3 ms·

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock "When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could co

by baps 3y ago

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock "When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."

withinboredom 3y ago
Sigh. After going on and on about how the state failed to actually prove the submitted evidence is actually true (merely circumstantial), but they aren’t allowed to do anything about it until a trial actually happens. Surprisingly, it looks like the trial never happened. Seems a little suspicious, does it not?
- baps 3y ago
  Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.
    - baps 3y ago
      The procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made. That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement. I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        We don’t actually know if he did any of that. There was never a trial. For all we know, they were looking for their guy and he never showed. Then this posh British guy came in to get some coffee and they started chatting him up. Him, not knowing what is going on, decides “what the hell, I’ll play along with the prank” (note, he never said, in person, he was going to have sex with her). Turns out it wasn’t a prank at all, but they thought they found their guy and bam, he goes to jail. I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
        baps 3y ago
        That sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Read above about how a cop planted evidence in my car to get what he wanted. Google Civil Forfeiture if you want to see more scummy ways cops will fuck up your life for giggles. For all we know it was anime and the cop said it was child porn because he had never seen anime in his life.
        baps 3y ago
        [dead]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Just as unlikely as… Appellate court: decisions look legit based on evidence; at trial, please prove evidence Plaintive: how about we just don’t have a trial… Defendant: ffs Something smells fishy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been on the wrong side of cops’ biases too many times to think they are automatically in the right; making virtually any other possibility just as likely. For example, for all we know, the defendant is actually an alien and they simply wanted to run experiments on him for a few years. Oh, wait, he actually is an alien. lol. Anyway, I got nothing and doxing them on here without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, but insisting that circumstantial evidence is proof without even a trial is super fucked up. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with plenty of them to prove some technical shit or another for a case, even the FBI. So I’ve seen some crazy and unlikely cases in my life. This sounds suspiciously like they couldn’t pass the bar of “without a doubt” and simply gave up. Oh, and why is a trial important? So we get to hear his side of the story. You’ve only heard one side, and he would be wise (and well within his rights) to never share his side.

by baps 3y ago

withinboredom 3y ago

Sigh. After going on and on about how the state failed to actually prove the submitted evidence is actually true (merely circumstantial), but they aren’t allowed to do anything about it until a trial actually happens. Surprisingly, it looks like the trial never happened. Seems a little suspicious, does it not?

baps 3y ago
Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.
  - baps 3y ago
    The procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made. That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement. I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      We don’t actually know if he did any of that. There was never a trial. For all we know, they were looking for their guy and he never showed. Then this posh British guy came in to get some coffee and they started chatting him up. Him, not knowing what is going on, decides “what the hell, I’ll play along with the prank” (note, he never said, in person, he was going to have sex with her). Turns out it wasn’t a prank at all, but they thought they found their guy and bam, he goes to jail. I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
      - baps 3y ago
        That sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Read above about how a cop planted evidence in my car to get what he wanted. Google Civil Forfeiture if you want to see more scummy ways cops will fuck up your life for giggles. For all we know it was anime and the cop said it was child porn because he had never seen anime in his life.
        baps 3y ago
        [dead]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Just as unlikely as… Appellate court: decisions look legit based on evidence; at trial, please prove evidence Plaintive: how about we just don’t have a trial… Defendant: ffs Something smells fishy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been on the wrong side of cops’ biases too many times to think they are automatically in the right; making virtually any other possibility just as likely. For example, for all we know, the defendant is actually an alien and they simply wanted to run experiments on him for a few years. Oh, wait, he actually is an alien. lol. Anyway, I got nothing and doxing them on here without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, but insisting that circumstantial evidence is proof without even a trial is super fucked up. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with plenty of them to prove some technical shit or another for a case, even the FBI. So I’ve seen some crazy and unlikely cases in my life. This sounds suspiciously like they couldn’t pass the bar of “without a doubt” and simply gave up. Oh, and why is a trial important? So we get to hear his side of the story. You’ve only heard one side, and he would be wise (and well within his rights) to never share his side.