Man Makes Coffee Naked in His Own House- Passerby Presses Charges.

[r0tflcopter]

A man in his own home, at 5:30 am, was in his own kitchen, naked, making a pot of coffee. A woman cut through his yard with a 7 year old child, saw his nudity, and called the police.

He is now facing charges for indecent exposure, and may face jail time.


http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101909_man_caught_making_coffee_naked_faces_charge s

What the HELL?
So she trespasses, and peeps in, and HES getting the punishment?

[White Rain]

A man in his own home, at 5:30 am, was in his own kitchen, naked, making a pot of coffee. A woman cut through his yard with a 7 year old child, saw his nudity, and called the police.

He is now facing charges for indecent exposure, and may face jail time.


http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101909_man_caught_making_coffee_naked_faces_charge s

What the HELL?
So she trespasses, and peeps in, and HES getting the punishment?

This is freaking UNBELIEVABLE. My hubby walks around in our house naked all the time (when kids aren't there anyway.)
Ok before I rant on further WHAT was the lady and a 7 year old (especially the kid) doing out THIS early? My 12 yr old catches the bus at 6 am and I think that is early enough. Surely a child THAT young isn't catching the bus THAT early?
Even if the child was this charge is ATROCIOUS...he is in his own home...surely NOT expecting someone to be close enough to his window to freak out at his nakedness.
Why wasn't this woman charged with TOM-PEEPING?
Jeez I am one of those women (ahem) who sometimes does housework naked...not because I get a thrill or I think hubby will but because I am extremely hot-natured and don't like to sweat. God forbid I be charged with exposure in MY OWN HOUSE WHEN NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN MY YARD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
My God...why does it always seem like the law protects the wrong people?

ETA this man said "It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said." Unless this man had other exsposure or etc.. on his rap sheet the cops should have been ASHAMED to press this further...I mean really, how many of us who sleep naked (like many I know) get up in the middle of the night having to pee and are too sleepy to put on clothes because you THINK no one can see you...jeez I haven't seen a story that made me THIS mad in a LONG time.

[WholeLottaRosie]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages. She needs to be charged with child abuse/neglect/endangerment or something, and with being a peeping tom. This man was in his own home for crying out loud.

[alsmom]

Sadly, these are a percentage of the types of people who have to be sifted through when a child goes missing because they are registered sex offenders.

Abuse of laws goes both ways. :banghead:

[hoppyfrog]

I'm not so sure we're getting all the pertinent details from the news story. I'm thinking there is a reason the charges are moving forward.

My understanding of the law is that it is criminal to be naked in your own home if you can be seen from outside your home, e.g. lights on and/or window coverings not drawn. Cases like these have been prosecuted before.

[tapu]

OMG, they could come and arrest me right this minute!! :)

[Trino]

He should sue her for trespassing.

[LaLaw2000]

He should sue her for trespassing.

AND being a peeping tom!

LOL, this is really ridiculous! What was this woman doing looking in the window as she passed by? She was on his property, FGS!

I am for doing anything you please in your own home as long as you are not hurting anyone. Indecent exposure in your own home? I would get a lawyer on this one and fight it until I dropped.

MOO

[oh_gal]

Poor guy...coffee will probably never taste the same to him again...

This incident sounds like a great idea for a poll.... :D

[miimaa]

I'm not so sure we're getting all the pertinent details from the news story. I'm thinking there is a reason the charges are moving forward.

My understanding of the law is that it is criminal to be naked in your own home if you can be seen from outside your home, e.g. lights on and/or window coverings not drawn. Cases like these have been prosecuted before.

Oh that's just crazy isn't it! Why can't you be naked in your own house?

[AmandaBrown23]

I really hope she loses this battle because people like that think they have to be in control all the time. She is a troublemaker. If she didnt want to see nakedness then she shouldnt be lookin in other peoples window while walking through their yard. Now if he was blatantly naked in clear view for everyone to see I could see this being an issue.

[PoppyH]

My Neighbors bathroom can be seen from my back deck, the blinds are always up, one time he walked into the bathroom nude, headed to the shower, I know the layout cause Ive been in the house many times, I watch his cat when he travels for business, his girlfriend does the same thing, I don't think they realize that at night they can be seen, so when I am outside smoking at nite and the bathroom light goes on, I look the other way, Im too embarrased to go tell them that we can see them, mom says I should go and stick a note on the bathroom window that says"Please close your Blinds" LOL, No waY I would ever report them, they are nice people, just unaware they can be seen:rolleyes:

[passionflower]

she was trespassing through his yard!

[chemcopout]

why was the lady and her kid cutting through his yard? that's rude! its also why there are roads and sidewalks.
5:30am in the morning is early, its still dark out then a bit at this time of year in va.
he was in his own house, isnt that a violation of his rights?

i don't walk around my house naked, and i also don't expect people to cut through my yard. if i seen them cut through my yard, i would show them where the sidewalk is!

the guy might like to sleep in the buff and he said he just woke up and his roomies were gone. i don't see why they'd even charge him. it's not like he was outside naked!

[chemcopout]

the woman who reported it should have just put her hand over her child's eyes and not looked! he was inside his own house for gods sake!

[tapu]

Oh no! And now, I could be arrested again! I'm a repeat offender!!

[Dani_md]

I don't know what the lay out of the mans house is, but I know most houses I've been in the kitchen is in the rear of the house. This woman more then likely was right in his backyard. I for one didn't think you could get someone for being naked in their own home, unless the knocked on the window and presented themself to you. This does not sound like the case. She definately needs to be charged as peeping tom and with trespassing. My bathroom is too small for a linen closet, so sometimes after I get undressed to shower I realize I forgot a towel and run to get one. I would hate to think someone would press charges on me for that. I know for sure I would furthur press charges on them. There is such a thing as privacy in your own home. This man apparently did nothing to harm or threaten her or the child. If she was so offended I think there was other ways to deal with the situation.

[PoppyH]

I don't know what the lay out of the mans house is, but I know most houses I've been in the kitchen is in the rear of the house. This woman more then likely was right in his backyard. I for one didn't think you could get someone for being naked in their own home, unless the knocked on the window and presented themself to you. This does not sound like the case. She definately needs to be charged as peeping tom and with trespassing. My bathroom is too small for a linen closet, so sometimes after I get undressed to shower I realize I forgot a towel and run to get one. I would hate to think someone would press charges on me for that. I know for sure I would furthur press charges on them. There is such a thing as privacy in your own home. This man apparently did nothing to harm or threaten her or the child. If she was so offended I think there was other ways to deal with the situation.

Yes, Like stay out of the mans yard!! LOL

[southcitymom]

I'm not so sure we're getting all the pertinent details from the news story. I'm thinking there is a reason the charges are moving forward.

My understanding of the law is that it is criminal to be naked in your own home if you can be seen from outside your home, e.g. lights on and/or window coverings not drawn. Cases like these have been prosecuted before.

I'd like to think there were some other circumstances too, hoppy. Otherwise, legal or not, it's stupid to prosecute him.

[STEADFAST]

I was more outraged about this story before I read that the woman and boy were walking by his front window, which, as you can see by the picture in this article, is practically a picture window. Being naked in your own home is one thing; being naked in front of your front window with the curtains open and the light on when it's dark outside is something different. He'd have to be an idiot to not know he could be seen from the street.
Picture of him (clothed) in the window-- http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

[bogeygal]

I was more outraged about this story before I read that the woman and boy were walking by his front window, which, as you can see by the picture in this article, is practically a picture window. Being naked in your own home is one thing; being naked in front of your front window with the curtains open and the light on when it's dark outside is something different. He'd have to be an idiot to not know he could be seen from the street.
Picture of him (clothed) in the window-- http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

Thanks for the video Steadfast.

After seeing him (clothed) in the window, couldn't help but notice the shrubery in front, which looks to me like it blocks the view of any "private parts", so how did this woman know if he was fully naked. Maybe, if she was very close to the window, who knows? I don't think the man planned on the woman and boy being there at 5:30am!

[oh_gal]

Maybe he thought he was "safe" at 5:30 in the morning. (Was he just passing by, grabbing his cell phone or something, or scratching himself while daydreaming? I didn't read the article, so I plead ignorance on that detail.)

I'd be more concerned if he were standing in the middle of his window, buck naked, at 2:00 in the afternoon.

I'm sure there are many of us, if we are honest, who have walked through our house without clothes on, for one reason or another. I've made many a trip downstairs to the laundry room dressed in underwear because I'd forgotten to bring the clothes up. But maybe I'm just an exhibitionist, I don't know...

[STEADFAST]

Thanks for the video Steadfast.

After seeing him (clothed) in the window, couldn't help but notice the shrubery in front, which looks to me like it blocks the view of any "private parts", so how did this woman know if he was fully naked. Maybe, if she was very close to the window, who knows? I don't think the man planned on the woman and boy being there at 5:30am!

I'm not defending the woman for calling the police on this man. Personally, I would have laughed and covered my kid's eyes. But 5:30 a.m. is a pretty busy time in my neighborhood, with people getting off to work, walking dogs, etc. I'm just saying the man should have known he could be seen. Where do you draw the line between innocently being naked in your front window and standing there waggling your danglies at the schoolkids walking by? There are some limits to your right to be naked in your house. (BTW, I can see his (clothed) crotch in the video taken outside his house.)

[bogeygal]

I'm not defending the woman for calling the police on this man. Personally, I would have laughed and covered my kid's eyes. But 5:30 a.m. is a pretty busy time in my neighborhood, with people getting off to work, walking dogs, etc. I'm just saying the man should have known he could be seen. Where do you draw the line between innocently being naked in your front window and standing there waggling your danglies at the schoolkids walking by? There are some limits to your right to be naked in your house. (BTW, I can see his (clothed) crotch in the video taken outside his house.)

You have good eye's my dear! I have a cataract in one of my eyes, so must have missed the crotch area! LOL

[SuziQ]

I don't think that window looks that big. It looks that way because the camera is up close IMO. Do we know if the window was towards the back? Facing a secluded yard? I think there's a reasonable expectation one has in their own home for privacy. And the law should be tempered with intent. I don't think this guy meant any harm and you certainly don't expect other people to walk through your yard.

[MCDRAW]

I would think she might have more claim if she saw him while walking on the sidewalk, across the street, etc. But she walked across his yard, if he's being charged, she should be charged.

[ziggy]

The article implies that she is going to have to prove that he knew they were there and wanted to be seen. That might be tough to do. I think there are bigger problems than this for the police to spend time on, maybe not - lucky them.

This is an example of meddlers who are knee jerk reactors. The lady cut across his yard and put herself and her child in the position to see him, imo.

Any reasonable person would just say "oops, we caught that guy nekid makin' his coffee!" cover eyes and run, laugh and let it go. Now it's a big deal. That poor child with a mother like that :-(

[STEADFAST]

I don't think that window looks that big. It looks that way because the camera is up close IMO. Do we know if the window was towards the back? Facing a secluded yard? I think there's a reasonable expectation one has in their own home for privacy. And the law should be tempered with intent. I don't think this guy meant any harm and you certainly don't expect other people to walk through your yard.

All the articles that mention the location of the window say that it was a front window.

Also, as you can see by the picture in this article, the window goes all the way down to the floor.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464

Again, I'm not saying she should have called the police, and I certainly wouldn't have myself. I'm just saying he knew he could be seen from the front of his house.

[lizzysf]

And I wonder when we will hear about the "victim" seeking a cash settlement for her "mental anguish" and therapy for the young boy.. Only in America I tell ya.. You can display it on billboard ads, but don't get caught naked in your own home..

[lizzysf]

Starbuck's would have been cheaper..

[gaia227]

People are ridiculous. First of all why are we (especially americans) so scared of a nude body? He was naked - so what! Priorities seem to be seriously out of whack. It is okay to show violent, bloody events on TV or in the movies but it is not okay to show a woman's breast or a man's PENIS which are merely body parts. Sex is about the most natural, instinctual act there is yet as a society we have taught children that it is bad, forbidden yet blowing someone's brains out on primetime TV is okay.

Second of all - he was in his own house! SHE was trespassing on his lawn. OMG. Living in NYC we can all see in eachother's apt windows and if I called the police every time I saw someone walking around naked or whatever the city would run rampant with REAL criminals.

There is nothing shameful about our bodies. There is nothing shameful about being nude. The only reason that child would react negatively to seeing a penis is because his mother did and because he/she has been brought up in a society which teaches it is bad. The only trauma done to this child will be at the hands of his parents making a big deal out of it and causing him to believe what he saw was traumatic.

[believe09]

If he looked like Brad Pitt would she have made the complaint? I am just sayin...the cops hands are tied if there is a law on the books that supports the issue she is making.

Her story makes absolutely no sense however seeing as how 530 is a little early to be dragging a kid around the neighborhood. JMO.

[ziggy]

If the child was a he, then what's the big deal? He's got the same parts right? Not anything shocking.

[WhyaDuck?]

This is pretty idiotic.

That being said, buy some damn curtains, guy.

[STEADFAST]

And I wonder when we will hear about the "victim" seeking a cash settlement for her "mental anguish" and therapy for the young boy.. Only in America I tell ya.. You can display it on billboard ads, but don't get caught naked in your own home..

Actually, it's the naked guy who's thinking of a cash settlement.
Williamson is meeting with a lawyer to fight the charge and may attempt to seek damages from Fairfax County Police.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/dpgo_man_coffee_naked_faces_charges_dc_fc_20091020 _4126204

Again, I am kind of uncomfortable with coming in here repeatedly, looking like I think it was right to charge this guy. My husband walks around the house naked all the time, and I really would have no problem if one of my kids had seen a man making coffee naked. I don't understand what the big deal is about that.
The thing is, if no one checks the facts, this thread would imply that a woman snuck around in a guy's back yard at a time when no one would be expected to be around, went up to his window to see him naked and expose him to her son, and then maliciously called the police and now plans to sue. I just want to dispel the false assumptions and look at the facts.

A naked guy made coffee very near his floor-to-ceiling front windows at a time when many people are out and about walking dogs and going to work. If that's a crime, then he committed it. (I don't necessarily think it should be a crime.)

[Cypros]

...Any reasonable person would just say "oops, we caught that guy nekid makin' his coffee!" cover eyes and run, laugh and let it go. Now it's a big deal. That poor child with a mother like that :-(

I was just thinking that is sounds like that child was in need of a good dose of reality!:crazy:

[OrdinaryLife]

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous arrests I have read recently! It was 5:30 in the morning, a woman is cutting through his yard (for what reason, I might add), sees him nekkid, and calls it into the LE??? Seriously, I'm screwed big time! I do what I want/need to do and at times, without apparel. This is *my* home. My walls and windows. My safe haven. I do not *ever* flaunt a thing (though, I admit the ladies do have a mind of their own now), but I should never be afraid of what I do within my abode.

Meddlesome and nosey woman. Besides that, you seen one, you've seen it all. :D

[lizzysf]

Actually, it's the naked guy who's thinking of a cash settlement.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/dpgo_man_coffee_naked_faces_charges_dc_fc_20091020 _4126204

Again, I am kind of uncomfortable with coming in here repeatedly, looking like I think it was right to charge this guy. My husband walks around the house naked all the time, and I really would have no problem if one of my kids had seen a man making coffee naked. I don't understand what the big deal is about that.
The thing is, if no one checks the facts, this thread would imply that a woman snuck around in a guy's back yard at a time when no one would be expected to be around, went up to his window to see him naked and expose him to her son, and then maliciously called the police and now plans to sue. I just want to dispel the false assumptions and look at the facts.

A naked guy made coffee very near his floor-to-ceiling front windows at a time when many people are out and about walking dogs and going to work. If that's a crime, then he committed it. (I don't necessarily think it should be a crime.)
I'm glad he is considering suing her...he should IMO. For trespassing and peeping. His rights have been violated..not hers.

[STEADFAST]

I'm glad he is considering suing her...he should IMO. For trespassing and peeping. His rights have been violated..not hers.

He's planning on suing LE, not the woman who reported him. As long as we're all into assuming things on this thread, I'll just assume he's looking for bigger pockets.

ETA Although he may not have heard of pockets. :)

[lizzysf]

If I was arrested and humiliated like i'm some sexual deviant for making coffee naked in my home at 5:30 AM, due to a report from some trespassing nutjob...you bet.. i'd be suing big time. And I have never sued anyone in my life. He has to fight for his rights and his integrity which are being assaulted. Nowhere in the article does it describe some guy standing at the window flashing his junk for kicks.. he was making a pot of coffee!

[oceanblueeyes]

He's planning on suing LE, not the woman who reported him. As long as we're all into assuming things on this thread, I'll just assume he's looking for bigger pockets.

ETA Although he may not have heard of pockets. :)

This reminds me of another story I heard. A lady calls 911 to report her neighbor for being naked and passing by his window. When the police came out they asked her where she was standing when she saw the guy and she told them in her bathroom. They went up to her bathroom and looked out but they could not understand how she was able to even see him. She told them "well if you stand right here up on this stool like I did you can see him just fine".:crazy:

I think this is much ado about nothing.

imo

[kgeaux]

I'm not defending the woman for calling the police on this man. Personally, I would have laughed and covered my kid's eyes. But 5:30 a.m. is a pretty busy time in my neighborhood, with people getting off to work, walking dogs, etc. I'm just saying the man should have known he could be seen. Where do you draw the line between innocently being naked in your front window and standing there waggling your danglies at the schoolkids walking by? There are some limits to your right to be naked in your house. (BTW, I can see his (clothed) crotch in the video taken outside his house.)


5:30 AM is a time when some are getting off to work, walking the dog, etc. However, it is not a time when children are normally out and about, and it is certainly not a time when I would be expecting any one to come onto my property, using it as a short cut.

I read that the woman and her child accessed the yard from a pathway which ran behind his home. I think it is possible that the two windows we see are actually on the side of his house, not the front. IOW, she accessed his yard from the back, walked up the side of the house toward the front yard and peeped into his windows.

I don't think LE will ever be able to prove intent to expose himself, so I think he'll beat this charge. God help us if a guy minding his own business in his own home can be charged equally with a nasty man in a raincoat who is wanging his weiner out at kids at a bus stop!

[lizzysf]

An Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and
sadly rather true.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common
Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for
sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago
lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as
having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- why the early bird gets the worm;
- life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies
(don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies
(adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when
well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in
place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual
harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from
school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired
for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his
condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for
doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in
disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get
parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a
student; but could not inform parents when a student became
pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became
businesses; and criminals received better treatment than
their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend
yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar
could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman
failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She
spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge
settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth
and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter,
Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was
gone.

[STEADFAST]

5:30 AM is a time when some are getting off to work, walking the dog, etc. However, it is not a time when children are normally out and about, and it is certainly not a time when I would be expecting any one to come onto my property, using it as a short cut.

I read that the woman and her child accessed the yard from a pathway which ran behind his home. I think it is possible that the two windows we see are actually on the side of his house, not the front. IOW, she accessed his yard from the back, walked up the side of the house toward the front yard and peeped into his windows.

I don't think LE will ever be able to prove intent to expose himself, so I think he'll beat this charge. God help us if a guy minding his own business in his own home can be charged equally with a nasty man in a raincoat who is wanging his weiner out at kids at a bus stop!

I've checked his house out on Google Maps, and there is a wooded area with paths behind the house (which is a garden home -- just a few feet from the neighbors on both sides.) There are walks between the houses, and the front yards are very small. Now, I'm thinking she may have looked in a side window because the front yards are so small and they have sidewalks, so it would make no sense to cut through the tiny front yard -- but it would make sense to cut through by going to the street via the walkway separating the garden homes. That side walkway would have put her within a foot or two of his window, so not sure you could say she was invading his privacy. On the other hand, I sure don't think he would have expected someone to be walking on that little side walkway at that time.

[kgeaux]

I've checked his house out on Google Maps, and there is a wooded area with paths behind the house (which is a garden home -- just a few feet from the neighbors on both sides.) There are walks between the houses, and the front yards are very small. Now, I'm thinking she may have looked in a side window because the front yards are so small and they have sidewalks, so it would make no sense to cut through the tiny front yard -- but it would make sense to cut through by going to the street via the walkway separating the garden homes. That side walkway would have put her within a foot or two of his window, so not sure you could say she was invading his privacy. On the other hand, I sure don't think he would have expected someone to be walking on that little side walkway at that time.

That is exactly the conclusion I came to!

[butwhatif?]

I was more outraged about this story before I read that the woman and boy were walking by his front window, which, as you can see by the picture in this article, is practically a picture window. Being naked in your own home is one thing; being naked in front of your front window with the curtains open and the light on when it's dark outside is something different. He'd have to be an idiot to not know he could be seen from the street.
Picture of him (clothed) in the window-- http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

That pic shows that he has curtains which should have been drawn, imo.

For all we know this guy could be an exibitionist, who likes to expose himself to passers-by, or it could have been entirely innocent. I certainly hope that he learns fromthis experience to draw the curtains closed each night before going to bed, and only opens them when he is clothed.

I am OBSESSIVE about keeping my blinds closed, and it shocks me to see how many people leave theirs open allowing anyone walking by to see the layout of their home, who is in the home, their routine, their nakedness etc. Its sooooo dangerous. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they can't see you and your family.

For everyone who thinks this man did nothing wrong, I ask you this. Would you allow your children (regardless of their age) to walk around the house naked where anyone passing by could see them?
Hopefully the answer to that is NO, because we do everything we can to protct them from harm. We should do the same for ourselves.
It's more about self -protection than anything else.
And yeah, i agree that the woman had no business being in the mans yard to begin with.
JMO

[ziggy]

That pic shows that he has curtains which should have been drawn, imo.

For all we know this guy could be an exibitionist, who likes to expose himself to passers-by, or it could have been entirely innocent. I certainly hope that he learns fromthis experience to draw the curtains closed each night before going to bed, and only opens them when he is clothed.

I am OBSESSIVE about keeping my blinds closed, and it shocks me to see how many people leave theirs open allowing anyone walking by to see the layout of their home, who is in the home, their routine, their nakedness etc. Its sooooo dangerous. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they can't see you and your family.

For everyone who thinks this man did nothing wrong, I ask you this. Would you allow your children (regardless of their age) to walk around the house naked where anyone passing by could see them?
Hopefully the answer to that is NO, because we do everything we can to protct them from harm. We should do the same for ourselves.
It's more about self -protection than anything else.
And yeah, i agree that the woman had no business being in the mans yard to begin with.
JMO

So what this boils down to is that his curtains should have been drawn? Well tsk tsk, then why don't they warn him and then move on? This is utterly ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money.

I don't understand the anaology that we wouldn't let our kids walk around naked in the house for their protection, so this man should not be naked in his own home for...his protection? Maybe he doesn't have a family and isn't living in fear and just happened to wander out at O'Dark Thirty in the morning to make some coffee and forgot his drapes were open.

My gosh, at 5:30 in the morning I would be in a giant head fog, and I've walked around naked in the house and figured, "if they havent' seen it by now they never will" cuz sometimes I'm just be too lazy to put a robe on to dart from one room to another.

Here's a thought - THEY SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING IN MY WINDOW. TURN AWAY. SHOW SOME DECENCY YOURSELF LADY.

It's different if someone stands in front of the window trying to be seen, we can all recognize the difference in intent here. Stumbling to the kitchen at 5:30 in the morning to make coffee isn't intending to be seen or displaying oneself illegally.

A dog knows the difference between intent whether you are kicking him in anger or tripping over him. Surely we can tell the difference.

[STEADFAST]

So what this boils down to is that his curtains should have been drawn? Well tsk tsk, then why don't they warn him and then move on? This is utterly ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money.

I don't understand the anaology that we wouldn't let our kids walk around naked in the house for their protection, so this man should not be naked in his own home for...his protection? Maybe he doesn't have a family and isn't living in fear and just happened to wander out at O'Dark Thirty in the morning to make some coffee and forgot his drapes were open.

My gosh, at 5:30 in the morning I would be in a giant head fog, and I've walked around naked in the house and figured, "if they havent' seen it by now they never will" cuz sometimes I'm just be too lazy to put a robe on to dart from one room to another.

Here's a thought - THEY SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING IN MY WINDOW. TURN AWAY. SHOW SOME DECENCY YOURSELF LADY.

It's different if someone stands in front of the window trying to be seen, we can all recognize the difference in intent here. Stumbling to the kitchen at 5:30 in the morning to make coffee isn't intending to be seen or displaying oneself illegally.

A dog knows the difference between intent whether you are kicking him in anger or tripping over him. Surely we can tell the difference.

We have no idea what this man's intent was. For all we know, that lady and boy walk by every day at that time and he knows it. We only have his word that he was innocently making coffee. LE and the prosecuter, in fact, have decided that he did intend to be seen. Maybe there is more to this than what we've been informed of, almost all of which comes from the man so far.

[alsmom]

I have two children (now oldish adults) and neither one of them at any age would have freaked out seeing a nude man making coffee in his home. I would not have freaked either. I might have felt like I was invading his privacy but that's it. We probably would have been making jokes about it all day though. :crazy:

I'm just taking this story as reported. If something else untoward happened, I obviously can't comment on that.

[STEADFAST]

A bit more info:
"Williamson was making coffee in the buff at 5:30am and standing by his kitchen window when a woman and her seven-year-old son walked along a path by his home in Springfield. The woman then called the police.
Fairfax County Police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said the woman claimed Williamson then moved and exposed himself again through a large front window.
. . .
Ms Jennings said the police would not pursue a case based on inadvertent exposure."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-Man-Facing-Indecent-Exposure-Charges-After-Brewing-Coffee-Naked-In-His-Own-Kitchen/Article/200910315410967

AND

"The mother, who was walking her son to the school bus stop, told police it happened at 8:30 a.m. "She says she heard a noise, looked over and saw a naked man standing in the open doorway, that carport doorway, and that she quickly got on the sidewalk and started to pass by the house and once again saw the same naked man in one of the front windows," police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said.
. . .

Williamson was acting strange Monday morning, the roommate said.
"We wake up to Eric running around the house with nothing but a work hardhat on, butt naked," the roommate said.
"I was upstairs, downstairs without clothes on for several hours," Williamson told NBC4 Wednesday. "And then I ended up putting pants on when I guess that act got old I ended up putting some pants on."
Williamson said he doesn't have an exact time frame for when he was naked and when he was clothed."
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Man-Charged-After-Being-Seen-Naked-in-His-Home-65316082.html

Lots of differing stories.




I think he was baiting this woman the second time, and that's what led to the charges, IF the woman is telling the truth.

[ziggy]

Wait...she called the police before he moved to the front window, while he was at the kitchen window? What for? Is the kitchen window full length?

Edited to add: I see all the different stories. Weird.

[Velouria]

Williamson was acting strange Monday morning, the roommate said.
"We wake up to Eric running around the house with nothing but a work hardhat on, butt naked," the roommate said.
"I was upstairs, downstairs without clothes on for several hours," Williamson told NBC4 Wednesday. "And then I ended up putting pants on when I guess that act got old I ended up putting some pants on."
Williamson said he doesn't have an exact time frame for when he was naked and when he was clothed."
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Man-Charged-After-Being-Seen-Naked-in-His-Home-65316082.html

Lots of differing stories.


respectfully snipped

1. Does Williamson look like the guy pictured at the link? Because I have a feeling she wouldn't be complaining if'n he did. :D

2. The fact that Jennings has a 7 year-old son leads me to believe she's seen a naked man once or twice before.

3. This could've been the perfect lead-in for The Talk about the birds and the bees.

4. Williamson's housemates are currently searching the want ads for a new roomie.

[STEADFAST]

respectfully snipped

1. Does Williamson look like the guy pictured at the link? Because I have a feeling she wouldn't be complaining if'n he did. :D

2. The fact that Jennings has a 7 year-old son leads me to believe she's seen a naked man once or twice before.

3. This could've been the perfect lead-in for The Talk about the birds and the bees.

4. Williamson's housemates are currently searching the want ads for a new roomie.

Yeah, I would have posted that link even if there wasn't additional information there. :dance:

[Marine Mom]

After seeing him (clothed) in the window, couldn't help but notice the shrubery in front, which looks to me like it blocks the view of any "private parts", so how did this woman know if he was fully naked.

Because she was jumping in the air to get a better look? :waitasec:

Hubby and I saw a neked woman one time at her front door. Hubby nearly wrecked the car! We didn't call the cops. He just slowed down the next time we passed her house. :angel:

[THE FIXER]

Two ruminations:
1: Steadfast, it seems as if you WANT him to be guilty of something, whatever it might be.

2: If the genders were reversed, how could anyone reasonably doubt that the man in the yard would be arrested as a peeping tom?
You can bet he would be.

I hope he wins everything.

[STEADFAST]

Two ruminations:
1: Steadfast, it seems as if you WANT him to be guilty of something, whatever it might be.

2: If the genders were reversed, how could anyone reasonably doubt that the man in the yard would be arrested as a peeping tom?
You can bet he would be.

I hope he wins everything.

I was just trying to counteract all the assumptions being posted. I don't really care where this case goes. BTW, reading the rules and etiquette thread is always a good idea for new posters.

[Vegas Bride]

This story reminded me of something that happened years ago.
When I was 10 yo I went out to California with my mother to visit a friend of hers. One day, in the middle of the afternoon I was in a car with my mother driving through a neighborhood, when my mother spotted a woman in her front yard. Now she was wearing clothes, however, she was bending over to work on her flowers and was wearing a dress, without wearing any underwear! She was mooning us as we drove by.
It was surprising and I remember my mothers reaction was to laugh, because, well in all honesty it was funny!! Neither of us thought, oh wow we need to let the police know that this very large woman is in her front yard showing her behind. Her dress was not short, but with her bending over like she did it revealed way to much!! I've never forgotten it and I'm sure my mother didn't either.

VB

[WmHersey]

This whole case is nuts. All the women had to do was not look into his home. Keep your eyes on the road ahead and there is no problem. Prosecutor should be ashamed for wasting money bringing charges in this case.

[Boyz_Mum]

I was just trying to counteract all the assumptions being posted. I don't really care where this case goes. BTW, reading the rules and etiquette thread is always a good idea for new posters.

After reading what the other guy who lives in the house said, I'm kind of curious. I was thinking that maybe he heard a noise and ran to the door and checked on it, then to the window, BUT the roomie said he was running around in nothing but a hard hat?

This is an odd case, that's for sure!

[WhyaDuck?]

After reading what the other guy who lives in the house said, I'm kind of curious. I was thinking that maybe he heard a noise and ran to the door and checked on it, then to the window, BUT the roomie said he was running around in nothing but a hard hat?

This is an odd case, that's for sure!

BBM

Please tell me he was singing "YMCA"?

[OrdinaryLife]

BBM

Please tell me he was singing "YMCA"?

Probably more likely a humming something from "Right Said Fred". "I'm too sexy for my shirt. Too sexy for my shirt".... :D

[STEADFAST]

Probably more likely a humming something from "Right Said Fred". "I'm too sexy for my shirt. Too sexy for my shirt".... :D

If he was standing there naked in a hard hat singing "I'm too sexy for my shirt," I'm on his side!

His roomies said he'd been fired last Friday and was acting really strange on Monday. Weird thing is, he said the roommates weren't even there.

[WhyaDuck?]

Probably more likely a humming something from "Right Said Fred". "I'm too sexy for my shirt. Too sexy for my shirt".... :D

Shirt is one thing, but when the curtains are open, no one is too sexy for their knickers.

[Boyz_Mum]

BBM

Please tell me he was singing "YMCA"?

I thought of that song the minute I read the quote. Now I can't stop humming the dang thing! :banghead:

[OrdinaryLife]

I have to share that until there is anything real to this story (save for the naked part), I'm going to wait before I make any judgements against this guy. Right now, I think it's a goofy story that never should have been made made into a big deal.

Just say'in, as I try and rid that obnoxious song out of my head! :)

[THE FIXER]

I was just trying to counteract all the assumptions being posted. I don't really care where this case goes. BTW, reading the rules and etiquette thread is always a good idea for new posters.

There is absolutely nothing amiss about MY etiquette.
As I said, "It seems".
That is NOT accusing you or anyone else of anything.
You "seem" as if you want to whip out the "seniority card" which is usually illegitimate as, merely because I am new here does not equate to not being able to wonder.

I have been around forums for many years and have had people say flat out that I was wrong about something.
I am sufficiently comfortable about myself and what I say that I had no need to retaliate against anyone who was expressing an opinion and NOT calling me names of any sort, something which I did NOT call you.
Nor did I attack you in any way.

[SunnieRN]

An Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and
sadly rather true.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common
Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for
sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago
lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as
having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- why the early bird gets the worm;
- life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies
(don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies
(adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when
well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in
place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual
harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from
school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired
for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his
condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for
doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in
disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get
parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a
student; but could not inform parents when a student became
pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became
businesses; and criminals received better treatment than
their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend
yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar
could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman
failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She
spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge
settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth
and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter,
Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was
gone.

A couple of points....

This reminds me of the case in CA where a thief was trying to rob a house while the family was on vacation. He climbed up onto the roof, sawed a hole in their roof, was shimmying through the hole, somehow broke his leg and got stuck in the hole he made. He was stuck there for two days or so, until the family got home. They heard him yelling, called the police. The guy later SUED the family and WON. Not sure what grounds he won on, but he WON! Couldn't believe it then, can't believe it now! He was breaking into their house for gawds sake!

Second case. In college I took a course a lawyer was teaching, He brought up the case about the McDonalds lady who sued when she dropped coffee in her lap. He asked us how many of us thought that was a bogus law suit. He then told us the case details. The lady goes through the drive thru window to get her morning coffee. When the cashier hands her the cup of coffee, she can not hold onto it. It is so hot that it starts to scald her hands. She drops the coffee, not meaning to and it gives her third degree burns throughout her pelvic region, thighs and sides. She required plastic surgery as well as skin grafts and many months of excruciating care and therapy. Come to find out that several customers had complained and reported problems with the coffee and burns to their hands and mouths. Inspections of the McDonalds had been performed on 3 occasions and every time the coffee was deemed unsafe and they were told to get a new coffee pot. Apparently the coil, or whatever it is that regulated the temp, was defective.
IMHO she didn't get enough compensation after going through that!!

This sounds a bit off. Did the lady scream when she saw him at the window as she called the police? If so he may have run around to make sure she was ok and wasn't being harmed by anyone. I'll wait to judge him unless he is proven to have purposely exposed himself by a jury of his peers. Otherwise he was just careless and not using the best possible judgment imho.

[anneinchicago]

First, let me make it clear I know nothing about the accused nor am I implying anything about the accused...

I live in a mobile home park. For years, there was a known sex offender living here who would do just what this man was accused of- standing in his own home at his own front window, naked. It was his way of exposing himself to children without fear of being caught. In this case, the police did nothing.

[LaLaw2000]

I'll bet the little 7 yr. old boy thought it was funny. The mother is the one with a hang up, IMO.

Sorry, I just do not see the big deal. And WAY too many versions now of what supposedly happened.

[MLE]

What's the point of closing our windows anymore since the government listens to us having phone sex with our lovers?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1&page=1

We have no privacy. There are people who work not far from that man's house who sit around at the NSA building all day and listen to our soldiers and ordinary Americans masturbating on the phone and that's a fact. Somebody seeing our butts when we're pouring coffee seems really mild in comparison.

[LaLaw2000]

Well, the 'government' is way too much into our personal bidness. Our privacy and rights are slowly being taken away one by one.

[oh_gal]

Is it possible....(and I'm just throwing it out here)...that this guy was sleepwalking?

(Butt naked you say? I always thought it was Buck naked... :D) Kind of like a lady I knew once who told me her relative was sick with "ammonia". I'm chuckling at myself here...

[Celt1997]

This case sounds like it's becoming more and more of a witch hunt. Now they're going to ask other kids if they may have seen something? I was certain we learned enough from Salem 1693 about what happens when you start asking kids if they "saw" something.

Maybe there is more to it than we think, but it sounds like a guy who lost his job, got drunk, and forgot to put his pants on in the morning. As to him "following" them to the next window, that seems like a tough one to prove:

1) He could have just been walking to the next room, which was along the same line as the path the woman and her child were taking.

2) He thought she couldn't see him, but wanted to get a better look at her. (Who knows if he even saw she had a kid with her).

There are just sooo many possibilities out there already, and canvassing the neighborhood is only going to cloud this case even further.

This was a house that was rented by a lot of young people. Some neighbors may hold a grudge against them for parties, or whatever, and now you've given them the chance to get back at them.

It's all a ridiculous situation.

[BuzzieCat]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

This says the woman is the wife of a police officer and the house is right across the street from a school bus stop.

At first I was more on his side since I used to live in a neighborhood where people, particularly schoolchildren, walked across my front and back yards constantly, even right up to the windows. I was never naked at the time, but if someone is trespassing - geez. However, if she and her child were walking on a sidewalk and it wasn't 5:30 am but 8:30 am, that makes a little more sense. Still not sure.

[Velouria]

First, let me make it clear I know nothing about the accused nor am I implying anything about the accused...

I live in a mobile home park. For years, there was a known sex offender living here who would do just what this man was accused of- standing in his own home at his own front window, naked. It was his way of exposing himself to children without fear of being caught. In this case, the police did nothing.


Does he need a roommate? Because I bet Mr. Williamson is looking for new digs right about now. :eek:


Honestly though annie, I'm so sorry you had to put up with that in your neighborhood. There's a guy who used to live in our enclave who was convicted of exposing himself to a woman who lived nearby. (With an eight year-old daughter I am dilligent about checking for SOs in our area.) I can't believe the cops refused to do anything in your case!

[STEADFAST]

Police say they've received additional reports regarding Williamson's nudity and they're distributing a flier in the neighborhood around the 8700 block of Arley Drive, where Williamson lives with roommates.

The incident happened around 8:40 a.m. Monday, police said. The mother and son were walking down a path that runs past Williamson's house and between tennis courts and Hunt Valley Elementary School. . .


Last month, Fairfax County police charged Williamson with public swearing and intoxication. He was convicted of the charge Wednesday morning when he failed to appear in court.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

Another version of the story. I will say, though, that Williamson is the only person in any of the articles who says it happened at 5:30 am or that she was in his yard. In another article posted earlier, though, he was quoted as saying he had no idea when it happened since he was walking around the house naked for several hours.

I think things may be going kind of off track for Mr. Williamson, seeing as how he was fired on Friday, charged with indecent exposure on Monday, and convicted of public intoxication on Wednesday. Sounds like it's been a very bad week for him.

[LCoastMom]

Does he need a roommate? Because I bet Mr. Williamson is looking for new digs right about now. :eek:

Honestly though annie, I'm so sorry you had to put up with that in your neighborhood. There's a guy who used to live in our enclave who was convicted of exposing himself to a woman who lived nearby. (With an eight year-old daughter I am dilligent about checking for SOs in our area.) I can't believe the cops refused to do anything in your case!

Vel, his atty said, he has moved out of that house!

I had my niece in the car with me, taking her to my parents house when a group of young teens standing on the side of the road took a step back revealing one of them was in a "state of excitement" and obviously trying to do what ann's neighbor did. I called the cops, when they arrived at the house, he said whoever I saw was no longer 'out on the street', but if I insisted on filing a complaint they would have to find and arrest him and I didn't want to do that to some "kids" just playing around did I?? Like I was the bad guy, or gal!! So I do understand how ann feels.


The first reports said this happened at 5:30 am, in the dark. Which begs the question; "Why is she in his yard looking in the window?" Now they say 8:30 am. If he was making coffee in his own home, as he continues to maintain; that's a big difference from someone standing in the window touching his junk!! Whether he thought he could be seen or not.


The police are now asking if others have seen him standing around nikid to come forward!!! They still won't say who filed the report but said "She is an upstanding member of the community"... Does that statement infer he isn't?
And she is the wife of a cop.

There are too many variations to this, Celt. Unless they have a list of documented former complaints already filed, I can't see the cops winning this one. It is a he said-she said; and just being the wife of a cop doesn't make her word better than his.

[Velouria]

Vel, his atty said, he has moved out of that house!

I had my niece in the car with me, taking her to my parents house when a group of young teens standing on the side of the road took a step back revealing one of them was in a "state of excitement" and obviously trying to do what ann's neighbor did. I called the cops, when they arrived at the house, he said whoever I saw was no longer 'out on the street', but if I insisted on filing a complaint they would have to find and arrest him and I didn't want to do that to some "kids" just playing around did I?? Like I was the bad guy, or gal!! So I do understand how ann feels.

.

Thanks for the update, miss...Not at all surprising that he's been kicked out by his roommates. Something tells me this guy has issues with substance abuse.

About your situation with your niece, sounds like those cops tried to guilt you out of making them do their job. :rolleyes: I think you would have been doing the teen(s) and his parents a favor by filing a formal complaint. Who knows - he might graduate to more extreme behavior and at the very least, he needs professional counseling.

[Stoshie]

Is it possible....(and I'm just throwing it out here)...that this guy was sleepwalking?

(Butt naked you say? I always thought it was Buck naked... :D) Kind of like a lady I knew once who told me her relative was sick with "ammonia". I'm chuckling at myself here...


Ha Ha.... Someone where I used to work with told us she was scheduled for her autopsy.

[STEADFAST]

Ha Ha.... Someone where I used to work with told us she was scheduled for her autopsy.

I had an aunt who liked "canine pepper" on her food.

[jjenny]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

Another version of the story. I will say, though, that Williamson is the only person in any of the articles who says it happened at 5:30 am or that she was in his yard. In another article posted earlier, though, he was quoted as saying he had no idea when it happened since he was walking around the house naked for several hours.

I think things may be going kind of off track for Mr. Williamson, seeing as how he was fired on Friday, charged with indecent exposure on Monday, and convicted of public intoxication on Wednesday. Sounds like it's been a very bad week for him.
If Mr. Williamson was Miss Williamson, and she was naked in her own house, and a man walking by had reported her to the police, I wonder who would end up arrested?
What say you?
Let's face, I find it extremely unlikely they would have arrested a woman for being naked in her own house.

[gxm]

(respectfully snipped)
… If the genders were reversed, how could anyone reasonably doubt that the man in the yard would be arrested as a peeping tom?
You can bet he would be.

I hope he wins everything.

ITA. If the genders were reversed the person outside of the house would be charged as a peeping tom.

[gxm]

I was more outraged about this story before I read that the woman and boy were walking by his front window, which, as you can see by the picture in this article, is practically a picture window. Being naked in your own home is one thing; being naked in front of your front window with the curtains open and the light on when it's dark outside is something different. He'd have to be an idiot to not know he could be seen from the street.
Picture of him (clothed) in the window-- http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

It looks to me like the view is obstructed. Regardless, if I accidentally saw someone naked in their own home, I'd feel as if I'd intruded on their privacy. She should have just turned away and picked a new shortcut.

It sounds to me like the only reason he was arrested is because a cop's wife made the complaint. It's ridiculous to arrest people who like to go au naturel in their own home. And I really don't see how they are going to prove that he knew someone was there.

[Quiche]

I was taught, as a child, never to look into someones window while walking down the street-- even when the drapes are open, there is an implied privacy. I think this mother missed an opportunity to teach the child to avert their gaze and afford the man the privacy he obviously thought he was enjoying. Sheesh.

The seriousness here, imo, is that this man could be labeled a SO for life if these charges stick. That would make a mockery of that status-- ridiculous and unfounded charges are apt to degrade the value the system as a whole.

[Morag]

[QUOTE=Quiche;4335236]I was taught, as a child, never to look into someones window while walking down the street-- even when the drapes are open, there is an implied privacy. QUOTE]

Not strictly on topic, just a side note:
The people of the Netherlands are noted for their opened curtains. They are not only house-proud, they believe that they have nothing to hide. No, they are not standing there in the nude inviting glances (except for the ladies of the Red Light District in Amsterdam), they are just perfectly willing to cook, dine, watch tv, etc, knowing that anyone can see them.
I was once renting a flat in Amsterdam, sitting by the window watching the boats go by. My neighbor across the canal was preparing dinner, actually a dinner party. First I saw her arriving home with her groceries, then she was swooping about her stylish kitchen, then greeting her guests, drinking wine, dining, and then saying good-bye. Now, I wasn't staring at her for 4 hours non-stop! But her windows were undraped, her lights were on, and so were mine, so when I gazed out across the canal in the mid-summer evening, I could see her, and she could see me. We were both fully dressed, but I wasn't doing anything remotely interesting.

[jjenny]

It looks to me like the view is obstructed. Regardless, if I accidentally saw someone naked in their own home, I'd feel as if I'd intruded on their privacy. She should have just turned away and picked a new shortcut.

It sounds to me like the only reason he was arrested is because a cop's wife made the complaint. It's ridiculous to arrest people who like to go au naturel in their own home. And I really don't see how they are going to prove that he knew someone was there.

Exactly. If one can not be naked in one's own home, where can one be naked? If police gonna start arresting people for being naked in their own homes, the jails will be full.
The man was in his own home, alone, making coffee. If he were a woman, and a man complained her saw the naked woman in her own home, through her window, who would police end up arresting, I wonder.

[kgeaux]

I had an aunt who liked "canine pepper" on her food.

And I had a doggie named "Cayenne."

Just got to this thread this morning, and I have to catch up, but I had to comment on your aunt's pepper! Too cute....



Ok, caught up. The time discrepancy bothers me. If it was 8:30 in the morning, then it makes sense that Momma was walking her child to school.....and it would mean this guy lied about it being dark out, before daylight. If he lied, then that shows intent to hide something, to me. Not impressed by his substance abuse, either, although I can remember losing a job when I was young and getting stinking drunk to cope with it. (IOW: if he's just having a short term reaction to his life falling apart, that's understandable. I would worry much more if we learn that he is a long time substance abuser who can't tell the difference between daylight and dark.)

I am also in total agreement with the posters who suggested we reverse the gender of the people involved, and then guess which would have been arrested. A man looking in on a naked woman would automatically be arrested. Gender discrimination is alive and well in USA, my friends.

[gxm]

IMO, the so-called time discrepancy reinforces the point that he didn't know anyone saw him. He is unable to pinpoint the time of the supposed "offense" because he was, apparently, oblivious to the woman peeking in his window.

[kgeaux]

IMO, the so-called time discrepancy reinforces the point that he didn't know anyone saw him. He is unable to pinpoint the time of the supposed "offense" because he was, apparently, oblivious to the woman peeking in his window.

He did not know anyone saw him until police showed up at his door, according to the initial article about the incident. He probably can't pinpoint the exact time---if he'd lost his job, he may not have set his alarm clock. But he knows the difference between dark and light! He stated in the first article that he came downstairs naked to make coffee and didn't think anyone would see him because #1. It was dark out, and #2. His roommates weren't home. Also the woman saw him making coffee.....he'd know if he made the coffee while it was dark or while the sun was shining, wouldn't he?

If he is telling the truth, then it was dark out when he made coffee, and he didn't see anyone passing through his yard. If he is telling the truth, then the cop's wife is lying. Her statement includes the fact that she walked down the path to walk her son to school. That does seem to support a later time. Although I don't know what time elementary school begins in that area, I doubt it is before six AM.

[CHICANA]

I really don't know what to say.
She doesn't have to look in his window. If she can't resist the temptation, she could walk on the other side of the street. So much for a man's home being his castle.

[jjenny]

He did not know anyone saw him until police showed up at his door, according to the initial article about the incident. He probably can't pinpoint the exact time---if he'd lost his job, he may not have set his alarm clock. But he knows the difference between dark and light! He stated in the first article that he came downstairs naked to make coffee and didn't think anyone would see him because #1. It was dark out, and #2. His roommates weren't home. Also the woman saw him making coffee.....he'd know if he made the coffee while it was dark or while the sun was shining, wouldn't he?

If he is telling the truth, then it was dark out when he made coffee, and he didn't see anyone passing through his yard. If he is telling the truth, then the cop's wife is lying. Her statement includes the fact that she walked down the path to walk her son to school. That does seem to support a later time. Although I don't know what time elementary school begins in that area, I doubt it is before six AM.

Maybe he is a regular person who doesn't keep track of the exact times he does things. Do you keep a time sheet of the exact times you made coffee? And if it wasn't dark outside, it'd be harder to see someone through the window, don't you think?

[mycroft]

And I wonder when we will hear about the "victim" seeking a cash settlement for her "mental anguish" and therapy for the young boy.. Only in America I tell ya.. You can display it on billboard ads, but don't get caught naked in your own home..

That's the shame here. If he had been inside posting himself live on a webcam for the entire planet to see, nobody would care, but in his home at 5:30 am it's a major case.

It was a boy, and if she has a son, it's obviously equipment she's seen before. He has too. Why teach the kid that he's been traumatized by something that may not have even been noticed if she hadn't made a fuss?

I think it makes children more prone to predators if they are taught that bodies are something dirty that can't be seen or ever talked about, particularly if predators tell them they've done something bad and not to tell anyone. Sure, he should not have seen this happen, but his world hasn't ended. Being seen was embarrassing enough for both parties.

[jjenny]

By the way, according to this article, she might have been in his front yard when she saw him.
'Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.'
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464

[butwhatif?]

So what this boils down to is that his curtains should have been drawn? Well tsk tsk, then why don't they warn him and then move on? This is utterly ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money.

I don't understand the anaology that we wouldn't let our kids walk around naked in the house for their protection, so this man should not be naked in his own home for...his protection? Maybe he doesn't have a family and isn't living in fear and just happened to wander out at O'Dark Thirty in the morning to make some coffee and forgot his drapes were open.

My gosh, at 5:30 in the morning I would be in a giant head fog, and I've walked around naked in the house and figured, "if they havent' seen it by now they never will" cuz sometimes I'm just be too lazy to put a robe on to dart from one room to another.

Here's a thought - THEY SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING IN MY WINDOW. TURN AWAY. SHOW SOME DECENCY YOURSELF LADY.

It's different if someone stands in front of the window trying to be seen, we can all recognize the difference in intent here. Stumbling to the kitchen at 5:30 in the morning to make coffee isn't intending to be seen or displaying oneself illegally.

A dog knows the difference between intent whether you are kicking him in anger or tripping over him. Surely we can tell the difference.

Yes....for his protection. In this case, so that he doesn't end up having charges against him for indecent exposure.
And I do believe a warning to keep his curtains closed in the future would suffice, and then if he repeated the mistake, you could start to wonder about his intent.
I get that people have brain fog in the morning which is why it's a good idea to close up blinds/curtains before going to bed.
In your case, I hope that there's no creeps walking around your neighborhood waiting for a glimpse. Please be careful.
JMO

[butwhatif?]

It looks to me like the view is obstructed. Regardless, if I accidentally saw someone naked in their own home, I'd feel as if I'd intruded on their privacy. She should have just turned away and picked a new shortcut.

It sounds to me like the only reason he was arrested is because a cop's wife made the complaint. It's ridiculous to arrest people who like to go au naturel in their own home. And I really don't see how they are going to prove that he knew someone was there.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being naked in your own home.

But it is illegal to be naked in public. When curtains are open you are in full view of the public.
It wouldn't be ok for someone to step outside their front door naked, so why is it ok to stand in front of a un-curtained window in the same state? What is the difference? The public can still see your nakedness.

Seriously...it's not like it takes a whole lot of effort to close curtains. Why should the public have to divert their gaze because a resident is too lazy to draw their curtains before stripping off?

My sister constantly complains that she has creeps looking into her bathroom window as they pass through taking a short-cut to the mall. It seems that word has spread in the town that a young woman showers in full view of the public, because more guys keep looking in. But she won't go out to buy curtains so that it is no longer an issue.
I fear for her safety, and have told her as much, but since she hasn't made the effort to buy curtains, I have to wonder if she likes the attention.

So this is all about self -responsibility, and self-protection....regardless of gender.
JMO

[kgeaux]

I really don't know what to say.
She doesn't have to look in his window. If she can't resist the temptation, she could walk on the other side of the street. So much for a man's home being his castle.

I really, really want to give this man the benefit of the doubt. I KNOW that if the genders were reversed, the man who peeped in on a naked woman would have been arrested, and not the other way around. That lack of equal treatment is not fair, and completely inexcusable in my opinion.

However, there is a noticeable difference between pre-dawn and 8:30 in the morning. If this happened at 5:30 AM, then of course this man had every expectation of having privacy in his home. If it happened when it was light out, then that expectation of privacy is gone. I am also very, very concerned that his home is located across the street from a bus stop, and on a pathway commonly used by kids to get to the bus stop. I'm not ready to declare this guy "guilty" but I am very concerned about the time discrepancy and completely concerned that his front door/window faced an elementary school bus stop.

[kgeaux]

Maybe he is a regular person who doesn't keep track of the exact times he does things. Do you keep a time sheet of the exact times you made coffee? And if it wasn't dark outside, it'd be harder to see someone through the window, don't you think?

Well, Jenny, since you ask! Yes, I do know what time I make coffee every morning. I have a job and must clock in by 7:56 every morning.....my alarm goes off at 5 AM and I make a potty visit and then head straight to the kitchen to make my coffee! I only work five days a week, but I guess I am a creature of habit, because I get up at 5 AM whether I have to or not!

I can see that this man may not have been aware of the exact time, since he had recently lost his job. But with his curtains wide open, there is just no way he couldn't be SURE if it was dark or light out.

By the way, according to this article, she might have been in his front yard when she saw him.
'Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.'
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464

As I've said, if genders were reversed, the "peeper" would have been the one arrested. She had no business cutting through his front yard. As the article mentions, she states she first saw him through his car port door, then proceeded to go across his front lawn, seeing him again through his front windows. I really can't believe she chose to walk across the front yard after she'd spotted a naked man through the carport door! I think she is maybe a nut case! If I was walking my child to school, and I saw someone through the side door of their home, I just don't think I'd lead my kid across the front yard for a better view.

My concerns are that IF her time line is truthful (and it seems to make sense that a child would be headed to school at 8:40 instead of 5:30 AM!) then it was light out. His curtains were open: he could see daylight. There is a bus stop right across from his front window. I think his right to privacy would end when the sun came up and children populated the bus-stop. At that point, a reasonable adult would know to cover their body so as not to "flash" the kiddos gathered at the bus stop.

The article also mentions that police have had other people come forward since the initial complaint. I want to know the "rest of the story."

[jjenny]

Well I couldn't tell you the exact time I make coffee or tea. I don't keep track or a time sheet. By the way it is much easier to see into someone's window if it's dark outside, and they have a light on, than if it's light outside. Because of sun's glare, I don't think someone would get a good view if it was light outside.

[gxm]

The linked article says the police are asking if anyone else saw him walking around his house naked. I haven't seen any reports that they received other complaints.

He could very well have made coffee at 5:30 AM and 8:30 AM. All the time confusion proves is that he didn't know when he was observed. Also, I haven't read that the woman saw him making coffee. I've read that she saw him through a side door and then through the front window. I agree with the other comments who don't understand why she proceeded to cut across his front yard AND kept looking into his house after seeing him the first time. IMO, she sounds like she doesn't have a very good sense of boundaries because she clearly crossed them, repeatedly.

[gxm]

Well I couldn't tell you the exact time I make coffee or tea. I don't keep track or a time sheet. By the way it is much easier to see into someone's window if it's dark outside, and they have a light on, than if it's light outside.

Excellent point. If it were light outside then the woman would have needed to practically press her face against the window to get a good look at him. That's probably why he assumed she peeped him earlier in the morning.

[jjenny]

Excellent point. If it were light outside then the woman would have needed to practically press her face against the window to get a good look at him. That's probably why he assumed she peeped him earlier in the morning.

Exactly. Sun glares. If it is light out, because of sun's glare, she likely wouldn't have gotten a good look at him inside his home.
Now, if it's dark out, and he has a light on, she would get a good look. While he, from the inside, might not realize she was outside.

[CHICANA]

By the way, according to this article, she might have been in his front yard when she saw him.
'Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.'
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464

Can he have her arrested for trespassing ?

[BuzzieCat]

And I had a doggie named "Cayenne."

Just got to this thread this morning, and I have to catch up, but I had to comment on your aunt's pepper! Too cute....

Ok, caught up. The time discrepancy bothers me. If it was 8:30 in the morning, then it makes sense that Momma was walking her child to school.....and it would mean this guy lied about it being dark out, before daylight. If he lied, then that shows intent to hide something, to me. Not impressed by his substance abuse, either, although I can remember losing a job when I was young and getting stinking drunk to cope with it. (IOW: if he's just having a short term reaction to his life falling apart, that's understandable. I would worry much more if we learn that he is a long time substance abuser who can't tell the difference between daylight and dark.)

I am also in total agreement with the posters who suggested we reverse the gender of the people involved, and then guess which would have been arrested. A man looking in on a naked woman would automatically be arrested. Gender discrimination is alive and well in USA, my friends.
BBM. Just thought I'd point out that it goes the other way an awful lot, too. OT, but IMO there are plenty of situations where a woman gets a longer sentence than a man would in a similar circumstance.

By the way, according to this article, she might have been in his front yard when she saw him.
'Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.'
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
Hmm, if we're back to her cutting through his yard, that makes me mad. She shouldn't have been doing that.

[kgeaux]

Well I couldn't tell you the exact time I make coffee or tea. I don't keep track or a time sheet. By the way it is much easier to see into someone's window if it's dark outside, and they have a light on, than if it's light outside. Because of sun's glare, I don't think someone would get a good view if it was light outside.

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

Not much glare in the photo.

Do you work, Jenny? Maybe I am aware of the time of day I make coffee because my work schedule requires that I wake up at the same time every day? I can see that if I didn't have a job to make me get up at the same time every day, I might wake at different times each day. You've shown me that my stance on the time he made coffee is based on my own subjective opinion and might be totally off-the-wall.

I don't know if this man was aware of the time of day, but I know he had to have been aware if it was dark or light. I also know he initially claimed his roommates were not home, and that's why he felt comfortable coming downstairs in the buff----but the roommates say they WERE home, and witnessed him running around in nothing but a hardhat for hours!

The linked article says the police are asking if anyone else saw him walking around his house naked. I haven't seen any reports that they received other complaints.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

Police say they've received additional reports regarding Williamson's nudity and they're distributing a flier in the neighborhood around the 8700 block of Arley Drive, where Williamson lives with roommates.

Granted, the article says "reports" not "complaints." I used the wrong word, but I think it's just a matter of semantics. :blowkiss:

[kgeaux]

Whoops! Sorry, sweetie, I responded before you removed your post--

[STEADFAST]

I don't see this as a case of a man being charged with exposing himself to a woman but rather as a man being charged with exposing himself to a 7-year-old child.

I also note that the story that she was cutting through his yard at 5:30 am and saw him making coffee nude while he was alone in his home was the early story that he told to interviewers. It has since been contradicted by his roommates, the woman, the police and even the man himself.

[kgeaux]

I don't see this as a case of a man being charged with exposing himself to a woman but rather as a man being charged with exposing himself to a 7-year-old child.

I also note that the story that she was cutting through his yard at 5:30 am and saw him making coffee nude while he was alone in his home was the early story that he told to interviewers. It has since been contradicted by his roommates, the woman, the police and even the man himself.

Me, too, Steadfast. I started out completely in support of the man. I believed the woman was a trespasser who went from window to window to get a better view,and that LE would never be able to prove intent in order to prosecute this man. Now, after reading that his car-port door was open, that the roommates were home, that his time was off by three hours, that other reports have been received, that a school bus stop is across the street from the home he was living in, my hinkey meter is starting to ring loudly.

I've been reminded to wait until both sides of the story are presented before even attempting to form an opinion!

God's blessings! Tell Vito that kgeaux sez "Hi, right back atya!"

[STEADFAST]

I've been reminded to wait until both sides of the story are presented before even attempting to form an opinion!



Well, unless your opinion is that the woman is a voyeuristic, peeping Tom; then it's okay.:D

[jjenny]

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

Not much glare in the photo.

Do you work, Jenny? Maybe I am aware of the time of day I make coffee because my work schedule requires that I wake up at the same time every day? I can see that if I didn't have a job to make me get up at the same time every day, I might wake at different times each day. You've shown me that my stance on the time he made coffee is based on my own subjective opinion and might be totally off-the-wall.

I don't know if this man was aware of the time of day, but I know he had to have been aware if it was dark or light. I also know he initially claimed his roommates were not home, and that's why he felt comfortable coming downstairs in the buff----but the roommates say they WERE home, and witnessed him running around in nothing but a hardhat for hours!



Why would there be glare in the photo? It is clearly taken when it was dark outside and he had light on. This photo only supports the point I was making- one can get a good look at someone inside their home if it is dark outside and the person in the home has a light on. I personally did not see any reports that his roommates were at home at the time(s) of the incident. The article I have read said his roommates left home at 5 am on the day at question, which would make it impossible for them to be at home whether this has happened either at 5:30 or 8:30 am.

[gxm]

Actually, there is no clear consensus regarding the roommates version of events. But from what I've been able to piece together, they left for work on the morning of the "peeping" at 5 AM. So they are not reliable witnesses as to whether he was running around naked after 5 AM until they came home that day.

It was a week day when this happened so I'm inclined to believe that the roomies had already left for the day. And for all we know, the "reports" of him running around drunk and naked could have come from the roommates on another day or after they returned from work. The reporting hasn't really made that clear.

[gxm]

Why would there be glare in the photo? It is clearly taken when it was dark outside and he had light on. This photo only supports the point I was making- one can get a good look at someone inside their home if it is dark outside and the person in the home has a light on. I personally did not see any reports that his roommates were at home at the time(s) of the incident. The article I have read said his roommates left home at 5 am on the day at question, which would make it impossible for them to be at home whether this has happened either at 5:30 or 8:30 am.

Also, the photo was, presumably, taken by a professional photojournalist, someone schooled in the process of dealing with lighting issues.

[gxm]

Honestly, this case has all the hallmarks of similar cases where a burglar injures himself (falls through a skylight, gets stuck on a window) while breaking into a house and then has the audacity to complain and/or sue about it. The woman was in the wrong. If you don't want to gaze at nude men in their houses then don't peer into their windows while trespassing on their lawn.

[kgeaux]

Why would there be glare in the photo? It is clearly taken when it was dark outside and he had light on. This photo only supports the point I was making- one can get a good look at someone inside their home if it is dark outside and the person in the home has a light on. I personally did not see any reports that his roommates were at home at the time(s) of the incident. The article I have read said his roommates left home at 5 am on the day at question, which would make it impossible for them to be at home whether this has happened either at 5:30 or 8:30 am.

Here you go, Jenny. This article contains a direct quote from one of the roommates:

Williamson was acting strange Monday morning, the roommate said.
"We wake up to Eric running around the house with nothing but a work hardhat on, butt naked," the roommate said.
"I was upstairs, downstairs without clothes on for several hours," Williamson told NBC4 Wednesday. "And then I ended up putting pants on when I guess that act got old I ended up putting some pants on."


Pasted from http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Man-Charged-After-Being-Seen-Naked-in-His-Home-65316082.html

The person who reported that the roommates had left that morning and that he was alone was Williamson himself. The roommate has contradicted him. Williamson also said it was "dark" out, which we know is not true since police reports place the incident at between 8:30 and 8:40 AM. And he has admitted running around in the nude for several hours, so if he did wake at 5:30, he admits still being nude "several hours" later----right when the woman says he was?

I have no idea if this man meant to show himself off, or not. But I do know he lied from the get-go, and that is always troublesome.

[jjenny]

No, his roommates said they all left at 5 am.
"FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning."
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

And by the way it appears that police is treating it like the crime of the century. I am amazed that they are out there putting out fliers and asking if anyone else saw this guy naked. Are they really that concerned the guy was naked in his own home, or are they doing all this because the lady who saw him naked is a wife of a police officer?

[STEADFAST]

No, his roommates said they all left at 5 am.
"FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning."
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

And by the way it appears that police is treating it like the crime of the century. I am amazed that they are out there putting out fliers and asking if anyone else saw this guy naked. Are they really that concerned the guy was naked in his own home, or are they doing all this because the lady who saw him naked is a wife of a police officer?

Or are they doing it because they want to know if there's been a man exposing himself to school children? Maybe he was innocently wandering around the house naked, or maybe he was drunk and out of his right senses and the incident with the woman and her son is an anomaly, or maybe he makes a habit of exposing himself. All LE is doing is investigating. Seems to me that's their job. I think taking his story at face value would be a disservice to the children in the neighborhood.

[jjenny]

Or are they doing it because they want to know if there's been a man exposing himself to school children? Maybe he was innocently wandering around the house naked, or maybe he was drunk and out of his right senses and the incident with the woman and her son is an anomaly, or maybe he makes a habit of exposing himself. All LE is doing is investigating. Seems to me that's their job. I think taking his story at face value would be a disservice to the children in the neighborhood.

If only police used that sort of vigor to investigate all the crimes. When my wallet was stolen the only thing I could get police to do is to take a police report.

[carla61154]

I don't think that window looks that big. It looks that way because the camera is up close IMO. Do we know if the window was towards the back? Facing a secluded yard? I think there's a reasonable expectation one has in their own home for privacy. And the law should be tempered with intent. I don't think this guy meant any harm and you certainly don't expect other people to walk through your yard.

The window doesn't look that big to me either...and, no offense gentlemen, with the plantings in front I think one would have to be very close and looking hard to see 'something' under the circumstances...

Let's just hope there won't be a Home Nudity Czar appointed b/c of this...

[gxm]

No, his roommates said they all left at 5 am.
"FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning."
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

And by the way it appears that police is treating it like the crime of the century. I am amazed that they are out there putting out fliers and asking if anyone else saw this guy naked. Are they really that concerned the guy was naked in his own home, or are they doing all this because the lady who saw him naked is a wife of a police officer?


ITA. It is absurd how far they are taking this and the way they are out to pin something more on this guy (no pun intended), it seems likely that they'll finally find someone who tells them what they want to hear. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so frightening. All because a nosy cop's wife couldn't stay off someone's property and stop herself from looking in the man's windows.

And I think people should take a picture from across the street before they accuse the guy of flashing school kids. We don't even know if the line of sight between the man's window and the bus stop is direct and unobstructed. From what I've seen, the window is obstructed with shrubs and you can't really see him below his waist when the photographer is clearly standing right outside of the window. And IMO, school kids probably have more sense than the mom and don't spend their time waiting for the bus by trespassing on people's lawns and peeping in their windows.

[STEADFAST]

Looks like Williamson tried to solve his home nudity problems (though since he was moving out, I don't quite get it, but anyway . . .)

"As for what really happened, the roommate said, "anything's possible." All he knows is that the kitchen curtains, which he said were Williamson's, were not installed when he left for work Monday morning but that they were up when he got home."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

(This article is a good summary of the two different stories.)

[LCoastMom]

Not strictly on topic, just a side note:

I was once renting a flat in Amsterdam, sitting by the window watching the boats go by. My neighbor across the canal was preparing dinner. Now, I wasn't staring at her for 4 hours non-stop! , I could see her, and she could see me. We were both fully dressed, but I wasn't doing anything remotely interesting.

(respectfully clipped)

You had me worried for a minute. This was starting to sound stalkerish!!!

ITA. It is absurd how far they are taking this and the way they are out to pin something more on this guy (no pun intended), it seems likely that they'll finally find someone who tells them what they want to hear. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so frightening. All because a nosy cop's wife couldn't stay off someone's property and stop herself from looking in the man's windows.

And IMO, school kids probably have more sense than the mom and don't spend their time waiting for the bus by trespassing on people's lawns and peeping in their windows.

(respectfully clipped) You have several excellent points. It sounds like the bottom line is going to be She is a "respected member of the community!" (and possibly the one who refuse s to drop it?) This is another case of things being taken too far by people who should take a step back and a fresh look.

Instead of calling the cops, had she talked to her dh and made this complaint, he could have approached the guy 'neighbor to neighbor', "Hey guy; little kids and their mothers walk by here, cover yourself or cover your window." Done.... Makes way too much sense.

If he had a record of children making these reports prior to this incident, the cops wouldn't need to send out flyers!!!

[LCoastMom]

Thanks for the update, miss...Not at all surprising that he's been kicked out by his roommates. Something tells me this guy has issues with substance abuse.

About your situation with your niece, sounds like those cops tried to guilt you out of making them do their job. :rolleyes: I think you would have been doing the teen(s) and his parents a favor by filing a formal complaint. Who knows - he might graduate to more extreme behavior and at the very least, he needs professional counseling.

I don't guilt that easily. I told the cop to do what he had to do. I would have been happy with police taking the kids home and letting the parents know what happened.

In the end he claimed he couldn't find the kids. Not a big surprise since he left the neighborhood, without looking.

[kgeaux]

No, his roommates said they all left at 5 am.
"FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning."
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

And by the way it appears that police is treating it like the crime of the century. I am amazed that they are out there putting out fliers and asking if anyone else saw this guy naked. Are they really that concerned the guy was naked in his own home, or are they doing all this because the lady who saw him naked is a wife of a police officer?


From your link: "Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said.

From the link in post #113: Williamson was acting strange Monday morning, the roommate said.
"We wake up to Eric running around the house with nothing but a work hardhat on, butt naked," the roommate said.
"I was upstairs, downstairs without clothes on for several hours," Williamson told NBC4 Wednesday. "And then I ended up putting pants on when I guess that act got old I ended up putting some pants on."


I think we are talking about two different things here. You are saying the roommates left at 5am,and did not witness the incident. I never thought the roommates witnessed the incident: I am pointing out that Williamson LIED when he said he walked around naked because HE WAS ALONE IN THE HOME. He clearly, from the roommate's statement, was running around nude while the roommates were still in the home. His fudging of the truth on several items is what concerns me and makes me think he MAY have more culpability here than I originally thought.

The police, in my opinion, are treating this seriously because the house is across the street from a school bus stop, and this man was running around naked with NO CURTAINS IN HIS WINDOWS, with his carport door OPEN, while kids were walking to the bus stop. LE has to pursue this and investigate vigorously because what IF this guy has a habit of exposing himself to children? What if his behavior is escalating? Does LE just take Williamson's word for everything? Or do they check it out? Honestly, if this had happened in my neighborhood, I would want LE to assure me that it was an honest mistake and that my kids were safe. And they can't assure anyone of anything if they don't bother to investigate.


Looks like Williamson tried to solve his home nudity problems (though since he was moving out, I don't quite get it, but anyway . . .)

"As for what really happened, the roommate said, "anything's possible." All he knows is that the kitchen curtains, which he said were Williamson's, were not installed when he left for work Monday morning but that they were up when he got home."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

(This article is a good summary of the two different stories.)

Really good summary, Steadfast. I notice Williamson says he dressed at 9AM, which makes his "it was dark out, I didn't think anyone would see me" a little weak, excuse wise. Sometime between rising and dressing, this man had to notice the sun was shining, especially since he had an open door and no curtains on the windows.

[jjenny]

Good (in my opinion) question and answer session regarding this case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/26/DI2009102601203.html

So, the prosecutor would have to prove he intentionally exposed himself and the exposure was obscene.
Does the woman allege he was doing anything obscene? I certainly haven't seen any reports she is alleging he was doing anything obscene while standing/walking inside the home naked.
Does standing/walking naked in someone's own home equal "obscene?" The defense attorney says no, being naked inside the home is not obscene.
And what about the "peeping" statute? The defense attorney does not think the woman can be charged with "peeping" based on the facts. But I am curious, since at 8:30 am it would be light out already, it could be hard to see someone inside the house.
How close was the woman to the window?

[kgeaux]

Good (in my opinion) question and answer session regarding this case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/26/DI2009102601203.html

So, the prosecutor would have to prove he intentionally exposed himself and the exposure was obscene.
Does the woman allege he was doing anything obscene? I certainly haven't seen any reports she is alleging he was doing anything obscene while standing/walking inside the home naked.
Does standing/walking naked in someone's own home equal "obscene?" The defense attorney says no, being naked inside the home is not obscene.
And what about the "peeping" statute? The defense attorney does not think the woman can be charged with "peeping" based on the facts. But I am curious, since at 8:30 am it would be light out already, it could be hard to see someone inside the house.
How close was the woman to the window?


Yes, that's correct. He cannot be prosecuted without showing INTENT to expose himself to others. The prosecutors believe they have a shot at proving intent because the mom reports looking toward his carport door in response to a noise coming from that area.In contridiction to the defense attorney's comments on the link, prosecutors say they do not have to prove that he made obscene gestures, they just have to prove that he had INTENT to be SEEN while naked. Exposure. I think the row prosecutors have to hoe is going to be harder than just that.....I don't think there has been any mention of him doing anything obscene, just that he was visible naked in view of a child....that is why the police are collecting other reports. IMO, to prove intent, they are going to have prove that Williamson caused the noise that made the woman look up, or have proof that incidents such as this have happened before. Consciousness of guilt may be easier, since he installed his own curtains in the windows right as he was moving out of the home!

Also, not to argue, but doesn't it matter which direction windows face as to whether or not there is a glare? My front windows face south, and you can see into my home clearly. One side of my home faces east, but has no windows. The other side faces west, big glare there! Back yard faces north, is filled with trees, and there is never a glare in those windows.

I mention that because the newest reports say that after the woman and her son saw the man standing in his carport door, they went onto the sidewalk which runs across the front of his home, and that's where they saw him in the front windows. We do have a post from a person familiar with the area who says the yards are quite small there, so I don't know how deep his front yard is, but apparently the woman could see him from the sidewalk.

We've heard so much back and forth and out and out contradictions about this case, the known facts are few and far between.

[gxm]

"There are conflicting accounts of what happened Monday morning, but everyone agrees on this: The 29-year-old was naked and home alone, and he could face up to a year in jail."

bolding by me

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

According to this recent report, "everyone" agrees he was home alone.

[kgeaux]

"There are conflicting accounts of what happened Monday morning, but everyone agrees on this: The 29-year-old was naked and home alone, and he could face up to a year in jail."

bolding by me

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

According to this recent report, "everyone" agrees he was home alone.

I don't think anyone disputes that he was home alone at the time of the incident, gxm. Williamson initially said he remained naked after rising because his roommates were gone, he was "alone." But his roommates were home at the time he began running around the house in nothing but a hard hat.

The argument is whether Williamson lied when he said he got up and remained naked because no one was home, or whether the roommate is telling the truth that they were all at home PRIOR to the incident and witnessed Williamson's nakedness. And if the roommates are telling the truth, why would Williamson lie about that?

[Muffet]

This story reminded me of something that happened years ago.
When I was 10 yo I went out to California with my mother to visit a friend of hers. One day, in the middle of the afternoon I was in a car with my mother driving through a neighborhood, when my mother spotted a woman in her front yard. Now she was wearing clothes, however, she was bending over to work on her flowers and was wearing a dress, without wearing any underwear! She was mooning us as we drove by.
It was surprising and I remember my mothers reaction was to laugh, because, well in all honesty it was funny!! Neither of us thought, oh wow we need to let the police know that this very large woman is in her front yard showing her behind. Her dress was not short, but with her bending over like she did it revealed way to much!! I've never forgotten it and I'm sure my mother didn't either.

VB

Maybe she was just trying to get her cucumbers to grow. :angel:



(Sorry, old joke, and I couldn't resist.)

[jjenny]

Yes, that's correct. He cannot be prosecuted without showing INTENT to expose himself to others. The prosecutors believe they have a shot at proving intent because the mom reports looking toward his carport door in response to a noise coming from that area.In contridiction to the defense attorney's comments on the link, prosecutors say they do not have to prove that he made obscene gestures, they just have to prove that he had INTENT to be SEEN while naked. Exposure. I think the row prosecutors have to hoe is going to be harder than just that.....I don't think there has been any mention of him doing anything obscene, just that he was visible naked in view of a child....that is why the police are collecting other reports. IMO, to prove intent, they are going to have prove that Williamson caused the noise that made the woman look up, or have proof that incidents such as this have happened before. Consciousness of guilt may be easier, since he installed his own curtains in the windows right as he was moving out of the home!

Also, not to argue, but doesn't it matter which direction windows face as to whether or not there is a glare? My front windows face south, and you can see into my home clearly. One side of my home faces east, but has no windows. The other side faces west, big glare there! Back yard faces north, is filled with trees, and there is never a glare in those windows.

I mention that because the newest reports say that after the woman and her son saw the man standing in his carport door, they went onto the sidewalk which runs across the front of his home, and that's where they saw him in the front windows. We do have a post from a person familiar with the area who says the yards are quite small there, so I don't know how deep his front yard is, but apparently the woman could see him from the sidewalk.

We've heard so much back and forth and out and out contradictions about this case, the known facts are few and far between.

From the link:
"§ 18.2-387. Indecent exposure

Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. No person shall be deemed to be in violation of this section for breastfeeding a child in any public place or any place where others are present."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines
So the exposure has to be intentional and obscene. If a prosecutor claims exposure doesn't have to be obscene, does this prosecutor know what the statute says? As for him possibly installing the curtains (if it was him and not one of the roommates) I fail to see how that shows any consciousness of guilt. He was arrested by police officers on that day, so he could have installed curtains after he was informed someone has reported seeing him naked. Furthermore, since he was moving out, maybe one of his roommates installed the curtains after finding out Williamson was arrested for being in the home naked.

[gxm]

I don't think anyone disputes that he was home alone at the time of the incident, gxm. Williamson initially said he remained naked after rising because his roommates were gone, he was "alone." But his roommates were home at the time he began running around the house in nothing but a hard hat.

The argument is whether Williamson lied when he said he got up and remained naked because no one was home, or whether the roommate is telling the truth that they were all at home PRIOR to the incident and witnessed Williamson's nakedness. And if the roommates are telling the truth, why would Williamson lie about that?

What you mention may have been reported but it is, apparently, not something everyone agrees on. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a time limit on how long one can roam naked in one's home. Clearly he wasn't doing anything lewd or the cops would have mentioned it by now as they appear intent on making a mountain out of a mole hill here. According to Williamson, one cop even called him a pervert when they arrested him which IMO shows that they had already made up their minds. There is nothing "perverted" about walking around one's house without clothing.

[Indianagirl]

I'm watching "Inside Edition" right now on CBS and this guy is getting ready to come on after the commercial break.

[kgeaux]

From the link:
"§ 18.2-387. Indecent exposure

Every person who intentionally makes an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. No person shall be deemed to be in violation of this section for breastfeeding a child in any public place or any place where others are present."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines
So the exposure has to be intentional and obscene. If a prosecutor claims exposure doesn't have to be obscene, does this prosecutor know what the statute says? As for him possibly installing the curtains (if it was him and not one of the roommates) I fail to see how that shows any consciousness of guilt. He was arrested by police officers on that day, so he could have installed curtains after he was informed someone has reported seeing him naked. Furthermore, since he was moving out, maybe one of his roommates installed the curtains after finding out Williamson was arrested for being in the home naked.

They need to prove one or the other. Intent to expose one's self OR obscene display. To charge a person, only ONE of the requisites must be met. The police report only reports that he was exposed, there has been no report of any obscene gesture.

If the prosecutor claims that this exposure was not an obscene display, he will argue that the INTENT to expose himself to passersby was present. And that's all he needs to prove. Trust me, the prosecutor is well versed with the wording of the law!

I've already posted the link where roommates say that the curtains belonged to Williamson, that they were not installed when they left for work, but they were installed when they returned home after the incident. I did say that it was my opinion that the installation of the curtains shows consciousness of guilt because IMO, he realized that no curtains clearly means any reasonable adult would realize that outsiders could see him. It's just my opinion, based on the fact that the curtains belonged to him and he was moving out that day---yet he chose not to take the curtains with him.

[jjenny]

They need to prove one or the other. Intent to expose one's self OR obscene display. To charge a person, only ONE of the requisites must be met. The police report only reports that he was exposed, there has been no report of any obscene gesture.

If the prosecutor claims that this exposure was not an obscene display, he will argue that the INTENT to expose himself to passersby was present. And that's all he needs to prove. Trust me, the prosecutor is well versed with the wording of the law!

I've already posted the link where roommates say that the curtains belonged to Williamson, that they were not installed when they left for work, but they were installed when they returned home after the incident. I did say that it was my opinion that the installation of the curtains shows consciousness of guilt because IMO, he realized that no curtains clearly means any reasonable adult would realize that outsiders could see him. It's just my opinion, based on the fact that the curtains belonged to him and he was moving out that day---yet he chose not to take the curtains with him.

That is not how defense attorney interprets the statute. And again, even if Williamson did put up the curtains, that could be because he was arrested and told somebody had seen him naked, not because of any consciousness of guilt.

[gxm]

That is not how defense attorney interprets the statute. And again, even if Williamson did put up the curtains, that could be because he was arrested and told somebody had seen him naked, not because of any consciousness of guilt.

Or he simply could have decided that he didn't want the curtains after all (he was moving back in with his mother who presumably has curtains of her own) or the roommate is mistaken and the curtains were never removed.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "eye witness" account(s) of a person/roommate who wasn't even present when the peeping occurred.

[Indianagirl]

Well I don't know what I think after I saw his interview on "Inside Edition". From the outside, it doesn't seem like you can see in the house very well, unless you are right up in front of the window looking in.

He said he was making coffee at 8:30 A.M. and a few hours later woke up from a nap with tazer guns pointed at him. So, why would he nap after coffee in the morning? Why did he not answer the door when the police knocked? I'm sure it wasn't a quiet knock.

[oceanblueeyes]

Well I don't know what I think after I saw his interview on "Inside Edition". From the outside, it doesn't seem like you can see in the house very well, unless you are right up in front of the window looking in.

He said he was making coffee at 8:30 A.M. and a few hours later woke up from a nap with tazer guns pointed at him. So, why would he nap after coffee in the morning? Why did he not answer the door when the police knocked? I'm sure it wasn't a quiet knock.

From what you have said it seems later he took a nap. Some people are very hard sleepers and are hard to wake up.

[kgeaux]

What you mention may have been reported but it is, apparently, not something everyone agrees on. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a time limit on how long one can roam naked in one's home. Clearly he wasn't doing anything lewd or the cops would have mentioned it by now as they appear intent on making a mountain out of a mole hill here. According to Williamson, one cop even called him a pervert when they arrested him which IMO shows that they had already made up their minds. There is nothing "perverted" about walking around one's house without clothing.

It's something all the roommates agree on, gxm. The only person who says he was alone when he got out of bed was Williamson.

There is no time limit you can roam naked in your home, but there are limits to nudity. Allowing your nude body to be seen by children passing by the home crosses the boundary. There is nothing perverted about the human body, and I totally agree that there is nothing perverted about walking around in your home naked. What is perverted is IF there is INTENT to display your nude body to passersby.

I suspect the cop called him a pervert because Williamson was nude with his door open and his windows uncovered, right across the street from a school bus stop. Now, in defense of Williamson, it appears that the job he had held required him to leave his home before dawn, so he may not have known that the school bus stop was there. Although if he was looking out of his window at 8:30 as is alleged, he must have seen some kids!

That is not how defense attorney interprets the statute. And again, even if Williamson did put up the curtains, that could be because he was arrested and told somebody had seen him naked, not because of any consciousness of guilt.

The defense attorney knows that no allegation of obscene display was made. He knows they ONLY have to prove intent, and he is on record for saying he does not believe prosecutors can prove intent. In defense of his client, he is telling us there was no obscene display made. Williamson did not (forgive me) wang his weiner at the woman and child, he didn't bend over and expose his bottom to them, he didn't even point at his genitals. The defense attorney will use that fact to argue that there was no intent.

Obscene display would come into effect if some gesture was made to draw attention to his genitals, and it does not appear that Williamson did anything of the sort. I've heard of people being arrested for making love in their own home with drapes open, in full view of their neighbors and neighbor's children---now THAT is one example of obscene display!

Or he simply could have decided that he didn't want the curtains after all (he was moving back in with his mother who presumably has curtains of her own) or the roommate is mistaken and the curtains were never removed.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "eye witness" account(s) of a person/roommate who wasn't even present when the peeping occurred.

The eye witness account of the roommate has nothing to do with the incident. He says the curtains were not up when they left for work, but were up when they returned from work. (This home is rented by the company they all worked for: there hasn't been any allegation that they were ever installed and removed. It sounds like there had never been curtains, and Williamson purchased some to install, but had not gotten around to it.) It is true that he may have decided to leave the curtains behind, but I know if I was packing up to move, installing the curtains is something I'd leave for the remaining residents to do. I suppose theoretically that Williamson could have installed the curtains at 5:30 AM; IOW it is an assumption of mine that he installed the curtains after police officers made him aware of the charges.


I'm off to work, friends! Have a blessed and happy day!:blowkiss:

[akashana]

Maybe he thought he was "safe" at 5:30 in the morning. (Was he just passing by, grabbing his cell phone or something, or scratching himself while daydreaming? I didn't read the article, so I plead ignorance on that detail.)

I'd be more concerned if he were standing in the middle of his window, buck naked, at 2:00 in the afternoon.

I'm sure there are many of us, if we are honest, who have walked through our house without clothes on, for one reason or another. I've made many a trip downstairs to the laundry room dressed in underwear because I'd forgotten to bring the clothes up. But maybe I'm just an exhibitionist, I don't know...

MY BOLD

I will admit to the occasional streak down the hall from the shower to the laundry room when I discover there are no more clean towels in the bathroom (grrrrr). That does take me within peepin' distance of the living room, but I'm moving fast and kind of ducking at the same time. Sad to think I"ve been breaking the law all those times!

[stilettos]

They need to prove one or the other. Intent to expose one's self OR obscene display. To charge a person, only ONE of the requisites must be met. The police report only reports that he was exposed, there has been no report of any obscene gesture.

If the prosecutor claims that this exposure was not an obscene display, he will argue that the INTENT to expose himself to passersby was present. And that's all he needs to prove. Trust me, the prosecutor is well versed with the wording of the law!

I've already posted the link where roommates say that the curtains belonged to Williamson, that they were not installed when they left for work, but they were installed when they returned home after the incident. I did say that it was my opinion that the installation of the curtains shows consciousness of guilt because IMO, he realized that no curtains clearly means any reasonable adult would realize that outsiders could see him. It's just my opinion, based on the fact that the curtains belonged to him and he was moving out that day---yet he chose not to take the curtains with him.

I just do not know about this. I mean if he was flapping himself at passers-by in the window...yeah, problem. I have shades on all my windows. We live in a wooded property. the back window shades stay up. On occasion after retiring for the evening, I will run to the kitchen to fluff my drink and return to bed...yeah, uhm...naked. Hopefully no peepers are gonna file charges on me for that. If they did...seeing as how I like my freedom...I would draw the da*n blinds.

[gxm]

The funny thing is … not me. I'm modest to a fault. I even started wearing sweat pants and a t-shirt to bed so that my (adult) son's friends wouldn't catch me in my jammies when they drop by in the evenings. So if I don't want anyone seeing me in PJs, you can imagine how I feel about my birthday suit. Still I'll defend a person's right to walk around their home in whatever state of attire they choose.

[gxm]

It's something all the roommates agree on, gxm. The only person who says he was alone when he got out of bed was Williamson.

There is no time limit you can roam naked in your home, but there are limits to nudity. Allowing your nude body to be seen by children passing by the home crosses the boundary. There is nothing perverted about the human body, and I totally agree that there is nothing perverted about walking around in your home naked. What is perverted is IF there is INTENT to display your nude body to passersby.

I suspect the cop called him a pervert because Williamson was nude with his door open and his windows uncovered, right across the street from a school bus stop. Now, in defense of Williamson, it appears that the job he had held required him to leave his home before dawn, so he may not have known that the school bus stop was there. Although if he was looking out of his window at 8:30 as is alleged, he must have seen some kids!



The defense attorney knows that no allegation of obscene display was made. He knows they ONLY have to prove intent, and he is on record for saying he does not believe prosecutors can prove intent. In defense of his client, he is telling us there was no obscene display made. Williamson did not (forgive me) wang his weiner at the woman and child, he didn't bend over and expose his bottom to them, he didn't even point at his genitals. The defense attorney will use that fact to argue that there was no intent.

Obscene display would come into effect if some gesture was made to draw attention to his genitals, and it does not appear that Williamson did anything of the sort. I've heard of people being arrested for making love in their own home with drapes open, in full view of their neighbors and neighbor's children---now THAT is one example of obscene display!



The eye witness account of the roommate has nothing to do with the incident. He says the curtains were not up when they left for work, but were up when they returned from work. (This home is rented by the company they all worked for: there hasn't been any allegation that they were ever installed and removed. It sounds like there had never been curtains, and Williamson purchased some to install, but had not gotten around to it.) It is true that he may have decided to leave the curtains behind, but I know if I was packing up to move, installing the curtains is something I'd leave for the remaining residents to do. I suppose theoretically that Williamson could have installed the curtains at 5:30 AM; IOW it is an assumption of mine that he installed the curtains after police officers made him aware of the charges.


I'm off to work, friends! Have a blessed and happy day!:blowkiss:

I've only seen one roommate's name in the paper as if he's speaking for all of them. It just makes the whole roommate angle come off as hearsay IMO.

If the mother and son were in his yard then they are in the wrong. I would hope the law protects us from "peeping toms." And if he could not be viewed from the bus stop, then the accusation of him exposing himself to children is unfounded. Has it ever been determined if he was visible from the bus stop?

Honestly, I think the curtains are a non-issue. As the only person in the home, and witness to the state of the curtains, is the accused. I doubt he put them up after the cops came by since the reports make it sound as if he was arrested at that point.

Good day to you too! The day started out gray and dreary here in Northern Virginia but now the sun is out. :)

[kgeaux]

I've only seen one roommate's name in the paper as if he's speaking for all of them. It just makes the whole roommate angle come off as hearsay IMO.

If the mother and son were in his yard then they are in the wrong. I would hope the law protects us from "peeping toms." And if he could not be viewed from the bus stop, then the accusation of him exposing himself to children is unfounded. Has it ever been determined if he was visible from the bus stop?

Honestly, I think the curtains are a non-issue. As the only person in the home, and witness to the state of the curtains, is the accused. I doubt he put them up after the cops came by since the reports make it sound as if he was arrested at that point.

Good day to you too! The day started out gray and dreary here in Northern Virginia but now the sun is out. :)

I have read two articles with direct quotes from "a roommate." One quote is talking about Williamson running around the house with nothing but a hard hat on, the other is talking about the curtains being installed at some point after they left for work. Truly, I don't know if it is one roommate making both statements, or two roommates making one statement each. The words of the roommate(s) were put into quotations, meaning the reporter is using a direct quote.

The latest articles have stated that the woman and her child walked up a path that ran alongside of the house, saw him standing in the open carport door after hearing a noise, then from the sidewalk saw him in the open front windows. Earlier reports put the woman and child cutting through the front yard. I hate it when news reports contradict each other, and I'm not sure which version (if any) is correct. It has been noted that his house has a tiny yard---I'm picturing a garden home---with a very small front yard.

Although I totally support a person's right to be comfortable in his own skin, in his own home, I wonder how many of us would run around for three and a half hours with no clothes on with all our blinds pulled up, our drapes open, our doors open? With our lights on inside the house and a sidewalk just feet away from the windows? How many of us would grab our cup of coffee and stand in an open doorway to gaze outside? It just seems to me that a reasonable person would know that if others came by they'd be able to see him. As I've said, I don't know if this guy is just so free with his nudity that it never occurred to him that others might not appreciate the sight of him, or so stupid as to be unaware that the potential was there for others to see him if he stood in an open doorway or before an uncurtained window. I don't know if he meant to expose himself to children, but I suspect he was cognizant of the fact that passersby could see into his home. Whether that is enough to constitute intent, I don't know.

The curtains probably are a non-issue. I may have projected a little of my own thought patterns into my opinion!

Glad your sun is shining: it is shining here, too!

[drip~drop]

An Obituary printed in the London Times - Interesting and
sadly rather true.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common
Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for
sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago
lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as
having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- why the early bird gets the worm;
- life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies
(don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies
(adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when
well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in
place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual
harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from
school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired
for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his
condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for
doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in
disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get
parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a
student; but could not inform parents when a student became
pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became
businesses; and criminals received better treatment than
their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend
yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar
could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman
failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She
spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge
settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth
and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter,
Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was
gone.

This is excellent and deserves another go-round! :twocents:

[Ms.Heather]

OK, Its been a couple days since this has had postings, but I wanted to chime in here with my own embarrassing story to tell....
When my house is teenager-free both me and my H walk around nude. Always have. We sleep nude, wake up nude and yes make coffee nude. Its our home, we do what we want.
About a year ago a cop knocked at our door at about 4 in the morning, we were dead sleeping and it woke us up. Apparently my H was thirsty in the middle of the night and went into the kitchen... without him knowing the patio curtains were open about a foot and the kitchen light came on, and bam... someone saw my hubby nekkid and called the cops. The way my house is laid out, my patio and living space is on the 2nd floor... so in order to see in my home, you need to look up... if you are walking with your head facing forward you can't see inside that part of the house... So you have to be a nosy person to see inside. Nothing came of it, the cop laughed it off and just told my H to make sure the blinds were drawn before going to bed. My husband said its his house and until someone else pays the mortgage and property taxes he'll do what he pleases.

I don't know whats going on in this case, he was in front of the window, at the opening of the door, it was 530 it was 830... whatever. Its a waste of resources. Stop looking into peoples windows, and maybe you won't see people walking around naked!!!

Oh and BTW, for Christmas last year hubby and I both bought eachother robes...

[tlcox]

Huh??

Just stumbled upon this thread and I am dumbfounded. I also need to seriously reconsider the whole stumble down to the coffee pot naked or mostly so routine I've had going!

Sure don't need to end up in jail. That might be tough to explain to my younguns.

Unless he knew they were there, pressed up against the window with his wee winky out for all the world to see: How on earth are the gonna put him in jail for this? Is he planning to press charges against mommy and tot for trespassing and being peeing thomasina?

[kgeaux]

Huh??

Just stumbled upon this thread and I am dumbfounded. I also need to seriously reconsider the whole stumble down to the coffee pot naked or mostly so routine I've had going!

Sure don't need to end up in jail. That might be tough to explain to my younguns.

Unless he knew they were there, pressed up against the window with his wee winky out for all the world to see: How on earth are the gonna put him in jail for this? Is he planning to press charges against mommy and tot for trespassing and being peeing thomasina?

ticox, would you stumble to your kitchen to make coffee in the nude with no curtains on any of your windows? Would you open your carport door and stand there in the nude sipping on your cup of coffee? (Remember, a carport doesn't have the door that a garage would have. It is open.) Would you stand there nude if your home was in a neighborhood and a walking path ran up the carport side of your home? In broad daylight? With a school bus stop right near your home?

There is absolutely no indication that the woman and her son pressed up against his window to see him. In fact, their first sight of his naky body was as he stood in the open doorway to his carport.

I am all for freedom in our own homes, but that freedom comes with a certain responsibility. It is reasonable that we have some expectation of privacy, but if you want privacy, you must close your doors and curtains. If he had "forgotten" the curtains were open, that's one thing, but there were NO curtains installed at the time.......it just wasn't reasonable for this man to assume he wouldn't be seen.

[stilettos]

ticox, would you stumble to your kitchen to make coffee in the nude with no curtains on any of your windows? Would you open your carport door and stand there in the nude sipping on your cup of coffee? (Remember, a carport doesn't have the door that a garage would have. It is open.) Would you stand there nude if your home was in a neighborhood and a walking path ran up the carport side of your home? In broad daylight? With a school bus stop right near your home?

There is absolutely no indication that the woman and her son pressed up against his window to see him. In fact, their first sight of his naky body was as he stood in the open doorway to his carport.

I am all for freedom in our own homes, but that freedom comes with a certain responsibility. It is reasonable that we have some expectation of privacy, but if you want privacy, you must close your doors and curtains. If he had "forgotten" the curtains were open, that's one thing, but there were NO curtains installed at the time.......it just wasn't reasonable for this man to assume he wouldn't be seen.

Standing in the open door naked and waving the winkie....problem. BUT has no one ever had to go to the door at 4:00am to let Rover (actually it is Scooby) out and stood with your body shielded by the door to hide your naked behind? I mean...I guess I have to rethink my whole attitude. I am no flasher...never streaked, never skinny dipped...but at home...after the kids grew up....well...clothing is optional after bedtime. My kids have never seen me naked...never...I try not to be seen naked (well except for Mr Shoes)...but in my home...I kinda like the freedom to "air dry". Oh well, freedoms are vanishing.....and IF he was flashing...throw the book at him.

[STEADFAST]

Some nice woman and her innocent little boy are walking to school at 8:30 am on a public walkway. Their attention is captured by a noise coming from a naked man wearing a hard hat, standing in a doorway near the path. When the woman screams, and then hurries along the path to the front sidewalk with her son, the man moves to a front, floor-to-ceiling window to expose himself further. I can see why he would be prosecuted.

There are links to this version of events all throughout the thread. There are NO links to any version that says she peeped into his windows or purposely tried to see him naked.

[tlcox]

ticox, would you stumble to your kitchen to make coffee in the nude with no curtains on any of your windows?

Yep, have done so, however as to the answers to the rest of your questions, nope.

Guess it depends on how your house is situated and where your coffee pot is in relation to the rest of your neighbors/trespassing passerbys.

[STEADFAST]

Yep, have done so, however as to the answers to the rest of your questions, nope.

Guess it depends on how your house is situated and where your coffee pot is in relation to the rest of your neighbors/trespassing passerbys.

Just wanted to point out that the whole 5:30 a.m. coffee-making scenario is just the first version that Mr. Williamson put out. He has since admitted that she could have seen him naked at any time during a roughly 3 hour period and he claims to have no idea when she might have seen him. Her complaint did not mention that he was making coffee, and she gave the time as around 8:30 a.m. Most of the details of the early version he gave the press have since been contradicted by his roommates and himself.

[gxm]

Some nice woman and her innocent little boy are walking to school at 8:30 am on a public walkway. Their attention is captured by a noise coming from a naked man wearing a hard hat, standing in a doorway near the path. When the woman screams, and then hurries along the path to the front sidewalk with her son, the man moves to a front, floor-to-ceiling window to expose himself further. I can see why he would be prosecuted.

There are links to this version of events all throughout the thread. There are NO links to any version that says she peeped into his windows or purposely tried to see him naked.

Actually, there are links to his version of events which basically comes down to him not knowing when she looked into his house, either through a doorway or a window, to catch him naked. If he didn't know when she saw him, then he couldn't have intentionally exposed himself. There is also a link showing a photo of the obscured front window that would be difficult to see into unless one was trying to peer inside. And, to the best of my knowledge, photos of the alleged doorway have not been publicized.

The fact is that the man was not outside. He was in his own home so she had to look through his window to see him. If she'd kept her eyes on the path, then she wouldn't have seen him. I really can't understand why anyone would be offended by accidentally looking into another person's house and catching them in the buff. Embarrassed at invading their privacy maybe but this woman's reaction is, IMO, absurd. (The lady doth protest too much.) And if she weren't a cop's wife, I find it hard to believe the man would have been arrested. A warning should have sufficed.

[easttexas]

Note to self....bring all clothing from dryer needed for next day from this day forward lest I may take an unadorned trip to the laundry room past a bay window that over looks my back yard....PRIVATELY fenced. I think he should be able to counter sue for peeping tom....

Someone had a link that showed his window....but before the video an ad ran for Window World....Double Hung :eek:
Talk about perfect ad placement!!!!! LMAO!!!!

[STEADFAST]

Actually, there are links to his version of events which basically comes down to him not knowing when she looked into his house, either through a doorway or a window, to catch him naked. If he didn't know when she saw him, then he couldn't have intentionally exposed himself. There is also a link showing a photo of the obscured front window that would be difficult to see into unless one was trying to peer inside. And, to the best of my knowledge, photos of the alleged doorway have not been publicized.

The fact is that the man was not outside. He was in his own home so she had to look through his window to see him. If she'd kept her eyes on the path, then she wouldn't have seen him. I really can't understand why anyone would be offended by accidentally looking into another person's house and catching them in the buff. Embarrassed at invading their privacy maybe but this woman's reaction is, IMO, absurd. (The lady doth protest too much.) And if she weren't a cop's wife, I find it hard to believe the man would have been arrested. A warning should have sufficed.

The issue isn't whether she saw him; it's whether the child saw him. I really don't think it's feasible to ask children to keep their eyes on the path in case some man flashes them from a doorway.
Mr. Williamson is the one who brought this issue to the press, and he (or his attorney) was very clever. He put out the misinformation about making coffee when seen, it being dark, his just having gotten up, the woman and child walking on his property, and it caught on like wild fire. Never mind that later all those elements turned out not to have been true. His story has hit a nerve with people who will never get their first impression of what happened out of their minds, no matter what information has come out later.

[kgeaux]

The issue isn't whether she saw him; it's whether the child saw him. I really don't think it's feasible to ask children to keep their eyes on the path in case some man flashes them from a doorway.
Mr. Williamson is the one who brought this issue to the press, and he (or his attorney) was very clever. He put out the misinformation about making coffee when seen, it being dark, his just having gotten up, the woman and child walking on his property, and it caught on like wild fire. Never mind that later all those elements turned out not to have been true. His story has hit a nerve with people who will never get their first impression of what happened out of their minds, no matter what information has come out later.


Ah, Steadfast! You INSIST on sticking to the facts! God bless!

[gxm]

The issue isn't whether she saw him; it's whether the child saw him. I really don't think it's feasible to ask children to keep their eyes on the path in case some man flashes them from a doorway.
Mr. Williamson is the one who brought this issue to the press, and he (or his attorney) was very clever. He put out the misinformation about making coffee when seen, it being dark, his just having gotten up, the woman and child walking on his property, and it caught on like wild fire. Never mind that later all those elements turned out not to have been true. His story has hit a nerve with people who will never get their first impression of what happened out of their minds, no matter what information has come out later.

I don't believe this is the case. For one thing, unless Mr. Williamson was doing something lewd, the boy saw nothing more than what he would see in the Y or the swimming pool locker room.

The facts as best I can tell:

- Williamson was walking around his house naked. To date there has been no evidence that he was outside of his home, or that he was aware anyone ever saw him.

- After first seeing Williamson in a side doorway once, the mother admits to taking a second look through a front window. (The normal reaction IMO would be to avert one's eyes after the first sighting.)

- Photographs show the window in question to be obscured by shrubbery. The media have not published, to the best of my knowledge, photos of the side door.

- The Wednesday after Williamson was arrested, officers put fliers around the neighborhood asking if anyone else saw him nude. IMO, they are really trying to pin something on this guy.

On Wednesday, after Williamson had left for his mother's house, police handed out fliers in the neighborhood asking people to report anything about the incident or others like it. One of Williamson's roommates, who declined to give his name, said that he and the four other men living in the house felt less sympathy than anger now that they are left to make peace with neighbors and answer reporters' questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2009102601282

By Williamson's account, FIVE officers showed up at his house to search his belongings and one went so far as to call him a pervert. Isn't that a bit extreme? Five officers with tasers for one naked guy walking around his house?

Honestly, this case is looking pretty ridiculous and I'm guessing LE is working their butts off trying to come up with enough evidence so as not to look frivolous. IMO, their only hope is that Williamson does something stupid in the interim or shows up in court in nothing but a hard hat.

[Danaya]

When I first heard about this, the first thing that came to mind is it wasn't the whole story. I thought that maybe the man purposely stood in front of a window to expose himself to a child or passerby. This has happened to my husband as a child and also to my Mom as a teen-people are so sickening, they get their kicks out of flashing themselves, it's awful. Is it okay for me to go up to my window and pose naked as somebody walks by? Keep in mind, this isn't Amsterdam. ;)

[easttexas]

When I first heard about this, the first thing that came to mind is it wasn't the whole story. I thought that maybe the man purposely stood in front of a window to expose himself to a child or passerby. This has happened to my husband as a child and also to my Mom as a teen-people are so sickening, they get their kicks out of flashing themselves, it's awful. Is it okay for me to go up to my window and pose naked as somebody walks by? Keep in mind, this isn't Amsterdam. ;)

At 5:30 am??? He was waiting for someone to pass by? I could be wrong about the time but know I saw it mentioned that the time as 5:30 AM....by the way...I have been exposed to something similar I didn't call the cops and I chose to never walk past that particular path again.

[kgeaux]

At 5:30 am??? He was waiting for someone to pass by? I could be wrong about the time but know I saw it mentioned that the time as 5:30 AM....by the way...I have been exposed to something similar I didn't call the cops and I chose to never walk past that particular path again.


WILLIAMSON said it happened at 5:30 AM. The report states that it happened between 8:30 and 8:40 AM. Full daylight. No curtains in his windows. He is first seen standing in an open doorway, next seen standing next to the window. There is a school bus stop nearby, and this mother was walking her young son to the bus stop.

Frankly, I have been shocked at how many continue to support Williamson, even after his initial story was proven to be untrue. Usually on Websleuths, the slant is guilty until proven innocent. Here we have a man who knowingly stood in an open doorway and then right next to his front uncurtained window in the NUDE, while it was daylight outside. This man is not an idiot. To stand in front of a window or open doorway at 8:30 in the morning, he had to have known he did not have an expectation of privacy.

I can guarantee y'all if anyone wants to try to replicate his actions, and you are seen by a child, you will be arrested. Try it. Take down your curtains, strip yourself down to your birthday suit, grab a cup of coffee and go stand right in front of your front window at 8:30 AM. People who have no curtains, whose carport door is facing a walkway area do NOT have the same rights to walk around their homes naked, exposing themselves to the public. Personal rights take a back seat when they impact public rights.

This guy may have just had a bad, bad day and made an unfortunate decision. But I for one am awfully glad that the police are going to determine if he has exposed himself to other children. Because this guy might just be working his way up to pedophilia.

[Vegas Bride]

I wonder if there has been an increase in sales for window coverings since this story hit the wires?
We have blinds on all our windows and they are not open in the morning until after I'm dressed, I don't even want someone seeing me in my nightgown.

VB

[stilettos]

WILLIAMSON said it happened at 5:30 AM. The report states that it happened between 8:30 and 8:40 AM. Full daylight. No curtains in his windows. He is first seen standing in an open doorway, next seen standing next to the window. There is a school bus stop nearby, and this mother was walking her young son to the bus stop.

Frankly, I have been shocked at how many continue to support Williamson, even after his initial story was proven to be untrue. Usually on Websleuths, the slant is guilty until proven innocent. Here we have a man who knowingly stood in an open doorway and then right next to his front uncurtained window in the NUDE, while it was daylight outside. This man is not an idiot. To stand in front of a window or open doorway at 8:30 in the morning, he had to have known he did not have an expectation of privacy.

I can guarantee y'all if anyone wants to try to replicate his actions, and you are seen by a child, you will be arrested. Try it. Take down your curtains, strip yourself down to your birthday suit, grab a cup of coffee and go stand right in front of your front window at 8:30 AM. People who have no curtains, whose carport door is facing a walkway area do NOT have the same rights to walk around their homes naked, exposing themselves to the public. Personal rights take a back seat when they impact public rights.

This guy may have just had a bad, bad day and made an unfortunate decision. But I for one am awfully glad that the police are going to determine if he has exposed himself to other children. Because this guy might just be working his way up to pedophilia.

I agree that as you have stated events in your post....that this is exteremely inappropriate behavior. I think the issue is one's freedom to bare or not in your own home, hitting a little too close for comfort. If it happened that way, he should be charged. I just hope no one trespasses in my wooded backyard one night after I have retired early and need another drink.....cause they would see a naked 47 year old run through the living room to the kitchen. Granted I would not turn on the lights and stand in a doorway or in front of the windows. I also wear a gown when hub is out of town....in case of fire. :floorlaugh:

[gxm]

IMO, the fact that he didn't know what time the woman alleges she spied him only reinforces his story that he didn't know anyone saw him. Personally, I think it's odd behavior to see someone naked in their own home and then keep looking… from different vantage points even!

[colette]

My guess is the only reason that they are investigating this or "fishing" for more "victims" was that this was a cop's wife... end of story.

[jjenny]

My guess is the only reason that they are investigating this or "fishing" for more "victims" was that this was a cop's wife... end of story.
My feelings as well.
The response to this incident sure seems to be way over the top to me.
Sending five police officers to his home to arrest him? Then sending police officers to ask his neighbors if they saw him naked? Posting fliers about this? Really? Are there no crimes in that area, such as burglaries, robberies, murders, etc, that police can devote that much effort to the case of a guy who was seen naked in his home?

[Celt1997]

Honestly, when the lady called the police they could have quickly looked him up to see if he had any prior incidents similar to this. If none came up then they simply could have visited him, let him know what happened, and IF it happened ever again there would be severe consequences.

This really could have been a whole lot easier. But, I have a feeling that the reputation of a police officer's wife is on the line, and that is fueling this witch hunt.

[STEADFAST]

Honestly, when the lady called the police they could have quickly looked him up to see if he had any prior incidents similar to this. If none came up then they simply could have visited him, let him know what happened, and IF it happened ever again there would be severe consequences.

This really could have been a whole lot easier. But, I have a feeling that the reputation of a police officer's wife is on the line, and that is fueling this witch hunt.


If they had looked him up, they would have seen that he had a court date scheduled for that Wednesday for public swearing and intoxication.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

They did ask around. "We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.


His roommates told LE that he was drunk that morning and running around naked in a hard hat.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te

[Celt1997]

His roommates told LE that he was drunk that morning and running around naked in a hard hat.


Which, IMO, sounds more like someone who was letting off a little steam after getting fired from his job, and less like someone looking to expose himself to children. But, again, just MHO.

[STEADFAST]

Which, IMO, sounds more like someone who was letting off a little steam after getting fired from his job, and less like someone looking to expose himself to children. But, again, just MHO.

I agree. In no way do I think this guy was being sexual or pervy. I think he was being more "FU -- I'll dance around naked in a hard hat if I like. I'm in my house." Probably thought he was being funny. Same difference to the 7 year old, though, as if he was a lecherous flasher.

I think where I differ from many on here is that I think he purposely exposed himself.

[kgeaux]

IMO, the fact that he didn't know what time the woman alleges she spied him only reinforces his story that he didn't know anyone saw him. Personally, I think it's odd behavior to see someone naked in their own home and then keep looking… from different vantage points even!

Does it make a difference if he says he didn't know anyone saw him? He was standing in an open doorway, facing a walking path, in the nude in broad daylight, as children were approaching their bus stop. (Remember, earlier he had said this standing in the doorway happened in the dark, at 5:30AM--if he'd fudge the truth about that, doesn't that give the possibility that he will fudge about whether or not he knew he was seen?) He surely knew his behavior ALLOWED for his body to be on public display. The home is not in an isolated area.

[kgeaux]

Which, IMO, sounds more like someone who was letting off a little steam after getting fired from his job, and less like someone looking to expose himself to children. But, again, just MHO.

It does sound like he was having a reaction to losing his job. But does that mean no investigation should be done?

As his lawyer says, intent must be proven. LE may have some difficulty with proving that, or they may not. LE says its received other reports about Williamson, and IMO, everything is riding on what those reports say.

[believe09]

Purposely exposed himself. To the woman? Did he see the child when he was in the window I wonder?

I mean really-if you are of the age of majority, have you been seriously emotionally injured by someone exposing themselves?

You know it is funny-I grew up with older brothers, and exposure of privates in public much less in your own home is low on my list of crimes against humanity.

I think if he behaved lewdly to the child, that is an issue. It is hard for me to get wound up if he was being lewd to another adult from his own home when she was checking him out.

I actually think it is hilarious that he was running around drunk in just a hard hat at 830 in the morning.....

I must be overtired.

[Danaya]

I just know that children get exposed daily by perverts who get off on flashing themselves. It's a frequent thing and it is traumatic. I think we should take everything with a grain of salt that this man tells the press. We weren't there and there is absolutely no proof anybody burst into his bedroom and we don't know if he was even making coffee as he claims. Who really knows? I certaintly don't. Let the investigation continue and ask yourself, what if this was your child?

[gxm]

Does it make a difference if he says he didn't know anyone saw him? He was standing in an open doorway, facing a walking path, in the nude in broad daylight, as children were approaching their bus stop. (Remember, earlier he had said this standing in the doorway happened in the dark, at 5:30AM--if he'd fudge the truth about that, doesn't that give the possibility that he will fudge about whether or not he knew he was seen?) He surely knew his behavior ALLOWED for his body to be on public display. The home is not in an isolated area.

It sounds to me like he wasn't fudging the truth, he just didn't know when he had been seen. So far, it seems that he's been pretty honest because he admitted to walking around naked for several hours, when he could have lied and said he'd already dressed when the woman says she saw him. (His roommates had left three hours earlier.)

I have more of a problem with a passerby walking around a house and peering in windows in order to take offense at what the homeowner is doing. And I don't think that seeing a grown man naked (minus lewd behavior) will traumatize a boy. If that were the case then all men's bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms should be off limit to male children. (Actually I do have a problem with women who bring their sons into women's dressing rooms but that's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe I should call the cops on them… but it probably wouldn't do any good since I'm not a cop's wife.)

I also have a problem with sending five officers to arrest one naked man in his own home. Was that really necessary? Add the fact that they are trying to pin more on this guy and it really seems to me to be an effort to defend the eagerly offended cop's wife.

[butwhatif?]

It sounds to me like he wasn't fudging the truth, he just didn't know when he had been seen. So far, it seems that he's been pretty honest because he admitted to walking around naked for several hours, when he could have lied and said he'd already dressed when the woman says she saw him. (His roommates had left three hours earlier.)

I have more of a problem with a passerby walking around a house and peering in windows in order to take offense at what the homeowner is doing. And I don't think that seeing a grown man naked (minus lewd behavior) will traumatize a boy. If that were the case then all men's bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms should be off limit to male children. (Actually I do have a problem with women who bring their sons into women's dressing rooms but that's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe I should call the cops on them… but it probably wouldn't do any good since I'm not a cop's wife.)

I also have a problem with sending five officers to arrest one naked man in his own home. Was that really necessary? Add the fact that they are trying to pin more on this guy and it really seems to me to be an effort to defend the eagerly offended cop's wife.

BBM-
I live in the city so I do alot of walking instead of driving. If I happen to see the goings-on inside someones home, its not because I'm leering or being a peeping tom, it's because I cannot see where I'm going if I keep my eyes focused only on the footpath (gotta look both ways, and all that).

There probably is some politics involved in this case, but it should be really simple...
Windows are made of GLASS.
People can see through glass.
Don't do anything in front of a window that you wouldn't do in public.

I don't think the guy should do time for his stupid mistake, but he should be warned. (And I agree, 5 officers was definately OTT).
Hopefully others can learn from this too. We are living in dangerous times, and we need to be more cautious, even inside our own homes.

JMO

[songline]

I was more outraged about this story before I read that the woman and boy were walking by his front window, which, as you can see by the picture in this article, is practically a picture window. Being naked in your own home is one thing; being naked in front of your front window with the curtains open and the light on when it's dark outside is something different. He'd have to be an idiot to not know he could be seen from the street.
Picture of him (clothed) in the window-- http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story
I do it all the time...But I know I m not directly facing other windows or passersby....And I would hope someone is not out there with binoculars. LOL I think a person should however consider if they can be seen or not. BUT, but, But...This is at 5:30 AM - at that ungodly hour most people are still home.
What was she doing in his yard? if she was not trespassing she would not have been offended.

[eleven]

(Actually I do have a problem with women who bring their sons into women's dressing rooms but that's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe I should call the cops on them… but it probably wouldn't do any good since I'm not a cop's wife.)



Respectfully snipped...

As a mother to 3 boys, I must interject. When my boys were very little, I often took them into public womens restrooms AND dressing rooms with me. I didn't ALWAYS take them into the public restrooms with me...that occurred only after I saw or read a news story about a little boy being murdered in a public male restroom while his mother waited directly outside the door. The killer walked in after her son, and the mother politely waited outside the door for her little boy. He was murdered in a span of less than 2 minutes. She watched the killer walk out (who, by the way, "looked" like an average male) and the killer actually SMILED at her as he walked out the door. Being polite, she smiled back. Less than a minute later, she cracked the door open just enough to call his name. When she got no answer, she walked inside, loudly proclaiming that she was entering in case anyone else was in there. Her little boys body was in a crumpled heap on the floor. His throat was slit so bad that he was almost beheaded.

Immediately upon reading that, I forever changed my views and actions when it came to public restrooms/dressing rooms when my boys were very little. They ALWAYS came in with me, and you know what? I would say that 99.9% of the women were TOTALLY FINE with it....they were mothers as well, most likely. In fact, the one and only time that I got any flack about it came from a woman who not only never had any little boys of her own, but she was childless and as such, did not have the comprehension of feeling the innate "mother lioness protecting her cubs" feeling that mothers do. Mind you, I allowed her to go on her little tirade about how she was soooo uncomfortable (and UPTIGHT about naked bodies...for shame!) but completely dismissed her as someone whose opinion was irrelevant and needed to get over herself.

It is sooo cliche to say this, but it truly DOES take a village....our children are our future. We must protect them. It is no longer safe to allow our very young boys to go into public restrooms by themselves. When I have grandbabies and if they are boys, I will continue the same practice with them. Now that my boys are older and go to public restrooms by themselves, I often see other young Moms bringing their boys into the ladies bathroom and/or dressing room. My immediate reaction is that they are lucky to have such a diligent, caring mother.

Done with the off-topic rant. Carry on, LOL.

Edited to add: It will be a great day when people can finally stop being so ridiculously uptight about nudeness!

[jjenny]

I just know that children get exposed daily by perverts who get off on flashing themselves. It's a frequent thing and it is traumatic. I think we should take everything with a grain of salt that this man tells the press. We weren't there and there is absolutely no proof anybody burst into his bedroom and we don't know if he was even making coffee as he claims. Who really knows? I certaintly don't. Let the investigation continue and ask yourself, what if this was your child?

The guy was in his own home and he wasn't doing anything lewd. If he were doing anything lewd, I am pretty sure police would have informed us by now, seeing as how seriously they are treating this incident.
Somehow I think a seven year old boy should be able to survive that without permanent mental damage. Otherwise children would be forbidden into men's restrooms and showers.
By the way I personally don't have a problem with women bringing their small male children into women's bathrooms.
But if these children then witness a woman in that bathroom in a less than perfect state of dress, do you think there will be a permanent mental trauma involved? Since you seem to imply that seeing an adult in a state of undress is horribly traumatic to a child, even if this adult isn't doing anything lewd?

[songline]

I just know that children get exposed daily by perverts who get off on flashing themselves. It's a frequent thing and it is traumatic. I think we should take everything with a grain of salt that this man tells the press. We weren't there and there is absolutely no proof anybody burst into his bedroom and we don't know if he was even making coffee as he claims. Who really knows? I certainly don't. Let the investigation continue and ask yourself, what if this was your child?
If the story is that she was trespassing at 5:30 or what ever time, I would not teach my child to transpass someones property and then call LE/hubby.
If the story is that he stood there in broad daylight where children often pass by on the way to school bus because he was drunk, I would put my hand over my kids eyes.
WE don't have one straight story at all....
If the guy stood naked because he always does knowing kids pass by at that time. just lock the sob up.

[crimesandjustice.com]

Just weird.. Maybe he should be in the middle of a 50 acre plot.

[WholeLottaRosie]

Does it make a difference if he says he didn't know anyone saw him? He was standing in an open doorway, facing a walking path, in the nude in broad daylight, as children were approaching their bus stop. (Remember, earlier he had said this standing in the doorway happened in the dark, at 5:30AM--if he'd fudge the truth about that, doesn't that give the possibility that he will fudge about whether or not he knew he was seen?) He surely knew his behavior ALLOWED for his body to be on public display. The home is not in an isolated area.


Don't we only have the passerby saying the time as 8:30? I don't know that I believe this unknown person at all.

[gxm]

Respectfully snipped...

As a mother to 3 boys, I must interject. When my boys were very little, I often took them into public womens restrooms AND dressing rooms with me. I didn't ALWAYS take them into the public restrooms with me...that occurred only after I saw or read a news story about a little boy being murdered in a public male restroom while his mother waited directly outside the door. The killer walked in after her son, and the mother politely waited outside the door for her little boy. He was murdered in a span of less than 2 minutes. She watched the killer walk out (who, by the way, "looked" like an average male) and the killer actually SMILED at her as he walked out the door. Being polite, she smiled back. Less than a minute later, she cracked the door open just enough to call his name. When she got no answer, she walked inside, loudly proclaiming that she was entering in case anyone else was in there. Her little boys body was in a crumpled heap on the floor. His throat was slit so bad that he was almost beheaded.

Immediately upon reading that, I forever changed my views and actions when it came to public restrooms/dressing rooms when my boys were very little. They ALWAYS came in with me, and you know what? I would say that 99.9% of the women were TOTALLY FINE with it....they were mothers as well, most likely. In fact, the one and only time that I got any flack about it came from a woman who not only never had any little boys of her own, but she was childless and as such, did not have the comprehension of feeling the innate "mother lioness protecting her cubs" feeling that mothers do. Mind you, I allowed her to go on her little tirade about how she was soooo uncomfortable (and UPTIGHT about naked bodies...for shame!) but completely dismissed her as someone whose opinion was irrelevant and needed to get over herself.

It is sooo cliche to say this, but it truly DOES take a village....our children are our future. We must protect them. It is no longer safe to allow our very young boys to go into public restrooms by themselves. When I have grandbabies and if they are boys, I will continue the same practice with them. Now that my boys are older and go to public restrooms by themselves, I often see other young Moms bringing their boys into the ladies bathroom and/or dressing room. My immediate reaction is that they are lucky to have such a diligent, caring mother.

Done with the off-topic rant. Carry on, LOL.

Edited to add: It will be a great day when people can finally stop being so ridiculously uptight about nudeness!


So where do you stand on this case? Was the boy harmed by, allegedly, seeing a man walking around his own home in the nude?

BTW, I have a son. And when he was little, I took him into restrooms. It's the older and/or undisciplined boys who are allowed to run around peering under doors that I find fault with. I'm usually a nice person and don't complain but having read this whole brouhaha and the comments insinuating it's okay for boys to ogle women but not men, well I think the next time it happens I'm going to pitch a fit. I have every right to expect privacy when I'm in a bathroom or dressing room. Is it my fault if these kids are traumatized by watching me change clothes or go to the bathroom? When IMO, someone who teaches their kids (sons or daughters) that it's okay to intrude on someone's privacy is not doing a very good job of parenting.

How does everyone feel about fathers taking their daughters into men's bathrooms or dressing rooms? It would be interesting to see if there's a double standard.

[gxm]

If the story is that she was trespassing at 5:30 or what ever time, I would not teach my child to transpose someones property and then call LE/hubby.
If the story is that he stood there in broad daylight where children often pass by on the way to school bus because he was drunk, I would put my hand over my kids eyes.
WE don't have one straight story at all....
If the guy stood naked because he always does knowing kids pass by at that time. just lock the sob up.

To the best of our knowledge, this was the only morning he was home alone. He was usually at work by the time kids were heading to the bus stop. But ITA, unless he was doing something lewd, this case is completely frivolous.

[Danaya]

I don't know, maybe my view is slanted because when my husband was a child he lived in an apartment building with a laundromat. A man ran up the window when he was there by himself and exposed himself. It isn't just an innocent, funny thing. This is a sex crime with a victim and I do not know what happened in this particular case with the coffee man. It just depends on if he intentionaly exposed himself or not.

My Mom also was flashed when she was standing at the side of the street, waiting to cross in broad daylight! A man flashed her his penis and took off running. It really scared her.

[jjenny]

I don't know, maybe my view is slanted because when my husband was a child he lived in an apartment building with a laundromat. A man ran up the window when he was there by himself and exposed himself. It isn't just an innocent, funny thing. This is a sex crime with a victim and I do not know what happened in this particular case with the coffee man. It just depends on if he intentionaly exposed himself or not.

My Mom also was flashed when she was standing at the side of the street, waiting to cross in broad daylight! A man flashed her his penis and took off running. It really scared her.

Somebody intentionally flashing is not the same as being seen naked in someone's own home. When I was a child there was a flasher in the park, and I remember police asking us children about it.
The guy in the story was in his own home which is not the same at all as people intentionally running up to children and flashing them.

[Danaya]

Jjeny, not necessarily. So, is it okay for a man to stand by the window or in front of it with his penis hanging out while children walk to school? After all, this is his home and he just enjoys standing next to the window to enjoy the scenic view and watch the birdies flutter by. It's not his fault if children see his exposed genitals, this is his home.

As I said before, we don't know if this was intentional or if he was really just making coffee. It is all speculation and I'm only trying to give another side and not completely discredit the victim in this story as there could very well be a crime here.

BTW, it is not legal for somebody to use the excuse of "I was in my own home" if they are intentionaly exposing themselves to passerby. We don't know what he was doing - that's what the investigation is for. :)

[stilettos]

Respectfully snipped...

As a mother to 3 boys, I must interject. When my boys were very little, I often took them into public womens restrooms AND dressing rooms with me. I didn't ALWAYS take them into the public restrooms with me...that occurred only after I saw or read a news story about a little boy being murdered in a public male restroom while his mother waited directly outside the door. The killer walked in after her son, and the mother politely waited outside the door for her little boy. He was murdered in a span of less than 2 minutes. She watched the killer walk out (who, by the way, "looked" like an average male) and the killer actually SMILED at her as he walked out the door. Being polite, she smiled back. Less than a minute later, she cracked the door open just enough to call his name. When she got no answer, she walked inside, loudly proclaiming that she was entering in case anyone else was in there. Her little boys body was in a crumpled heap on the floor. His throat was slit so bad that he was almost beheaded.

Immediately upon reading that, I forever changed my views and actions when it came to public restrooms/dressing rooms when my boys were very little. They ALWAYS came in with me, and you know what? I would say that 99.9% of the women were TOTALLY FINE with it....they were mothers as well, most likely. In fact, the one and only time that I got any flack about it came from a woman who not only never had any little boys of her own, but she was childless and as such, did not have the comprehension of feeling the innate "mother lioness protecting her cubs" feeling that mothers do. Mind you, I allowed her to go on her little tirade about how she was soooo uncomfortable (and UPTIGHT about naked bodies...for shame!) but completely dismissed her as someone whose opinion was irrelevant and needed to get over herself.

It is sooo cliche to say this, but it truly DOES take a village....our children are our future. We must protect them. It is no longer safe to allow our very young boys to go into public restrooms by themselves. When I have grandbabies and if they are boys, I will continue the same practice with them. Now that my boys are older and go to public restrooms by themselves, I often see other young Moms bringing their boys into the ladies bathroom and/or dressing room. My immediate reaction is that they are lucky to have such a diligent, caring mother.

Done with the off-topic rant. Carry on, LOL.

Edited to add: It will be a great day when people can finally stop being so ridiculously uptight about nudeness!

Momma bringing her precious little boy into the restroom....so NOT a problem. The lady you referenced is LooLoo...and not to worry...you have protected your young ones and for that I salute you. I would never let my young male children go to a public restroom alone...just as I would noy allow my female children to do so. I am vigilant....my kids were not unsupervised at all until after 17 or 18. It meant no vacations alone with hub...but they made it to adulthood safely.

This man, we must wait to see if it was intentional flashing or a man with a right to privately air himself out in his own home. Either way, it's a mad world out there and it never hurts to be careful. So very glad my children are grown up.

[believe09]

I don't know, maybe my view is slanted because when my husband was a child he lived in an apartment building with a laundromat. A man ran up the window when he was there by himself and exposed himself. It isn't just an innocent, funny thing. This is a sex crime with a victim and I do not know what happened in this particular case with the coffee man. It just depends on if he intentionaly exposed himself or not.

My Mom also was flashed when she was standing at the side of the street, waiting to cross in broad daylight! A man flashed her his penis and took off running. It really scared her.

I am not making light of your mother's experience-in her case this is clearly lewdness. In your husband's case, he was a child and this was clearly something more-at LEAST lewdness.

I will be interested in hearing the results of the investigation-did he know the child was there, did the child see anything and why did she (mom) look a few times if that happened?

The last time I was flashed in public, my girlfriends and I turned on the headlights of the car and told the jerk that we couldnt see anything worth discussing. The guy zipped up and promptly walked away-it was perhaps not the reaction he was looking for. Do I recommend that approach? No, but it worked for us. (We flagged down a cruiser nearby and recommended that they look for the guy...)

[kgeaux]

It sounds to me like he wasn't fudging the truth, he just didn't know when he had been seen. So far, it seems that he's been pretty honest because he admitted to walking around naked for several hours, when he could have lied and said he'd already dressed when the woman says she saw him. (His roommates had left three hours earlier.)

I have more of a problem with a passerby walking around a house and peering in windows in order to take offense at what the homeowner is doing. And I don't think that seeing a grown man naked (minus lewd behavior) will traumatize a boy. If that were the case then all men's bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms should be off limit to male children. (Actually I do have a problem with women who bring their sons into women's dressing rooms but that's a whole 'nother issue. Maybe I should call the cops on them… but it probably wouldn't do any good since I'm not a cop's wife.)

I also have a problem with sending five officers to arrest one naked man in his own home. Was that really necessary? Add the fact that they are trying to pin more on this guy and it really seems to me to be an effort to defend the eagerly offended cop's wife.

Who decided this woman was "peering in windows?" The police report states that she first saw him in an open doorway after hearing a noise that attracted her attention. As she and her son accessed the sidewalk, the man walked up to his uncurtained windows and stood there, looking out. The motion of his walking up to the window may have caught her eye. There is absolutely NO evidence that this woman walked up to his window and was peeping in at him.

As for the time the man says he was standing in his doorway and unaware that he'd been seen, he puts that time at 5:30. While he may have stood in the open doorway before dawn, he KNOWS he ALSO stood in the open doorway while it was light out: he isn't blind.

BTW, I think if a grown man stands around nude in the men's room, it definitely could be traumatizing for a youngster.

It is also an assumption that they are "trying to pin more on him." IF, they did not investigate his behavior and he IS a flasher and if his behavior escalates, I guarantee you people would be shouting and screaming that LE had failed to investigate a valid report and let this man's behavior continue.

Don't we only have the passerby saying the time as 8:30? I don't know that I believe this unknown person at all.

We have the passerby stating that it occurred between 8:30 and 8:40 AM as she walked her son to the bus stop. It certainly makes more sense that a walk to the bus stop would occur closer to 8:30 than 5:30 AM. We also have Williamson's statement that he did not dress for several hours, not until "that game got old." (I thought that was an odd thing to say!)

I know that women who are married to cops can lie like dogs.....but her statement of time makes perfect sense when factoring the time school starts.

[kgeaux]

I am not making light of your mother's experience-in her case this is clearly lewdness. In your husband's case, he was a child and this was clearly something more-at LEAST lewdness.

I will be interested in hearing the results of the investigation-did he know the child was there, did the child see anything and why did she (mom) look a few times if that happened?

The last time I was flashed in public, my girlfriends and I turned on the headlights of the car and told the jerk that we couldnt see anything worth discussing. The guy zipped up and promptly walked away-it was perhaps not the reaction he was looking for. Do I recommend that approach? No, but it worked for us. (We flagged down a cruiser nearby and recommended that they look for the guy...)

I'm glad that you and your friends took being flashed so well. A man followed me around Walmart a few years ago, buying nothing and leaving the store at the same time I did, got into his vehicle and pulled up behind my mini-van while I was loading my groceries into the back. He had his pants pulled down and exposed himself to me.

I felt so violated. Dirty. Like I needed about fifty showers to get my skin clean and get this man's image out of my mind----, not that I've ever been able to erase the memory. I was also terrified, because this was shortly before Derrick Todd Lee was caught, and I was so afraid this man was going to follow me home. I still feel like I need a shower when I remember this!

[gxm]

Who decided this woman was "peering in windows?" The police report states that she first saw him in an open doorway after hearing a noise that attracted her attention. As she and her son accessed the sidewalk, the man walked up to his uncurtained windows and stood there, looking out. The motion of his walking up to the window may have caught her eye. There is absolutely NO evidence that this woman walked up to his window and was peeping in at him.

As for the time the man says he was standing in his doorway and unaware that he'd been seen, he puts that time at 5:30. While he may have stood in the open doorway before dawn, he KNOWS he ALSO stood in the open doorway while it was light out: he isn't blind.

BTW, I think if a grown man stands around nude in the men's room, it definitely could be traumatizing for a youngster.

It is also an assumption that they are "trying to pin more on him." IF, they did not investigate his behavior and he IS a flasher and if his behavior escalates, I guarantee you people would be shouting and screaming that LE had failed to investigate a valid report and let this man's behavior continue.



We have the passerby stating that it occurred between 8:30 and 8:40 AM as she walked her son to the bus stop. It certainly makes more sense that a walk to the bus stop would occur closer to 8:30 than 5:30 AM. We also have Williamson's statement that he did not dress for several hours, not until "that game got old." (I thought that was an odd thing to say!)

I know that women who are married to cops can lie like dogs.....but her statement of time makes perfect sense when factoring the time school starts.

If someone sees a nude person through a doorway, IMO, the common reaction if you don't want to see him again is to avoid looking at his house and/or in his window. A photo of the window has been published. It is obscured by shrubbery, so she had to make an effort to see him the second time. I haven't seen a photo of the side door so I have no idea whether or not it is easy to see from the path she was walking on. As far as I know, none of us do. Has anyone seen a photo of the side door?

I'm not saying that the woman is lying. I'm saying the lady doth protest too much. If one is easily offended by nudity, it is best to not take a second look. I'm also saying that the strong armed response of LE is because a cop's wife made the complaint. I really don't think five cops would have showed up if I'd called it in.

As far as restrooms go, I know men use urinals, so any boy who has used an adult men's room has been exposed to at least partial male nudity. Also, in gym and pool changing rooms, and even some dressing rooms, the women walk around naked so I'm presuming the men do as well. Is that "traumatizing" for a young boy? IMO, it should be considered normal. But apparently some believe that adult male anatomy is so powerfully repulsive that it's damaging for young male psyches to be exposed to it. Yet it's okay for boys to see grown women in the same state of undress. I'm really not understanding the double standard here.

[LCoastMom]

So where do you stand on this case? Was the boy harmed by, allegedly, seeing a man walking around his own home in the nude?

BTW, I have a son. And when he was little, I took him into restrooms. It's the older and/or undisciplined boys who are allowed to run around peering under doors that I find fault with. I'm usually a nice person and don't complain but having read this whole brouhaha and the comments insinuating it's okay for boys to ogle women but not men, well I think the next time it happens I'm going to pitch a fit. I have every right to expect privacy when I'm in a bathroom or dressing room. Is it my fault if these kids are traumatized by watching me change clothes or go to the bathroom? When IMO, someone who teaches their kids (sons or daughters) that it's okay to intrude on someone's privacy is not doing a very good job of parenting.

How does everyone feel about fathers taking their daughters into men's bathrooms or dressing rooms? It would be interesting to see if there's a double standard.



I agree with you 1000% your right to privacy, but I completely don't understand why a young child would be traumatized by "peeking" at an adult using a toilet or changing clothes??? Most kids have seen their parents doing these at one time or another.

My son was with me in the woman's room until age 5 or 6. WITH ME being the point. Other little children I've seen "peeking" are usually no more than 3 or 4. The one time I had a lil boy peeking in the room who appeared to be 6 or 7, I nicely but firmly told him to look into ladies dressing rooms or potties is unacceptable and nice boys don't do that.

The difference with men taking a little girl into the mens room, not that I think a whole lot of flashing is going on; but by the time most little girls are of potty training age, they are closing in on 3ish which is the age most men no longer feel comfortable being nude around their daughters (co-bathing etc) most pediatricians suggest this is the right age to learn about modesty and most mens restrooms still have urinals on the wall with without privacy.

If that means I live by a double standard, I can deal with that. All that said; in an emergency I don't think a little girl would be "traumatized " by using a mens room.

[gxm]

I'm glad that you and your friends took being flashed so well. A man followed me around Walmart a few years ago, buying nothing and leaving the store at the same time I did, got into his vehicle and pulled up behind my mini-van while I was loading my groceries into the back. He had his pants pulled down and exposed himself to me.

I felt so violated. Dirty. Like I needed about fifty showers to get my skin clean and get this man's image out of my mind----, not that I've ever been able to erase the memory. I was also terrified, because this was shortly before Derrick Todd Lee was caught, and I was so afraid this man was going to follow me home. I still feel like I need a shower when I remember this!

That's a terrible story! I hope you called the police.

I don't think I've ever been flashed; the harassment I've mostly experienced is men grabbing or rubbing up against me. I'm on the petite side and, apparently, some guys think I look like a squeeze toy. It's infuriating.

[gxm]

I agree with you 1000% your right to privacy, but I completely don't understand why a young child would be traumatized by "peeking" at an adult using a toilet or changing clothes??? Most kids have seen their parents doing these at one time or another.

My son was with me in the woman's room until age 5 or 6. WITH ME being the point. Other little children I've seen "peeking" are usually no more than 3 or 4. The one time I had a lil boy peeking in the room who appeared to be 6 or 7, I nicely but firmly told him to look into ladies dressing rooms or potties is unacceptable and nice boys don't do that.

The difference with men taking a little girl into the mens room, not that I think a whole lot of flashing is going on; but by the time most little girls are of potty training age, they are closing in on 3ish which is the age most men no longer feel comfortable being nude around their daughters (co-bathing etc) most pediatricians suggest this is the right age to learn about modesty and most mens restrooms still have urinals on the wall with without privacy.

If that means I live by a double standard, I can deal with that. All that said; in an emergency I don't think a little girl would be "traumatized " by using a mens room.

I actually agree with you. I don't think a child would be traumatized. I was trying to show the inconsistency of thinking that the boy who saw Mr. Williamson was traumatized by the experience. As long as Mr. Williamson wasn't doing anything lewd then IMO no harm, no foul.

And I agree, toddlers or young boys who aren't interested in the opposite sex are not a problem in ladies rooms. I have had more than one experience with older boys who were way to old to be in a women's dressing room and whose mothers allowed them to harass other customers.

[kgeaux]

If someone sees a nude person through a doorway, IMO, the common reaction if you don't want to see him again is to avoid looking at his house and/or in his window. A photo of the window has been published. It is obscured by shrubbery, so she had to make an effort to see him the second time. I haven't seen a photo of the side door so I have no idea whether or not it is easy to see from the path she was walking on. As far as I know, none of us do. Has anyone seen a photo of the side door?

I'm not saying that the woman is lying. I'm saying the lady doth protest too much. If one is easily offended by nudity, it is best to not take a second look. I'm also saying that the strong armed response of LE is because a cop's wife made the complaint. I really don't think five cops would have showed up if I'd called it in.

As far as restrooms go, I know men use urinals, so any boy who has used an adult men's room has been exposed to at least partial male nudity. Also, in gym and pool changing rooms, and even some dressing rooms, the women walk around naked so I'm presuming the men do as well. Is that "traumatizing" for a young boy? IMO, it should be considered normal. But apparently some believe that adult male anatomy is so powerfully repulsive that it's damaging for young male psyches to be exposed to it. Yet it's okay for boys to see grown women in the same state of undress. I'm really not understanding the double standard here.


There are actually TWO windows. We see him standing in one of them, with a bush partially obscuring the lower half of the window---but one would still be able to tell he wasn't dressed. The other window appears to have no shrubbery in front. We don't know which one he was standing in, we just know which one he chose to pose in.

There are many comments made at a news site local to his home. Several have been made by people who live in the neighborhood or used to. Generally speaking, they all seem to agree that the "walking path" is highly traveled--especially by kids going to the bus stop. The car-port door opens directly onto this pathway......that is from comments, not from a photo. The front windows are within a few feet of the sidewalk which passes in front of the home. Someone had even posted a google map of the home, which shows just how close this home is to the path and the tennis courts next door.....and the sidewalk. If I have a chance to look the site up again, I'll be glad to post the link....be warned, however that there are HUNDREDS of comments to wade through!

I'm not saying the lady is lying either, but she theoretically could be. Just because she is a cops wife doesn't mean she is infallible! The point in question by another poster was if the incident happened at 5:30, as Williamson said, or 8:30, as the passer-by stated. I just tried to express my opinion that while she "could" be lying, her story is that she was walking her child to the bus stop, and that seems to fit in perfectly with HER time-line.

I am of two minds about the number of cops who responded. I have two very dear friends who are police officers, and I know that their families DO get extra fast, extra GOOD response from other officers. (This response doesn't seem to have been extra fast, however. It seems they had to get advice from the prosecutor as to whether what the man had done would constitute either intent or obscenity.) So it is possible that the number of cops at the scene is totally because another cop's wife made the complaint. However, it is also possible that the location of the bus stop got the officer's fired up. Plus, if it was reported that he was nude except for a hard-hat, they might have initially thought they were going to detain a crazy man, so THAT could explain the number of officers.

[LCoastMom]

I actually agree with you. I don't think a child would be traumatized. I was trying to show the inconsistency of thinking that the boy who saw Mr. Williamson was traumatized by the experience. As long as Mr. Williamson wasn't doing anything lewd then IMO no harm, no foul.

And I agree, toddlers or young boys who aren't interested in the opposite sex are not a problem in ladies rooms. I have had more than one experience with older boys who were way to old to be in a women's dressing room and whose mothers allowed them to harass other :eek:customers.

The mothers you mention with children running wild; should be put out of the store while their pants are down; to see if the enjoy being harassed while they shop. :loser: I don't think I have experienced that behavior, I doubt I would be nice to the mothers of those kids.:croc:

The trauma I remember reading young boys suffered from seeing nude males, was from way back when and IMO was probably written by Freudians.:crazy:

It was said that it set them up for a life long inferiority complex. Thinking they would never possess that amount of 'manliness', probably written by the same psychologist-psychiatrist type who believe women all have penis envy. :shakehead:

Had my son at 7, seen a man drinking a cup of coffee in the nude, he would probably commented 'I hope he doesn't spill the coffee and not given a second thought. :coffeecup:

If the child in this mess is aware of the police involvement and talk of jail for this "offensive act", This kid is going to need extensive therapy, so he doesn't grow up with serious issues dealing with his own nude body. :iamashamed0005:

We all seem to be in agreement that the state of undress while drinking coffee in your own home, should not alone be grounds for this criminal investigation. :thumb:


It is mitigating circumstances of whether Mr Williams was aware he had an audience and any other things he may be doing nude that will be his downfall if it can be proved. I hope the former roomies have put curtains up on all the windows since this happened... :cop: :smiliescale:

[jjenny]

Jjeny, not necessarily. So, is it okay for a man to stand by the window or in front of it with his penis hanging out while children walk to school? After all, this is his home and he just enjoys standing next to the window to enjoy the scenic view and watch the birdies flutter by. It's not his fault if children see his exposed genitals, this is his home.

As I said before, we don't know if this was intentional or if he was really just making coffee. It is all speculation and I'm only trying to give another side and not completely discredit the victim in this story as there could very well be a crime here.

BTW, it is not legal for somebody to use the excuse of "I was in my own home" if they are intentionaly exposing themselves to passerby. We don't know what he was doing - that's what the investigation is for. :)

If people could see him from the street, and he didn't realize it, police could have just given him a warning. As for police investigation, again, I only wish they use that kind of vigor to investigate all the crimes. Going around the neighborhood asking people if they saw him naked? Putting up fliers? Now imagine somebody saw you in a less than perfect state of dress from the street and police did all that. How embarrassing would that be?

[fivekidz4me]

As the story unfolds...
we have an allegedly drunk, recently fired, naked man walking aound in front of open windows for anyone to see from 5:30 to 8:30am

parents/children arriving at a bus stop across the street

Doesn't sound like a good combo at all.

Just because he was possibly impaired, doesn't mean he didn't intend to be seen...as anyone whose been around a naked drunk can understand how easily they become exhibonists, afterall, the state of being impaired can make people forget how truly outrageous they acted.

Should people be looking into windows? Heck no!
Should people be naked in their front windows with a bus stop across the street? Heck No!

I highly doubt anyone would call the police if they saw him naked making coffee (a brief situation, such as those others have posted)....but I totally believe they would call if the guy was naked and strutting his stuff in front of his window, as children waited for the bus.

[STEADFAST]

There are actually TWO windows. We see him standing in one of them, with a bush partially obscuring the lower half of the window---but one would still be able to tell he wasn't dressed. The other window appears to have no shrubbery in front. We don't know which one he was standing in, we just know which one he chose to pose in.
(SNIPPED by STEADFAST)


Actually, that one picture we saw into his front windows must have been taken with the camera on the ground! If you watch this video report which shows the front of his house, you'll see that the shrubs are only about 18" high and the windows go almost to the floor. So if he were standing in one of those front windows, he'd definitely know his man parts could be seen.
(Got to admit, I haven't listened to this video, only watched it. I've got some football game and the dishwasher and the family all making too much noise.)
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

I wonder if people would feel differently if it had been a 7-year-old girl? As far as the law goes, however, the amount of trauma the victim of indecent exposure undergoes is irrelevant. On the other hand, I've read that Virginia's statute says that the "exposer" must do something lewd besides just show his stuff, so not sure Mr. Williamson did anything like that. We sure haven't heard that he did.

[gxm]

Actually, that one picture we saw into his front windows must have been taken with the camera on the ground! If you watch this video report which shows the front of his house, you'll see that the shrubs are only about 18" high and the windows go almost to the floor. So if he were standing in one of those front windows, he'd definitely know his man parts could be seen.
(Got to admit, I haven't listened to this video, only watched it. I've got some football game and the dishwasher and the family all making too much noise.)
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

I wonder if people would feel differently if it had been a 7-year-old girl? As far as the law goes, however, the amount of trauma the victim of indecent exposure undergoes is irrelevant. On the other hand, I've read that Virginia's statute says that the "exposer" must do something lewd besides just show his stuff, so not sure Mr. Williamson did anything like that. We sure haven't heard that he did.

Thanks for the link. I had envisioned the path and sidewalk being much closer to the house. There's not even a sidewalk on his side of the street. I'm having a really hard time figuring out how anyone could get a good look at him from that distance. I'm now wondering if the woman and boy weren't trespassing. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get a good look.

Also, if mom and son were presumably standing there waiting for the bus, does she maintain he was seen the entire time? Or is the bus stop not precisely in line of sight to his front windows? Her story sounds even more bogus now that I've seen the video, and just leaves me with more questions.

If the exposure is accidental and does not involve sexual lewdness then I think it should be treated as a life lesson, regardless of the child's gender. IMO, it probably does more damage to the child to make a big deal about it.

[jjenny]

Thanks for the link. I had envisioned the path and sidewalk being much closer to the house. There's not even a sidewalk on his side of the street. I'm having a really hard time figuring out how anyone could get a good look at him from that distance. I'm now wondering if the woman and boy weren't trespassing. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get a good look.

Also, if mom and son were presumably standing there waiting for the bus, does she maintain he was seen the entire time? Or is the bus stop not precisely in line of sight to his front windows? Her story sounds even more bogus now that I've seen the video, and just leaves me with more questions.

If the exposure is accidental and does not involve sexual lewdness then I think it should be treated as a life lesson, regardless of the child's gender. IMO, it probably does more damage to the child to make a big deal about it.
The original story was that the mother was cutting through the yard of the house. Although some here posted this was shown to be false, I've yet to see a link in support of that idea.
From watching the TV program about this, I believe the bus stop is across the street. I sincerely doubt anyone would be able to see him from across the street-that's quite a distance from his windows.

[STEADFAST]

Thanks for the link. I had envisioned the path and sidewalk being much closer to the house. There's not even a sidewalk on his side of the street. I'm having a really hard time figuring out how anyone could get a good look at him from that distance. I'm now wondering if the woman and boy weren't trespassing. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get a good look.

Also, if mom and son were presumably standing there waiting for the bus, does she maintain he was seen the entire time? Or is the bus stop not precisely in line of sight to his front windows? Her story sounds even more bogus now that I've seen the video, and just leaves me with more questions.

If the exposure is accidental and does not involve sexual lewdness then I think it should be treated as a life lesson, regardless of the child's gender. IMO, it probably does more damage to the child to make a big deal about it.

It doesn't look like it on the video, but there is a sidewalk in front of his house, and the path is adjacent to and connected to the driveway going to his carport -- according to the satellite photo on Google Maps. I can't remember his address now, but it's all somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
Since we haven't heard anything about a lewd act (I guess by that they mean grabbing himself or making suggestive motions), it may be that he will win his case or that it will be dropped. For the law on this, I'm going by the word of an attorney who was interviewed.
The thing that irritates me the most about this whole situation is not his drunkenly exposing himself. It's the way he brought this to the media and painted such a false picture of the circumstances in a way that vilifies the woman and child. No one would have heard of this if he hadn't wanted to publicize that ridiculous story about himself innocently making coffee in the wee hours when a woman trespassed and peeked at him -- in support of his lawsuit against the city, no doubt. I'm amazed at how many people in the world are so careful to give him the benefit of all doubts but at the same time make outlandish accusations about the woman who reported him. Talk about blaming the victim!

EDITED TO ADD -- Just occurred to me you might think I'm directing this at you, gxm. Not at all. I'm talking about bloggers I've read.

[jjenny]

It doesn't look like it on the video, but there is a sidewalk in front of his house, and the path is adjacent to and connected to the driveway going to his carport -- according to the satellite photo on Google Maps. I can't remember his address now, but it's all somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
Since we haven't heard anything about a lewd act (I guess by that they mean grabbing himself or making suggestive motions), it may be that he will win his case or that it will be dropped. For the law on this, I'm going by the word of an attorney who was interviewed.
The thing that irritates me the most about this whole situation is not his drunkenly exposing himself. It's the way he brought this to the media and painted such a false picture of the circumstances in a way that vilifies the woman and child. No one would have heard of this if he hadn't wanted to publicize that ridiculous story about himself innocently making coffee in the wee hours when a woman trespassed and peeked at him -- in support of his lawsuit against the city, no doubt. I'm amazed at how many people in the world are so careful to give him the benefit of all doubts but at the same time make outlandish accusations about the woman who reported him. Talk about blaming the victim!

EDITED TO ADD -- Just occurred to me you might think I'm directing this at you, gxm. Not at all. I'm talking about bloggers I've read.

You keep repeating that he painted a false picture. What evidence do you have he wasn't actually making coffee? He got the time wrong? If he didn't know when the woman saw him, then he could have innocently gotten the time wrong. The fact that he was so off on the time, supports the idea he didn't know the woman saw him. The original story was that the woman was cutting through the property to get to the bus stop. You say that is false, she wasn't on the property? It might be that many people cut through the property to get to the bus stop, but that doesn't make the story that the woman cut through the property false. If you have information that in fact she was not on the property, why not post it?

[STEADFAST]

You keep repeating that he painted a false picture. What evidence do you have he wasn't actually making coffee? He got the time wrong? If he didn't know when the woman saw him, then he could have innocently gotten the time wrong. The original story was that the woman was cutting through the property to get to the bus stop. You say that is false, she wasn't on the property? It might be that many people cut through the property to get to the bus stop, but that doesn't make the story that the woman cut through the property false. If you have information that in fact she was not on the property, why not post it?

In answer to your first question, he's the one who said he was making coffee when he was seen. I have no idea why he said that. I suspect he said it because it sounds like the first thing someone would do when they stumble out of bed.

I have posted many links to his story and the other version, some links more than once. At some point, I decided to quit posting them because nobody seemed to be reading any of the links. The statement from the woman was that she was on the walkway that goes by his carport. It connects the park behind his house with the sidewalk in front of his house.

His early stories. (Bold letters are mine):

Williamson said [A] his roommates were not home and he walked into the kitchen to make coffee about 5:30 a.m. Monday. [B][C] At about that time, an unidentified woman walking with a 7-year-old boy passed the front yard of Williamson's home.
http://www.kmbc.com/newslinks/21368405/detail.html"Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and [D] just got out of bed.
[E] It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/22/crimesider/entry5409509.shtml

Williamson said: "I'm by myself. So I come down here - the roommates are gone, and it's my house. "I never had a conversation with anyone, never saw anyone. Didn't cross my mind, came and got coffee. I mean if I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen possibly it's natural. It's my kitchen." http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-Man-Facing-Indecent-Exposure-Charges-After-Brewing-Coffee-Naked-In-His-Own-Kitchen/Article/200910315410967

So, that's the first story that started everyone screaming that the woman was a peeping tom and a tresspasser.

Then more information came out.

FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda teOkay, so how did he just get up at 5:30 all alone in the house (A, B, and D) if his roommates saw him up and drunk at 5:00? How was he seen making coffee naked at 5:30 (C) and how was it dark outside (E), if the incident happened at 8:30?

Then his story changes somewhat:

"I was in my own home, cooking breakfast, making coffee, packing a box," he said. He says he was moving out. And because no one was home-- he was doing it naked. http://www.wzzm13.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=114952&catid=82But we've already seen that his reason for being naked wasn't that no one was home. He was also naked while his roommates were there. Don't know why he keeps insisting that he decided to do things naked because he was alone.

"Apparently some lady had walked across a portion of my lawn, because there's a trail off to the side a ways and its common for people to cut across that area to the sidewalk in front of my house," he said. http://www.wzzm13.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=114952&catid=82If he didn't know he was being seen by anyone, how would he know this woman walked across a portion of his lawn? He's got to be lying about one or the other or both. Also, even if she had walked across the lawn (which I doubt), it wasn't his lawn any more than it was her lawn. It was being rented by the company he had gotten fired from. He was an ex-tenant in the process of moving out.

Then his story gets even farther away than his original:

"We wake up to Eric running around the house with nothing but a work hardhat on, butt naked," the roommate said.
"I was upstairs, downstairs without clothes on for several hours," Williamson told NBC4 Wednesday. "And then I ended up putting pants on when I guess that act got old I ended up putting some pants on."
Williamson said he doesn't have an exact time frame for when he was naked and when he was clothed.
"If she's walking down the road and she said she saw me naked, it's a good possibility," he said.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Man-Charged-After-Being-Seen-Naked-in-His-Home-65316082.htmlWonder if he believed it was "a good possibility" that the school kids at the bus stop or "walking down the road" to the bus stop could see him?

Now all this has been his and his roommates version. The woman's version is:


Spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings said the woman and her son first saw Williamson standing naked inside his doorway as they walked along a path outside his home.

Police say Williamson then followed the two from inside his home and exposed himself again through a large front window.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/22/crimesider/entry5409509.shtmlMary Ann Jennings with Fairfax County Police says it's not that Eric was naked. He's in trouble because they say he was flaunting it.
"He wasn't merely moving around the house. He was actually standing in an open doorway and standing in front of a pretty large window when she observed him naked," she said.http://www.wzzm13.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=114952&catid=82


As officers tell it, the 45-year-old woman, the wife of a Fairfax police officer, was walking her son to school about 8:40 a.m. along a well-traveled path between public tennis courts and the house where Williamson had been living for three months when a noise drew her attention to a side door.
That's when she first noticed Williamson standing nude in the doorway, she said. When she and her son got to the sidewalk in front of the house on Arley Drive, they saw him again -- this time, through a large window that appeared to have no drapes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[jjenny]

You've provided a number of links stating the woman was walking on a path next to his home and then got to the sidewalk.
So how exactly does it prove the woman did not cut through the property? None of the articles say the path is not on the property. Williamson seems to imply the path (or the trail as he calls it) is on the property, and people use it to get to the sidewalk. How did he know the woman walked through the portion of the lawn? Well, I wonder what does a police report say, and what the five police officers who came to arrest him told him? He certainly could have found out from them, could he not? He also could have guessed the woman was on the trail if that's what people do to get to the sidewalk. And I have no idea why he couldn't have been simply moving around the house even if she first observed him through a doorway and then through the window. How exactly does it prove he wasn't simply moving around the house? It's not like they are alleging he was doing anything lewd.

[STEADFAST]

You've provided a bunch of links stating the woman was walking on a path next to his home and then got to the sidewalk.
So how exactly does it prove the woman did not cut through his property?

If you Google around, you can see the satellite image of the tennis court, the path, and his house. The path is next to his house and very close. According to local posters, the path is public right of way. Going off the path onto the yard would not be a short cut to the street.
But, think about it. Why should anyone have to prove the woman did not cut through his property? Who says she did? Only he says she did. But he also says he didn't know anything about her being out there. So which is it? Did he see her cutting through his yard or did he not see her at all?

[jjenny]

If you Google around, you can see the satellite image of the tennis court, the path, and his house. The path is next to his house and very close. According to local posters, the path is public right of way. Going off the path onto the yard would not be a short cut to the street.
But, think about it. Why should anyone have to prove the woman did not cut through his property? Who says she did? Only he says she did. But he also says he didn't know anything about her being out there. So which is it? Did he see her cutting through his yard or did he not see her at all?

The path is next to the house and very close? Yet the local posters think it's a public right of way? Maybe people who live in the house think different? As for who says she did? I have no idea, what does a police report say? I am sure the woman would have to explain exactly where she was when she saw him, if he is actually put on trial. If she were on the path which is very close to the house, even if local posters believe it's a public right of way, is that legally considered to be on the property or not?

[STEADFAST]

The path is next to the house and very close? Yet the local posters think it's a public right of way? Maybe people who live in the house think different?

Maybe they do. Don't see how it's relevant.

Anyway, he also stood in one of the large front windows facing the street and bus stop AND he admitted that if someone was going down the street they could have seen him. So he knew he was visible to the school kids at the bus stop across the street.

[kgeaux]

You've provided a number of links stating the woman was walking on a path next to his home and then got to the sidewalk.
So how exactly does it prove the woman did not cut through the property? None of the articles say the path is not on the property. Williamson seems to imply the path (or the trail as he calls it) is on the property, and people use it to get to the sidewalk. How did he know the woman walked through the portion of the lawn? Well, I wonder what does a police report say, and what the five police officers who came to arrest him told him? He certainly could have found out from them, could he not? He also could have guessed the woman was on the trail if that's what people do to get to the sidewalk. And I have no idea why he couldn't have been simply moving around the house even if she first observed him through a doorway and then through the window. How exactly does it prove he wasn't simply moving around the house? It's not like they are alleging he was doing anything lewd.

Ok, lets suppose he was just simply moving around his house. He moved from an open doorway, facing a public walking path to a completely uncurtained window facing a bus stop. Stopping in both areas to look outside, in broad daylight, apparently not seeing anyone or anything. If he was simply moving around his home, he certainly seems to have been moving from one "exposed" area to another.

[kgeaux]

Actually, that one picture we saw into his front windows must have been taken with the camera on the ground! If you watch this video report which shows the front of his house, you'll see that the shrubs are only about 18" high and the windows go almost to the floor. So if he were standing in one of those front windows, he'd definitely know his man parts could be seen.
(Got to admit, I haven't listened to this video, only watched it. I've got some football game and the dishwasher and the family all making too much noise.)
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

I wonder if people would feel differently if it had been a 7-year-old girl? As far as the law goes, however, the amount of trauma the victim of indecent exposure undergoes is irrelevant. On the other hand, I've read that Virginia's statute says that the "exposer" must do something lewd besides just show his stuff, so not sure Mr. Williamson did anything like that. We sure haven't heard that he did.


Well, thank you for that link. It is obvious that the shrubs do not cover any portion of either of the windows. Kinda makes you wonder why the photographer would angle his camera in a way to make it look as though Williamson's "privates" would have been obstructed from view, doesn't it?

There was a link to the statute earlier on this thread. I believe it says there must be "intent" OR "obscene display." The defense attorney is trying to make everyone believe that LE will need to prove BOTH intent and obscene display, but the statute definitely says "OR"

I, too, am wondering why people think the child must be traumatized in order for the arrest to be valid. And why they think that any young boy who is familiar with "man parts" from his own body and his dad's body would be nonchalant about a total stranger exposing himself to him. There is a world of difference there.

BTW, in the video, Williamson says he was wearing nothing but flip flops. Guess he forgot about the hard hat!

[Boyz_Mum]

Maybe they do. Don't see how it's relevant.

Anyway, he also stood in one of the large front windows facing the street and bus stop AND he admitted that if someone was going down the street they could have seen him. So he knew he was visible to the school kids at the bus stop across the street.

Since he admitted that someone going down the street could see him, it does seem logical that he would have been aware that the kids could see him from a bus stop across the street.

From the stories, it seems like the guy was a little off kilter since losing his job. I don't feel like he was being lewd on purpose (I could be wrong). His hanging out (literally) around the house in nothing but a hard hat (and flip flops?), kind of sounds (IMO) like he might have still been drunk. I have to wonder why he wouldn't just say his judgement was impaired? (Not as an excuse, but as an explanation of his behavior.)

[Danaya]

Jjeny,

I think we can all agree that we don't know what truly happened. That's what the investigation is for. This is only speculation right now.

[Quiche]

Perhaps, as he was making his coffee, he dropped the filter on the floor-- and when he bent over to pick it up, the passer-by became personally offended? :crazy:

[gxm]

Here are screen shots of the house. The side view shows how far the house is from any trail or cut-through path. IMO, it would be near impossible to tell what someone was or was not wearing at this distance unless you were actually closer and trespassing on his property. The front view shows that the shrubs are not 18" tall as some have suggested. I'd say that they are closer to 3' tall which is why Williamson's lower half is not easily visible in the photo taken from the outside looking in.

Source link: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

[STEADFAST]

Here are screen shots of the house. The side view shows how far the house is from any trail or cut-through path. IMO, it would be near impossible to tell what someone was or was not wearing at this distance unless you were actually closer and trespassing on his property. The front view shows that the shrubs are not 18" tall as some have suggested. I'd say that they are closer to 3' tall which is why Williamson's lower half is not easily visible in the photo taken from the outside looking in.

Source link: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

Thanks for the pictures. Those shrubs are barely higher than the two front steps next to them. Steps generally have risers around 6 inches. No way those steps are a foot and a half high each. Not only that, but the bushes are about level with the bottom of the front door, which most likely indicates the level of the floor in the home.
Those bushes would barely obscure his ankles, IMO.

Also, notice the extreme angle of the picture taken looking in the window and compare it to the other, straight-on picture of the front. Naturally, if you place the camera on the ground pointing upward, the bushes will look relatively taller because of the perspective. I wonder why they went to any trouble to take such a misleading picture? Was it to make the story "better"?

[gxm]

Thanks for the pictures. Those shrubs are barely higher than the two front steps next to them. Steps generally have risers around 6 inches. No way those steps are a foot and a half high each. Not only that, but the bushes are about level with the bottom of the front door, which most likely indicates the level of the floor in the home.
Those bushes would barely obscure his ankles, IMO.

Also, notice the extreme angle of the picture taken looking in the window and compare it to the other, straight-on picture of the front. Naturally, if you place the camera on the ground pointing upward, the bushes will look relatively taller because of the perspective. I wonder why they went to any trouble to take such a misleading picture? Was it to make the story "better"?

Well, if you're right then the windows are only 12" wide because the shrubs are higher than one window is wide. And there's no way anyone would see much through a 12" window. Sorry but I don't agree with the theory that the cameraman was lying on his back to take the photo. I think they were taking the photo from the angle someone cutting across the carport side would have been at, which happens to be where the tallest bush is located.

[STEADFAST]

Well, if you're right then the windows are only 12" wide because the shrubs are higher than one window is wide. And there's no way anyone would see much through a 12" window. Sorry but I don't agree with the theory that the cameraman was lying on his back to take the photo. I think they were taking the photo from the angle someone cutting across the carport side would have been at, which happens to be where the tallest bush is located.

Considering that the camera viewpoint is lower than the height of the bush, even with your reckoning (which I don't agree with), the person walking by would have to be shorter than 3 feet tall.

[gxm]

Considering that the camera viewpoint is lower than the height of the bush, even with your reckoning (which I don't agree with), the person walking by would have to be shorter than 3 feet tall.

Not necessarily, we don't know the lay of the land (or the home interior). But IMO, it's really kinda moot because it looks clear to me that one would need to be on the man's property and in close proximity to the window in order to be able to tell what he was or wasn't wearing. Unless he was pressing his body up against the glass which I doubt because LE would have mentioned it by now.

Funny, how the police spokesperson says something like "We've heard that some other people may have seen him." Wow. If that isn't a deliberately ambiguous statement. No facts just lots of insinuation.

FWIW, if those windows are about 80" tall then the bushes are about 40" tall.

[STEADFAST]

Not necessarily, we don't know the lay of the land (or the home interior). But IMO, it's really kinda moot because it looks clear to me that one would need to be on the man's property and in close proximity to the window in order to be able to tell what he was or wasn't wearing. Unless he was pressing his body up against the glass which I doubt because LE would have mentioned it by now.

Funny, how the police spokesperson says something like "We've heard that some other people may have seen him." Wow. If that isn't a deliberately ambiguous statement. No facts just lots of insinuation.

FWIW, if those windows are about 80" tall then the bushes are about 40" tall.

Okay, here's a blowup of your picture of the bush and window. Notice that the tallest few branches on the bush only come up to the first, lowest cross mullion on the window. (In other words, it's a sixth as high as the window.)
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/frontview3.jpg

Now here's a picture of EW in his home, with the windows showing from the inside. Do you really think a bush coming up to the lowest mullion would cover anything immodest on him?
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/Eric-Williamson_1507574c-thumb.jpg

[Celt1997]

I like to throw things around sometimes. It just seems that we have a "he said, she said" situation here, and I don't think you can punish this guy based on that type of case.

The lady claimed that he purposely made a noise so that she'd see him in the carport doorway. How can you prove that intent?

#1) Something (an animal, wind, etc.) could have knocked something over in the carport, and he went to check it out, not thinking someone would be walking there at that very moment. She looks up at the noise at the moment he's standing there.

#2) Maybe he did throw something in the carport. Maybe he was tossing a beer can into a recycling bucket, or something, not realizing how "exposed" he was. She hears the can hit the bucket, looks up, and there he is.

As I said before, there are way too many possibilities here. I can't believe this investigation is still going on without a conclusion.

IMO, though, there still is not enough evidence to label this guy anything more than a "drunken fool."

[kgeaux]

I like to throw things around sometimes. It just seems that we have a "he said, she said" situation here, and I don't think you can punish this guy based on that type of case.

The lady claimed that he purposely made a noise so that she'd see him in the carport doorway. How can you prove that intent?

#1) Something (an animal, wind, etc.) could have knocked something over in the carport, and he went to check it out, not thinking someone would be walking there at that very moment. She looks up at the noise at the moment he's standing there.

#2) Maybe he did throw something in the carport. Maybe he was tossing a beer can into a recycling bucket, or something, not realizing how "exposed" he was. She hears the can hit the bucket, looks up, and there he is.

As I said before, there are way too many possibilities here. I can't believe this investigation is still going on without a conclusion.

IMO, though, there still is not enough evidence to label this guy anything more than a "drunken fool."


I am unaware that the lady said Williamson made the noise. The report says she looked toward the open doorway in response to "a noise."

Police have said in at least one article that they "had received reports" that others besides the woman and her son may have seen something. That is reports with an "s" so obviously more than one person spoke to LE about this situation. It was in response to those reports that fliers were distributed throughout the neighborhood, asking for any witnesses to please come forward. The reports may turn out to be a bunch of bull, but LE has to investigate. I also want to mention that even though we have not read that the investigation is finished, it may well be. I think it probably IS over, because if other witnesses have not come forward by now, I don't think there are any other witnesses!

I do agree that Williamson seems to have acted like a drunken fool that morning!

[gxm]

I am unaware that the lady said Williamson made the noise. The report says she looked toward the open doorway in response to "a noise."

Police have said in at least one article that they "had received reports" that others besides the woman and her son may have seen something. That is reports with an "s" so obviously more than one person spoke to LE about this situation. It was in response to those reports that fliers were distributed throughout the neighborhood, asking for any witnesses to please come forward. The reports may turn out to be a bunch of bull, but LE has to investigate. I also want to mention that even though we have not read that the investigation is finished, it may well be. I think it probably IS over, because if other witnesses have not come forward by now, I don't think there are any other witnesses!

I do agree that Williamson seems to have acted like a drunken fool that morning!

Actually she says something along the lines that they "heard there may be others who saw something." It's very vague and non-specific hearsay, and it's in the video link I posted earlier.

[gxm]

Okay, here's a blowup of your picture of the bush and window. Notice that the tallest few branches on the bush only come up to the first, lowest cross mullion on the window. (In other words, it's a sixth as high as the window.)
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/frontview3.jpg

Now here's a picture of EW in his home, with the windows showing from the inside. Do you really think a bush coming up to the lowest mullion would cover anything immodest on him?
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/Eric-Williamson_1507574c-thumb.jpg

If you take a screen shot where the entire window is shown, it doesn't go all the way to the floor. The window actually starts about a foot off the floor. Without going to the property, I still believe that the view was obscured by bushes, especially if he wasn't up against the glass. Regardless, I still don't think anyone could have seen what he was or wasn't wearing if they weren't close enough to be trespassing; unless, as I said, he had his body pressed up against the glass.

I don't believe he meant to be seen. And, as he was usually at work by the time the mother and son made their trek across his yard, he probably was unaware that anyone used it for a shortcut.

FWIW, in the photo you've shown, the lowest mullion is visible even though below his waist is not. What is most significant is where he was standing (close to the window) or where the peeper was standing (close to the window). Without one of these elements, I don't think he would have been easily seen. JMHO because I live on a pipestem and when I drive down it the neighbor's house is smack in the center of my vision. And his front yard, if you want to call it that, is maybe 10 feet deep which puts me rather close to his house as I turn into my driveway. Now, my neighbor has much larger/wider floor to ceiling windows and only once was he clearly visible when he was directly inside working on the window. (And I'm pretty sure he was fully dressed.)

[kgeaux]

Actually she says something along the lines that they "heard there may be others who saw something." It's very vague and non-specific hearsay, and it's in the video link I posted earlier.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

Police say they've received additional reports regarding Williamson's nudity and they're distributing a flier in the neighborhood around the 8700 block of Arley Drive, where Williamson lives with roommates.

[gxm]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Was-he-making-coffee-naked-or-exposing-himself_-8418601.html

Police say they've received additional reports regarding Williamson's nudity and they're distributing a flier in the neighborhood around the 8700 block of Arley Drive, where Williamson lives with roommates.

This video link, also dated 10/22, has the spokeswoman's actual words (at approx. 00:50) and not a paraphrase. She says that they've "heard" some other people "may have" seen something and they'd like to hear from them.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

[mizzougrl]

are you kidding me...his own home for christ sakes. Unless he has a past history of this type of behavior, what is he possibly doing wrong?? Number one, why was she trespassing on HIS property and 2nd of all can she be considered "peeping tom" which there have been incidents before on that one

[STEADFAST]

FWIW, in the photo you've shown, the lowest mullion is visible even though below his waist is not. What is most significant is where he was standing (close to the window) or where the peeper was standing (close to the window). Without one of these elements, I don't think he would have been easily seen. JMHO because I live on a pipestem and when I drive down it the neighbor's house is smack in the center of my vision. And his front yard, if you want to call it that, is maybe 10 feet deep which puts me rather close to his house as I turn into my driveway. Now, my neighbor has much larger/wider floor to ceiling windows and only once was he clearly visible when he was directly inside working on the window. (And I'm pretty sure he was fully dressed.)

GMX, I know what you mean about not being able to see in windows from the outside. I've got a large, front-facing window in my guest room, and I'm amazed at how you can't see in there in the daytime, even with a lamp on. I think, in order for the woman to have seen him, EW would have had to be standing right at the window. So that means that either she didn't see him but for some reason called the police, or he was standing right at the window -- which indicates he did it on purpose to me.
BTW the reason you can see the bottom mullion of the window in the interior shot but you can't see his waist is perspective and the camera angle. Picture a man standing back where the windows are -- Think how tiny he'd have to be for that lowest mullion to come to his waist!

Here I've placed Durer's Adam over by the window so that the lowest mullion is just higher than his privates.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/ericandadam.jpg

[gxm]

(respectively snipped)

Here I've placed Durer's Adam over by the window so that the lowest mullion is just higher than his privates.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/ericandadam.jpg

Love the addition. It made me LOL. :D

[kgeaux]

This video link, also dated 10/22, has the spokeswoman's actual words (at approx. 00:50) and not a paraphrase. She says that they've "heard" some other people "may have" seen something and they'd like to hear from them.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Virginia_Man_Busted_for_Naked_Coffee_102209

Where do you suppose they "heard" that other people "may have" seen something? Ya think it could be from the "received reports?" I do! Maybe I'm just :crazy:

GMX, I know what you mean about not being able to see in windows from the outside. I've got a large, front-facing window in my guest room, and I'm amazed at how you can't see in there in the daytime, even with a lamp on. I think, in order for the woman to have seen him, EW would have had to be standing right at the window. So that means that either she didn't see him but for some reason called the police, or he was standing right at the window -- which indicates he did it on purpose to me.
BTW the reason you can see the bottom mullion of the window in the interior shot but you can't see his waist is perspective and the camera angle. Picture a man standing back where the windows are -- Think how tiny he'd have to be for that lowest mullion to come to his waist!

Here I've placed Durer's Adam over by the window so that the lowest mullion is just higher than his privates.
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/toshroger/ericandadam.jpg

That is hilarious! Good job!

[Wes]

A man in his own home, at 5:30 am, was in his own kitchen, naked, making a pot of coffee.

What the heck? Did he not have a stirrer?

[kgeaux]

What the heck? Did he not have a stirrer?

Oh, you are funny:dance:

[tif]

A quick google didn't turn up any new information. Does anybody know if he has had his court appearance yet?

[colette]

He was just convicted of indecent exposure.
"A judge agreed with prosecutors who argued Williamson's actions showed he intended to make himself visible to the pair as they walked to school along a path outside his home in October."

"He received only a suspended jail sentence and no fine, but still intends to appeal."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580563,00.html

[ziggy]

Guess there was more to the story. If he was intending to get his kicks by exposing himself, he belongs in jail and should be watched...again they have all the details so good for them.

[jjenny]

Guess there was more to the story. If he was intending to get his kicks by exposing himself, he belongs in jail and should be watched...again they have all the details so good for them.

He isn't going to go to jail.
He got a suspended sentence. I guess judge isn't concerned he is a danger to the community.
Who exactly do you propose should watch him? And on what basis? This isn't going to put him on a sex offender list.

[STEADFAST]

He isn't going to go to jail.
He got a suspended sentence. I guess judge isn't concerned he is a danger to the community.
Who exactly do you propose should watch him? And on what basis? This isn't going to put him on a sex offender list.

I don't think he'd mind too much if someone watched him.:rolleyes:

[mayfairlight]

Such a waste of proper police time:innocent:
I can't believe he was actally sentenced:waitasec:

What next? The woman next door who bakes cookies will soon be sentenced for cookie mania! All the kids in the neighborhood has gone crazy for cookies! What can we as a country do?? Being naked in your own home should not be a crime.
This is just so ridiculous!

[Celt1997]

Such a waste of proper police time:innocent:
I can't believe he was actally sentenced:waitasec:

What next? The woman next door who bakes cookies will soon be sentenced for cookie mania! All the kids in the neighborhood has gone crazy for cookies! What can we as a country do?? Being naked in your own home should not be a crime.
This is just so ridiculous!

That's the problem I have with this case. If he was dangerous, then sentence him to full extent. If he wasn't dangerous, then just let him go.

This cloudy-gray middle area they went with makes this case even more ridiculous.