Kraft Prosecution Must Be a Patriots Hater !!

[Mr. WEO]

14 hours ago, Doc said:

 

I've gotten so many previous cases correct that this means little.  Especially when everyone (even you) knows Bobby committed a crime and is just getting away with it because of a technicality.  

 

And like I said from the beginning, the video is the only real punishment he'd face.  And I don't need to see it for that to still be true.

 

 

You're channeling our President at this point. 

 

 

LOL

 

But yes, as you well know, people caught on video committing a crime sometimes get away with it...on a technicality or otherwise. 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You're channeling our President at this point. 

 

 

LOL

 

But yes, as you well know, people caught on video committing a crime sometimes get away with it...on a technicality or otherwise. 

let me remind again, having sex is not a crime!!!! Video is and by itself means nothing. Without audio..how does one know that Kraft was paying for sex? And him handing over money in the video does not prove that money was in exchange for a sex act.

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

You're channeling our President at this point. 

 

 

LOL

 

But yes, as you well know, people caught on video committing a crime sometimes get away with it...on a technicality or otherwise. 

 

You can check the archives if you wish.  You OTOH are touting victory here after "regurgitating what everyone was saying" about a guy who everyone knows committed a crime. 

 

Yes I know.  And you'd be howling about it if it were anyone else.

[Chris66]

As far as I know in this country you are presumed innocent until found guilty. So at this point unless you were actually there to witness said crime Kraft is innocent.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

let me remind again, having sex is not a crime!!!! Video is and by itself means nothing. Without audio..how does one know that Kraft was paying for sex? And him handing over money in the video does not prove that money was in exchange for a sex act.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm with you there.  Wasn't talking about Kraft exclusively.

 

 

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

You can check the archives if you wish.  You OTOH are touting victory here after "regurgitating what everyone was saying" about a guy who everyone knows committed a crime. 

 

Yes I know.  And you'd be howling about it if it were anyone else.

 

I'm not "touting victory".  Just reminding you that this was inevitably how this sordid tale would go.......because everyone but you knew this is how it would how go.  At least you finally acknowledge that I was just regurgitating what every one else was saying.  You always come around to the obvious, after endless painful and unnecessary detours...

 

You will forever  have "Captain"  Shady doc....he will never let you down.

Edited May 25, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

let me remind again, having sex is not a crime!!!! Video is and by itself means nothing. Without audio..how does one know that Kraft was paying for sex? And him handing over money in the video does not prove that money was in exchange for a sex act.

 

Yeah, how could anyone deduce that a guy going into a place called a "day spa," getting his prostate drained and then paying the "masseuse" money could be engaging in prostitution?  It's a mystery for the ages!

 

2 hours ago, Chris66 said:

As far as I know in this country you are presumed innocent until found guilty. So at this point unless you were actually there to witness said crime Kraft is innocent.

 

So then, OJ is innocent, right?

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

I'm not "touting victory".  Just reminding you that this was inevitably how this sordid tale would go.......because everyone but you knew this is how it would how go.  At least you finally acknowledge that I was just regurgitating what every one else was saying.  You always come around to the obvious, after endless painful and unnecessary detours...

 

You will forever  have "Captain"  Shady doc....he will never let you down.

 

Shady hasn't let me down yet WEO.  How about Bobby for you?

 

And this sordid tale could have gone either way.  There have been cases that were successfully prosecuted.  Again congrats on learning that people should fight charges no matter who they are. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, how could anyone deduce that a guy going into a place called a "day spa," getting his prostate drained and then paying the "masseuse" money could be engaging in prostitution?  It's a mystery for the ages!

 

 

So then, OJ is innocent, right?

 

 

Shady hasn't let me down yet WEO.  How about Bobby for you?

 

And this sordid tale could have gone either way.  There have been cases that were successfully prosecuted.  Again congrats on learning that people should fight charges no matter who they are. 

 

How could anyone watching a video of a bunch of guys kicking a man who is supine on the floor deduce that one of those guys doing the kicking was actually coming to the aid and defense of one of the other guys doing the kicking?  Mystery indeed! 

 

Ol' Bobby really let me down.  He should have used a high priced out call service instead of a filthy Florida rub and tug shop.   Tsk...tsk.

 

But hey--he's a single guy out getting his pleasure where he can find it (billionaires are so frugal!), just like "Shady" was having a good ol' time playing "futbol" with that drunk soccer ball of a Philly cop.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

WEO sounds like he was there so I guess we need to believe him.

 

 

You should write for the late night TV.  Pure gold!

[Big Turk]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:19 PM, Doc said:

 

And what's that?  Trying to get Bobby to stop wasting everyone's time and money (mostly Bobby's) and accept the plea deal because he's guilty?  Please.

 

Trying to get them to accept a plea deal because they have zero admissable evidence and plenty of evidence that shows they were making up reasons to pull people over.

 

There is zero chance they get a guilty verdict if this goes to trial and they know it.

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, how could anyone deduce that a guy going into a place called a "day spa," getting his prostate drained and then paying the "masseuse" money could be engaging in prostitution?  It's a mystery for the ages!

 

 

 

You can speculate all ya want, cant prove a damn thing. 

[Doc]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

How could anyone watching a video of a bunch of guys kicking a man who is supine on the floor deduce that one of those guys doing the kicking was actually coming to the aid and defense of one of the other guys doing the kicking?  Mystery indeed! 

 

Ol' Bobby really let me down.  He should have used a high priced out call service instead of a filthy Florida rub and tug shop.   Tsk...tsk.

 

But hey--he's a single guy out getting his pleasure where he can find it (billionaires are so frugal!), just like "Shady" was having a good ol' time playing "futbol" with that drunk soccer ball of a Philly cop. 

 

If you had your lawyer pants on back then and regurgitated what everyone was saying at the time, you'd have been sure that that dark and grainy cell phone video proved nothing definitive and that what was more important were all the witnesses who said the cop started the fight and had his friend in a headlock on the floor.  Hence the reason the Philly DA didn't charge him, and especially his nobody friend, with a single thing.  Basically it was inevitably how it was going to go.  In Bobby's case there is a video which is still being appealed and no witness to vouch for him, and on the contrary there may be someone ready to roll on him.

 

On the rest I agree.  If you're going to break the law, at least make it worth it.  Or do what everyone else does: get a trophy wife with a rock-solid prenup.

 

10 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Trying to get them to accept a plea deal because they have zero admissable evidence and plenty of evidence that shows they were making up reasons to pull people over.

 

There is zero chance they get a guilty verdict if this goes to trial and they know it.

 

I guess we'll find out.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

If you had your lawyer pants on back then and regurgitated what everyone was saying at the time, you'd have been sure that that dark and grainy cell phone video proved nothing definitive and that what was more important were all the witnesses who said the cop started the fight and had his friend in a headlock on the floor.  Hence the reason the Philly DA didn't charge him, and especially his nobody friend, with a single thing.  Basically it was inevitably how it was going to go.  In Bobby's case there is a video which is still being appealed and no witness to vouch for him, and on the contrary there may be someone ready to roll on him.

 

On the rest I agree.  If you're going to break the law, at least make it worth it.  Or do what everyone else does: get a trophy wife with a rock-solid prenup.

 

 

I guess we'll find out.

 

Actually, that's not what everyone was saying at the time.  Even you admitted you thought the video was damning.  Only after the investigation did the DA, due to conflicting reports of who the aggressor(s) was, decide he couldn't press charges on the players or the off duty cops.   You quoted him saying this.  There were plenty of people on this board and in the media who stated that McCoy was in jeopardy.  You're pretending this isn't true.

 

In the Kraft case, there was immediate and widespread option published regarding the way the defense would challenge both the video and the traffic.  It was uniformly discussed that this evidence would be of questionable admissibility.  Perhaps Kraft's lawyers have already convinced them to describe the scenario where the always included a happy ending without Bobby even asking for it...and he's a big tipper!!  Unless someone says he offered me money for sex....case closed.

 

The only witnesses were the tug ladies.  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Actually, that's not what everyone was saying at the time.  Even you admitted you thought the video was damning.  Only after the investigation did the DA, due to conflicting reports of who the aggressor(s) was, decide he couldn't press charges on the players or the off duty cops.   You quoted him saying this.  There were plenty of people on this board and in the media who stated that McCoy was in jeopardy.  You're pretending this isn't true.

 

In the Kraft case, there was immediate and widespread option published regarding the way the defense would challenge both the video and the traffic.  It was uniformly discussed that this evidence would be of questionable admissibility.  Perhaps Kraft's lawyers have already convinced them to describe the scenario where the always included a happy ending without Bobby even asking for it...and he's a big tipper!!  Unless someone says he offered me money for sex....case closed.

 

The only witnesses were the tug ladies.  

 

Both videos looked damning for both parties initially.  After some time, Shady's proved useless to the DA because not only did it prove nothing except proximity, the non-cop (nice try but the only "conflict" was from the crooked cops' version of events) eyewitnesses said the cop started it and therefore Shady was considered to be coming to the defense of his friend, which is completely reasonable for anyone to do, not just privileged celebs. 

 

Bobby's video OTOH was thrown out on a technicality even though what happened on it was clear (yeah Bobby's lawyers could make up anything they want but it would still be laughable, and putting the blame on the woman would only serve to make her want to testify).  But Bobby's video being ruled inadmissible was far from the slam dunk you want to portray it as being and discussion all over the internet was just that until the judge gave his ruling, which could have gone either way.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Both videos looked damning for both parties initially.  After some time, Shady's proved useless to the DA because not only did it prove nothing except proximity, the non-cop (nice try but the only "conflict" was from the crooked cops' version of events) eyewitnesses said the cop started it and therefore Shady was considered to be coming to the defense of his friend, which is completely reasonable for anyone to do, not just privileged celebs. 

 

Bobby's video OTOH was thrown out on a technicality even though what happened on it was clear (yeah Bobby's lawyers could make up anything they want but it would still be laughable, and putting the blame on the woman would only serve to make her want to testify).  But Bobby's video being ruled inadmissible was far from the slam dunk you want to portray it as being and discussion all over the internet was just that until the judge gave his ruling, which could have gone either way.

 

McCoy was not ultimately considered by the DA as "coming to the defense of his friend".  You keep repeating that obvious falsehood.  The DA said after interviewing dozens of witnesses, he simply didn't know.

 

This is what happened:

 

"Off-duty police officers Darnell Jessie, Roland Butler, and Sgt. Daniel Ayers purchased four bottles of champagne, and when Butler walked away from the group with one of the bottles, he was allegedly approached by Porter.  

Porter reportedly tried to take the bottle of champagne from Butler, and pushing and shoving ensued. The police report said McCoy, Brinkley, and Henderson, went to assist Porter. Butler was knocked to the ground and was “punched, kicked, and stomped about his body and head multiple times.”

Video cameras inside the nightclub were not functioning, but several cell phone videos of the incident – including one obtained by the website TMZ - seemed to clearly show McCoy throwing at least one punch at one of the victims, believed to be Butler, while he was on the ground. McCoy is then pushed out of the way, and he is visibly upset.

However, DA Williams said in his statement, “While it is clear that a physical altercation took place, there is insufficient credible evidence to determine which of the participants was the initial aggressor or whether some participants were acting in self-defense or in the reasonable defense of another.”

 

So, McCoy's boy tries to take the cop's bottle.  They shove each other.  The cop falls to the ground.  McCoy punches the cop while he is on the ground.  That's from the police report.

 

The DA can't tell who started it so he files no charges.  This all looks nothing like what you have been babbling about incessantly.

 

As for your second paragraph, everything I highlighted is false.  No one is blaming the woman--not even in my little scenario I gave.  If she serviced him because she wanted to not because he asked, there is no crime on anyone's part.  The admissibility of the video was in question immediately.  And for the exact reasons widely discussed very early on, both the video and the stops were doomed----as all who commented predicted. After the Judge in the other county suppressed a similar tape, the Judge in Kraft's case's decision was a "slam dunk".   Doomed.  Over.  And so it came to pass...

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

McCoy was not ultimately considered by the DA as "coming to the defense of his friend".  You keep repeating that obvious falsehood.  The DA said after interviewing dozens of witnesses, he simply didn't know.

 

This is what happened:

 

"Off-duty police officers Darnell Jessie, Roland Butler, and Sgt. Daniel Ayers purchased four bottles of champagne, and when Butler walked away from the group with one of the bottles, he was allegedly approached by Porter.  

Porter reportedly tried to take the bottle of champagne from Butler, and pushing and shoving ensued. The police report said McCoy, Brinkley, and Henderson, went to assist Porter. Butler was knocked to the ground and was “punched, kicked, and stomped about his body and head multiple times.”

Video cameras inside the nightclub were not functioning, but several cell phone videos of the incident – including one obtained by the website TMZ - seemed to clearly show McCoy throwing at least one punch at one of the victims, believed to be Butler, while he was on the ground. McCoy is then pushed out of the way, and he is visibly upset.

However, DA Williams said in his statement, “While it is clear that a physical altercation took place, there is insufficient credible evidence to determine which of the participants was the initial aggressor or whether some participants were acting in self-defense or in the reasonable defense of another.”

 

So, McCoy's boy tries to take the cop's bottle.  They shove each other.  The cop falls to the ground.  McCoy punches the cop while he is on the ground.  That's from the police report.

 

The DA can't tell who started it so he files no charges.  This all looks nothing like what you have been babbling about incessantly.

 

As for your second paragraph, everything I highlighted is false.  No one is blaming the woman--not even in my little scenario I gave.  If she serviced him because she wanted to not because he asked, there is no crime on anyone's part.  The admissibility of the video was in question immediately.  And for the exact reasons widely discussed very early on, both the video and the stops were doomed----as all who commented predicted. After the Judge in the other county suppressed a similar tape, the Judge in Kraft's case's decision was a "slam dunk".   Doomed.  Over.  And so it came to pass...

 

So "this is what happened" based off of what "the police report said"?  LOL!  Poor WEO, you lost before you ever began.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

So "this is what happened" based off of what "the police report said"?  LOL!  Poor WEO, you lost before you ever began.

 

 

Yes.  That and the DAs own words, of course.

 

Do you have another report that informed you?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Yes.  That and the DAs own words, of course.

 

Do you have another report that informed you?

 

The DA's own words still sink your argument.  Even according to the obviously biased police report, Butler and Porter initially got into an altercation (who started it is immaterial when it comes to Shady) and "McCoy, Brinkley, and Henderson, went to assist Porter."  Who was helping Butler?  No one.  Therefore the DA saying it was "reasonable defense of another" obviously applies to Shady and his crew.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The DA's own words still sink your argument.  Even according to the obviously biased police report, Butler and Porter initially got into an altercation (who started it is immaterial when it comes to Shady) and "McCoy, Brinkley, and Henderson, went to assist Porter."  Who was helping Butler?  No one.  Therefore the DA saying it was "reasonable defense of another" obviously applies to Shady and his crew.

 

 

LOL no that's not what the DA said.  Here it is again for the millionth time: there is insufficient credible evidence to determine which of the participants was the initial aggressor or whether some participants were acting in self-defense or in the reasonable defense of another.”   Meaning there isn't sufficient evidence to determine if "Shady" was reasonably defender his champale stealing buddy.

 

They went to assist Porter with the on the ground beat-down! 

 

And the police report is "obviously biased", huh?  It's like...a "witch hunt" with ol' Shady.  A "hoax".  And the the DA's statement was "complete exoneration"!

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the 46th President of the United States: Doc.   You should direct the DOJ to look into the cop who wrote that fake news dossier....I mean police report.

 

[Rubes]

Good grief, did you guys just switch this ridiculous argument to a different thread?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I heard that Kraft "popped up" at the Bruins game Monday was waving a towel.   

 

(stain free I hope) 

 

 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I heard that Kraft "popped up" at the Bruins game Monday was waving a towel.   

 

(stain free I hope) 

 

 

Was it a dry towel?