TheGoodBits Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 8:30 instead of 5:30....does that change things for anyone? Kind of, yes. The fact that he was sitting there naked for 3 hours seems a little excessive to me, and makes me wonder if indeed he actually meant to be seen. The story is still really vague with what he actually did though, so I'm going to withhold judgement until we know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 8:30 instead of 5:30....does that change things for anyone? That time change is a little fishy. It was 530am originially, the man even said it was dark out which is why I believe that it was 530am not 830 am. Its pretty bright out at 830am. Still even at 830 am why is she out walking her kid, shouldn't he be in school already? Doesn't school start at 730 or 800? Why not release her name? This is not a case of rape so there should be no reason to withhold her name. I believe all of these reports are public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Kind of, yes. The fact that he was sitting there naked for 3 hours seems a little excessive to me, and makes me wonder if indeed he actually meant to be seen. The story is still really vague with what he actually did though, so I'm going to withhold judgement until we know more. Does it really matter how long he was sitting naked in his own home. If he wants to be naked in his own home for 36 hours then that is his business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Does it really matter how long he was sitting naked in his own home. If he wants to be naked in his own home for 36 hours then that is his business. My point is it just seems odd that he would sit around in plain view for that long without bothering to get dressed. Makes you think that maybe he did intentionally expose himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 if he stood in the window or full view glass door looking out, he's probably going to have a problem. Someone that's committing a lewd act like that is looking for a reaction and that will likely be the accusation in the case, if there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 He can file a complaint but only the commonwealth attorney can "press Pinocchio" fixed for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Thats why i got miniblinds... hmmm, maybe i should have said curtains as i hate to say mini with the subject at hand. hmmm, maybe i shouldnt have said at hand.. this is a tough topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurntToast Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 8:30 instead of 5:30....does that change things for anyone? NO, She should be arrested as a peeping Tom! If the roles where reversed and she was naked making coffee he'd be locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't care what time it was. I don't care if he was there all day. He was in his own house, and nothing he did was harmful to another person in any conceivable way. Nobody made the woman look into the house, she chose to do it, and apparently she chose to do it more than once. If anyone should be in trouble it is her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 NO, She should be arrested as a peeping Tom! If the roles where reversed and she was naked making coffee he'd be locked up. There's no question about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 He'll be on the sex crime list now. Fortunately if he was convicted (which I doubt he will be) this is only a misdemeanor and he wouldn't be put on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aCalBearSkin Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Beyond retarded. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 This is so utterly ridiculous. This lady is making a huge deal out of absolutely nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWSVL8Fmx3Q&NR=1 And now they're desperately trying to come up with something more to charge the guy with, since they know it's a nothing case; they wouldn't want the wife of a Fairfax county cop to have made a big deal out of an accidental glimpse, which was more her fault than anyone's. They're just looking out for their own at this point, and who cares if they ruin this guy in the process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aCalBearSkin Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I would counter sue for this b.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't like the connection to the officer's wife for sure. But now the story is that he was seen at 5.30am and later at 8.30am by two different people? And his room mates threw him under the bus saying he'd probably been drinking? He must love them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I don't like the connection to the officer's wife for sure.But now the story is that he was seen at 5.30am and later at 8.30am by two different people? And his room mates threw him under the bus saying he'd probably been drinking? He must love them. My guess would be that the cops called them and asked if it was possible that he had been drinking, or drunk, and one or more said, 'Yeah, I guess that's a possibility." And they've got the school all riled up and they're sending letters to parents, now. And the woman who saw him claims he went from window to window. Yeah, well, wouldn't you if you were walking around your own damn house? The time thing is weird as well. First reports were 5:30 AM, and that it was dark out. Now the woman who made the initial complaint is saying it was 8:30 AM, which would be after sunrise. But now they've maybe got someone else who saw him at 5:30-6:00 AM? So what the heck is going on here? I could see this being one neighbor saw him at 5:30 AM (which is when he claims to have been making coffee) and later told her other nosy damn neighbors about it, and then the cop's wife got herself in a self-righteous snit and decided to call hubby-and-friends to complain about the guy, but she says that she was the one that saw him, and since it's now later in the day, she says that 8:30 AM is when she saw him. And either way, why the heck was there a kid involved? 5:30 AM is too early for school, and 8:30 AM is too late. Were you walking the kid to school and that's why it was so early? If so, why, when there's a bus stop right across the street? If you were walking the kid to the bus stop, why so damn early? And if it was actually all at 8:30 AM, was the kid late to school? If so, why weren't you driving the kid, since it's obviously far enough to need a bus? My guess: there was no kid involved, it's just another weapon to use against this guy. I'm obviously jumping to conclusions here, but it would seem that, at the worst, this case is ambiguous, and that the most likely scenario is that it was all just an accidental occurrence. Bah. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 guilty or not guilty, he's going down if two people , at two different times, say they saw him gazing out the window at them naked. Sounds like the room mates want him gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm obviously jumping to conclusions here, And lots of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 And lots of them Oh, no question about it, virtually pure speculation in much of that post. I was just becoming increasingly frustrated and livid about the entire situation and shining those I deem to be in the wrong with whatever ill light came to conspiratorial mind. But at least I'm aware of it. I'm definitely still waiting for more actual facts to come out, rather than the speculation and poor information that's been tossed about thus far, but I already have ideas on just what happened here and I know how I want this to turn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Do Itch Big Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 why is she walking her kid at 5:30 in the morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 This is so utterly ridiculous. This lady is making a huge deal out of absolutely nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWSVL8Fmx3Q&NR=1 And now they're desperately trying to come up with something more to charge the guy with, since they know it's a nothing case; they wouldn't want the wife of a Fairfax county cop to have made a big deal out of an accidental glimpse, which was more her fault than anyone's. They're just looking out for their own at this point, and who cares if they ruin this guy in the process... Lmao at them going door to door trying to find witnesses. What a bunch of losers. And there's nothing worse than a wife of a cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 At what point will common sense on the part of law engorcement come into play?? So now it's illegal to be naked in our own home?? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow24 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_update Just coincidence that Will Thomas covered a naked man story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyj Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 CONVICTED FAIRFAX, Va. - As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if passers-by get an eyeful while he's standing in front of a picture window, that's not his problem. A Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions about what's OK when you're in your own home. Two women said they saw much more of Williamson than they cared to in October, even though he never left the confines of his home. He received neither jail time nor a fine but is appealing anyway, saying a larger principle is at stake. Click for full story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 this is just absolute horse**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.