Runaway bride faces felony charge...

[shecky]

...in Georgia (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002288120_webbride25.html)

A grand jury indicted the 32-year-old woman on one count of making a false police report, a misdemeanor, and one count of false statement, a felony, said Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter.

Wilbanks' attorney, Lydia Sartain, has said she does not think Wilbanks committed a crime in Gwinnett County. Authorities in Albuquerque had said they would not charge Wilbanks.

I was under the impression any crime she might have been committed was done in Albuquerque. And they don't seem very interested in going after her.

I feel a bit sorry for the woman. The kidnapping bit was dumb, but if she wants to disappear, why shouldn't she be able to do so without incurring the wrath of the law in GA?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shecky
I was under the impression any crime she might have been committed was done in Albuquerque. And they don't seem very interested in going after her.

I feel a bit sorry for the woman. The kidnapping bit was dumb, but if she wants to disappear, why shouldn't she be able to do so without incurring the wrath of the law in GA?

She telephoned the Georgia police in order to inform them that she had been kidnapped, and they subsequently wasted a good deal of time and money attempting to save her.

If she wanted to disappear, she should have just left, rather than a) made up fake crimes and b) informed the police of them.

[Upchurch]

Yeah, I'm a little confused about the jurisdictional situation here. I suppose her statement did cause Georgia authorities to waste time on her case, but did she actually do anything in Georgia? Does this have a precident or is this a situation of milking a high profile case?

[TeaBag420]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
She telephoned the Georgia police in order to inform them that she had been kidnapped, and they subsequently wasted a good deal of time and money attempting to save her.

If she wanted to disappear, she should have just left, rather than a) made up fake crimes and b) informed the police of them.

I think you need to check your facts.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yeah, I'm a little confused about the jurisdictional situation here. I suppose her statement did cause Georgia authorities to waste time on her case, but did she actually do anything in Georgia? Does this have a precident or is this a situation of milking a high profile case?

No, this is a way for Gwinnett County to get revenge for the money lost and the embarrassment involved.

I would like to remind people that this once again validates my theory that every time Georgia is in the national news, it's for something stupid. (I'm starting to feel like Norm Macdonald with his "Germans love David Hassellhoff" bit.)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
I think you need to check your facts.

Okay, none of the current news stories mentions that she called Georgia. I'm pretty sure I remember reading at the time of the story that she had, and I quoted such in the thread back then. I'll dig.

But even if I'm wrong about that, she still should be charged with lying not only to the police, but to the FBI. Have you read the reports? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0513051wilbanks1.html

This is one sick woman. Nobody should get away with making up fake crimes and lying to the authorities about them. She caused a great deal of trouble. And what about the next woman who really does get kidnapped and sexually assaulted? Will the search be thorough, or will it be "wolf, wolf"?

[Number Six]

It would be funny if the cops told her they were going to charge her with something and then a while later changed their story and told her something different.

I think she lied to the cops in Georgia over the phone so although she was in NM at the time that still may be considered a crime in Georgia. Do you have to physcially be in a state to commit a crime in that state? I don't know.

[shecky]

Originally posted by TeaBag420
I think you need to check your facts.

Fill us in on the facts.

[TragicMonkey]

I knew I wasn't crazy. She made a 911 call to Albuquerque authorities, but another to Georgia.

The charges potentially would stem from Wilbanks reporting her kidnapping story on the phone to Duluth Police Chief Randy Belcher, Porter said, adding that he had no jurisdiction over the woman's 911 call to Albuquerque authorities.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394768/posts


eta: Out of laziness, I bumped the other thread rather than quote posts from it. Also, much of what's being said here has already been said there.

[davefoc]

I am reasonably uninformed about the case. I only know what I've read here and what I've heard in TV news teasers, but that lack of knowledge hasn't stopped me from forming an opinion.

If a person makes a false report about a crime, particularly rape, I think they should be charged with a crime. If the false claim is withdrawn quickly I think the charge should be a misdemeanor with no associated jail time unless there were prior acts that could serve as aggravating circumstances.

So far, I don't think, there is reason to think that the Georgia officials aren't going to settle for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor with no jail time so it all seems pretty reasonable to me. But then it is possible that if I actually knew something about the case I would have a different opinion.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shecky
I feel a bit sorry for the woman. The kidnapping bit was dumb, but if she wants to disappear, why shouldn't she be able to do so without incurring the wrath of the law in GA? If she had ' just disappeared ', she wouldn't have incurred the wrath of the law, and we wouldn't be discussing this.


If her parents could afford to offer a $100,000 award for her return, it only seems reasonable that they could help pay for the cost of this little escapade...

[chulbert]

It's petty and pointless. I'm sufficiently convinced she's painfully aware of the magnitude of her mistake. The Albuquerque authorities put it best: "The citizens of the county will be ill-served by an attempted prosecution."

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Diogenes
If she had ' just disappeared ', she wouldn't have incurred the wrath of the law, and we wouldn't be discussing this.

If her parents could afford to offer a $100,000 award for her return, it only seems reasonable that they could help pay for the cost of this little escapade... It's this sentiment that really disappoints me. She didn't do anything wrong - ethically, legally nor morally - up until she lied to the police. There is nothing to repay.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by chulbert
It's petty and pointless. I'm sufficiently convinced she's painfully aware of the magnitude of her mistake. Why are you convinced ? She has shown no remorse and has not apologized for wasting thousands of dollars of police resources and hours of volunteer efforts on her behalf..

All she has done is whine ( via spokesmen ) about her ' issues '....

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Why are you convinced ? She has shown no remorse and has not apologized for wasting thousands of dollars of police resources and hours of volunteer efforts on her behalf..

All she has done is whine ( via spokesmen ) about her ' issues '.... Except for her offer to pay $13,250 to the county?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by chulbert
Except for her offer to pay $13,250 to the county? That would help..

I would be interested in the context of the offer..

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by chulbert
It's petty and pointless. I'm sufficiently convinced she's painfully aware of the magnitude of her mistake.

"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting Wilbanks faced a felony charge back in 1996 for allegedly shoplifting $1,700 worth of merchandise from a mall. Records show the prosecutor in that case dropped the charge after Wilbanks completed a program of community service and restitution. That prosecutor is now serving as Wilbanks' attorney.

In a separate case, court records show Wilbanks served two weekends in jail after pleading guilty to another shoplifting charge. A judge sentenced her to probation, a $400 fine, and community service."
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/nat_world/050905_APnat_bride.html

It doesn't look as though remorse serves her very well.

She may need help of some kind, but why should she get special treatment on being tried for the crimes she committed?
Because she is a mini-celebrity?

[bigred]

Originally posted by davefoc

If a person makes a false report about a crime, particularly rape, I think they should be charged with a crime. If the false claim is withdrawn quickly I think the charge should be a misdemeanor with no associated jail time unless there were prior acts that could serve as aggravating circumstances. Finally somebody gets it.

But cmon we can and should do better than that. Think of the women who falsely cries rape.....I bet there's more than one guy serving time due to lies by a "victim" or "witness" who is full of (you know).

I think if someone "bears false witness" like this and it's later proven they knowingly lied for their own gain, revenge, etc, they should get the sentence that was or would have been given to the person they accused. The way it is now these POSs have little to lose and a lot to gain. This could also go a LONG way to curbing the BS lawsuits against companies for injuries that were in fact self-inflicted, etc etc.

I'm not saying this fruitcake woman should go to jail for years or anything so extreme, but maybe a short stint in the pokey and/or a VERY stiff fine would send a message to the other loonybirds out there. Let's finally start holding people accountable.

(PS and who gives a flip whether she's remorseful? If a man beats up someone and later convincingly says he's remorseful, should we let him walk? I don't think so....)

[Jas]

Is anyone else here seeing shades of Dar Heatherington (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/heatherington/) ?

[cbish]

chulbert wrote:I'm sufficiently convinced she's painfully aware of the magnitude of her mistake. Really!?! How do you know?Except for her offer to pay $13,250 to the county? No, her attorney did. The county wants over $40,000.

This is one messed up chick. Not only does she have a criminal record going back a decade with repeat offenses, isn't she in some type of treatment center?

[Tmy]

This reminds me of computer hackers who cause so much grief and when the get caught they try the whole "it was just a joke." routine. Scrw this lady. I say make an example of her.

And you dont have to be in GA. to commit the crime. You cant shoot someone from across state lines and get away with it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by cbish
This is one messed up chick. Not only does she have a criminal record going back a decade with repeat offenses, isn't she in some type of treatment center? I know my following comments are not sound, skeptical behaviour ..... but

I wanted to throw out something that was brought up in another discussion ...

When you consider that she was charged in two ( that I know of ) shoplifting episodes , what do you think the chances are that she might have shoplifted a time or two when she wasn't caught / charged ?

[cbish]

I would say, very good!

One thing of interest. It was announced she is in a treatment center. That announcement came from a spokesperson from her church. Does anyone know what kind of treatment center this is? I hope it's a real treatment center, not some "all you need is Jesus" church retreat.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
She telephoned the Georgia police in order to inform them that she had been kidnapped, and they subsequently wasted a good deal of time and money attempting to save her.
Wasn't the vast majority of expense incurred prior to her report? Should she be held responsible for events that occurred before her crime? If she had never committed a crime, would they still be trying to recover the costs from the "rescue" attempt?

[bigred]

Originally posted by cbish
I would say, very good!

One thing of interest. It was announced she is in a treatment center. That announcement came from a spokesperson from her church. Does anyone know what kind of treatment center this is? I hope it's a real treatment center, not some "all you need is Jesus" church retreat. Sorry, wrong forum. Religion Forum is just down the hall. :)

Maybe she's in a "all you need is a functioning brain" treatment center. That would make the most sense IMO. I mean have you seen her pic? She even LOOKS like a major lobotomy patient (ie the "after" pic).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Wasn't the vast majority of expense incurred prior to her report? Should she be held responsible for events that occurred before her crime? If she had never committed a crime, would they still be trying to recover the costs from the "rescue" attempt?

Why not? I don't see why the city should have to pay for costs incurred because of someone's foolishness, whether the foolishness is a crime or not. They can only prosecute the crime, however, and not the foolishness.

[cbish]

There are instances when government agencies can recoup costs. I know a guy who tried to ride a snowmobile across the Snake River in Idaho. He didn't make it. He was charged for the Life Flight helicopter, Ambulance & Fire Dept, the removal of the sled from the river (a biohazard), not to mention, three days in the hospital and court costs and fines.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by cbish
There are instances when government agencies can recoup costs. I know a guy who tried to ride a snowmobile across the Snake River in Idaho. He didn't make it. He was charged for the Life Flight helicopter, Ambulance & Fire Dept, the removal of the sled from the river (a biohazard), not to mention, three days in the hospital and court costs and fines.

He probably should've waited until the river was frozen over.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

But even if I'm wrong about that, she still should be charged with lying not only to the police, but to the FBI. Have you read the reports? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0513051wilbanks1.html


I'm not sure I like the idea of people facing criminal prosecution for lying to the police or FBI.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm not sure I like the idea of people facing criminal prosecution for lying to the police or FBI.

Good heavens, why not? How could they do their job if everyone could lie with impunity?

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Good heavens, why not?

Not sure really, I just think there's something sick with being punished with prison or a fine for simply lying to a cop.

How could they do their job if everyone could lie with impunity?

By collecting physical evidence. How much freedom should we give up so the cops can do their job?

[Cleon]

In a sense, I agree with Tony, but I think there's a difference between just lying to the cops and filing a false report.

In a certain sense, you have the right to lie to cops based on the fifth amendment; you don't have the right to make up a crime out of thin air to cover the fact that you got cold feet.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
In a sense, I agree with Tony, but I think there's a difference between just lying to the cops and filing a false report.

In a certain sense, you have the right to lie to cops based on the fifth amendment; you don't have the right to make up a crime out of thin air to cover the fact that you got cold feet.

I agree. Sorry if what I said was taken the wrong way. I don't think this woman should be charged with lying to the police or FBI, I think that's ********e. But I don't have a problem with her being charged with filing a false report.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
Not sure really, I just think there's something sick with being punished with prison or a fine for simply lying to a cop.



By collecting physical evidence. How much freedom should we give up so the cops can do their job?

I don't think physical evidence collection will be easy, or sufficient, if all possible witnesses to any crime or suspected crime may tell whatever lies they like.

Cop: Did you see anyone in the area when you heard the gunshots?
Witness, friend of shooter: Yes, I saw Tony run by with a gun in his hand.

You want to spend five months in jail waiting for the trial to come up? If lying to the authorities is allowed, nobody'd have to worry about anything until they were on the witness stand and under oath. Then they simply recant their previous statement and, of course, and not held accountable since lying to the cops isn't a crime. Of course, you're out five months and attorney fees, and the state is out all of those court costs, and the shooter's been doing heaven knows what in the meantime, but all of that's a small price to pay for the right to deliberately mislead the people charged with protecting society.

If lying to the cops wasn't a crime, their job becomes almost impossible. You wouldn't even know which witnesses to call at a trial, because if everyone can lie with impunity it's going to be an uphill fight to even figure out who is a witness or not.

eta: Good God! You're actually suggesting that people be allowed to deliberately and maliciously pervert the course of justice, and get away with it!

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Cleon
In a certain sense, you have the right to lie to cops based on the fifth amendment; you don't have the right to make up a crime out of thin air to cover the fact that you got cold feet.

Isn't the generally-accepted view of the fifth amendment the right to not respond to questions rather than the right to tell lies when being questioned?

Of course, we shouldn't ignore that courts have always upheld the right for cops to lie to witnesses and suspects when questioning them.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Isn't the generally-accepted view of the fifth amendment the right to not respond to questions rather than the right to tell lies when being questioned?


Both, actually. It's the whole "fence around the law" thing. Wiiide leverage is given in the whole "you don't have to incriminate yourself" thing.


Suppose you kill Bob Smith. The cops ask if you did it, you can say "no"--you don't have to incriminate yourself.

Even on the witness stand, if you respond "no" to the question "did you kill Bob Smith," you will never be put on trial for perjury.

[hgc]

Fact: She was in the Albequerque police station telling her story of being kidnapped when she called her fiance. The Georgia cop got on the phone, and she told the same story to him.

All the expense and effort of searching for her had already occurred, and since she was already "found," none more would be.

So, unless disappearing without saying goodbye is now a crime, then she bears no legal responsibility for the effort. The Albequerque DA has it right by not pursuing charges. Any legal theory that her crime of lying to the cop is in any way connected to the effort or cares or expense of looking for her are completely, totally, utterly bogus. The timeline tells it all. This DA has the prosecutorial discretion of a Ken Starr. The prosecution is a much bigger waste of money than the search ever was.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc

Fact: She was in the Albequerque police station telling her story of being kidnapped when she called her fiance. The Georgia cop got on the phone, and she told the same story to him.

All the expense and effort of searching for her had already occurred, and since she was already "found," none more would be.

So, unless disappearing without saying goodbye is now a crime, then she bears no legal responsibility for the effort. The Albequerque DA has it right by not pursuing charges. Any legal theory that her crime of lying to the cop is in any way connected to the effort or cares or expense of looking for her are completely, totally, utterly bogus. The timeline tells it all. This DA has the prosecutorial discretion of a Ken Starr. The prosecution is a much bigger waste of money than the search ever was.

Was the search for her widely reported before she finally turned up? If so, she should have notified the authorities she was all right so they could get back to chasing bank robbers, murderers, and people who drive slower in the left lane.


Originally posted by Jas
Is anyone else here seeing shades of Dar Heatherington (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/heatherington/) ?

Actually I'm thinking of Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton, but that's just my age showing.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Was the search for her widely reported before she finally turned up? If so, she should have notified the authorities she was all right so they could get back to chasing bank robbers, murderers, and people who drive slower in the left lane. Agreed. She should have -- morally speaking. Still don't know what the crime is as relates to the search efforts. Now why doesn't this prosecutor get back to chasing all those real baddies?

[Lisa Simpson]

Apparently, she just pled guilty.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1043058&tw=wn_wire_story

[bigred]

lol @ " the felony will be erased from her record" - yeah like anyone will forget anytime soon. I hope their lifestyle doesn't hinge on her employment chances.

She might make a lot of coin if she "writes" some tell-all book though. Most of it made up of course, but hey it's not like people are able and/or even interested in discerning reality from (trashy) fiction anymore.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by hgc
Fact: She was in the Albequerque police station telling her story of being kidnapped when she called her fiance. The Georgia cop got on the phone, and she told the same story to him.

All the expense and effort of searching for her had already occurred, and since she was already "found," none more would be.


No, if she lied and said she'd been kidnapped, they would still go to the expense of looking for the kidnappers and investigating what happened. Had she told the truth, that she just ran away, there would be no need for an investigation.

[Jas]

Originally posted by cbish
There are instances when government agencies can recoup costs. I know a guy who tried to ride a snowmobile across the Snake River in Idaho. He didn't make it. He was charged for the Life Flight helicopter, Ambulance & Fire Dept, the removal of the sled from the river (a biohazard), not to mention, three days in the hospital and court costs and fines.

They're starting to do that here too, at least with irresponsible hikers/hunters etc. If you haven't made proper arrangements prior to getting lost (ie. you didn't tell someone where you're going, or you changed your destination without telling anyone, etc) then you will have to pay for the cost of the search and rescue.

So, unless disappearing without saying goodbye is now a crime, then she bears no legal responsibility for the effort. The Albequerque DA has it right by not pursuing charges

Well, if you're stupid enough to think "Oh, well, my wedding's in a few days, I'm sure no one will care, or get the police involved if I just 'disappear', with no notice", then yes, you ARE responsible for the costs incurred in search efforts and investigation.

Unless you would rather that the police not mount a search for people who mysteriously vanish?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Mycroft
No, if she lied and said she'd been kidnapped, they would still go to the expense of looking for the kidnappers and investigating what happened. Had she told the truth, that she just ran away, there would be no need for an investigation. If they had gone through that trouble, then that would be another story, but they didn't. Since the Albequerque police and the FBI (and most of the rest of us) had already figured it all out, it's a moot point.

I guess this is the kind of logic she was potentially facing in a jury pool that persueded her to take a deal.