Coffee Crew
Nick Bate's Web Comic the Coffee Crew
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Kiwi Forums' Marvin's Account of the Trial
Ok, so, interesting trial today.
Huge wall of text coming. If you want the end result, just skip to the bottom of my post.
It's great news.
Unless you're Nick Bate.
This took place at the Lancaster County courthouse.
So, the floor that the courtroom it took place in didn't allow any photography. Like, so you can't catch a picture of someone coming out of the courtroom. You have to hang around the exits of the building, or maybe in the lobby, and catch a picture of them there. (Well, either way, they brought Nick in through a special door in the courtroom anyway, so, I don't know if I could've encountered him anyway.)
When I got into the courtroom, I talked to the detective a bit. She talked to whoever went to the earlier hearing so she was expecting me, I think.
I overhear that the prosecution is going to be having four people testifying, and the defense is going to have two people testifying. The prosecution also mentioned having a youtube video, but I didn't get the details on that.
Nick Bate gets marched in wearing a yellow jumpsuit and crocs. He's looking pretty skinny. Also I thought his hair looked kind of thinning on top. He had kind of a Charlie Manson look to him, y'know?
So, then the trial gets going. First AO testifies. First the judge asks if there's any opposition to her testifying because she's under 14. No one objects. Both the defense and the prosecution question AO about the detailed specifics of the allegations. Defense tries a bit harder, I think.
The defense seems to be trying to get AO to say that she didn't immediately report molestation to her father, but she just mentioned some weird behavior on Nick's part that her father just inflated. At some point, the defense asks very explicitly if AO was being coached.
Next the prosecution puts the cop on the stand. Nothing much of interest is said. Then they put a social worker (or someone in a similar position) on the stand. I think she just commented on physical evidence.
Also, by the way, during this whole thing, it seemed that Nick Bate was shaking. Kind of like sustained shivering. Later I figured it was because he was jiggling his leg, but, I don't know, it seemed to be pretty vigorous leg shaking. He was pretty nervous.
Next they put the detective on the stand. They entered some chat logs between Nick and Anna into evidence. I think you guys know which logs these were, the ones where he explicitly admitted to these crimes. They read the chat aloud in the courtroom, aboots included.
Next they put AO's mother on the stand. She defended Nick in really bizarre ways. She said that her husband had never liked Nick from the beginning. She said that he was kicked out of the house in sixth grade. She made a few statements about how after he was kicked out, he was never in the house. Oh, except for Christmas. But he was never, ever alone with AO.
Under questioning, she admitted that she worked, AO was home alone sometimes, Nick was within walking distance during those times, and easily could've been over at the house.
Then the prosecutor mentioned that she might have a video of Nick and AO at a birthday pool party that would've been around the time that these crimes were committed. This didn't really phase AO's mother.
After all this, the prosecutor asked AO's mother "if someone said AO was alone with Nick at one point, would they be lying?" ... "Yes."
Without batting an eye.
Then the defense just went and rehashed all of AO's mother's claims with her. "Was Nick ever left alone with AO?" "No." etc
The prosecutor asks "do you love your son?" "Yes." The defense asks "do you love your daughter?" "Yes." Fair enough.
Next Nick himself is on the stand.
He speaks more coherently than I expected. He claims he made up the molestation story in the chatlog. He says that all the "Nick: ..." parts are legitimately his writing, but that some of the Anna parts were omitted. He also brings up internet harassment and claims he was hacked and that's how the log was leaked.
His excuse about the molestation story is that Anna was telling him about a sex encounter she had. He didn't want to be left out, so he says he made up his own sex story. But no one would believe he banged an adult, so... the logical option is... child molestation.
After that, Nick admitted to be a pedophile in court, as well as a coprophile. Contradicting what his mother said, Nick said he visited AO for Christmas, Thanksgiving and birthday parties.
Part of an earlier claim was that before one of the incidents, AO and Nick were in AO's bedroom and they had just finishing playing wii or a board game or something. Nick's mother claimed that they never had the wii in AO's room, it was always on the downstairs TV. Nick also contradicted that.
One question literally asked of Sick Nick was "do you enjoy butts or feces, Mr Stoutzenberger?". Yes, of course. Nick's lawyer is pretty much setting up the "but I really like poop!" defense to show that the chatlog was fake.
Closing arguments:
The defense basically argued that lots of people are giving varying stories about the same events. AO can't keep her story straight. Also AO's father really hated Nick, so he was trying to manipulate AO into getting him arrested for pedophilia. Also Nick lives in cyberspace, so he's just indulging in his weird edgelord fantasies online. At one point, the words were pretty similar to, "Why would he say he wouldn't lick a shitty butthole? As we know, he's a coprophile. He'd love it!" I don't think they were exactly that, but that sounds pretty close. It at least shares a few phrases in common.
The defense was literally using the "if he likes shit, you must acquit" defense.
The prosecution said that AO's stories weren't inconsistent. She remembered the important details. She obviously didn't remember the miscellaneous details, like what clothing he wearing or what they were doing beforehand. Also the Anna chat matches what AO claimed very closely. AO's mother's testimony is worthless. And very importantly: It's not like Nick is denying that he'd want to molest a child. He's just saying he didn't do it this time.
Verdict
Invol. Deviate Sexual Intercourse W/Child
Guilty!
Indecent Assault Person Less than 13 Years of Age
Guilty!
Indecent Assault Person Less than 13 Years of Age
Guilty!
The docket lists four charges and I only remember hearing three charges announced. So I don't know if I missed something or what.
(Also, these notes are my written notes, distilled into a text file, then distilled further into this post, in a hurried manner on the train before I have to switch trains in Philly in ten minutes. I can clean stuff up later.)
Ed Note: Here's a link to the post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-3-judgement-day.16562/page-17
Huge wall of text coming. If you want the end result, just skip to the bottom of my post.
It's great news.
Unless you're Nick Bate.
This took place at the Lancaster County courthouse.
So, the floor that the courtroom it took place in didn't allow any photography. Like, so you can't catch a picture of someone coming out of the courtroom. You have to hang around the exits of the building, or maybe in the lobby, and catch a picture of them there. (Well, either way, they brought Nick in through a special door in the courtroom anyway, so, I don't know if I could've encountered him anyway.)
When I got into the courtroom, I talked to the detective a bit. She talked to whoever went to the earlier hearing so she was expecting me, I think.
I overhear that the prosecution is going to be having four people testifying, and the defense is going to have two people testifying. The prosecution also mentioned having a youtube video, but I didn't get the details on that.
Nick Bate gets marched in wearing a yellow jumpsuit and crocs. He's looking pretty skinny. Also I thought his hair looked kind of thinning on top. He had kind of a Charlie Manson look to him, y'know?
So, then the trial gets going. First AO testifies. First the judge asks if there's any opposition to her testifying because she's under 14. No one objects. Both the defense and the prosecution question AO about the detailed specifics of the allegations. Defense tries a bit harder, I think.
The defense seems to be trying to get AO to say that she didn't immediately report molestation to her father, but she just mentioned some weird behavior on Nick's part that her father just inflated. At some point, the defense asks very explicitly if AO was being coached.
Next the prosecution puts the cop on the stand. Nothing much of interest is said. Then they put a social worker (or someone in a similar position) on the stand. I think she just commented on physical evidence.
Also, by the way, during this whole thing, it seemed that Nick Bate was shaking. Kind of like sustained shivering. Later I figured it was because he was jiggling his leg, but, I don't know, it seemed to be pretty vigorous leg shaking. He was pretty nervous.
Next they put the detective on the stand. They entered some chat logs between Nick and Anna into evidence. I think you guys know which logs these were, the ones where he explicitly admitted to these crimes. They read the chat aloud in the courtroom, aboots included.
Next they put AO's mother on the stand. She defended Nick in really bizarre ways. She said that her husband had never liked Nick from the beginning. She said that he was kicked out of the house in sixth grade. She made a few statements about how after he was kicked out, he was never in the house. Oh, except for Christmas. But he was never, ever alone with AO.
Under questioning, she admitted that she worked, AO was home alone sometimes, Nick was within walking distance during those times, and easily could've been over at the house.
Then the prosecutor mentioned that she might have a video of Nick and AO at a birthday pool party that would've been around the time that these crimes were committed. This didn't really phase AO's mother.
After all this, the prosecutor asked AO's mother "if someone said AO was alone with Nick at one point, would they be lying?" ... "Yes."
Without batting an eye.
Then the defense just went and rehashed all of AO's mother's claims with her. "Was Nick ever left alone with AO?" "No." etc
The prosecutor asks "do you love your son?" "Yes." The defense asks "do you love your daughter?" "Yes." Fair enough.
Next Nick himself is on the stand.
He speaks more coherently than I expected. He claims he made up the molestation story in the chatlog. He says that all the "Nick: ..." parts are legitimately his writing, but that some of the Anna parts were omitted. He also brings up internet harassment and claims he was hacked and that's how the log was leaked.
His excuse about the molestation story is that Anna was telling him about a sex encounter she had. He didn't want to be left out, so he says he made up his own sex story. But no one would believe he banged an adult, so... the logical option is... child molestation.
After that, Nick admitted to be a pedophile in court, as well as a coprophile. Contradicting what his mother said, Nick said he visited AO for Christmas, Thanksgiving and birthday parties.
Part of an earlier claim was that before one of the incidents, AO and Nick were in AO's bedroom and they had just finishing playing wii or a board game or something. Nick's mother claimed that they never had the wii in AO's room, it was always on the downstairs TV. Nick also contradicted that.
One question literally asked of Sick Nick was "do you enjoy butts or feces, Mr Stoutzenberger?". Yes, of course. Nick's lawyer is pretty much setting up the "but I really like poop!" defense to show that the chatlog was fake.
Closing arguments:
The defense basically argued that lots of people are giving varying stories about the same events. AO can't keep her story straight. Also AO's father really hated Nick, so he was trying to manipulate AO into getting him arrested for pedophilia. Also Nick lives in cyberspace, so he's just indulging in his weird edgelord fantasies online. At one point, the words were pretty similar to, "Why would he say he wouldn't lick a shitty butthole? As we know, he's a coprophile. He'd love it!" I don't think they were exactly that, but that sounds pretty close. It at least shares a few phrases in common.
The defense was literally using the "if he likes shit, you must acquit" defense.
The prosecution said that AO's stories weren't inconsistent. She remembered the important details. She obviously didn't remember the miscellaneous details, like what clothing he wearing or what they were doing beforehand. Also the Anna chat matches what AO claimed very closely. AO's mother's testimony is worthless. And very importantly: It's not like Nick is denying that he'd want to molest a child. He's just saying he didn't do it this time.
Verdict
Invol. Deviate Sexual Intercourse W/Child
Guilty!
Indecent Assault Person Less than 13 Years of Age
Guilty!
Indecent Assault Person Less than 13 Years of Age
Guilty!
The docket lists four charges and I only remember hearing three charges announced. So I don't know if I missed something or what.
(Also, these notes are my written notes, distilled into a text file, then distilled further into this post, in a hurried manner on the train before I have to switch trains in Philly in ten minutes. I can clean stuff up later.)
Ed Note: Here's a link to the post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-3-judgement-day.16562/page-17
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Kiwi Farm's User Saul Goodman's Account of the Trial
OPERATION SHIT EATER
Part 2(b): Shit Goes to Trial
Since there seems to be some confusion, my recap will begin with some sperging about a how a preliminary hearing works in Pennsylvania (and other similar states). A preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is merely a check/balance to make sure that the prosecution can't bring unfounded charges. The standard for a preliminary hearing is that, in order to go to a formal arraignment at the main county courthouse, the prosecution must show, under Pennsylvania law that there is a "prima facie case that (1) an offense has been committed and (2) the defendant has committed it."
A prima facie case ("on its face," in Latin), means that the state can show the court sufficient evidence that -- if this evidence is accepted as true (i.e., viewed "on its face") -- the court can conclude that a crime has been committed and the defendant probably committed it. This is not about "reasonable doubt" or gathering evidence (that happens during the discovery phase of a trial) or arguing the merits of the case. It is, once again, merely a check on the prosecution's power to charge people incorrectly/unfairly -- they have to show that they have some evidence, that if it is accepted as true, would sustain their charges. Obviously, if the prosecution cannot produce such evidence, it would be inappropriate for the judge to send the case to trial.
I mention this background because it is useful in understanding what happened today. As you read this, keep in mind that, while the defense has a right to call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses, it can only do so to negate the state's case (i.e. show that even if you accept the state's evidence as true, it doesn't sufficiently show that the defendant committed the crime). Again, this is not a time for the defense to do discovery or question the credibility of witnesses (for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, their testimony is accepted as true).
Accordingly, the fact that the hearing went the way it did tells us a lot about the defense strategy: By making the victim testify and pushing her as hard as they can (more on this below), they are sending a message that they're going to go after this innocent, 12 year old girl if the case doesn't plead out [Editor's Note: I realize that her name has been published on other websites, but in order to protect her privacy, I suggest that we stop using even her first name and refer to her either as "the victim" or AO -- because seriously, guys, who would want this shit popping up in a Google search of their name for the rest of their lives]. It's not an uncommon strategy. And, sadly, it's quite often an effective one.
My last update left off with me sitting next to the step-dad, aunt, and "B-mum" with step-dad going off to pick AO up from her friend's house because she had suddenly been called to testify. The three adults do, as several posters have surmised, seem like stereotypical country folk. The father -- a balding, weathered man in clothes that suggested a physically strenuous occupation -- seemed to be genuinely overwhelmed. He commented to me that "I've never been to a place like this before." I assumed he meant to a courthouse for a criminal proceeding. I replied that I hadn't either (this was, indeed, the first time I'd been to a magistrate's court in an actual trailer, although I've been to several that were similarly unimposing). B-mum and aunt were genuinely kind and gentle people. Not the horrible, intolerant rednecks that everyone seems to think. B-mum even gave me the pen and paper that I used to take notes at the hearing after I was a typical sperg and forgot mine in the car. And this was after she knew I was a blogger/"online reporter" (and heaven knows the internet has not been kind to her son).
That said, she and the aunt are simple folk (the aunt shares the Stoutzenberger family teeth, but B-mum seems in surprisingly good shape for her age) and do genuinely seem to have convinced themselves that Nick is innocent. The aunt remarked how all the news reports have been "filled with inaccuracies" [Editor's Note: rates optimistic]. B-mum concurred and said she had "turned everything off" for a few weeks and wanted to "hear more positive stories on the news." Given that the father, mother, and AO are still living together, I can only imagine what this state of affairs is doing to the family dynamic.
The hearing itself was relatively short, with only two witnesses called. The second was The Detective (TD), but all she was there to do was the usual "yep, I arrested him, and on these charges." She wasn't cross-examined.
The victim's testimony, however, was unnerving; even for someone like me who's spent a significant amount of time working in courtrooms. Also, as I remarked about TD earlier, almost everyone there looked as if they came straight from central casting. The prosecutor was a pretty and eager young brunette, seemingly fresh out of law school. The public defender was a heavyset, gray-haired gentleman who absolutely oozed with "good ol' boy" charm/sleaze. And, as you can see from the perp walk, the constable was a total badass (my, oh my, did he rock those shades).
The victim's direct examination was relatively straightforward; she told everyone who she was, who Nick was, and what had happened. Out of respect for her, I won't go into details, but I will say both that the things she described were brutal and disgusting to a degree far beyond what has previously been reported, and that her testimony was both assured and utterly convincing, which made having to listen to it all the more horrible.
However, even in the middle of her direct, the Sleazy Defense Counsel (SDC) started in with what I consider to be inappropriate gamesmanship. He interrupted and asked AO directly to speak up (it was a small room, I was at the back of it, and I heard her just fine). I realize better than most that every defendant is entitled to a zealous and competent defense. I think that's a good thing -- a wonderful thing even -- about our society. And sometimes a zealous defense means callously working to discredit an innocent 12 year old girl. But it does not mean actively doing things that (at least from my perspective) serve no purpose other than intimidating her.
The prosecutor, while generally excellent (which is not surprising -- these days you have to have superb credentials to get any prosecutor's job straight out of law school), unfortunately played into this a little bit (in my opinion) by asking questions that weren't necessary to make her prima facie case (e.g., "So, when you say you sucked it, what do you mean by that?").
But it was on cross-examination that SDC got significantly out of line. He began by making her repeat/confirm pretty much everything she said on direct and then kept pressing her for specificity on dates/times/logistical details (including such things as exactly how Nick pulled the victim's shirt up). The prosecutor objected (and her objections were sustained) on three different occasions that SDC's questions constituted a "fishing expedition," in which he was trying to discredit AO and try the case on the merits rather than contest the commonwealth's prima facie case that a crime had occurred and that Nick had committed it.
Obviously, after the victim's testimony, the judge found that the commonwealth had met its prima facie burden and sent the case over to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for a formal arraignment/trial.
After the hearing, TD, the prosecutor, the bailiff, and the constable were chatting and TD called me over and asked about my accent. After chatting for a bit, I asked if I could ask her a question in return: "So, were you the one who got the video?" She replied that she was, but that Nick didn't actually attach it to the email, but rather "threatened" (her wording) to send it to her. She remarked that she had found it on ED in the course of her research and, while smiling ever so slightly, informed me that "several" of her colleagues have seen it. She asked where she could read more, so I gave her the web address.
If you're reading this, Detective, please allow me to second everybody else here in commending you for your work. You put in a ton of effort and waded through a ton of muck and filth (both literally and figuratively) to help make the world a better and safer place.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that (a) Sick Nick is going to be in prison for a long time at the end of this, (b) a bunch of people in Lancaster County now know, or shortly will know, about the Farms, and (c) AO is tough as nails. After dealing with what must be an utterly insane home life even apart from this case, she seems remarkably well-adjusted. It's a real tragedy that she has to go through this.
I'll answer more questions later, but for now it's time to distract myself with CGI dinosaurs. It's been a sincerely exhausting day. Goodnight everybody.
Ed Note: Here's the link to the forum post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-2-the-reckoning.9293/page-96
Reading this made me feel sick to my stomach. I can't imagine what AO had to go through. Especially, reliving it by having to testify in court. Sick Nick deserves the full 40 years and then some.
Part 2(b): Shit Goes to Trial
Since there seems to be some confusion, my recap will begin with some sperging about a how a preliminary hearing works in Pennsylvania (and other similar states). A preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is merely a check/balance to make sure that the prosecution can't bring unfounded charges. The standard for a preliminary hearing is that, in order to go to a formal arraignment at the main county courthouse, the prosecution must show, under Pennsylvania law that there is a "prima facie case that (1) an offense has been committed and (2) the defendant has committed it."
A prima facie case ("on its face," in Latin), means that the state can show the court sufficient evidence that -- if this evidence is accepted as true (i.e., viewed "on its face") -- the court can conclude that a crime has been committed and the defendant probably committed it. This is not about "reasonable doubt" or gathering evidence (that happens during the discovery phase of a trial) or arguing the merits of the case. It is, once again, merely a check on the prosecution's power to charge people incorrectly/unfairly -- they have to show that they have some evidence, that if it is accepted as true, would sustain their charges. Obviously, if the prosecution cannot produce such evidence, it would be inappropriate for the judge to send the case to trial.
I mention this background because it is useful in understanding what happened today. As you read this, keep in mind that, while the defense has a right to call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses, it can only do so to negate the state's case (i.e. show that even if you accept the state's evidence as true, it doesn't sufficiently show that the defendant committed the crime). Again, this is not a time for the defense to do discovery or question the credibility of witnesses (for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, their testimony is accepted as true).
Accordingly, the fact that the hearing went the way it did tells us a lot about the defense strategy: By making the victim testify and pushing her as hard as they can (more on this below), they are sending a message that they're going to go after this innocent, 12 year old girl if the case doesn't plead out [Editor's Note: I realize that her name has been published on other websites, but in order to protect her privacy, I suggest that we stop using even her first name and refer to her either as "the victim" or AO -- because seriously, guys, who would want this shit popping up in a Google search of their name for the rest of their lives]. It's not an uncommon strategy. And, sadly, it's quite often an effective one.
My last update left off with me sitting next to the step-dad, aunt, and "B-mum" with step-dad going off to pick AO up from her friend's house because she had suddenly been called to testify. The three adults do, as several posters have surmised, seem like stereotypical country folk. The father -- a balding, weathered man in clothes that suggested a physically strenuous occupation -- seemed to be genuinely overwhelmed. He commented to me that "I've never been to a place like this before." I assumed he meant to a courthouse for a criminal proceeding. I replied that I hadn't either (this was, indeed, the first time I'd been to a magistrate's court in an actual trailer, although I've been to several that were similarly unimposing). B-mum and aunt were genuinely kind and gentle people. Not the horrible, intolerant rednecks that everyone seems to think. B-mum even gave me the pen and paper that I used to take notes at the hearing after I was a typical sperg and forgot mine in the car. And this was after she knew I was a blogger/"online reporter" (and heaven knows the internet has not been kind to her son).
That said, she and the aunt are simple folk (the aunt shares the Stoutzenberger family teeth, but B-mum seems in surprisingly good shape for her age) and do genuinely seem to have convinced themselves that Nick is innocent. The aunt remarked how all the news reports have been "filled with inaccuracies" [Editor's Note: rates optimistic]. B-mum concurred and said she had "turned everything off" for a few weeks and wanted to "hear more positive stories on the news." Given that the father, mother, and AO are still living together, I can only imagine what this state of affairs is doing to the family dynamic.
The hearing itself was relatively short, with only two witnesses called. The second was The Detective (TD), but all she was there to do was the usual "yep, I arrested him, and on these charges." She wasn't cross-examined.
The victim's testimony, however, was unnerving; even for someone like me who's spent a significant amount of time working in courtrooms. Also, as I remarked about TD earlier, almost everyone there looked as if they came straight from central casting. The prosecutor was a pretty and eager young brunette, seemingly fresh out of law school. The public defender was a heavyset, gray-haired gentleman who absolutely oozed with "good ol' boy" charm/sleaze. And, as you can see from the perp walk, the constable was a total badass (my, oh my, did he rock those shades).
The victim's direct examination was relatively straightforward; she told everyone who she was, who Nick was, and what had happened. Out of respect for her, I won't go into details, but I will say both that the things she described were brutal and disgusting to a degree far beyond what has previously been reported, and that her testimony was both assured and utterly convincing, which made having to listen to it all the more horrible.
However, even in the middle of her direct, the Sleazy Defense Counsel (SDC) started in with what I consider to be inappropriate gamesmanship. He interrupted and asked AO directly to speak up (it was a small room, I was at the back of it, and I heard her just fine). I realize better than most that every defendant is entitled to a zealous and competent defense. I think that's a good thing -- a wonderful thing even -- about our society. And sometimes a zealous defense means callously working to discredit an innocent 12 year old girl. But it does not mean actively doing things that (at least from my perspective) serve no purpose other than intimidating her.
The prosecutor, while generally excellent (which is not surprising -- these days you have to have superb credentials to get any prosecutor's job straight out of law school), unfortunately played into this a little bit (in my opinion) by asking questions that weren't necessary to make her prima facie case (e.g., "So, when you say you sucked it, what do you mean by that?").
But it was on cross-examination that SDC got significantly out of line. He began by making her repeat/confirm pretty much everything she said on direct and then kept pressing her for specificity on dates/times/logistical details (including such things as exactly how Nick pulled the victim's shirt up). The prosecutor objected (and her objections were sustained) on three different occasions that SDC's questions constituted a "fishing expedition," in which he was trying to discredit AO and try the case on the merits rather than contest the commonwealth's prima facie case that a crime had occurred and that Nick had committed it.
Obviously, after the victim's testimony, the judge found that the commonwealth had met its prima facie burden and sent the case over to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for a formal arraignment/trial.
After the hearing, TD, the prosecutor, the bailiff, and the constable were chatting and TD called me over and asked about my accent. After chatting for a bit, I asked if I could ask her a question in return: "So, were you the one who got the video?" She replied that she was, but that Nick didn't actually attach it to the email, but rather "threatened" (her wording) to send it to her. She remarked that she had found it on ED in the course of her research and, while smiling ever so slightly, informed me that "several" of her colleagues have seen it. She asked where she could read more, so I gave her the web address.
If you're reading this, Detective, please allow me to second everybody else here in commending you for your work. You put in a ton of effort and waded through a ton of muck and filth (both literally and figuratively) to help make the world a better and safer place.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that (a) Sick Nick is going to be in prison for a long time at the end of this, (b) a bunch of people in Lancaster County now know, or shortly will know, about the Farms, and (c) AO is tough as nails. After dealing with what must be an utterly insane home life even apart from this case, she seems remarkably well-adjusted. It's a real tragedy that she has to go through this.
I'll answer more questions later, but for now it's time to distract myself with CGI dinosaurs. It's been a sincerely exhausting day. Goodnight everybody.
Ed Note: Here's the link to the forum post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-2-the-reckoning.9293/page-96
Reading this made me feel sick to my stomach. I can't imagine what AO had to go through. Especially, reliving it by having to testify in court. Sick Nick deserves the full 40 years and then some.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)