Travis Frey's Wifely Expectations

[alice_underneath]

An update on the case.....

Contract for wife at center of kidnapping, abuse case

Friday, March 03, 2006

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- A judge will determine Monday whether a sexually explicit contract a man allegedly created so his wife would fulfill his every desire should be admitted in his kidnapping and sexual assault trial.

...... <snip> .........

Defense attorney Bill McGinn said the alleged contract is hearsay and should not be allowed as evidence at Frey's March 14 trial.

Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber said the woman refused to sign the contract and Frey then forced his terms on her against her will.

The contract is corroborating evidence that supports the woman's allegations, Wilbur said.

"Nobody's charged with breach of contract," he said. "This is a marital rape case."

Wilber said the woman was not examined by a doctor after the incident. He said the prosecution's case will consist of the contract, the woman's testimony and that of witnesses she told of her husband's behavior and the alleged assault.

Laurie Schipper, executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Des Moines, said the alleged contract can be linked to behavior in relationships where the man is a batterer and wants to control the woman.

"The only unusual aspect to it is that it was actually put in writing," she said. "To control her time and mobility by setting up high expectations and enforcing trivial demands is very common. To put rules in place that, if violated, there are consequences ... it's not uncommon. We hear it frequently."

Schipper said batterers believe they have the right to behave the way they do, and they feel entitled to receive what they are demanding.

Frey, who is free on bond, and his wife were married for nine years and had two children. The woman has filed for divorce.

The case has generated significant media interest. Wilber said he has had interview requests from MSNBC, Geraldo Rivera and a German television station.

http://*******.com/n6zp8

 

[bridgeburner]

That sounds totally ridiculous.

She claims she was raped repeatedly but they're not going to charge him with rape which might require some kind of evidence. They're going to charge him with presenting her with a contract and trying to enforce it and the only evidence they have is this contract which could be completely fabricated but if the judge doesn't allow the contract then the whole case is out the window.

I mean, this doesn't strike anyone as fishy? It's like they've whipped everyone into a frenzy because she was raped and abused and so now everyone is sure that they know this for fact when of course they don't, but that's why they're going to allow the Contract.

When the truth is that there's nothing to support any of the woman's allegations at all. No physical evidence. No witnesses. No prior testimony. No prior incidents or evidence of abuse. No prior complaints. Nothing at all. She makes up a wild story to inflame everyone's passions in order to make a case revolving around "He said -She said" in which the question the prosecutor gets to ask is "When did you stop beating your wife"

This is insane!

-B

 

[alice_underneath]

This is insane!

I agree with your comments, and your conclusion.

You want to know just how totally insane this is? Check out the last line here...

Perv's sicko pact

Faces kidnap rap after forcing sex contract on wife

BY OWEN MORITZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

When Ruth Frey tied the knot with her husband, she told police she did not expect to be tied to a bed, sexually assaulted and asked to sign a sick contract that conferred weird sexual obligations on her.

Travis Frey, a 33-year-old Iowa father of two, has been charged with first-degree kidnapping and assaulting his wife three times after allegedly tying her to a bed with a rope.

........ <snip> .......

In Iowa, kidnapping is a class A felony and carries a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

http://*******.com/76te7

 

[bridgeburner]

There's no way this guy's going to get a fair trial. All I can hope is that he really is guilty or that the judge will take a look at this stuff and throw it the hell out of court and cite the woman for contempt or fraud or something.

 

[catalina_francisco]

There's no way this guy's going to get a fair trial. All I can hope is that he really is guilty or that the judge will take a look at this stuff and throw it the hell out of court and cite the woman for contempt or fraud or something.

Maybe there is another man waiting in the wings until the dust settles...would not be unusual IME whether it is abuse or not.

Catalina

 

[alice_underneath]

One of the many things I don't understand about this case is how the hell marital rape gets you life without parole.

Perhaps Marquis or another U.S. lawyer can explain that concept to me.

I'm not condoning marital rape, which I agree should be illegal. However, she wasn't hospitalized afterwards. She didn't even seek a doctor's assistance. Life in prison? Isn't that more than a bit over the top?

 

[MayhemLass]

A lot of the comments I've seen here merely back up how the outside world perceives the D/s lifestyle - I find it appalling that there seems to be a general consensus to whitewash the husband and vilify the wife.

One of my biggest concerns since being actively involved in this lifestyle (not for myself, TG becuase I am blessed to be in a long-term relationship) but for other subs is safely figuring out who is genuinely dominent and who is just using the lifestyle to be an abuser - to me, the line is clearly deliniated but it is not always obvious to others.

Having a 9 year marriage which is an argument some of you use where she "reportedly" didn't complain (we don't have access to all the evidence) - doesn't mean a friggin thing if you know anything about wife abuse - the first thing a victim loses is her ability to escape - wife abuse doesn't start suddenly nor does it happen overnight - it starts (normally) with emotional abuse that saps a person's spirit and undermines their ability to think clearly.

That she had the courage to step forward now could be due to a number of issues - not the least of which might be related to her discovery that he had child porn and was involved - I don't know - but perhaps she felt her own children were at risk? Many women who cannot fight for themselves, find the courage when their children enter the arena of abuse ...

Ultimately, as participants in this lifestyle - I truly believe we should be MORE intolerant if indeed the "so-called" contract was one-sided and should condemn it wholly and vocally.

Participation in this lifestyle is based on VOLUNTARY participation and desire - NOT coerced.

I think what disgusts me the most is those here who hold the "contract is not that bad" - from the perspective of a serious D/s couple - perhaps not - from the concept of someone who is not a willing participant in the lifestyle - it is awful -

I do not expect to ask permission from anyone to live my life as I see fit - nor do I have the right to comment on THEIR choices - but in this case, let's see how it pans out - if this man (which is my suspcision) is an abuser, then as members of the BDSM lifestyle we should be the FIRST to support the Courts - to show that indeed that involuntary coercion is NOT part of a genuine commitment to the BDSM life, but an anathema to it.

 

[raven2]

One of the many things I don't understand about this case is how the hell marital rape gets you life without parole.

Perhaps Marquis or another U.S. lawyer can explain that concept to me.

I'm not condoning marital rape, which I agree should be illegal. However, she wasn't hospitalized afterwards. She didn't even seek a doctor's assistance. Life in prison? Isn't that more than a bit over the top?

It is the same thing with nearly all sex offenders these days. Even if you have done your time, you still have to register and everyone who wants can find out where you live. Basically life in prison even though you have been released.

I am not trying to defend sex offenders, but rather, I feel disturbed that because it is a sex crime, it seems to be viewed by the government as i extremely henious and punished way out of proportion. Any other type of criminal (even murder and manslaughter), once their time has been served, is released.

 

[bridgeburner]

MayhemLass,

It is possible that this is a case of an abused wife in which case I hope they fry the bastard, but it doesn't seem likely from what I've read. It sounds like a marital spat where the wife is playing dirty pool.

If that's the case then I hope they fry HER because she's stealing from every woman out there who truly has been abused or victimized.

No, we don't have the whole story, but we do have some information.

We have a nine year marriage with no reports of abuse and no complaints filed.

Yes, she could still be an abused wife whose abuse has been kept under wraps but this is not a woman who appears to have been living isolated from her community or her family or her friends and neighbors.

We've been told that she was tied to the bed and repeatedly raped.

But Travis Frey isn't being prosecuted for rape. He's being prosecuted for kidnapping.

Wha??

It's fishy. Even consentual bondage can leave marks. Non-consentual bondage and forcible rape is a hell of a lot easier to prove evidentially than "kidnapping" and some story about being presented with a wacky martial contract ---- unless you can try the case in the press before it ever gets to trial.

But the penalty for rape isn't life in prison without parole which is what he'll get if he goes down on the kidnapping charge.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that things are exactly as the wife says and that she's been living in an escalating state of fear for 9 years and that this was the final straw, but the way this has been played in the media makes both her and the DA look very suspicious.

-B

 

[alice_underneath]

Having a 9 year marriage which is an argument some of you use where she "reportedly" didn't complain (we don't have access to all the evidence) - doesn't mean a friggin thing if you know anything about wife abuse - the first thing a victim loses is her ability to escape - wife abuse doesn't start suddenly nor does it happen overnight - it starts (normally) with emotional abuse that saps a person's spirit and undermines their ability to think clearly.

Respectfully, MayhemLass, may I ask where you are getting the information that there is a history of abuse in this case?

My understanding is that Travis Frey is charged with "with first-degree kidnapping and assaulting his wife three times after allegedly tying her to a bed with a rope." Nothing else. Have I missed a piece of information somewhere?

Ultimately, as participants in this lifestyle - I truly believe we should be MORE intolerant if indeed the "so-called" contract was one-sided and should condemn it wholly and vocally.

That "if" is the critical word. If she did not consent to this type of arrangement, then Travis Frey should surely be condemned.

However, I note that the press vociferously denounces the contract as 'repulsive' and 'sick' - without even mentioning consent as a possibility here.

In a perfect world, the headlines would read something like: "D/s Marriage Gone Bad, or a Case of Spousal Abuse?" But that's not how they read.

Instead, we have "Sicko Marriage Contract One For The Ages".... "Perv's Sicko Pact"..... and.... "The strange allure of lethal lotharios". That last one is an article in which, on the basis of the contract alone, Travis Frey is described as "less violent but equally crazy" in comparison to a convicted murderer.

I think what disgusts me the most is those here who hold the "contract is not that bad" - from the perspective of a serious D/s couple - perhaps not - from the concept of someone who is not a willing participant in the lifestyle - it is awful -

To be honest, I'm not sure why any of the comments on this thread would disgust you. I have not seen anyone here assert that a vanilla woman should participate in this type of thing without her consent.

Further, in my opinion, the fact that the contract is "not that bad" from a D/s perspective is a critical point to make. Unless you begin with that caveat, your condemnation will sound just like all the other outraged exhortations currently emanating from the mainstream community.

Alice

 

[MayhemLass]

actually alice, I didn't assert there was a history - I said we DIDN'T know and based on my experience with abuse victims (2 years with a hotline PLUS 5 years as a journalist who specialized in women's issues) - it is entirely possible she was one - OR wasn't - but she deserves the benefit of the doubt is all I said.

My reading of the comments here is what prompted by replying in this thread - the general consensus being that "he wasn't so bad" - again, as a feminist (which, I might point out, is not contrary to my submissiveness) there is a tendency to blame the victim -

and frankly, I believe the term "marital" should be taken out of any "rape" conviction - rape is rape - because it is within the confines of marriage does not make it any less heinous and I believe personally - that a life imprisonment is fully justified - that IS A personal opinion and I AGREE that we don't KNOW whether it was in fact the case.

I am willing to wait the see what happens with this case.

ALL I have said is:

(a) the wife is fully entitled to HER side of the events as he is to HIS - let the evidence speak for itself

(b) the contract (apart from the patent absurdity of some of it) is fine IF there is consent - the trial will no doubt illustrate whether that is true or not.

(c) the clue that piques my antenna is the issue of child pornography on the computer - again, the evidence will tell who in fact is responsible for that but that is what makes me give his WIFE the benefit of the doubt - they have children and again, in my experience, possible danger to the children will sometimes give an abused woman (IF she is one) the impetus to leave.

Anyone within the lifestyle does NOT understand the lifestyle - that is a given - but ultimately if NO crime has been committed - if consent was obtained and the couple WERE living a D/s relationship, I believe that will come out - and whether or not it is seen by the general public as a good way to live will be irrelevant - if there is mutual consent - it is NOT a crime.

All I assert is that the benefit of the doubt is being given to the husband here NOT to the wife when reality and statistics show it is most LIKELY the wife IS the victim.

if she is not - I believe she deserves to be severely punished as well - and I believe will in fact BE severely dealt with by the courts - they do not look well on contempt or lies under oath.

 

[MayhemLass]

I just wanted to add - I don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of MY relationship - I think it is understandable that the public does not see our lifestyle in a positive note - I mean, let's get serious here!!
If you don't know what is involved - if you haven't experienced it - then OF COURSE you'll see things in a negative light.

My point is, WHO cares?? As adults, we do not have to answer to anyone!

Homosexuals, transexuals, and all sorts of other relationships are also condemened, that's the way of the world - but ultimately, becuase we live in a relatively free society as consenting adults we can CHOOSE to live as we like -

doing so, we also as adults accept the consequences and that sometimes means that we are condemned and reviled.

But i think fanatical christians are sickos so do they care?

LOL- regardless - all I'm saying is lets no be so quick to condemn this woman - let's here what comes out of it!

 

[catalina_francisco]

As a feminist, and a trained (4 year university degree) abuse counsellor who worked solely with survivors and victims of DV, I can add that it is not unusual for women to use abuse as a means to get what they want, when there has not been any abuse. It takes a good mix of training, experience, and intuition to begin to pick the fakes from the genuine as most who are faking it have rehearsed, thought out, and planned well ahead of time. And before anyone jumps up and down about it, I am not talking through my hat because each and every woman I counselled who I challenged on this point once I began to see signs, readily admitted their farce and then tried to justify it as necessary to get what they wanted without losing anything themselves (eg. divorce, custody, new life financed by their present partner, new relationship they have been building through cheating).

Unfortunately I also worked with feminists who did not have the training but held the same work positon, who felt you should believe every woman based on the sole fact she was a woman...I couldn't buy into that concept. Given what I have read of this case, the circumstances we have had presented surrounding it, I will be very surprised if she actually was an abused women in the real sense of the word. It doesn't seem there is going to be any hard evidence not heard, otherwise you would think they would use that over a flimsy set of rules which was never signed and cannot be proven who produced them or when.
As others have said, if he is an abuser than let him get what is coming to him, but not if he has been set up or was in a consenting D/s relationship until she decided to use it for her gain.

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

MayhemLass,

The child pornography actually made me more suspicious for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's a ridiculously easy charge to make and an incredibly difficult charge to disprove as history has shown. It's one of those things where the mere accusation is enough to condemn regardless of the eventual outcome of any trial.

Secondly, we don't know that the husband is the one who obtained it. There really isn't any way to prove who downloaded a particular image on the home computer unless the wife can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her husband was the only person at home when it happened.

Thirdly, assuming the porn is real and assuming the husband is responsible for it, we don't know what kind of "child" pornography is under examination. Traci Lords films shot when she was 17 and passing as a fully mature adult female are legally child pornography and yet they would not appeal to pedophiles in the least.

So, again, while I agree that it is entirely possible that this woman was abused and finally took action because she felt her children were at risk, I'm suspicious because of the manner in which the case has been handled so far. It's not being treated like a case in which there is actual evidence. It's being treated like a case where they have very little if any evidence and need to make sure they get their story out there bigger and better and quicker than the other side so that they have an edge.

As for placing faith in the jury to be reasonable in the face of a consentual D/s or BDSM relationship I wouldn't be so sure. There are a great many people who cannot believe that a woman is capable of consenting to such a relationship. That if she does so it is only because she is either not of sound mind to begin with or because she has been so systematically victimized that she no longer has the ability to act in her own best interest -- a sort of permanent Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't know the exact circumstances of what went down with Delia Day a couple years ago, but I don't think she even went to trial after she killed her husband. I could be greatly mistaken but I would imagine that the extreme nature of her BDSM lifestyle with her husband went a long way toward keeping her out of jail. She was branded, scarred, multiply pierced and chained shut, tattooed, occasionally whored out to friends, routinely beaten and exhaustively photographed during all of these things. She kept an extremely detailed online journal about it all and to all appearances it was entirely consentual until the day the website disappeared and folks later found out she'd shot her husband to death in their living room and claimed self defense.

I'm not saying it didn't go down exactly that way. I'm just saying I have serious doubts because people don't understand this lifestyle.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

One of the many things I don't understand about this case is how the hell marital rape gets you life without parole.

Perhaps Marquis or another U.S. lawyer can explain that concept to me.

I'm not condoning marital rape, which I agree should be illegal. However, she wasn't hospitalized afterwards. She didn't even seek a doctor's assistance. Life in prison? Isn't that more than a bit over the top?

Alice,

Sorry, I missed this earlier when I was trying to post and gremlins took over my machine.

I don't think they're arguing the case on marital rape. They're not arguing rape at all as far as I can see. They're arguing kidnapping. It's the kidnapping charge that gets life without parole and I imagine that the reason is because it's been skewed to reflect greater fears over child abductions.

I mean, look at the word: "kid" - napping. Even when there are no children involved the crime is still referred to as kidnapping even on the books and with things like Megan's Law and the travesty of the Polly Klaas case we get this kind of weirdness. Some nut thinks the way to solve these kinds of problems is to insist that any kind of kidnapping merits life in prison without parole and people go along with it because they're morons who don't stop to consider the fact that the vast majority of child abductions are not stranger abductions for the purpose of sexual assault and murder.

That's why the child porn charge is so important. They've got to make this guy not just an anal retentive bastard with an obsession for measuring pubic hair but he's got to be a danger to their two kids as well.


-B

 

[alice_underneath]

All I assert is that the benefit of the doubt is being given to the husband here NOT to the wife when reality and statistics show it is most LIKELY the wife IS the victim.

MayhemLass,

I understand that your experience and your perspective lead you to suspect that the wife is the victim here. That's your opinion, and I respect it.

The main point of my post to you was to ask you to consider that others here might have a different perspective and therefore have reason to suspect that the husband is the victim. That's their opinion, and I do not think it warrants disgust. It's just a different perspective.

The good news is that we all appear to agree on the really important points here. No one is saying that abusers should go unpunished, and no one is saying that vanilla women should be forced to shave themselves into perfect little triangles. Everyone agrees that the guilty spouse (whoever it turns out to be) should be punished.

I just wanted to add - I don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of MY relationship - I think it is understandable that the public does not see our lifestyle in a positive note - I mean, let's get serious here!!
If you don't know what is involved - if you haven't experienced it - then OF COURSE you'll see things in a negative light.

Actually..... believe it or not.... that last statement is not necessarily true.

My point is, WHO cares?? As adults, we do not have to answer to anyone!

Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that everyone involved in a D/s relationship should care about the mainstream public's view of BDSM. Because adults do, in fact, have to answer to the law.

Trials like this one really highlight the legal dangers involved in BDSM activities, and if the average mainstream person (i.e., member of the jury) simply can't conceive of these activities as consensual, that means that the scales of justice are tilted sharply to one side..... and not in your favor.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

One of the many things I don't understand about this case is how the hell marital rape gets you life without parole.

Perhaps Marquis or another U.S. lawyer can explain that concept to me.

I don't think they're arguing the case on marital rape. They're not arguing rape at all as far as I can see. They're arguing kidnapping. It's the kidnapping charge that gets life without parole and I imagine that the reason is because it's been skewed to reflect greater fears over child abductions.

Hi, B.

I should have been clearer in my comment, by asking why marital rape becomes kidnapping (which gets you life without parole) simply because the rape involves tying her to the bed.

If you scroll up to my post #26 here, you'll see this extract from today's article on the case:

~~~~~

Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber said the woman refused to sign the contract and Frey then forced his terms on her against her will.

The contract is corroborating evidence that supports the woman's allegations, Wilbur said.

"Nobody's charged with breach of contract," he said. "This is a marital rape case."

~~~~~

Like you, I'm thinking - What??? How did we get from marital rape to a kidnapping charge?

As far as I can tell, it's the tying to the bed that makes it "kidnapping" in Iowa! That's what I glean from the statement: - "Travis Frey, a 33-year-old Iowa father of two, has been charged with first-degree kidnapping and assaulting his wife three times after allegedly tying her to a bed with a rope" - found in the excerpt from the article in post #28, above.

This seems incredible to me - the idea that tying her to the bed makes it "kidnapping". I don't understand how this could be true, which is why I was hoping that Marquis or an attorney could explain it to me.

Alice

 

[bridgeburner]

huh. Beats me. That's just weird.

Fucking Iowa, man. ;->


-B

 

[alice_underneath]

Fucking Iowa, man. ;->

Pleeeeaaase, B!

A spew alert for that kind of thing! OMG, I'm drinking Bordeaux for god's sake!

 

[smartandsexy]

Like you, I'm thinking - What??? How did we get from marital rape to a kidnapping charge?

As far as I can tell, it's the tying to the bed that makes it "kidnapping" in Iowa! That's what I glean from the statement: - "Travis Frey, a 33-year-old Iowa father of two, has been charged with first-degree kidnapping and assaulting his wife three times after allegedly tying her to a bed with a rope" - found in the excerpt from the article in post #28, above.

This seems incredible to me - the idea that tying her to the bed makes it "kidnapping". I don't understand how this could be true, which is why I was hoping that Marquis or an attorney could explain it to me.

Alice

Excuse me for chiming in here, especially as I'm neither an attorney nor in the US, but my understanding of abduction/kidnap has always been that it involves forcibly detaining someone against their will, and isn't contingent upon taking them anywhere, which is what we commonly imagine when we think of a kidnap. As for the law in individual US states, I frankly have no idea.

I also have no idea of the veracity of the allegations in this case, but that aside, according to your question, it sounds as if you think that generally forcibly detaining someone against their will isn't as serious as transporting them somewhere against their will. Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[bridgeburner]

Excuse me for chiming in here, especially as I'm neither an attorney nor in the US, but my understanding of abduction/kidnap has always been that it involves forcibly detaining someone against their will, and isn't contingent upon taking them anywhere, which is what we commonly imagine when we think of a kidnap. As for the law in individual US states, I frankly have no idea.

I also have no idea of the veracity of the allegations in this case, but that aside, according to your question, it sounds as if you think that generally forcibly detaining someone against their will isn't as serious as transporting them somewhere against their will. Or have I misunderstood you?

I know this was to Alice but I'm feeling chatty. I don't have any feelings one way or the other about abduction and transportation being lesser or worser crimes than illegal detention, but it's important to me that language, particularly when describing the law, be precise.

Presented with a situation in which a man and woman are in their home already and the man suddenly grabs the woman and ties her to the bed I'd call it forcible detention not kidnapping, but it's not up to me. I don't know the reasoning behind lumping all crimes of restraint under the single lable of "kidnapping."


-B

 

[alice_underneath]

Excuse me for chiming in here, especially as I'm neither an attorney nor in the US, but my understanding of abduction/kidnap has always been that it involves forcibly detaining someone against their will, and isn't contingent upon taking them anywhere, which is what we commonly imagine when we think of a kidnap.

If some guy wants to rape me, he sure as hell is going to have to forcibly detain me against my will.

By your definition, wouldn't all rape cases be considered kidnapping cases? I'm not saying you are wrong; I am honestly confused on this issue. That's why I was asking if an attorney could explain it to me.

I also have no idea of the veracity of the allegations in this case, but that aside, according to your question, it sounds as if you think that generally forcibly detaining someone against their will isn't as serious as transporting them somewhere against their will. Or have I misunderstood you?

I don't think it's possible to make general comparisons of this type. The determination of which is more "serious" would depend on what was done to the victim while detained, how long they were detained, where they were transported, etc.

As to the particulars of this individual case, my understanding is as follows:

1) Travis Frey's wife claims that he tied her to the bed (without her consent) and raped her.

2) Any injuries sustained by Travis Frey's wife were not sufficient to require hospitalization or even a doctor's care in the aftermath of the rape.

3) As a result of the wife's claim in #1, above, the prosecution has charged Travis Frey with first-degree kidnapping.

4) In Iowa, the penalty for first-degree kidnapping is life without parole.

This information could have been misreported, or I could have misunderstood the news articles. However, assuming that 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true, my personal opinion is that the punishment being sought by the prosecution is excessive.

I do believe that marital rape should be a criminal offense. But I do not feel that life in prison without parole is a fair punishment for this crime.

Alice

 

[MechaBlade]

Update:

"Frey gets 10 years for raping wife."
http://www.ketv.com/news/9321687/detail.html

I am still skeptical: no evidence of rape and even the jury couldn't convict him of kidnapping. I am very skeptical of women who don't report rapes right after they happen.

Yet, his defense was weak and he allegedly had child porn on his computer, so I'll lean towards believing he was guilty, mostly so I can sleep at night.

 

[Etoile]

"Frey gets 10 years for raping wife."
http://www.ketv.com/news/9321687/detail.html

This is probably really awful of me, but I could see this quote from that article fitting perfectly in a smut story:
"She cried. She clenched her body to stop and deter the unwanted act. She prayed it would end soon. She pleaded with the defendant to stop."

 

[FurryFury]

I'm not convinced but I didn't sit through the trial or see the evidence in this case.

Fury