User talk:Dormiebasne

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)

Myths about Chris' Incest Charges

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.

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
  

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. 

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.

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.

“Chris got off because the statutes weren't applicable to his crime”

  TL;DR: Look at the 2020 version of the VA criminal code about Incest. Minor arguments about pronouns used in the statute definition do not generally have legal effect

There is much alarm about the header of the charge being “INCEST – WITH OWN CHILD”. Often, these headers are templates that cannot be changed by the clerk inputting the data, and don't bear much legal significance. Even still, others reference the language of the statute itself, referring to an older variation that contains gendered language, and contend that this somehow means the State was powerless to actually charge and convict Chris of this crime.

To truly understand why this is inaccurate, one should look at the 2020 variation of the VA codes, which would have been the statute in force at the time of Chris' arrest and prosecution:

  § 18.2-366. Sexual intercourse by persons forbidden to marry; incest; penalties.
  A. Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with any person whom he is forbidden by law to marry is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor except as 
  provided by subsection B.
  B. Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 
  felony. However, if a parent or grandparent engages in sexual intercourse with his child or grandchild, and such child or grandchild is at least 13 
  years of age but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.
  C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes stepparent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes a stepchild, and grandchild 
  includes a step-grandchild.
  Code 1950, § 18.1-191; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 703; 2014, c. 542; 2020, cc. 122, 900.

From reviewing the language of the statute, it becomes clear that there is no “legal loophole” through which Chris could offend against his mother with impunity. The use of the pronoun “his” is purely a placeholder meant to signify a third person singular, not to specify that only persons who identify as men can be charged with incest.