VA - Eric Williamson for indecent exposure, Springfield, 2009

[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. [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/Wo...ed-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_update

Okay, 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=82

But 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=82

If 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/l...er-Being-Seen-Naked-in-His-Home-65316082.html

Wonder 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.shtml

Mary 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-dy...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.)

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?

 

[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.)

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?

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.)