Robert Kraft charged in prostitution ring bust ( Update: Kraft legal team accused of lying in court)

[row_33]

30 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, they'll probably show him more, just to see if his true love is with him.

 

no............................

 

you can't move the pointless showing count to 125 times like they did for Art Modell when the TV contracts were up for renewal

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by row_33

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

It didn't.  What it did was require him and the others to give the DA a phony "W" when it is clear that even the DA feels the weakness of his months long investigation. 

 

Well, thank you for allowing me to think what I like and not fall in lock-step with your Bills Pro Shop merchandize orthodoxy.   I was hardly the only poster who figured McCoy for kicking a guy on his back---or that he's a knucklehead.  You can't conceive of the possibility that this guy is, as is Kraft, a total POS.  You are in a small group of devotees who feel that McCoy has never done anything he has been accused by myriad individuals---instead he is just extremely unlucky, even by NFL bad boy player standards.  Persecuted even...

 

A "phony W"...because now Bobby didn't commit a crime?  Come on, which is it now?

 

No, you weren't the only poster who thought Shady was guilty...initially.  Hell even I thought that the video looked bad for him (check the archives).  Then the case unfolded and it was pretty clear what happened and that you were the only one left behind.  The thing is, there have been a lot of stories that initially looked bad for one side and then went completely the other way.  Just look at the Smollett farce.  But that's the sad state of our news media today.

 

As for whether he's a POS, no I don't think he is.  And it might surprise you to hear I don't think Bobby is either.  But they both have done things to put themselves in bad situations and that's ultimately their faults.  Again I'm not nearly as invested in seeing Bobby face legal consequences as you were with Shady (both times) because the video tape will be far more humiliation than any justice that can be meted-out.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

A "phony W"...because now Bobby didn't commit a crime?  Come on, which is it now?

 

No, you weren't the only poster who thought Shady was guilty...initially.  Hell even I thought that the video looked bad for him (check the archives).  Then the case unfolded and it was pretty clear what happened and that you were the only one left behind.  The thing is, there have been a lot of stories that initially looked bad for one side and then went completely the other way.  Just look at the Smollett farce.  But that's the sad state of our news media today.

 

As for whether he's a POS, no I don't think he is.  And it might surprise you to hear I don't think Bobby is either.  But they both have done things to put themselves in bad situations and that's ultimately their faults.  Again I'm not nearly as invested in seeing Bobby face legal consequences as you were with Shady (both times) because the video tape will be far more humiliation than any justice that can be meted-out.

 

Oh come on doc.  You know what is being discussed.  The DA clearly feel his case can't go to court as a successful prosecution---so he wants them all to tell the world that despite this, he, the DA would have won the case in court!!  I mean, you even conceded that no one would take such a silly deal.

 

Admitting you would have lost a court trial is far different than admitting guilt.(confessing).  In fact, a defendant will accept a reduced charge because he concludes that  his likelihood of conviction by trial on the initial charge is higher than acquittal.

 

The DA in the McCoy case, said (in the quote that you cited) that he could not determine who was the aggressor or whether anyone was acting to aid another.  It didn't go "completely the other way".  The DA did the math, like they always do.  Like they did in the Kraft case and offered a no charge plea.

 

Smollett obviously committed a crime (several), yet he is not being charged with any.  So, obviously, based on the opinions you have put forth, would conclude he committed no crimes.

[Doc]

22 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Oh come on doc.  You know what is being discussed.  The DA clearly feel his case can't go to court as a successful prosecution---so he wants them all to tell the world that despite this, he, the DA would have won the case in court!!  I mean, you even conceded that no one would take such a silly deal.

 

Admitting you would have lost a court trial is far different than admitting guilt.(confessing).  In fact, a defendant will accept a reduced charge because he concludes that  his likelihood of conviction by trial on the initial charge is higher than acquittal.

 

The DA in the McCoy case, said (in the quote that you cited) that he could not determine who was the aggressor or whether anyone was acting to aid another.  It didn't go "completely the other way".  The DA did the math, like they always do.  Like they did in the Kraft case and offered a no charge plea.

 

Smollett obviously committed a crime (several), yet he is not being charged with any.  So, obviously, based on the opinions you have put forth, would conclude he committed no crimes.

 

Wait, how do you know what the DA "clearly feels"?  Did you ask him?  See how that works?

 

Again we all know that Bobby committed a crime.  Why is he wasting time and resources on this charade and why aren't you incensed about that?  And why isn't the DA doing him a solid like you seem to be claiming the Philly DA did for Shady...against his own PD no less?

 

As for Smollett, please.  I've said time and again that it's case-by-case.  And again, like Bobby and unlike Shady,  he was charged.  But that whole thing is as corrupt as they come.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

Why is a defendant “wasting time” challenging the charges against him in a case that the DA now doesn’t feel so good bout?  In what country do defendants (even ones you and I think are guilty) fore go their right to have their day in court?  In what country does popular opinion replace the court of law?  

 

The DA is saying admit I can beat you in court even though I’m not going to charge you with a crime!  Why would I be outraged if anyone turned that down?  Even you said nobody should take that deal.  The charge is off the table.

 

The DA thinks Kraft committed a crime.  The Philly DA could not determine IF McCoy commuted a crime...and he said as much,  despite your ongoing efforts to absolutely mischaracterize what he said.  So no one has to ask that DA feels...he told everyone.

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why is a defendant “wasting time” challenging the charges against him in a case that the DA now doesn’t feel so good bout?  In what country do defendants (even ones you and I think are guilty) fore go their right to have their day in court?  In what country does popular opinion replace the court of law?  

 

The DA is saying admit I can beat you in court even though I’m not going to charge you with a crime!  Why would I be outraged if anyone turned that down?  Even you said nobody should take that deal.  The charge is off the table.

 

The DA thinks Kraft committed a crime.  The Philly DA could not determine IF McCoy commuted a crime...and he said as much,  despite your ongoing efforts to absolutely mischaracterize what he said.  So no one has to ask that DA feels...he told everyone.

 

OK, you continue to say you know what the DA in Bobby's case is feeling, so I can then know what the DA in Shady's case was actually saying to us.  That takes care of that.

 

But you yourself said that it wasn't much of a plea deal because Bobby still has to admit he would be found guilty.  That tells me the DA thinks he has a good case, otherwise he would have left the guilt part out and just had him do the diversionary and related stuff.  If he comes back with a weaker plea deal, then I would agree with you.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

OK, you continue to say you know what the DA in Bobby's case is feeling, so I can then know what the DA in Shady's case was actually saying to us.  That takes care of that.

 

But you yourself said that it wasn't much of a plea deal because Bobby still has to admit he would be found guilty.  That tells me the DA thinks he has a good case, otherwise he would have left the guilt part out and just had him do the diversionary and related stuff.  If he comes back with a weaker plea deal, then I would agree with you.

 

Mo doc.  You quoted the Philly DA, so you can’t tell us what he’s “actually saying” lol.

 

And claiming that the Florida DA is so confident in his case that he will drop all charges is just....bizarre.  There IS no weaker deal he can offer than a no plea deal, literally. In fact the demand they admit that they “would have been found guilty” is the very unusual part of the offer.  And it’s why none of them is taking it.  You’ve already acknowledged that it would be a fools deal.  Why are you now pretending otherwise?

 

The usual plea is accept the charge, take the pretrial diversion, fine and service.  

 

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Mo doc.  You quoted the Philly DA, so you can’t tell us what he’s “actually saying” lol.

 

And claiming that the Florida DA is so confident in his case that he will drop all charges is just....bizarre.  There IS no weaker deal he can offer than a no plea deal, literally. In fact the demand they admit that they “would have been found guilty” is the very unusual part of the offer.  And it’s why none of them is taking it.  You’ve already acknowledged that it would be a fools deal.  Why are you now pretending otherwise?

 

The usual plea is accept the charge, take the pretrial diversion, fine and service.  

 

 

Again if you can tell me what the Florida DA is thinking, I can easily tell you what the Philly DA was thinking when he made that statement.  You can't have it both ways.  Again it was an obvious case of Shady defending a friend, seeing as how the eyewitnesses said the cop jumped the friend and had him in a headlock on the ground.  If you have evidence otherwise, you should have produced it years ago.

 

As for the Florida DA, he's got a very strong case and it's not going to magically disappear (unlike in and thanks to Smollett's joke of a case), so he's looking for that W, whether it's "phony" or not.  He knows (like everyone else) that the worst part of this whole thing for Bobby is the tape and that's punishment enough, and there was never going to be any jail time and any fine would be chump change for him.  He just doesn't want this charade lasting any long than it has, wasting everyone's time and money for what even for you see is an obvious case.  The plea deal would force him to admit guilt but doesn't keep the tape private, so he rejected it hoping the DA would come back with a lesser plea deal or deal with the tape staying private.  It hasn't happened (yet).  So it may go to trial where 12 people should be able to see what it plainly obvious to everyone.  Or maybe not.  But the tape will come out and that's all everyone really cares about (while the DA wants the W).

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Again if you can tell me what the Florida DA is thinking, I can easily tell you what the Philly DA was thinking when he made that statement.  You can't have it both ways.  Again it was an obvious case of Shady defending a friend, seeing as how the eyewitnesses said the cop jumped the friend and had him in a headlock on the ground.  If you have evidence otherwise, you should have produced it years ago.

 

As for the Florida DA, he's got a very strong case and it's not going to magically disappear (unlike in and thanks to Smollett's joke of a case), so he's looking for that W, whether it's "phony" or not.  He knows (like everyone else) that the worst part of this whole thing for Bobby is the tape and that's punishment enough, and there was never going to be any jail time and any fine would be chump change for him.  He just doesn't want this charade lasting any long than it has, wasting everyone's time and money for what even for you see is an obvious case.  The plea deal would force him to admit guilt but doesn't keep the tape private, so he rejected it hoping the DA would come back with a lesser plea deal or deal with the tape staying private.  It hasn't happened (yet).  So it may go to trial where 12 people should be able to see what it plainly obvious to everyone.  Or maybe not.  But the tape will come out and that's all everyone really cares about (while the DA wants the W).

 

If it was a slam dunk, I don't think the DA would have made the ridiculous offer that Kraft wisely declined.  If it was a slam dunk, they'd have gone straight to trial without making any kind of plea offer - in my opinion, of course.

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Gugny said:

If it was a slam dunk, I don't think the DA would have made the ridiculous offer that Kraft wisely declined.  If it was a slam dunk, they'd have gone straight to trial without making any kind of plea offer - in my opinion, of course.

 

There are rarely slam dunks.  But no one really wants to go to trial because it's a huge expenditure of time and money.  So you offer a deal and hope it's accepted.  Happens all the time.

[iinii]

Do I hear 71? The debate rages on...

[416BillsFan]

In Florida you can request a trial by combat. Kraft has chosen Gronk as his champion.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Again if you can tell me what the Florida DA is thinking, I can easily tell you what the Philly DA was thinking when he made that statement.  You can't have it both ways.  Again it was an obvious case of Shady defending a friend, seeing as how the eyewitnesses said the cop jumped the friend and had him in a headlock on the ground.  If you have evidence otherwise, you should have produced it years ago.

 

As for the Florida DA, he's got a very strong case and it's not going to magically disappear (unlike in and thanks to Smollett's joke of a case), so he's looking for that W, whether it's "phony" or not.  He knows (like everyone else) that the worst part of this whole thing for Bobby is the tape and that's punishment enough, and there was never going to be any jail time and any fine would be chump change for him.  He just doesn't want this charade lasting any long than it has, wasting everyone's time and money for what even for you see is an obvious case.  The plea deal would force him to admit guilt but doesn't keep the tape private, so he rejected it hoping the DA would come back with a lesser plea deal or deal with the tape staying private.  It hasn't happened (yet).  So it may go to trial where 12 people should be able to see what it plainly obvious to everyone.  Or maybe not.  But the tape will come out and that's all everyone really cares about (while the DA wants the W).

 

We don't need your interpretation of the Philly DA's very clear statement.  It obviously does not say what you ant it too.  He doesn't know who the aggressors were (cops vs champagne stealers) or if the stompers were or were not coming to the aid of a friend in duress--so, no charges.

 

The Florida DA, by stark contrast, has not spoken publicly about why he is offering these men a plea where they aren't even going to charge them with a crime!

 

Gugny gets it.  You are still pretending you don't understand why this DA is making this offer.  If he thinks Kraft committed a crime, make him plead to a crime (as is typical--especially for a "slam dunk" case, no?) and pay the standard penalty for that crime.  Why the unusual stipulation that he say not that he is guilty, but (very specifically) that he would have been found guilty at trial.  That's nuts!

 

The tape is Kraft's problem?  Sounds like the DA is the one who is worried about the tape.  By many accounts, there is serious doubt of its admissibility---this has to be why he is offering a no plea deal.  And it's obviously why none of these guys are taking it.  Any number of them would simply take the standard busted john plea.  But they now see that the tape may be tainted evidence----this is all over the internet....how is it that you don't know this?

 

The DA can't offer a deal where the tapes are not released.  Florida's sunshine laws would prohibit him from doing that.......UNLESS the tapes were improperly obtained.  This too is all over the news and internet.  Look it up and save yourself from all this foolishness.

 

What do you think happens to the DA's case if the tape is ruled inadmissible?   Another simple question doc.  And before you answer, help yourself by looking up the issues raised with the tape as soon as the story broke.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

In Robert Kraft prostitution case, possible eyewitness could go against Patriots owner

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/in-robert-kraft-prostitution-case-possible-eyewitness-could-go-against-patriots-owner-162458676.html

 

 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

We don't need your interpretation of the Philly DA's very clear statement.  It obviously does not say what you ant it too.  He doesn't know who the aggressors were (cops vs champagne stealers) or if the stompers were or were not coming to the aid of a friend in duress--so, no charges.

 

The Florida DA, by stark contrast, has not spoken publicly about why he is offering these men a plea where they aren't even going to charge them with a crime!

 

Gugny gets it.  You are still pretending you don't understand why this DA is making this offer.  If he thinks Kraft committed a crime, make him plead to a crime (as is typical--especially for a "slam dunk" case, no?) and pay the standard penalty for that crime.  Why the unusual stipulation that he say not that he is guilty, but (very specifically) that he would have been found guilty at trial.  That's nuts!

 

The tape is Kraft's problem?  Sounds like the DA is the one who is worried about the tape.  By many accounts, there is serious doubt of its admissibility---this has to be why he is offering a no plea deal.  And it's obviously why none of these guys are taking it.  Any number of them would simply take the standard busted john plea.  But they now see that the tape may be tainted evidence----this is all over the internet....how is it that you don't know this?

 

The DA can't offer a deal where the tapes are not released.  Florida's sunshine laws would prohibit him from doing that.......UNLESS the tapes were improperly obtained.  This too is all over the news and internet.  Look it up and save yourself from all this foolishness.

 

What do you think happens to the DA's case if the tape is ruled inadmissible?   Another simple question doc.  And before you answer, help yourself by looking up the issues raised with the tape as soon as the story broke.

 

No, the Phily DA knows what happened.  You don't and that's obvious.  But Shady wasn't charged.  Call him innocent or not guilty, it doesn't matter.

 

As for Bobby, we'll get to see this charade play out and the tape will be released.  And as ShadyBillsFan posted, it looks like someone's gonna roll on Bobby. 

 

Oh and thanks again for proving what a hypocrite you are when it comes to defending criminals who you like versus non-criminals who you don't.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

Without a video (and audio), it would have to be someone rolling on Kraft for the DA to succeed.

 

 

And can you point to where I’m “defending” Kraft.  Be specific.

[Punching Bag]

3 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

In Robert Kraft prostitution case, possible eyewitness could go against Patriots owner

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/in-robert-kraft-prostitution-case-possible-eyewitness-could-go-against-patriots-owner-162458676.html

 

 

Have any players been penalized for attending such a place? That could be basis for any punishment of Robert Krass.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Have any players been penalized for attending such a place? That could be basis for any punishment of Robert Krass.

 

A player would be punished by not letting him play games. I’d like to see Kreaft punished by MAKING HIM PLAY GAMES. 

 

I may be a little bitter.

 

?

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Without a video (and audio), it would have to be someone rolling on Kraft for the DA to succeed.

 

The link ShadyBillsFan provided also says that the tape likely will be ruled admissible because there is precedent for it being used and LE followed proper procedure.  I think it's safe to say that no more plea deals are forthcoming for Bobby.

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The link ShadyBillsFan provided also says that the tape likely will be ruled admissible because there is precedent for it being used and LE followed proper procedure.  I think it's safe to say that no more plea deals are forthcoming for Bobby.

 

I still have not figured why TMZ has not got a copy like they usually do.  Maybe Krass has percentage of ownership?

[Bubba Gump]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

I still have not figured why TMZ has not got a copy like they usually do.  Maybe Krass has percentage of ownership?

 

Maybe everyone at TMZ is still too busy throwing up from watching the video?

[Mr. WEO]

11 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The link ShadyBillsFan provided also says that the tape likely will be ruled admissible because there is precedent for it being used and LE followed proper procedure.  I think it's safe to say that no more plea deals are forthcoming for Bobby.

 

The link doesn't say that at all doc.  You fabricated that.

 

It says sneak and peak videos have been legally obtained and used successfully in FL--as long as they were properly obtained.  In fact, the story makes this distinction very clear for you.  There has to be evidence that lesser invasive methods of obtaining the same info were tried and there have to be rigid rules of what gets taped and what does not.  That is what the defense lawyers for these guys are challenging.  You should watch the video again to make that clearer for you.  Or read more on this topic. 

 

Also, since there already is a deal where they won't charge him with a crime on the table, there really can't be a deal lower than that for the DA to offer....

 

And if the video is a slam dunk for the prosecution, why did the DA make that weird offer?  Why wouldn't he just say--"I've got you dead to rights,  take the misdemeanor charge and the usual penalty for a first time john"?  The DA's best bet is for the eyewitness to say he solicited sex.  But unless that is solicitation recorded on audio, it will be challenged, likely.

[row_33]

10 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

I still have not figured why TMZ has not got a copy like they usually do.  Maybe Krass has percentage of ownership?

 

It’s not like it’s a Vegas casino where apparently everyone on earth, except employees of NFL HQs, knows that everything is taped and archived

 

 

[Doc]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

The link doesn't say that at all doc.  You fabricated that.

 

It says sneak and peak videos have been legally obtained and used successfully in FL--as long as they were properly obtained.  In fact, the story makes this distinction very clear for you.  There has to be evidence that lesser invasive methods of obtaining the same info were tried and there have to be rigid rules of what gets taped and what does not.  That is what the defense lawyers for these guys are challenging.  You should watch the video again to make that clearer for you.  Or read more on this topic. 

 

Also, since there already is a deal where they won't charge him with a crime on the table, there really can't be a deal lower than that for the DA to offer....

 

And if the video is a slam dunk for the prosecution, why did the DA make that weird offer?  Why wouldn't he just say--"I've got you dead to rights,  take the misdemeanor charge and the usual penalty for a first time john"?  The DA's best bet is for the eyewitness to say he solicited sex.  But unless that is solicitation recorded on audio, it will be challenged, likely.

 

And you're banking on them not having followed proper protocol, considering they've had success getting convictions in the exact same scenarios before?  Hey, there's always a chance!  Which I guess is why the DA put the screws to the eyewitness to testify against him just in case.

 

And yes there is a lower deal to be offered: the video remains private.  You see, that's all Bobby cares about but there's nothing he can do about it.  Now he's going to waste more time and money being an idiot. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

And you're banking on them not having followed proper protocol, considering they've had success getting convictions in the exact same scenarios before?  Hey, there's always a chance!  Which I guess is why the DA put the screws to the eyewitness to testify against him just in case.

 

And yes there is a lower deal to be offered: the video remains private.  You see, that's all Bobby cares about but there's nothing he can do about it.  Now he's going to waste more time and money being an idiot. 

 

Im not banking on it doc.  His lawyers are claiming it was improper, for the reasons cited in the link/story that you mischaracterized above.  You really should listen to that news report.  It will help prevent you from saying the same thing over and over, incorrectly.

 

And again, Florida’s sunshine laws would prohibit the DA from not releasing properlylh obtained and admitted evidence.

 

You need to pay attention 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Im not banking on it doc.  His lawyers are claiming it was improper, for the reasons cited in the link/story that you mischaracterized above.  You really should listen to that news report.  It will help prevent you from saying the same thing over and over, incorrectly.

 

And again, Florida’s sunshine laws would prohibit the DA from not releasing properlylh obtained and admitted evidence.

 

You need to pay attention 

 

Pay attention to what?  How to completely ignore reality?  I've been watching you for years WEO; I've seen enough.

 

Yeah, his lawyers are claiming the video was obtained improperly.  So what?  Everyone who was charged with something says the exact same thing just like they all say they're innocent.  It's Law 101, doesn't mean anything in and of itself, and doesn't take a high-priced lawyer to realize to do it.  Again the news report said that Florida LE has successfully prosecuted people charged with the exact same thing, and with lawyers claiming the exact same thing, meaning LE knows the proper way to go about obtaining them.  So you see, I've mischaracterized nothing.  And if the video was obtained properly, it becomes part of the public record, and that's the only thing Bobby cares about.  So you'll also want to brush up on Florida sunshine laws.

 

If that's an example of you paying attention...

[Teddy KGB]

Who cares ? 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Please please please let the jury be phins fans... 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

47 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Billion is a lot of $

[Doc]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

But what about the Florida sunshine laws?

[RiotAct]

I kind of want to see the tapes.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, RiotAct said:

I kind of want to see the tapes.

 

I don't.  Just knowing they're out there is enough for me.  Especially if they end up on TMZ.

[4merper4mer]

7 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

I kind of want to see the tapes.

Professional help is avalailable.

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, Teddy KGB said:

Who cares ? 

SERIOUSLY!!!!!! 

 

An old man doing old man things. Tabloid fodder.

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Please please please let the jury be phins fans... 

Jury trial for THIS? So crazy. Petty offenses are generally ruled on by a judge.

Edited April 4, 2019 by LSHMEAB

[Daisy days]

35 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

I kind of want to see the tapes.

I definitely want to see the tapes

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Trial, evidence or not it doesn't matter any longer.  

 

The Damage Has Been Done!! 

 

An IDIOT billionaire goes to a LOW CLASS rub and tug to get off.  

 

Yankee, no spanky !! 

7 hours ago, BoldBully said:

I definitely want to see the tapes

I don't but the court should 

[NoSaint]

8 hours ago, BoldBully said:

I definitely want to see the tapes

 

Do you really though?

[badassgixxer05]

WTF.. Why on earth would anyone want to watch an old dude getting a handjob.. Just some things were not meant to be scene. Do not release these tapes for the sake of humanity...

[Virgil]

10 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Am I reading this right?  The Boston Globe WANTS the evidence to be used?  

 

I can only imagine how that'll go over in Boston between them and the Pats organization when this is all done.