Difference between revisions of "User talk:Dormiebasne"

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(removed text of sandbox article)
Tags: Replaced Manual revert
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Wilful can be spelt that way.  That what it changed it to on my spellchecker.--[[User:UncleBastard|UncleBastard]] 21:47, 14 February 2009 (CET)
Wilful can be spelt that way.  That what it changed it to on my spellchecker.--[[User:UncleBastard|UncleBastard]] 21:47, 14 February 2009 (CET)
*Ah, I see. Well, it shows up as being incorrect on mine. It's probably an issue of differing dialects, since your spelling of "spelled" as "spelt" also gets a red line. Oh well, it's no big issue for me. [[User:Dormiebasne|Dormiebasne]] 21:55, 14 February 2009 (CET)
*Ah, I see. Well, it shows up as being incorrect on mine. It's probably an issue of differing dialects, since your spelling of "spelled" as "spelt" also gets a red line. Oh well, it's no big issue for me. [[User:Dormiebasne|Dormiebasne]] 21:55, 14 February 2009 (CET)
NOTE: The writer of this text is not a lawyer, nor is anything here meant to constitute legal advice.
You probably have been sent this because you are curious about some element of Chris Chan's criminal charges of INCEST, and do not quite understand the outcome. How can someone who openly admits to something not be convicted of it in court? Well, this article exists to illustrate how this might have come to pass, as well as to disabuse you of some mistaken notions others have spread about. A brief summary response to several common statements will be given, and under them will be a more detailed answer:
“Chris was PROVEN INNOCENT!”
TL;DR No, he was not. Courts don't prove innocence.
DETAILED EXPLANATION:
The US criminal justice system is meant to be centered around the presumption of innocence. The founders of this country recognized that a great imbalance exists between the individual and the State, and so deliberately hobbled the State when they pursue criminal charges against someone, imperiling their liberty. One does not “prove” their innocence, but rather the State is obligated to prove the guilt of the accused, and the standard in criminal proceedings is that this proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is the highest standard of proof that exists in U.S. law. The idea of “proving” innocence implies that this burden is on the defendant. This is the reason that verdicts are designated as “Guilty/Not Guilty”,  not “Guilty/Innocent”. Chris' charges were dismissed by the prosecution, most likely due to a lack of evidence that would allow them to meet this burden.
“CHRIS GOT AN AUTISM DEFERRAL!”
TL;DR: This is not consistent with the court records.
Many variations of this claim are spread around, but the central idea is that some element of Chris' disability/gender identity allowed him to evade criminal responsibility. While Chris has in the past been treated with kid gloves by the courts due to his disability, being put on a “therapeutic docket”, for instance, consequences were still imposed when Chris' guilt was proven by the State. The records that are available to the public in regard to this Incest charge are very clear that this was a dismissal, not an instance of deferred adjudication.
Deferred adjudication, generally speaking, is when an individual, usually by prior agreement of the defense and prosecution, enters a plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere, and then the judge holds off on making a finding of guilt while the defendant goes through a period of probation. If the defendant completes this probationary period, the case is dismissed and does not enter as a conviction. With Chris' dismissal, however, there are no probationary conditions with which Chris must comply, as the judge has not made a finding of guilt, nor is the case still pending.
“HOW DID HE NOT GET FOUND GUILTY?! HE ADMITTED TO IT ON TAPE!”
TL;DR: The recorded “confession” may not survive the scrutiny a defense lawyer could apply to it during a trial
DETAILED EXPLANATION:
Generally, in a criminal court proceeding, the State goes first and presents their evidence to the jury through witnesses on the stand. In order to properly introduce the recording and give its context, they likely have to subpoena the person it came from, Bella. Even assuming Bella would comply with a subpoena, you must then consider Bella's credibility as a witness. The State would probably have trouble even in Direct Examination, asking her “How do you know Christine?”. On Cross Examination, Chris' lawyer then would be able to ask about Bella's motivations to misrepresent this recording, to alter it, or to have started it only after she had convinced Chris to make up this story as some erotic roleplay. After a few exchanges on cross examination, what once seemed like a straightforward confession may begin to look like a setup, in the eyes of the jury. Remember that the State must prove their charges against Chris beyond a reasonable doubt, and so with this alternative explanation, the attorney could erode the credibility of the State's overall narrative. They needn't convince the jury that this is the case, necessarily, only that it is equally possible that this is what was going on.
This is only ONE element of Chris' case that is vulnerable to questioning by the defense. The next question frequently asked will address the other...
“Did Barb do X in relation to Chris' case? Did they examine her physically?”
TL;DR We don't know, but it couldn't have been much.
DETAILED EXPLANATION:
As one might assume in case this sensitive, any involvement Barbara had in Chris' prosecution by the State, be it a witness statement, plans to testify, medical examination (I.E. a “rape kit”), etc, is not public knowledge. While Chris was not charged officially with sexual assault, the prosecution of this case, much like a rape trial, would hinge strongly on the testimony of the alleged victim. Indeed, a victim's testimony can sometimes be enough to establish proof for a conviction by a jury. It is likely that Barbara was interviewed by an Adult Protective Services agency, the police, or both, but her degree of cooperation is not known. Given the dismissal, it is more likely than not that she either refused to aid in the investigation, or she was determined to be unable to properly testify.  On the subject, it is important to respect Barbara's privacy; please do not seek her out to ask her, or those near her, questions regarding this very sensitive matter.
“Chris is not at 14BLC because the Court told him to stay away”
TL;DR: This is unlikely, but only after the case was dismissed.
DETAILED EXPLANATION:
Chris DID have a restriction against contact with Barbara during the pendency of his case, and in fact got into trouble for violating an Emergency Protective Order early on during the investigation. However, whether or not Chris is under any obligation from a civil order of protection is not known. The judge in his criminal trial would not be able to continue a No Contact order upon the dismissal of the charges, as there is no longer a charge pending, nor was there a finding of guilt. While it is completely possible that there is a civil restraining order on Chris, it is more likely the decision to not move back in with Barbara was actually made of Chris' own accord.

Latest revision as of 00:08, 8 February 2024

Wilful can be spelt that way. That what it changed it to on my spellchecker.--UncleBastard 21:47, 14 February 2009 (CET)

  • Ah, I see. Well, it shows up as being incorrect on mine. It's probably an issue of differing dialects, since your spelling of "spelled" as "spelt" also gets a red line. Oh well, it's no big issue for me. Dormiebasne 21:55, 14 February 2009 (CET)
Retrieved from "http://sonichu.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dormiebasne&oldid=320074"