Chris66 Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said: All I would have to prove is that I have working synapses in my brain. That is proof. Courts dont work that way. Plus the prosecution has to prove that the surveillance was legal to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 21 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: unlikey yes..impossible no. Porn movies show me all the time strangers hook up in less time. Seriously, it's going to be hard to prove it was non-consensual without audio....plain and simple. He pays for a message, they are instanly attracted to each other, they have sex, she says mom needs money in China... he leaves her a hundo to send to the homeland to help her mother... with no audio saying otherwise..prove it didn't happen that way? The law says reasonable doubt, not no doubt. Does a reasonable person believe that load of malarkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chris66 said: Courts dont work that way. Plus the prosecution has to prove that the surveillance was legal to begin with. Of course they don't but it's also very possible that people in a jury (it will never go to one of course) can decide someone is guilty based on simple reason along with circumstantial evidence. You would also have to believe that the 19 or however many other guys also had this somewhat swift romantic consensual relationship with this woman, who was also arrested. There is rarely real proof in a lot of these cases. The chances that a bullet linked by forensics to a murder weapon is wrong is much more likely than this not being prostitution and everyone on earth that follows this knows it no matter what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 14 minutes ago, Chris66 said: Courts dont work that way. Plus the prosecution has to prove that the surveillance was legal to begin with. Maybe Kraft can get Bill Nye to testify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 19 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: Of course they don't but it's also very possible that people in a jury (it will never go to one of course) can decide someone is guilty based on simple reason along with circumstantial evidence. You would also have to believe that the 19 or however many other guys also had this somewhat swift romantic consensual relationship with this woman, who was also arrested. There is rarely real proof in a lot of these cases. The chances that a bullet linked by forensics to a murder weapon is wrong is much more likely than this not being prostitution and everyone on earth that follows this knows it no matter what they say. I know we're arguing about a hypothetical scenario (will never go to trial) but I highly doubt evidence of the other 19 comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 I just got my haircut and five of us had a very enjoyable 30 minute chat about this case and other rub 'n tug stories. Thanks Bob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I know we're arguing about a hypothetical scenario (will never go to trial) but I highly doubt evidence of the other 19 comes in. I understand. But I am also saying that a 12 member jury, even if not allowed to think about the other 19, will think of the other 19, and could very well conclude, without "proof" that this was prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt (if they have video of Kraft two times, on two consecutive days, with two different women). An eyewitness account is not "proof." Simple living on the planet for 18+ years is all the proof you need to know with 99.999999% certainty that this was prostitution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: I understand. But I am also saying that a 12 member jury, even if not allowed to think about the other 19, will think of the other 19, and could very well conclude, without "proof" that this was prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt (if they have video of Kraft two times, on two consecutive days, with two different women). An eyewitness account is not "proof." Simple living on the planet for 18+ years is all the proof you need to know with 99.999999% certainty that this was prostitution. For a handsome and strapping young man like Kraft, it must happen all the time! Or.....it could be the money..... . Edited February 28, 2019 by Augie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasNootz Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: I understand. But I am also saying that a 12 member jury, even if not allowed to think about the other 19, will think of the other 19, and could very well conclude, without "proof" that this was prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt (if they have video of Kraft two times, on two consecutive days, with two different women). An eyewitness account is not "proof." Simple living on the planet for 18+ years is all the proof you need to know with 99.999999% certainty that this was prostitution. It won't go to jury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Just now, DasNootz said: It won't go to jury. We have already said that a few different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said: I understand. But I am also saying that a 12 member jury, even if not allowed to think about the other 19, will think of the other 19, and could very well conclude, without "proof" that this was prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt (if they have video of Kraft two times, on two consecutive days, with two different women). An eyewitness account is not "proof." Simple living on the planet for 18+ years is all the proof you need to know with 99.999999% certainty that this was prostitution. Juries cannot come to a decision based on supposition like you are proposing . They must only weigh only the evidence presented during the case . I believe A judge will even set aside a verdict if its apparent that the jury came to a decision like the scenario that you propose ? Edited February 28, 2019 by prissythecat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsSB2020 Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said: Of course they don't but it's also very possible that people in a jury (it will never go to one of course) can decide someone is guilty based on simple reason along with circumstantial evidence. You would also have to believe that the 19 or however many other guys also had this somewhat swift romantic consensual relationship with this woman, who was also arrested. There is rarely real proof in a lot of these cases. The chances that a bullet linked by forensics to a murder weapon is wrong is much more likely than this not being prostitution and everyone on earth that follows this knows it no matter what they say. This is not going to a jury trial. Petty offenses are decided by a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said: I know we're arguing about a hypothetical scenario (will never go to trial) but I highly doubt evidence of the other 19 comes in. That would never even be mentioned at trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said: All I would have to prove is that I have working synapses in my brain. That is proof. This. No one would buy any other scenario. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 24 minutes ago, prissythecat said: Juries cannot come to a decision based on supposition like you are proposing . They must only weigh only the evidence presented during the case . I believe A judge will even set aside a verdict if its apparent that the jury came to a decision like the scenario that you propose ? People are nuts in this thread. It's not going to trial. Everyone knows that. I am proposing that if it did, the jury would be seeing two tapes of Kraft paying a woman and then getting sex and then leaving in 14 minutes. There is no other possible conclusion to that except he paid for sex. It was not a date. They were not lovers getting a quickie. Lawyers can argue all they want that it is not what it seems but everyone in the world would know it was paid sex. Which is illegal. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: People are nuts in this thread. It's not going to trial. Everyone knows that. I am proposing that if it did, the jury would be seeing two tapes of Kraft paying a woman and then getting sex and then leaving in 14 minutes. There is no other possible conclusion to that except he paid for sex. It was not a date. They were not lovers getting a quickie. Lawyers can argue all they want that it is not what it seems but everyone in the world would know it was paid sex. Which is illegal. Didn't he pay her after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 4 hours ago, Chris66 said: Courts dont work that way. Plus the prosecution has to prove that the surveillance was legal to begin with. The justice you seek will prevail and help enable the enslavement of more so that pillars of society like your hero can repeat the cycle. Yahoo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: unlikey yes..impossible no. Porn movies show me all the time strangers hook up in less time. Seriously, it's going to be hard to prove it was non-consensual without audio....plain and simple. He pays for a message, they are instanly attracted to each other, they have sex, she says mom needs money in China... he leaves her a hundo to send to the homeland to help her mother... with no audio saying otherwise..prove it didn't happen that way? "Heather" has two mommies (that we know of)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: The justice you seek will prevail and help enable the enslavement of more so that pillars of society like your hero can repeat the cycle. Yahoo. I have no clue what you mean here. Are you saying guilty to proven innocent? Are you saying rich= guilty? what exactly is your point.lease be specific and not esoteric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I have no clue what you mean here. Are you saying guilty to proven innocent? Are you saying rich= guilty? what exactly is your point.lease be specific and not esoteric. 1. He's a scum bag but far from the first to do this sort of thing. 2. He deserves a trial of course. 3. It is very clear what he did and it would be annoying if he got away with it by being a weasel, but he'd still be a weasel. 4. I don't give a crap about him. 5. I find it incredibly sad that the women and countless more like them are truly considered as lesser beings than this all important football team owner. We are all created equal but these women were not treated that way and they still aren't being treated like equals. Kraft, among others, may not have known they were enslaved then, but he does now. His resources and actions knowing this are being expended 100% on himself. My opinion is that he is a reprobate and is contributing to society in a negative way. Eff him. That wasn't esoteric was it? Edited March 1, 2019 by 4merper4mer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Court filing seeks Kraft's presence at arraignment http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26168448/court-filing-seeks-kraft-presence-arraignment Robert Kraft has been ordered to attend an arraignment hearing related to his misdemeanor charges of solicitation, according to court documents, though his lawyer could still seek to allow the New England Patriots owner to not appear. Though the court order says Kraft "must be present" or face a bond forfeiture and a warrant for his arrest, the rules of criminal procedure allow Kraft's lawyer to waive his presence at the arraignment. The hearing has also been moved back a day to March 28. The arraignment was initially set for April before being rescheduled to March last week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 You guys, Kraft didn’t know! Of course he knew. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: You guys, Kraft didn’t know! Of course he knew. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: You guys, Kraft didn’t know! Of course he knew. I bet the Donald gets a discount and doesn't tip. Edited March 8, 2019 by PromoTheRobot 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricko1112 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 11:52 AM, YoloinOhio said: Yup Not one single person has been charged with anything to do with human trafficking. There were also no under aged girls. This is according to the Jupiter Sheriff's Department. Just a 77 year old widower getting a handie... We should all be so lucky at that age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Comprehensive look at the entire sting operation. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/08/how-massage-parlors-sex-trafficking-case-florida-solved/3048361002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, ricko1112 said: Not one single person has been charged with anything to do with human trafficking. There were also no under aged girls. This is according to the Jupiter Sheriff's Department. Just a 77 year old widower getting a handie... We should all be so lucky at that age! I'm not sure a multi-millionaire getting a ***** at the massage equivalent of a Yingaling's All-You-Can-Eat 99-Cent Sushi House and Watch Repair Emporium is what I'd consider 'lucky,' I don't care how old you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said: You guys, Kraft didn’t know! Of course he knew. (Clickbait) If you read the article you'll see the woman sold the spa years ago. But fake news gonna fake news. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: (Clickbait) If you read the article you'll see the woman sold the spa years ago. But fake news gonna fake news. Fake news outlets gotta fake news. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricko1112 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: I'm not sure a multi-millionaire getting a ***** at the massage equivalent of a Yingaling's All-You-Can-Eat 99-Cent Sushi House and Watch Repair Emporium is what I'd consider 'lucky,' I don't care how old you are. Yuck! You'd think $6.6 billion could have gotten him so much more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 23 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said: Court filing seeks Kraft's presence at arraignment http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26168448/court-filing-seeks-kraft-presence-arraignment Robert Kraft has been ordered to attend an arraignment hearing related to his misdemeanor charges of solicitation, according to court documents, though his lawyer could still seek to allow the New England Patriots owner to not appear. Though the court order says Kraft "must be present" or face a bond forfeiture and a warrant for his arrest, the rules of criminal procedure allow Kraft's lawyer to waive his presence at the arraignment. The hearing has also been moved back a day to March 28. The arraignment was initially set for April before being rescheduled to March last week. Wait, some legal experts here said that if Kraft stayed out of Florida, he would be untouchable...maybe Massachusetts and Florida have an extradition treaty? 8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: (Clickbait) If you read the article you'll see the woman sold the spa years ago. But fake news gonna fake news. You’d also would have read that it was widely considered to be a house of ill-repute before she sold it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: (Clickbait) If you read the article you'll see the woman sold the spa years ago. But fake news gonna fake news. Um, that's a charitable reading, and your interpretation is skewed (perhaps for ideological reasons?). Her family members still own some of them, and her own strategy evolved into flipping them. Regardless, she built her fortune on them. Also, how is it "fake news" (god, what a dumb meme)? She was indeed the founder, which is exactly what the tweet says. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: Um, that's a charitable reading, and your interpretation is skewed (perhaps for ideological reasons?). Her family members still own some of them, and her own strategy evolved into flipping them. Regardless, she built her fortune on them. Also, how is it "fake news" (god, what a dumb meme)? She was indeed the founder, which is exactly what the tweet says. What's the worse spin of the facts - that she and her family still own some of the spas in the chain or that Trump is tied to the particular spa that was involved in this case? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: What's the worse spin of the facts - that she and her family still own some of the spas in the chain or that Trump is tied to the particular spa that was involved in this case? I'll refrain from responding to prevent this thread from being booted over to PPP, which I don't ever go to. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, mannc said: You’d also would have read that it was widely considered to be a house of ill-repute before she sold it With no charges, arrests, or incidents reported to LE while she owned it... which was almost a decade ago. That's the "fake" part of it. Throw the rumors and salacious gossip all around the article, enough to make people forget she has no ownership stake in the Kraft spa (the one facing legal peril), frame it with a picture of Trump and presto: you got a story with very little fact and tons of innuendo that will corrupt and pollute the discourse on this subject for days to come. 48 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: Um, that's a charitable reading, and your interpretation is skewed (perhaps for ideological reasons?). Her family members still own some of them, and her own strategy evolved into flipping them. Regardless, she built her fortune on them. Also, how is it "fake news" (god, what a dumb meme)? She was indeed the founder, which is exactly what the tweet says. Disagree. The woman no longer owns the spa where Kraft was arrested, in fact she wasn't even the last owner (it's sold again since she sold it). She didn't hire any of the employees there now, she didn't consult with the current owners about how to run the business. She was entirely removed from the events there - but, hey, she's at a political event at Mara Largo and we have art with her and POTUS. NOW we got a story... if we frame it dishonestly and smear it with enough salacious details and information that will cause readers to miss the forest through the trees. How do you accomplish that? I know! Call her the "founder" in the headline knowing most readers only read the headline and it sounds like she's still involved with the business. She isn't, and hasn't been for years. Thus fake news. (Which I disagree is a terrible meme, it's very apt). Lastly, my ideological preferences have nothing to do with pointing out this bogus spin. I'm not a Trump voter, nor a republican or conservative. I just have an issue with dishonesty. (for clarity, I'm not calling you or Yolo or Mannc dishonest in any way for disagreeing - was speaking of the story itself) Edited March 8, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: I'll refrain from responding to prevent this thread from being booted over to PPP, which I don't ever go to. Ha -- I thought I was the only "regular" to never venture over there! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Just now, eball said: Ha -- I thought I was the only "regular" to never venture over there! I avoided it for close to a decade... Now: 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 51 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: Um, that's a charitable reading, and your interpretation is skewed (perhaps for ideological reasons?). Her family members still own some of them, and her own strategy evolved into flipping them. Regardless, she built her fortune on them. Also, how is it "fake news" (god, what a dumb meme)? She was indeed the founder, which is exactly what the tweet says. Don't let facts stop an irrational ranter. He is defending Kraft like a zebra with a pocketful of unmarked, nonsequential large bills. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Limeaid said: Don't let facts stop an irrational ranter. He is defending Kraft like a zebra with a pocketful of unmarked, nonsequential large bills. (I think this was just for the line - which was funny but in case it wasn't) I am? I didn't mention Kraft once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, eball said: Ha -- I thought I was the only "regular" to never venture over there! 13 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: I'll refrain from responding to prevent this thread from being booted over to PPP, which I don't ever go to. I never go near the Echo Chamber. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts