![]() ![]() Coast felt like she could not admit that the assault never happened After she reluctantly named Montgomery as her attacker, the lie snowballed. Out of fear of her mother, Coast said that she was looking at inappropriate material because she had been molested when she was ten years old. > Coast explained that immediately before she accused Montgomery, her mother caught her looking at “sex stories” on the Internet. After consulting with counsel and receiving Miranda warnings, Coast recounted how she had falsely testified that Montgomery had assaulted her. > On November 1, 2012, Coast voluntarily made a videotaped statement at the Hampton Police Department. On April 10, 2009, the trial judge sentenced Montgomery to 45 years in prison, with 37 years and 6 months suspended… The trial court then found Montgomery guilty of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, and object sexual penetration. The trial judge categorized this case as a “word against word situation.” In reaching his verdict, the trial judge concluded that Coast was more credible then Montgomery because she had “no motive whatsoever” to lie. Neither was any corroborating physical evidence that an assault occurred ever presented. > no other witnesses to the incident testified at Montgomery’s trial. Coast testified under oath that Montgomery had sexually assaulted her in 2000. > tried and convicted Montgomery in a one-day bench trial for the assault of Coast. ![]() ![]() ![]() Coast, then seventeen, reported that when she was ten years old a neighborhood boy named “Jon” sexually assaulted her while the two were alone in her grandmother’s backyard There are no such countries that standard would make it impossible to get convictions for almost every crime that ever occurred.Ĭompare this case from the United States. > I’m defending myself in court in a democratic western country where people are assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Me, the shop keeper, is prosecuted in this alternate universe because I’m selling the cards. This is almost exactly analogous to selling anonymous SIM cards (where they still exist). The jury (in the US) or the judge (anywhere else) is informed that I buy these cards in bulk, I sell dozens of them a week, and the IP (that Mullvad doesn’t log) is a dead end.ĭo you seriously believe that a judge or jury anywhere would sentence me for the crime brought forward, or that this would even hold water enough to be prosecuted in the first place? I’m defending myself in court in a democratic western country where people are assumed innocent until proven otherwise. Someone uses these gift cards and the tracking (that doesn’t exist) leads back to my store. Now assume that I’m running a corner store where I sell among other things these gift cards, that I bought from Amazon at a small markup. They are also under no obligation to do so, as far as I’m aware.īut let’s assume for the sake of argument that they did: let’s assume they log IP:s and sales of gift cards down to the social security number of the person who bought it. Judges and prosecutors never buy these arguments.įirst of all, Mullvad (like any serious VPN operator) do not log IP:s and one can probably safely assume they do not log who bought which gift card. These sort of plausible deniability arguments only work in people's heads. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |