Murder Trial’s Damning Backpage Connection

Last week we first reported to you about a man in Boston who killed his young, elementary school teacher wife, and how the prosecution has been seeking to use his texting with Backpage prostitutes to establish a probable timeline of the murder.

While this isn’t the sort of Backpage story we typically cover on this blog the facts surrounding this case, and the legal precedent they may set, are of keen interest to those of us demanding a full an honest account of the myriad of crimes Backpage played a role in facilitating. 

Over the past few days there has been some eye-opening developments in this case as the accused, Andrew MacCormack, has pressed his lawyers to see that evidence that he contacted a hooker on Backpage shortly before the killing, be kept out of his upcoming murder trial in Suffolk Superior Court.

In a newly filed motion, a MacCormack’s lawyers said admitting cell phone evidence showing their client contacted Backpage before the killing and texted an escort would be “highly inflammatory and more prejudicial than probative.”

This is the portion of the filing that caught our eye. Why would it be inflammatory and prejudicial? The answer is simple, because everyone knows and understands that Backpage itself is cesspool of criminality. To even breath its name before a jury is to raise a specter of unchecked mob-style lawlessness. (So much for Tony Ortega’s so-called ‘defense’ of the Backpage sex trafficking business!)

Lawyers for the accused murder will stop at nothing to keep a jury from hearing of his association with Backpage, admitting in their filing that Backpage is synonymous with the illegal selling of sex:

“An extraction from the data of the defendant’s phone shows that he was perusing on the evening before the murder and text messaging an escort attempting to set up a date at 10:00 a.m. that morning. was often used to organize sex for a fee.”

If evidence connecting the accused to Backpage is admitted at the October 15th trial then, as MacCormak’s lawyer concedes: “A reasonable juror will have a difficult time focusing on the evidence, as opposed to wondering whether the defendant is perverse or a person of poor character.”

Seriously though, is it really something that requires more than a moment’s thought to determine whether anyone involved in Backpage at any level is perverse or a person of poor character? If simply using Backpage suggests that much about someone’s character, what would that mean for someone who publicly championed Backpage as the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.