Rockville High Alleged Rapist Bond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are coming across as dense.
I am a different poster. I can understand that the pp is hoping the attorneys can PROVE that this young girl was raped. Because THAT is what she said happened.

You are dense.

She realized the texts show it was consensual. So since it was probably consensual, she hopes he is actually older (21) so it can be statutory. She want to find a way to make it rape.

I'm the PP. No. You have it backwards. I know that it was rape and I want to see these two men appropriately punished.

How do you know? Because she said so. You don't know. You hope it was rape because you don't want to believe girls consent to that type of sex.

No, I have no delusions about teens having sex. I would be thrilled if it comes out that this was consensual. I'm a parent in the Rockville cluster so it would make me feel much better about my kids safety while at school.

But from reading the police report, I think it sounds very unlikely. Even if the two of them had a prior relationship, that this particular encounter was consensual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are an idiot.

I am certain this was rape because the girl was 14 and the police report was brutal. The girl was on her period. What 14 year old girl agrees to any kind of sex on her period, let alone anal sex at 9am in the morning. And she was screaming and grabbing onto the sink so they wouldn't take her into the stall.

This was rape and I want them to be able to prosecute these assholes. Not get by on some BS defense.

So a police office witnessed this? That is how the report was written?

The police report is her words, not fact.

That is why physical evidence is so crucial.

Often girls don't know they are on their period, that was clear in the report, she didn't realize it until she saw blood.

I beleived it was rape, but if there is proof to the contrary the courts need to consider it.

Your hair would curl if you heard some of the consensual teen sex stories.

Maybe she didnt know she was on her period because she wasn't. The blood was from the rape. I mean thats a possibility to... No??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know what the bond was set at?

This story should not be repeated.

http://www.ketv.com/article/fugitive-task-force-searching-for-sexual-assault-suspect/9176936

Innocent until proven guilty of course but those who appear high risk should not be released. Doing so puts more of our children at risk.

Ugh, that story is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Come on... We all go to our bi annual sexual harassment training. We all know 'no means no'. Assuming the girl said no at the time violent pentration into her mouth v and a occured. These guys have no chance of getting off.

No also means no in Spanish right. Irregardless ignorance of the law is not a license to break it.

Sure. If you can prove she said no, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. If she is in a sexual relationship with the boy nobody will believe she said no unless there are bruises and lacerations.

You can't convict somebody of rape because you hate undocumented immigrants.

Wait, what?? I'm not the PP you responded to, but WTF?? Do you think it's impossible to rape in the context of a marriage? Do you think rape can NEVER occur in couples who may have had a relationship at one time but no longer do? A girl (because she was only a 14 year old girl in this case) is always fair game? Even when she is screaming for help and obviously not consenting?

That's disgusting. I hope you are not teaching your son that.

You can't make up facts to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

For the Bozo on this thread:
Part of the police report is based on EVIDENCE, such as samples collected in the bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

And this is how the scummy sleazy lawyer ends up being effective. Putting doubt in people's heads that this was the case even if it's not. Gross. She was 14.

I agree 14 year olds can have consensual sex but not so much with a 21 year old. I hope they can prove that this bastard was over 18.

You hope she was raped and it was not consensual?

You are an idiot.

I am certain this was rape because the girl was 14 and the police report was brutal. The girl was on her period. What 14 year old girl agrees to any kind of sex on her period, let alone anal sex at 9am in the morning. And she was screaming and grabbing onto the sink so they wouldn't take her into the stall.

This was rape and I want them to be able to prosecute these assholes. Not get by on some BS defense.

So a police office witnessed this? That is how the report was written?

The police report is her words, not fact.

That is why physical evidence is so crucial.

Often girls don't know they are on their period, that was clear in the report, she didn't realize it until she saw blood.

I beleived it was rape, but if there is proof to the contrary the courts need to consider it.

Your hair would curl if you heard some of the consensual teen sex stories.

Maybe she didnt know she was on her period because she wasn't. The blood was from the rape. I mean thats a possibility to... No??

It's possible. Forensics should be able to tell. But the blood was mentioned before boy #2 was involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

No, that is what the attackers are saying. The police disagreed with him.

I don't care if the girl sent him half-naked pictures (if that is even true). That does NOT mean that she agreed to sex at that particular time in that bathroom stall.

No means no? Or are you a little fuzzy on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bond. They claim it was consensual but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 14yo so they are pretty much guaranteed a conviction followed by prison and deportation.

I've seen this statement floating around. I say this NOT associated with this case, but there are plenty of 14 yo having consensual sex. This was true when I went to HS I can imagine it's the same, if not worse now.

In Md you can consent 14-16 to somebody <4 years older.

Come on... We all go to our bi annual sexual harassment training. We all know 'no means no'. Assuming the girl said no at the time violent pentration into her mouth v and a occured. These guys have no chance of getting off.

No also means no in Spanish right. Irregardless ignorance of the law is not a license to break it.

Sure. If you can prove she said no, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt. If she is in a sexual relationship with the boy nobody will believe she said no unless there are bruises and lacerations.

You can't convict somebody of rape because you hate undocumented immigrants.

Wait, what?? I'm not the PP you responded to, but WTF?? Do you think it's impossible to rape in the context of a marriage? Do you think rape can NEVER occur in couples who may have had a relationship at one time but no longer do? A girl (because she was only a 14 year old girl in this case) is always fair game? Even when she is screaming for help and obviously not consenting?

That's disgusting. I hope you are not teaching your son that.

You can't make up facts to fit your narrative.

Who is making up facts? Read the police report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the Bozo on this thread:
Part of the police report is based on EVIDENCE, such as samples collected in the bathroom.

The narrative is not physical evidence .. The police report did say blood was collected. Because some of it is "evidence" does not mean all of it is evidence. Just up imagine how much DNA is on a boys bathroom floor.

That is why it is important to call the police ASAP and close off the crime scene, but most likely school staff did their own "investigation" which compromises the crime scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo is now reporting that bail will be revisited given the texts and pictures that were exchanged between the students. Still a crime given her age though right? Probably reduces the charge though?

What sort of texts and pictures?

The Post article says they are compromising, and that they agreed to meet for sex in the texts.

No, that is what the attackers are saying. The police disagreed with him.

I don't care if the girl sent him half-naked pictures (if that is even true). That does NOT mean that she agreed to sex at that particular time in that bathroom stall.

No means no? Or are you a little fuzzy on that?

A text that says meet me in the bathroom to have sex would be pretty damaging to the prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Really disgusted by this.

question: are these lawyers that were assigned to the case by MoCo or hired privately by the families?

[Anonymous]

Interesting that both boys initially denied that they had sex.

From the WaPo:

Detectives spoke with both teenager, describing what they said in court papers that identified the girl as “Victim A.”

Montano “denied having any sexual contact with Victim A,” detectives wrote. “Montano stated they went into the bathroom to tell jokes.”

Sanchez Milian “initially stated nothing happened,” detectives wrote. “Then changed his statement multiple times and admitted to having sex with the victim with his friend Montano.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really disgusted by this.

question: are these lawyers that were assigned to the case by MoCo or hired privately by the families?

They were hired by the families. They are not public defenders.

[Anonymous]

This thread is gross. She's 14, it was rape. Nothing changes that. It's s shame some are willing to discredit her to advance an agenda. This is the reason most rape victims never come forward- they don't think they will believed and they are afraid of being shamed. What that girl did to report this crime shows tremendous bravery. The police took their evidence to the prosecutor who determined there is enough evidence to prosecute. That's all I need to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is gross. She's 14, it was rape. Nothing changes that. It's s shame some are willing to discredit her to advance an agenda. This is the reason most rape victims never come forward- they don't think they will believed and they are afraid of being shamed. What that girl did to report this crime shows tremendous bravery. The police took their evidence to the prosecutor who determined there is enough evidence to prosecute. That's all I need to hear.

I agree. And, don’t forget that she immediately reported it to a teacher.
This poor young girl. I also hope her family files a civil suit against the two boys. If they can hire their own attorneys, they must have money. Or, someone does.