411 on Mitch Matthews

[TJMS]

Tragic if true

[+ APPLE1]

On 1/19/2024 at 6:23 AM, D21howie said:

Good morning.  I been trying to find an update but no luck

https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=23CY-CR00900-01&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_CT07#docket

 

Looks like it is set for a jury trial on 11/04/24. According to the MO courts website, the original charges have been changed. Not at all uncommon for law enforcement to charge everything under the sun and a prosecuting attorney to look at the situation and say "no, that doesn't apply."

[+ APPLE1]

You all understand there's a big difference between the terms ACCUSED and CONVICTED right.

I don't know the man, I haven't hired him, and I am not following his ad on any platform. BUT, I think it's worth pointing out that the court links show a CURRENT address of Laithreach (Mitch Matthews) in Portland OR. One, courts, and the lawyers representing defendants, are generally pretty thorough at keeping track of accused child sex offenders. Especially if they have personally appeared in court several times for the charge. Two, if a court can't keep track of a defendant address, personally, I may call into question how thoroughly they have investigated the evidence for the charges.

Edited January 25 by APPLE1
Spelling

[TJMS]

I was an attorney of 40 years. If the charges were not dropped altogether it is more likely there are more charges and  more serious ones. I hope he has competent legal counsel. This is no time to cheap out!

[Strafe13]

On 1/20/2024 at 8:23 AM, D21howie said:

https://mosheriffs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Missouri-Sheriff-0623.pdf

 

He made page 35 of this magazine about his arrest.

Interesting how the article (really a press release by the local police department) explains how this was an operation where the accused were allegedly communicating with law enforcement agents pretending to be underage.  Makes me think that @jtaq1295’s suspicions (or perhaps more accurately, his/her/their reservations) about the true nature and motive behind the operation were probably prudent.  Perhaps these accusations are deserving of some skepticism, or at least warrant further scrutiny.    

 

I wonder what MM and his attorney’s decision to go to trial says about their assessment of the strength of the case (something like 95-97% of all criminal cases don’t make it to trial, but end in plea bargains).  If the evidence appears rock solid, any experienced and competent defense attorney would be steering their client towards a plea to minimize the severity of the anticipated punishment.  If anything, based on what little is revealed in the article, I’d guess that his attorney will be raising an entrapment defense among others.

 

I’ll reserve judgment since we know so little at this time and I do believe in “innocent until proven guilty.”  So, of course I won’t be reporting MM’s profile (or any new ones he might create) to rentmen administrators or anything like that.  I mean, the guy’s got to make a living so he can afford his private defense attorney.  He should be allowed to earn his livelihood in the meantime.  I really hope these charges aren’t true, but if they are found to be so after a fair trial, then the justice system should take its course.

[TJMS]

MM has no choice to go to trial, it’s a criminal trial. The prosecutor calls the tune. Are you a lawyer?

[maninsoma]

10 hours ago, TJMS said:

MM has no choice to go to trial, it’s a criminal trial. The prosecutor calls the tune. Are you a lawyer?

I think that perhaps an assumption was made that he decided to go to trial versus taking a plea deal, but we don't know what, if any, offer was made to him to avoid a trial.

[maninsoma]

I'm of mixed mind when it comes to entrapment and underage sex crimes.  On the one hand, I don't like the notion of law enforcement pretending to be something they aren't in order to gather evidence of someone's criminal intentions.  On the other hand, perhaps the ends justify the means in some cases.  The allegations here are adults looking to have sex with youth age 14 and under.  The defendants should have all said no, I don't want to have sex with someone that young.  Even if the proposed meeting is based on falsification, someone exchanging photos and arranging a meeting with someone they believe to be 10 to 14 years old is just wrong.

Reminds me of an experience I had 30 years ago, though I don't know if it was a law enforcement sting or just someone playing games on the internet.  I was chatting with someone online who eventually told me he was underage but "knew what he was doing" and wanted to meet me in public (it was close to midnight).  Well, even without the age issue there's no way I would have just ventured out at midnight to meet someone on some street corner in a not that nice neighborhood, but the age issue definitely made it a hard "no" from me. 

[Strafe13]

10 hours ago, TJMS said:

MM has no choice to go to trial, it’s a criminal trial. The prosecutor calls the tune. Are you a lawyer?

There’s only one charge listed on the Missouri court’s website.  While it’s certainly possible that the prosecution is playing hardball, it’s almost certain that some kind of plea was offered just because that’s how the system works.  Maybe it was a crappy deal from MM’s lawyer’s perspective. Who knows?  But technically, it’s always the criminal defendant’s choice whether to go trial, because even if a deal isn’t offered, they can always plead guilty to the charges for which they’ve been indicted.

[TJMS]

What is the one charge?

[D21howie]

Here is an article where he talks about the solar eclipsehttps://indianapublicmedia.org/news/the-eclipse-is-today-heres-whats-happening.php

[Wanderoz]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:51 AM, TJMS said:

What is the one charge?

I doubt it’s for eclipsing the sun. 

[D21howie]

11 hours ago, Wanderoz said:

I doubt it’s for eclipsing the sun. 

I agree 

[BSR]

A few random thoughts:

1)  Iran recently started to convict gay men for bogus crimes, like rape or pedophilia.  The Iranian government does this to avoid international outrage for their execution of gay men for the simple "crime" of being gay.  Of course, I'm not saying that's the case here, but I couldn't help but think about it.

2)  While I passionately believe in presumption of innocence, sometimes details of a case can test my principles.  If solicitation of a minor was simply the least serious but most convict-able charge, as @TJMS reminds us is often the case, yikes!  But if he is acquitted, I shall erase the arrest & trial from my memory.  But if acquitted, would I hire him?  Uh, I take the 5th.

3)  On a lighter note, the guy in the linked story about the solar eclipse looks much older than the escort's stated age of 31.  Of course, age-shaving is not a crime.

4)  I love dogs, but wow, his dog is fugly.  If it turns out to be a sweet, loving dog, my perception would change, but just looking at it, that dog is fugly.