He chose between 10 years vs. 25 to life. In the article he even said he took the plea because he was scared of the longer sentence. Being forced to chose between two horrible alternatives....I'd hardly call it perjury.
what Tim pled guilty to included the language:
“Sexual contact” includes the intentional touching of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification;
what he did NOT plead guilty to, but the impression that was given by the newspaper, included the language:
“Sexual penetration” means sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's body, but emission of semen is not required;
Tim did not take this decision lightly. He did not have the money required to hire a lawyer that would win. He was confident that the public defender would most likely lose and he would get a manditory 25 to life.
A good lawyer can keep a criminal free, and a bad lawyer can cause an innocent man to go to jail.
Newspapers #1 priority is:
a: report the news as accurately as possible and to fact check every story
b: sell newspapers
c: to make sure that the articles are un-biased
d: none of the above