ECU Streaker Case Again Postponed

The ECU streaker case has been delayed once again.

John Sieglinger appeared Monday morning in a Pitt County courtroom, and for the second time his case was continued by the judge.

The 21-year-old Sieglinger streaked across ECU's football field during a military ceremony at halftime of the Pirates game against Southern Miss in November. He's facing misdemeanor trespassing and misdemeanor indecent exposure charges.

The Raleigh man's next court date is April 23rd. Sieglinger, who was not an East Carolina student, has since been banned from the campus for life.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Know-It-All on Feb 28, 2012 at 05:47 AM
    They are going to try and suck this guy for everything he's worth.
  • by Anonymous on Feb 28, 2012 at 05:27 AM
    Postponed or Prolonged?
  • by JusticeForAll on Feb 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM
    I'd bet money that EVERY single parent who is crying about their tender little children seeing this guy's junk from over 100 yards away has an X-box or other video console at home and lets those same tender children play HALO and Call Of Duty every night. It's OK to train your children to be psychotic killing machines, but god forbid they should see a human being's naked body... THIS is why America is so messed up...
  • by JusticeForAll on Feb 27, 2012 at 02:56 PM
    The Prosecution must have a "lengthy" case to make. I bet they'll produce "uncut evidence". Sounds like it might be a pretty "hairy" trial...
    • reply
      by Tori on Feb 28, 2012 at 06:17 AM in reply to JusticeForAll
      Yes, that would be the simple thing to do-but it will not happen, It was mentioned that he would be made out as an example. Yes streaking in public is not a new haness crime. Its not a big deal-sorry John no pun intended!
  • by postponed? on Feb 27, 2012 at 01:54 PM
    He was a streaker, in front of thousands of people at a football game. Everyone saw him and it was on camera(s). What is there to postpone (again)? This is why our court systems are so clogged up. Why continue to drag this out. Ban him from campus and continue on so we can put some real criminals away.
  • by Tori Location: Pitt County on Feb 27, 2012 at 01:50 PM
    Sex Predator, No! Drunk at a football game, yeah! This stuff happen at football games! It has just been made out to be more than what it should. Judgement has been a little harsh! And yes these are comments from bad to good and all between! Sincerely!
  • by World Champion on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 PM
    Come on people really, just get over it. The world did not end, no one is mentally scared for life and you can go with your self absorbed lives and find something else to complain about.
  • by Judge on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM
    Posrponed to get the right judge to hear it. No other reason.
  • by Hypocracy on Feb 27, 2012 at 11:39 AM
    I don't get it.A report a couple of days ago there was a woman walking her dog and a man flung it out(exposed himself,his word against hers))and he will probably have to register as a sex offender and this guy flung it out to thousands of people and is charged with indecent exposure.Only in america.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 27, 2012 at 01:01 PM in reply to Hypocracy
      Why? The situtations are completely different.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 27, 2012 at 01:43 PM in reply to
        Please explain how the situations are different? Different in that he offended thousands instead of one or two? Sure. What's your point?
      • reply
        by Hypocracy on Feb 27, 2012 at 02:08 PM in reply to
        Please explain!Like the report said he is charged with INDECNT EXPOSURE and the other guy EXPOSED himself too.Is some EXPOSURE more legal than others?I would think being children saw this guys junk it would be a worse offense.I do not understand some of you guy/gals libterdial logic.Maybe cause it is not logical!
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Feb 27, 2012 at 02:03 PM in reply to Hypocracy
      One was sexual one was druken fun.
      • reply
        by Hypocracy/BLAHammed on Feb 27, 2012 at 03:46 PM in reply to
        Drunking fun?He could have put on a Pinnochiobama mask over that thing!!!Wait a minute,maybe he did!!!LOL!Think about it...Seriously though,The only difference I see here is that CHILDREN ended up seeing his thing flopping in the breeze without his BVDs and one woman and a dog saw the other guys.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 27, 2012 at 04:04 PM in reply to
        Neither one was sexual. Try again. Rape and flashing have nothing to do with sex. One is a crime of violence, the other is for shock value. They are only titled as sex crimes on the technicality that it involves genitalia. Rape does not however happen because the guy wants sex. Education is a wonderful thing. "Drunken fun" could be an excuse for date rape or drunk driving too. Does that make those okay?
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Feb 28, 2012 at 08:45 AM in reply to
        One was sexual?I do not recall him reaching out to touch her or any sexual words were said.
  • by Derp derp derp Location: williamston on Feb 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM
  • Page:

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 140574303 -
Gray Television, Inc.