Tom Bevan

So I am very leery about these allegations, particularly when you have these shady-ass parents who look like they have a financial motive.

It looks like it was a shakedown here that they, what Dave just said, when they said if they continue this contract, these allegations go away.

If you're a parent and your kids are sexually abused, you don't give a damn about some contract.

You want to make sure that someone who's sexually abusing the kids are arrested and held accountable.

Yeah, I mean, you're exactly right that this is a tough case, because you have shady ass parents, you have a story that's changed, but you have a guy who appears to be a creep.

So this, like, again, there's a presumption of innocence.

In this country, this this man, like every other criminal defendant to serve deserves the presumption of innocence.

But this is a very, very messy case.

Yeah.

I mean, generally under our criminal procedures, you could not bring in propensity evidence, meaning you can't, if someone robs a bank, you can't bring in prior bank robberies to show that they are likely to, or they have a disposition to rob banks.

That is generally not permitted.

But as Dave talked about, you have MO evidence or modus operandi evidence.

If you show

that you rob banks wearing a clown outfit, you can bring that in generally under MO evidence.

That's not propensity evidence.

That shows that's how you go about doing these bank robberies.

And so it shows evidence that you committed

this bank robbery, so the distinction between propensity and MO evidence.

Generally, with sex crimes, and I think this would apply in New Mexico, I'm not licensed in New Mexico, but I think the same rule applies in New Mexico, with sex crimes, you can bring in propensity evidence.

So this would all get admitted, or it probably would get admitted if this case goes to trial, and it would be very damning for him if the jury heard this evidence.