VA - Nicole Lovell, 13, Blacksburg, 27 January 2016 #6 *Arrests*

[Inthedetails]

Gosh! I guess I'm in the minority; I think Nicole would have been readily believed. Her father was aware and he attempted to punish Nicole by taking her phone away from her. Apparently she got her phone back when she went back to Mom. I'm sure she had other ways to contact DE too. I just watched Vanity Fair Confidential ID regarding Tara Tarbox.

Synopsis: "14 y/o Katie Tarbox, and undercover cop, Michele Deery, go on a mission to expose dark secrets about online predators. How far will they go find out if their online playmates are real or just playing a twisted game of seduction?"

http://www.investigationdiscovery.c...ox-reveals-how-she-was-groomed-by-a-predator/

Some of the episodes are free for a limited time. Right now it is "Death of a Warrier Poet" and Tupac Shakur's unsolved murder.

There are more shows that are covering online crimes. Web of Lies on ID is another. Killerpost on Oxygen.

http://www.oxygen.com/killerpost

You can watch most of the Killerpost episodes free here for a limited time:

http://www.oxygen.com/killerpost/videos

Nicole's father should have contacted this David A person (DE) and told him to stay away from his daughter. He should have told him she's 13 and you are committing a crime and I will file charges if you don't back off from any contact with my daughter. I guess my point is I believe the majority of people are very aware of online dangers. If they aren't, they are sticking their head in the sand. JMO!

Whether or not Nicole would be believed isn't the point, imo. I don't buy that DE was worried about her snitching.

It was a thrill kill planned and executed by the duo together. I don't buy that DE convinced NK to participate. They were both in it together from conception to completion.

JMOpinion

 

[Bootsctr]

Yes, I agree. I wonder what evidence NK is going to try to use as evidence that she was recruited by DE as 01/04/2016.

 

[Night-owl]

Though I think Night-Owl is right about DE having thrill kill motives, knowing something objectively can be far different from "knowing" something subjectively.

A very violently inclined and subjectively thinking individual could well "know" that his conviction as a sex offender is inevitable and that he "must" do something drastic.

Objectively knowing and considering such factors as the willingness of the parents and proscecutors to pursue the case, the possibility of good plea bargains being offered, the possibility of being able to talk / charm ones way out of it etc. may not be given alot of thought.

Just to be clear, I think DE and NK killed for the thrill of it. They will (understandably) try to present some excuse, involving that NL was threatening DE somehow.

I call BS on that for the following reasons:
1) There's no way on earth DE thought she was of age. This isn't just a hormone driven college boy.
2) IMO, NL was targeted because DE saw her as marginalized. Note he's not aiming for a well-adjusted, cute young thing with a strong social support group. NL was vulnerable, to say the least.
3) NL wasn't in a real position to make threats. Short of some kind of physical evidence, it would come down to "He said, She said". That's an uphill fight for NL. While her parents may believe her, I'm not convinced a prosecutor would.
3a) DE is *well* aware of 3)
4) I think DE and NK marginalized NL to such a point they believed no one would really notice (or care) that she vanished. Here they were quite wrong.

The degree to which DE and NK managed to divorce themselves from reality is frightening. They killed a girl because it was exciting and gave them a feeling of power, IMO. Fortunately, I bet they never get the feeling of being in control ever again. LWOP and having to even take showers on someone else's schedule and all.


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Cryptic]

Just to be clear, I think DE and NK killed for the thrill of it. They will (understandably) try to present some excuse, involving that NL was threatening DE somehow.

I think you are right. Thrill killing is viewed as espescially heinous so most perpetrators will try to justify their actions (revenge, fear- in this case of being turned in, or that the victim had somehow provoked them. As you stated an excuse of: She was going to turn me in" is very convenient. In addition to your points that support a thrill killing, I would like to add some made by Night Owl:

- When faced with being turned in, nearly all sex offenders against minors simply "run, hide, and deny". Murdering the victim is extremely rare. This is probably espescially so with people like DE who with no priors and no physical evidence, would have a good chance of either completely beating the charge, or being offered a plea bargain to a non sexual offense (usually Child Endangerment)

- DE did not act impulsively or in a panic ie ("She is going to turn me in, I need to "take care of this"- now!)". Rather, he waited three weeks before acting.

 

[Inthedetails]

I think you are right. Thrill killing is viewed as espescially heinous so most perpetrators will try to justify their actions (revenge, fear- in this case of being turned in, or that the victim had somehow provoked them. As you stated an excuse of: She was going to turn me in" is very convenient. In addition to your points that support a thrill killing, I would like to add some made by Night Owl:

- When faced with being turned in, nearly all sex offenders against minors simply "run, hide, and deny". Murdering the victim is extremely rare. This is probably espescially so with people like DE who with no priors and no physical evidence, would have a good chance of either completely beating the charge, or being offered a plea bargain to a non sexual offense (usually Child Endangerment)

- DE did not act impulsively or in a panic ie ("She is going to turn me in, I need to "take care of this"- now!)". Rather, he waited three weeks before acting.

Bingo.

That's there the "I was afraid she would tell on me" excuse falls apart.

 

[BUF]

Yes, I agree. I wonder what evidence NK is going to try to use as evidence that she was recruited by DE as 01/04/2016.

Yeah, how is NK going to provide evidence that DE convinced her to get involved, especially after she told the FBI "I was excited to be part of something secretive and special"...and how is DE going to provide evidence that “I believe the truth can set me free”? Those two statements they made will follow them throughout this.

Both have denied killing Nicole...but someone did...I say both.

Hoping there will be more information available at the March 28th preliminary hearing and that this gets transferred out of juvenile court then...although things can still be sealed and information can be limited.

 

[jjenny]

I posted before I read yours. You said what was in my head far more succinct than I did. I completely agree.
No way would anyone believe Nicole over Mr. Track star Engineer. Nicole was no threat to this guy, and he knew it.

If she had saved their electronic communications, why wouldn't she be believed?

 

[Night-owl]

If she had saved their electronic communications, why wouldn't she be believed?

What communications specifically? if she has accounts where she says 18+, that suddenly becomes some very murky water for legal actions.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

What communications specifically? if she has accounts where she says 18+, that suddenly becomes some very murky water for legal actions.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

How does it become murky? As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter per US law how old she says she is. It only matters how old she actually is.
There have been men convicted even when females admit they were not honest about their age.

 

[Night-owl]

How does it become murky? As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter per US law how old she says she is. It only matters how old she actually is.
There have been men convicted even when females admit they were not honest about their age.

And there have been plenty more where the courts decline to pursue. Even when they do, not a guarantee. And it will be one ugly, ugly battle.

Particularly with online interactions, when someone says they are of age, how is someone else supposed to know different?

"I'm 18!"
《Steamy sexting takes place》
"Surprise! I'm 13!"

That is a very tough case to prosecute. And short of physical evidence, an offer of "Pizza and Netflix" probably has to be taken literally.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Cookiepots]

It's all in her head! lol! I can hear her now pleading to the judge for her life about how she could make a difference in the women's lives who are in prison. She could mentor and teach them, blah... blah... blah...

Shades of Jodie Arias.......

 

[Fireweed]

There are some states where mistake of age is a defense (i.e. a reasonable belief that the victim was of legal age to consent). Virginia is not such a state. The only defense to statutory rape is that the conduct did not occur, you were married to victim, or you reasonably believed you were married to the victim but you weren't.

I also do not think that merely talking/chatting to an underage girl is a crime. It would really depend on the content of the conversation.

 

[jjenny]

There are some states where mistake of age is a defense (i.e. a reasonable belief that the victim was of legal age to consent). Virginia is not such a state. The only defense to statutory rape is that the conduct did not occur, you were married to victim, or you reasonably believed you were married to the victim but you weren't.

I also do not think that merely talking/chatting to an underage girl is a crime. It would really depend on the content of the conversation.

I would guess there was more going on than just chatting. Then he might have tried to break it off but NL didn't want to break it off. That's when she could have said she was going to expose the relationship.

 

[jjenny]

And there have been plenty more where the courts decline to pursue. Even when they do, not a guarantee. And it will be one ugly, ugly battle.

Particularly with online interactions, when someone says they are of age, how is someone else supposed to know different?

"I'm 18!"
《Steamy sexting takes place》
"Surprise! I'm 13!"

That is a very tough case to prosecute. And short of physical evidence, an offer of "Pizza and Netflix" probably has to be taken literally.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

There was enough of these types of stories in the news ( a male having inappropriate relationships with underage girl and getting in big trouble) that he could have become legitimately concerned. Just recently there was a story in the news about a young guy having sex with underage girl (girl told him she was older) and having to register as a sex offender. Once someone is labeled as a sex offender a once promising future goes out the window (even if one doesn't get any jail time). And even if one isn't convicted- an "ugly, ugly battle" is something someone in his position might have wanted to avoid at all costs.

 

[Fireweed]

I think they were definitely in a sexual relationship; I just wanted to be clear that plenty of relationships with minors can be "inappropriate" but still perfectly legal.

 

[Bootsctr]

There are some states where mistake of age is a defense (i.e. a reasonable belief that the victim was of legal age to consent). Virginia is not such a state. The only defense to statutory rape is that the conduct did not occur, you were married to victim, or you reasonably believed you were married to the victim but you weren't.

I also do not think that merely talking/chatting to an underage girl is a crime. It would really depend on the content of the conversation.

I believe you are correct. Plus, on the ID show Vanity Fair Confidential featuring Katie Tarbox and her story with a sexual online predator and the undercover cop, Michele Deery, who lures these creeps has specific guidelines to catch these guys and what is considered over the line. It was pointed out that it is not against the law to be a pedophile. It's the crossing that "line" from looking to contacting, luring and grooming that will get you charged.

 

[Fireweed]

I believe you are correct. Plus, on the ID show Vanity Fair Confidential featuring Katie Tarbox and her story with a sexual online predator and the undercover cop, Michele Deery, who lures these creeps has specific guidelines to catch these guys and what is considered over the line. It was pointed out that it is not against the law to be a pedophile. It's the crossing that "line" from looking to contacting, luring and grooming that will get you charged.

Well essentially your thoughts are not crimes; you have to take a substantial step towards committing a crime to even get charged with attempt. Much of this can be ambiguous. Obviously when a grown man is "chatting" with a girl online he is at the very least hoping it will lead to sexual activity, but there must be something more to it in order for it to be a crime. That is why on "To Catch a Predator" they make the guys come to the house.

 

[Inthedetails]

I would guess there was more going on than just chatting. Then he might have tried to break it off but NL didn't want to break it off. That's when she could have said she was going to expose the relationship.

And then he waited three weeks before doing anything? How scared was he that he could take his time?

JMO

 

[jjenny]

And then he waited three weeks before doing anything? How scared was he that he could take his time?

JMO

He could have been trying to placate her and pretend the relationship was still on in order to convince her to not expose it. Only he was actually planning to kill her to shut her up.

 

[Bootsctr]

Well essentially your thoughts are not crimes; you have to take a substantial step towards committing a crime to even get charged with attempt. Much of this can be ambiguous. Obviously when a grown man is "chatting" with a girl online he is at the very least hoping it will lead to sexual activity, but there must be something more to it in order for it to be a crime. That is why on "To Catch a Predator" they make the guys come to the house.

That is how it was in the detective's story too. The pedophile had to come to the hotel and he had purchased 3 condoms. He was supposedly interested in the mom AND her 2 daughters (3 & 8 - can't remember the names of her "imaginary daughter - they were young. LE's department was "you bought 3 condoms which means you intended to have sex with the mom and the 2 babies." The pedophile's argument was "they only sell condoms in a 3-pack." :banghead: