To StickyDrama’s eyes, this video depicts sexual activity:
But the Maricopa County Superior Court disagrees. At least, the Court determined that the video, in and of itself, does not depict “sexual activity constituting a crime.”  And so it remanded Stickam rapist John Hock’s case back to grand jury for the second time last week, meaning Hock must yet again be indicted in order for his trial to proceed.  His case had been remanded once before. Then the grand jury indicted him a second time.  But Hock’s attorney Bruce Blumberg continues to file motions delaying the actual trial.
In both motions, Blumberg used a detective’s testimony as grounds to have the case remanded.  In the first instance, he successfully argued that the State should not have elicited testimony the detective that Hock did not want to speak to dectectives.  In the recent second instance, Blumberg successfully argued that the detective should not have described the content of the video as “sexual activity.”
Under Arizona law, penetration of the vagina or anus or mouth with the penis or tongue or fingers is a necessary element of “sex” and apparently even the phrase “sexual activity.”  To StickyDrama, such an argument is sophistry.  Grinding one’s crotch into a woman’s exposed vagina while kissing her is “sexual activity” without being penetrative sex.  Were someone to perform similar actions to a sleeping woman on the New York subway, would the perpetrator not be charged with a sex crime?

In any event, Hock’s few remaining fans shouldn’t get too hopeful.  The Court indicates it believes or at least does not reject the argument that sexual activity constituting a crime did in fact occur the night of his broadcast:
The case has not been dropped or  entirely dismissed, only remanded back to grand jury.  Since any person with half a brain would probably believe that at some time on the night of the broadcast Hock did in fact have penetrative sex with the victim, the State of Arizona should easily indict Hock a third time—even without describing the video content itself as “sexual”—allowing his trial to finally proceed.
StickyDrama thinks the video shows sexual activity—do you?
[poll id=”15″]
PS:  We were watching “Law & Order” at the time of the sex assault, and that show’s audio was accidentally recorded along with Hock’s microphone.  It’s impossible for us to separate the two tracks.  This is the same video and audio recording that StickyDrama sent to the Phoenix Police Adult Sex Crimes Unit.


  1. -“A man who secretly recorded his girlfriend in the nude can be charged under state law.
    The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held it irrelevant that the girlfriend knowingly exposed her nude body to him; because she did not know that a hidden video camera was on, the court concluded that her reasonable expectation of privacy was violated.”
    Same scenario, different state.
    Hock should be charged with exhibiting the girls body without consent.
    -“Rape is any sexual intercourse with a person without his or her consent”
    There is no direct evidence of any form of sexual intercourse in this video. Hock can not rightfully be charged with rape.
    -“Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment often manifests itself in subtle ways, such as sexually suggestive comments, unwanted touching, risqué jokes, or blatant demand for sexual contact. In most cases, these actions take place within work or educational settings where both the offender and the victim are required to be in close contact.”
    There is, however, legitimized proof of sexual assault being performed here.
    Charge him with exhibitionism without consent and sexual assault. Not rape.
    Either way, screw the sick bastard.

  2. i believe this guy’s innocent. only because he acts gayer than all the gay people i know. i’m surprised he’s not trying to get in prison…

  3. Is anyone else smart enough to see the tat is on the wrong side for starters…and look at the shadowing… I am not saying you did it sticky… but they are DEFINITELY altered!

  4. They are inverted to start…. Heidi only has ONE tat…. she appears to have the floating tattoo in these pics…. She does not have one on the other hip… PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!!

  5. To Anon @7:27 pm:
    The caps which aren’t in the video are NOT Photoshop’d. Creating a photorealistic image like that is way, waaaay beyond the skill level of anyone on Stickam. I worked in broadcast television; I know it can be done, I’ve seen it; but no one on Stickam or StickyDrama has the skills to create or manipulate images like that.

  6. The witnesses testimonies doent match up and the last screen caps the miraculously appeared 10 months later are photoshopped and poorly at that. The defense has just as many witnesses who know NOTHING happened.

  7. ^There are caps floating around, which were taken before I began recording. I only entered Hock’s Live during the final 5 or 6 minutes of what witnesses estimate was a 30 minute broadcast. More did happen than just what the video shows.

  8. the video shown here didnt show anything….but one of the screen caps on the article shows a scene that was NOT in the video. he doesnt grind against her vag in this vid. wheres the rest of it?

  9. ‘crissie’ is a fake comment from polkadotz … jesus is this girl dense – have you ever seen the comments she leaves on ‘myspace celebrity’ pages?? she had these one-way conversations with them liked she knows them all personally ha pathetic. this site is a retard magnet – look at her comments they are the epitome of the typical 16yr old clueless, obvious self-posting, desperate for attention immaturity that this site has degenerated into
    from her very first self-post to now she has dug herself deeper and deeper to become the new chris goss
    no wonder the posters of old have abandoned this site – there is no real drama anymore … just 16yr olds

  10. “ it isnt.i dont mind my byfd sticking his penis in my vag in my sleep so it ISNT rape.thank you.:)”
    The difference between “rape” and “not rape” is consent. This girl didn’t consent to having her body shown and violated. If you consent to your boyfriend being a fucking creep, then by all means, go nuts.

  11. it isnt.i dont mind my byfd sticking his penis in my vag in my sleep so it ISNT rape.thank you.:)

  12. heres an idea. if you want me to stop commenting..
    tell the person PRETENDING TO BE ME to stop and i wont have anything to comment about.
    but you people with pea sized brains are apparently too stupid to figure that out.
    im moving to japan.
    where the people actually have brains.

Comments are closed.