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...
Recommended Posts