VA - Eric Williamson for indecent exposure, Springfield, 2009

[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/l...offee-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/l...offee-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.

 

[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.

Love the addition. It made me LOL.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[jjenny]

Not guilty.
"FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) - A Virginia jury has acquitted a man charged with indecent exposure after he was seen naked inside his home by passers-by."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWoBadmUOPvmkJk3fdWXosu1t8JgD9EUELLG0

 

[kbl8201]

well the story wouldnt link for me, buti assume he won the appeal if he's been acquitted........

 

[jjenny]

well the story wouldnt link for me, buti assume he won the appeal if he's been acquitted........

I changed the link-hopefully it will work. He appealed the case and was tried by a jury, and the jury found him not guilty.