VA - Eric Williamson for indecent exposure, Springfield, 2009

[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. 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_update

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-dy...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-dy...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-dy...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-dy...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-dy...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.