Jump to content

Mr. WEO

Community Member
  • Posts

    46,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. WEO

  1. Well that would certainly be even worse for his side of the story. "Had sex outside with her, then brought her into my bedroom, where 'someone' raped her".
  2. multiple sources have said not knowing her true age is not a defense. Given the overall accusation that would be a silly argument to make: "I thought she was 18 when I had sex with her and then brought her to my buddies bedroom, where she was raped"
  3. It meets both of those criteria for exception.
  4. His lawyer certainly isn't denying they had sex. Plus he says he is not sure whether Araiza will or will not be charged.
  5. this thread is filled with posters plowing through everything just to make the same errors over and over
  6. his lawyer is less convincing on that...
  7. Does what matter? A detective's testimony? They wouldn't even need the tapes. But, as JoPoy points out, they can record without consent in this instance.
  8. That was lifted from the LAT article.
  9. The cops did the recording. If the tapes aren't admissible, their description of the conversation they heard in real time is. Wouldn't need the tapes.
  10. you have a lot more reading to do
  11. The detectives will have made notes of what they heard on the calls.
  12. You think the cops, as a routine, would begin their investigation by sabotaging it? Even without the recordings, the cops will attest to what they heard on the call.
  13. Who knows. But it would be in evidence at this point. Easily discovered.
  14. All of this has already been posted here from multiple other sources all night.....
  15. The suit alleges the cops prompted her to call and taped it. This would be easy to prove. It's evidence.
  16. Her attorney clearly didn't;t share your concerns, knowing what they know and what she has said. She isn't going rogue, safe to say. What she has done is put this out there to the jury pool---it's a sharp move on the part of her and her father.
  17. Not per the LAT article
  18. FFS, the DA just got the case!
  19. lol what can they know?
  20. She's already provided statements to the cops soon after the event months ago. Clearly she's not changing her story. She's putting out there.
  21. The suit claims the cops were telling her to make the calls as they listened in and recorded
×
×
  • Create New...