants to believe what they hear.
Client tells their actual lawyer "Nah bro we ain't taking this shit you ain't trying to help me. You just tryna fuck me. My buddy downstairs says they can't even prosecute me for this because my girl already filed to drop the charges and if she wants the charges dropped me being on bodycam beating the shit out of her and threatening to kill her doesn't matter. You gotta fight harder for me man..file a motion or some shit."


This is basically the key part. We know that in today's day and age the jury can just go home and google stuff. If they have had some exposure to a case we ask them if it will affect their ability to be fair. Also as was mentioned you'd be amazed how many people don't know even big news in their area.

As an interesting side note, this is the complete opposite of the original point of the jury which was that they /would/ know everybody involved and their reputations, credibility, etc.



Except that criminal restitution as a condition of probation is very different from a civil judgment, because I can revoke your probation and throw you in prison for not paying your fifty dollar a month payment plan.

Chris is definitely civil judgment proof though.

Then what's the reason for having a jury be from an area?

 

[debordwasright]

Then what's the reason for having a jury be from an area?

because the 6th amendment says so

 

[Soda Can]

So it's actually surprisingly difficult to force someone into involuntary mental treatment.

I work in elder care and have some experience in this area. Not a lawyer, not legal advice, blah blah.
This is idiotically simplified and the actual legal work in play here is much larger, but these are the basic steps.

The process to declaring someone incompetent, unstable or otherwise a danger to themselves is slightly different from state to state, with some states taking the safer route and detaining the reported person for safety reasons when the paperwork is submitted. Bare in mind most of my experience is with elders, people really need someone to speak for them cause they can't do it for themselves. Normally happens in this order:

1. File for guardianship/protection/commitment to a facility/long detainment (this normally means a jailcell). Anyone can file this. And I mean anyone, your neighbor could do it and create a legal nightmare, but that's another story.

2. Lawyer gets involved. Any lawyer who specializes in this will want to speak with the accused person first. In cases I've seen, adult protection won't take the case or pass the buck on to the state if the assigned lawyer decides the person is probably not going to qualify as 'can't wipe his own ass'. It's common for a lawyer who's only in it for the paycheck to just toss out a 'no' and move on.

3. Psychiatric evaluation is done. The court will request one be done if it gets to this step, but you can request it yourself during steps 1 and 2. Some lawyers suggest requesting it ahead of time, as it shows a presence of mind that someone incompetent or in need of medical protection wouldn't otherwise show, but check your specific states regulations to be safe. I've found that most psychiatrists err on the side of caution and just say 'yep, buddy needs help'. If they say buddy is fine and it turns out that was wrong, liability insurance isn't cheap.

4. Submit everything to the court. Courts tend to not be wishy washy about this stuff, either it's been proven that buddy needs help or it hasn't.

5. Attend a hearing where a judge will decide if the case has been proven. With elders, it very rarely gets to this step. Normally by step 4 its obvious which way things are going and that'll be that. If it does get to this step, it's all down to why the judge felt he/she needed to see buddy and how close it is to lunch time.

In my experience APS is really not helpful. Due to how liability works, they'll stomp in, kick everyone out, get court orders baring family/friends and assign a care giver to buddy. By care giver I mean someone who is payed $600+ dollars a day out of buddies pocket to make a couple meals and do some light shopping.

 

[Fapcop]

You make a good point, and moreover I want to ask legal Kiwis: if Barb says Chris didn't do it, and she's found to be of reasonably sound mind, what are the chances of the state wanting to prosecute him?

Without an accusation from Barb, the incest/rape case seems very shaky to me. Unless there's physical evidence, the only proof for it is Chris's words, and how much stock can you put in anything he says?

Now, I strongly suspect he did it, through knowledge of his history and a reading of his messages, including the strange brags to Null. But prosecutors aren't going to spend years researching him like Kiwis have. His defense can say that people are pressuring him to confess to crimes that he didn't commit and that he's a victim of stalking and harassment by people, the recent video by the guy who stole Chris's license plate and shot the car up with BBs proves that there are people who get their kicks harassing him. Combine that with the trans Teflon and I could see the state just wanting the case to go away.

Chris could even claim that the messages, if not the phone call, are forged by trolls. If they search his computer and confirm the messages that defense is out the window. The theft charge could also be tricky because Barb has apparently dipped into Chris's money quite a bit, so the issue of theft could be very murky.

The main thing I see it hinging in Barb's testimony. If she says he did nothing and she's not totally senile, the prosecution could be tough. Or will the textual evidence hold up better than I think?

This really isn’t a case that any prosecutor would be super eager to spend their time and resources on. Even aside from Chris’s tranny/tard Teflon card.

It’s a complicated case that would quickly involve expensive experts even before they’d had to haul in computer forensics experts.

If Barb says he didn’t do it, that’s basically it.

No prosecutor is going to waste significant resources on it, especially when the case in the public eye could quickly turn from “Prosecutor nabs local sickfuck”

to

“Prosecutor tries to put 80 year old woman and autistic transdaughter in jail because they’re eccentric.”

How about if Barb is found to be senile/have some degree of dementia and says Chris didn’t do it?

Again: Goodbye case, hello slap on the wrist plea bargain (most likely), or case dropped. (Less likely.)

Just because Barb has some degree of dementia, it obviously doesn’t mean that she’s isn’t telling the truth about no diddling.

In that case, the prosecutor would have to prove that she’s so senile that her testimony is worthless, which means lots of time and money and risking the entire case on which expert the jury believes.


What if Barb is found to be senile and there is physical evidence? (As in: Her cooch shows signs of breaking and entering)

Ironically that makes the prosecutors case even more problematic. If Barb is found to be totally gone, can you prove that she didn’t stick something herself up there?

Well no, you can’t. (Hello dueling, expensive expert witnesses!)

Basically anything that gives Chris some reasonable doubt, increases the prosecutors motivation for getting rid of the case as fast and as easily as possible.


(Of course, all of this is mostly hypothetical, since Chris is a dumbass, and most likely talked himself into doing hard time during interviews with police.)

 

[AnOminous]

Now if they find something else, charge him with aggravated elder abuse, or locate something completely unexpected? All bets are off.

I agree with everything including this. That is the definite wild card, that we get some psychotically aggressive prosecutor who decides to go at this in a completely unhinged manner.

You make a good point, and moreover I want to ask legal Kiwis: if Barb says Chris didn't do it, and she's found to be of reasonably sound mind, what are the chances of the state wanting to prosecute him?

Unless you have some kind of separate proof, what do you do when the victim refuses to testify? Good luck getting twelve people to agree unanimously that someone did some shit if the supposed victim says nope, didn't happen.

 

[slopbot]

To step in on an element I actually have experience with, I've dealt with forensic software/hardware during my stint in computer consulting. Basically most of them work by either plugging into the device or taking the drives out and plugging the drives into your forensic equipment. It then mirrors the drives onto duplicate partitions, so even if someone got cute with a 'wipe my drive if I don't put in the right password' setup, it doesn't matter since they have an image of the entire drive that can be reloaded at will. It then proceeds to ream the shit out of the drive and vacuum out anything and everything of possible interest. Emails, documents, images, it grabs everything and dumps it all in a collection for later browsing.
So "will they search Chris's computer for CP" is not really what'll happen. The forensic software will be snatching out anything that might be relevant, and if there's CP in the mix, the person operating the software will certainly notice it after a couple seconds of flipping through any pictures it found. They don't need to be going in to specifically find CP.

Further to that (unsure about the US but I'd be surprised if where I live does this and the US doesn't) there are law enforcement databases where millions of known CP images have already been viewed and hashed, so all images found on the device can be run through software to detect possible CP rather than someone needing to manually search for them.

 

[break these cuffs]

Further to that (unsure about the US but I'd be surprised if where I live does this and the US doesn't) there are law enforcement databases where millions of known CP images have already been viewed and hashed, so all images found on the device can be run through software to detect possible CP rather than someone needing to manually search for them.

The Justice Department maintains the largest database of cheese pizza in the world and it uses some kind of image matching software.

 

[Fapcop]

The Justice Department maintains the largest database of cheese pizza in the world and it uses some kind of image matching software.

Sounds like a pretty cool heist film. Tbh.

A group of lovable, pedophile outcasts and ex-cons, each with their particular specialty and skill, team up in order to do the greatest pedo heist in history and copy the Justice Departments CP database.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

If Barb says he didn’t do it, that’s basically it.

If Barb says that Chris dindu nuffin, and if Barb is in her right mind, then we’ll know tomorrow. The EPO expires on that date, and if Barb’s all right then she’ll either return home or she’ll be charged with incest and booked into CVRJ right along with Chris.

 

[TheBigZee]

The process for involuntary psychiatric treatment is different in almost every state. Presumed threat to self or others is the universal standard. Involuntary treatment is rare, mostly because criminal diversions for the mentally ill are considered voluntary. The untreated mentally ill usually wind up in front of a judge sooner or later. If someone is way out of it, they'll be treated involuntarily just long enough to get them to where they can understand the charges, the diversion program, and that they will have to comply with treatment. They'll be admitted into an outpatient program, typically put on a long acting injectible medication to ensure compliance, and be required to do so many therapy groups. If they fuck it up, the prosecutor usually has options for how to proceed.

In my locale, people with severe bipolar/schizophrenia are given a *lot* of chances under these programs, and generally have to be willfully and consciously noncompliant to fail them and wind up in prison. Police typically take people that are on these diversions directly to a locked ward with a pathway to the state hospitals if they get re-arrested and they are not oriented.

Chris isn't a candidate for this - autism typically doesn't have deviations from baseline functioning you can hope to restore someone to. When it comes to Chris, what needs to be professionally determined is if he is capable of functioning as an adult on his own. Some people just need a representative payee to make sure their bills are paid, and otherwise do fine. Some people need to be reduced to the legal status of a child and have other people make decisions for them.

Whether or not Chris needs a legal guardian requires an evaluation by psychologists and social workers. In my jurisdiction, you are afforded a chance to contest their findings in front of a half jury. I'm skeptical of an adult's ability to make decisions for themselves if they can be convinced that the characters from an anime game control reality. I'd also point to how off the rails shit's gotten since his dad died. I'd stress those are opinions - no one knows if Chris meets Va.'s requirements for this except for people that would evaluate him.

Most people with the level of autism that Chris seems to have do better in structured settings like group homes. They have a tendency to lose housing for cleanliness and lease compliance issues. You can live in a group home and not have a legal guardian. Unfortunately in the 80s and 90s a lot of parents wanted to believe that their kids who required a full time aid following them from class to class, or were in self contained classrooms were going to live productive lives. Kids that should have been put on a path for SSI/Part time work and reduced stress living arrangements were allowed to pretend they were fully functional adults (their parents making a shit ton of sacrifices behind the scenes). The only thing that makes Chris special was his access and affinity for the internet. Otherwise stories of autists like chris are becoming depressingly common.

If Chris gets a plea deal with no time, I hope it also results in an evaluation by the state for adult competency. If Chris gets time, It's either going to be served in isolation, or it's going to be served in a facility for inmates with special needs - it won't be as nice as a state mental hospital, but he won't be with people that will stab or shank him. The staff will be some mix of guard and personal care.

He belongs in a structured living environment with little to no access to the internet. How he gets there is irrelevant at this point. Chris is never going to have a normal life.

Edit: I want to add - IANAL, but I know there are 8th amendment rulings regarding autism and prison.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

You make a good point, and moreover I want to ask legal Kiwis: if Barb says Chris didn't do it, and she's found to be of reasonably sound mind, what are the chances of the state wanting to prosecute him?

Without an accusation from Barb, the incest/rape case seems very shaky to me. Unless there's physical evidence, the only proof for it is Chris's words, and how much stock can you put in anything he says?

Now, I strongly suspect he did it, through knowledge of his history and a reading of his messages, including the strange brags to Null. But prosecutors aren't going to spend years researching him like Kiwis have. His defense can say that people are pressuring him to confess to crimes that he didn't commit and that he's a victim of stalking and harassment by people, the recent video by the guy who stole Chris's license plate and shot the car up with BBs proves that there are people who get their kicks harassing him. Combine that with the trans Teflon and I could see the state just wanting the case to go away.

Chris could even claim that the messages, if not the phone call, are forged by trolls. If they search his computer and confirm the messages that defense is out the window. The theft charge could also be tricky because Barb has apparently dipped into Chris's money quite a bit, so the issue of theft could be very murky.

The main thing I see it hinging in Barb's testimony. If she says he did nothing and she's not totally senile, the prosecution could be tough. Or will the textual evidence hold up better than I think?

I wont pretend to be an expert, but I think this would only pose an issue if Barb was not old and vulnerable.

I cannot speak for Virginia, but I know where I am from the legal system has come on leaps and bounds in terms of protecting those who are deemed vulnerable, both young and old. So even if Barb denies anything happened, if she is deemed to be vulnerable they may not take her word for it, and if they find physical evidence - which I bet they will given the state of the house, the alleged frequency of the intercourse, and Chris being unable to cover for himself - then they will run with that. The reality is, even if the rape kit can't confirm Chris was there, a CSI could easily find things in the house, in the garbage, or on Chris/ Barb that could potentially confirm the intercourse has happened. Condoms, underwear, clothing would tell the story. You know if you find a drop of seminal fluid on Barbs underwear, it's over.

This with Chris' own testimony, and potentially whatever comes out of the interview, I do not think this will be difficult to prosecute.

 

[Pancake Batterer]

I'm also thinking that in prison, you have a sentence and a general idea of when you're leaving. In jail, you're there until you get/pay bail, various paperwork is done, and the legal system has determined what they're going to do with you. I know some people have spent as much as a year in jail.

I believe the average time to trial in the US is 1-2 years, so if you're intending to fight your case AND you lack the resources to bail out, then you're going to be there for a while. It's to encourage people to compromise and accept a plea deal.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

I believe the average time to trial in the US is 1-2 years, so if you're intending to fight your case AND you lack the resources to bail out, then you're going to be there for a while. It's to encourage people to compromise and accept a plea.

Once Chris gets assigned a PD, the very first thing that person is going to do is start looking into what kind of plea deal they can get for Chris. No one wants a trial, (except MAYBE Chris since he’s incredibly stupid, delusional, and naive). My guess is that he never bonds out, or if he does, that he violates his bond conditions within a matter of weeks and is returned to CVRJ. That means he sits in CVRJ for up to a year or so while his case winds through the courts system. I think that the deal they’ll offer is a guilty plea to a single sex crime felony charge in exchange for time already served in CVRJ and a good number of years hanging over his head in the form of a suspended sentence, probation/monitoring/sex offender treatment, and lifetime RSO status. So it all ends up with Chris down for up to a year in CVRJ, then released on Probation, he violates within a year, and ends up having to serve his multi-year sentence in the Virginia State Prison system, unless he drops dead first.
The only other way I see this playing out is that Chris insists on pleading Not Guilty and insisting on going to trial. No one wants that. (except those who would want to witness the spectacle) Not the State, the County, the Judge, the Prosecutor, the PD, no one except maybe Chris because, again, he’s stupid, delusional, and naive. IF Chris insists on trial and rejects deal after deal after deal all the way up until the day the trial starts, then the trial will be a very short one, the DA’s Office will punish Chris for wasting their time by stacking every possible charge on top of him, and the judge will punish Chris for wasting the Court’s time by imposing the max sentence on him. In that case, Chris spends a year in CVRJ and then is transferred into the Virginia Prison System for the next few year and after that, if he isn’t dead, he’s released into Probation/RSO/etc., violates, gets sent back, rinse and repeat, until he dies. I don’t see this playing out any other way.