Robert Kraft Video Evidence Thrown Out by Judge

[RoyBatty is alive]

3 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

The guy got a rub and tug.  You really expect him to be punished by Goodell?  You do know Goodell works for Kraft? If he doesn't get punished, it will be a travesty?  Seriously?   LOL

I bet he will be "punished" by Goddell, he has to, be it ceremonial like denying him from his own facility for a week he should do something to demonstrate to the players that the owners are also subject to a COC.

 

Do I think he should get punished for a rub and tug, under normal conditions absolutely not but the NFL set up this system as being the moral police, they have to live with the system they created?  The entire thing is out of control, few other sports league involve themselves in this nonsense. 

[Koko78]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

However, there was essential unanimity (I'm excepting for you, 4merper4mer and the 2 guys who said Kraft, et al had "no standing" to challenge the admissibility of the tape) on the internet regarding how this would go for Kraft.

 

You know, the reason I stopped responding to you was because you have no idea what you were talking about, which you continue to demonstrate with each post.

 

The tape was not suppressed because he successfully challenged the warrant, it was suppressed because he had an expectation of privacy in the back room, exactly what I said.

 

Since you want to get all your legal expertise from articles, I suggest you actually read the one in the OP.

 

Here, I'll help you:

 

Quote

Hanser ruled that the Patriots owner should have had an "expectation of privacy" while visiting the spa, because it's an establishment where people remove all or most of their clothing. 

 

[Happy]

26 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

The guy got a rub and tug.  You really expect him to be punished by Goodell?  You do know Goodell works for Kraft? If he doesn't get punished, it will be a travesty?  Seriously?   LOL

 

Yeah, this is what I'm afraid of. 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You know, the reason I stopped responding to you was because you have no idea what you were talking about, which you continue to demonstrate with each post.

 

The tape was not suppressed because he successfully challenged the warrant, it was suppressed because he had an expectation of privacy in the back room, exactly what I said.

 

Since you want to get all your legal expertise from articles, I suggest you actually read the one in the OP.

 

Here, I'll help you:

 

 

 

 

Like everyone else in the tape.   I said as much yesterday:

 

 

 

"This is where the evidence gathering failed:  the order was "not sufficiently precise so as to minimize recordings not related to the crimes under investigation".

 

The court's ruling goes into greater detail as to how they failed at minimization."

 

      

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[K-9]

44 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

Worst case should be that this is just a misdemeanor for Krafty Bob.  If so, he'll just get a slap on the hand.  I want to see what Goodell does for punishment.  If no punishment from the NFL, that would be a travesty. 

If so, they better put a glove on that hand. God only knows where that hand has been. 

[LSHMEAB]

I'm just not morally outraged (at all) by Kraft's actions. Since there is NO evidence of any human trafficking, I don't know how you could fairly view it as anything other than an old man doing something a little shady. There were obvious mistakes made by the police, but the underlying facts alone elicit a big fat MEH from me. Service exchange between two consenting adults just isn't something I'm gonna get worked up about.

 

If LEO were looking into human trafficking, I'm interested in their findings and view it as a worthwhile investigation. Busting a bunch of old men for.......just isn't a great allocation of resources IMO.

[Koko78]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Like everyone else in the tape.   I said as much yesterday:

 

 

 

"This is where the evidence gathering failed:  the order was "not sufficiently precise so as to minimize recordings not related to the crimes under investigation".

 

The court's ruling goes into greater detail as to how they failed at minimization."

 

You want to keep making comments about my standing explanation (while still not grasping the concept), but you were wrong. Now are you man enough to admit it, or are you going to keep up this laughably snide attitude to cover your lack of understanding?

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm just not morally outraged (at all) by Kraft's actions. Since there is NO evidence of any human trafficking, I don't know how you could fairly view it as anything other than an old man doing something a little shady. There were obvious mistakes made by the police, but the underlying facts alone elicit a big fat MEH from me. Service exchange between two consenting adults just isn't something I'm gonna get worked up about.

 

If LEO were looking into human trafficking, I'm interested in their findings and view it as a worthwhile investigation. Busting a bunch of old men for.......just isn't a great allocation of resources IMO.

 

I think it's more accurate to say that while looking into allegations of sex trafficking, they found people getting happy endings, and chose to charge them. Looking into allegations of sex trafficking isn't a bad thing, but they seem to be going down a dubious path.

[Mr. WEO]

33 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You want to keep making comments about my standing explanation (while still not grasping the concept), but you were wrong. Now are you man enough to admit it, or are you going to keep up this laughably snide attitude to cover your lack of understanding?

 

Why didn't the prosecutor argue that the motion to suppress the video should be denied on the grounds that the defendant has no standing to challenge the video taping?

 

Serious question...

[stevestojan]

11 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I'm not arguing that Kraft or any of the johns could have stopped this.  I don't care either way if they go after the johns.  They are a town police force and are not going to solve all of this.   Maybe that individual place will close up and move to the next town though.  That's no solution really but I can see how Jupiter might think it benefited. 

The turnip truck is parked at 23rd and 5th.  Hurry up and hop back on.

So, when someone doesn’t agree with you, that means they fell off the turnip truck? 

 

I simply quoted an article, which discredits your crusade here, you ***** crayon chewer. 

[Koko78]

50 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why didn't the prosecutor argue that the motion to suppress the video should be denied on the grounds that the defendant has no standing to challenge the video taping?

 

Serious question...

 

They may very well have, however my whole point was that Kraft can't challenge the installation of the cameras, or the warrant authorizing the installation. It was not his business, nor his building, nor was the warrant targeting him. That's what standing means.

 

The real issue - the one he won on - was whether or not those cameras being there recording anyone who walked in violated his expectation of privacy. That's what the judge was talking about when he stated:

 

Quote

The Court finds that the search warrant does not contain required minimization guidelines, and the minimization techniques employed in this case did not satisfy constitutional requirements.

 

Kraft's rights weren't being violated by the cameras being there. His rights were violated because he has a right to privacy in the back room when receiving treatment, and the cops were filming him getting 'treatment' - then charging him - instead of shutting off the cameras (or otherwise disregarding what occurred.)

[Mr. WEO]

55 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

They may very well have, however my whole point was that Kraft can't challenge the installation of the cameras, or the warrant authorizing the installation. It was not his business, nor his building, nor was the warrant targeting him. That's what standing means.

 

The real issue - the one he won on - was whether or not those cameras being there recording anyone who walked in violated his expectation of privacy. That's what the judge was talking about when he stated:

 

 

Kraft's rights weren't being violated by the cameras being there. His rights were violated because he has a right to privacy in the back room when receiving treatment, and the cops were filming him getting 'treatment' - then charging him - instead of shutting off the cameras (or otherwise disregarding what occurred.)

 

Ok.  Thanks.  Didn’t mean to sound like a ball breaker

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, stevestojan said:

So, when someone doesn’t agree with you, that means they fell off the turnip truck? 

 

I simply quoted an article, which discredits your crusade here, you ***** crayon chewer. 

There is a difference between enough evidence to convict, enough to go to trial, and "no evidence".  The police saw enough to:

 

begin an investigation

continue it with warrants for months

speak out about it, in detail including plights of individual women

 

they clearly made mistakes and this case fell apart but it was not invented out of thin air.  I am willing to go out on a limb and guess that not many women want to move to a country where they don't speak the language, live in a strip mall with a pile of other women and service fat 70 year olds all day.  Maybe I belong on a turnip truck but Occum's a Shaver says nope.

[stevestojan]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

There is a difference between enough evidence to convict, enough to go to trial, and "no evidence".  The police saw enough to:

 

begin an investigation

continue it with warrants for months

speak out about it, in detail including plights of individual women

 

they clearly made mistakes and this case fell apart but it was not invented out of thin air.  I am willing to go out on a limb and guess that not many women want to move to a country where they don't speak the language, live in a strip mall with a pile of other women and service fat 70 year olds all day.  Maybe I belong on a turnip truck but Occum's a Shaver says nope.

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

[4merper4mer]

10 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

Sure.

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

That's because it wasn't the unanimous opinion of the internet that "attacks" (no irony there right doc?) on poor McCoy were all "baseless".  In fact, there were many here on this very site who disagreed with your conclusion that McCoy is completely innocent of everything.

 

However, there was essential unanimity (I'm excepting for you, 4merper4mer and the 2 guys who said Kraft, et al had "no standing" to challenge the admissibility of the tape) on the internet regarding how this would go for Kraft.

 

Oh and it was "unanimous opinion of the internet" that Bobby was innocent of the charges leveled against him +/- that the video was definitely going to be thrown out?  LOL!  Yeah, OK. 

 

No, there was analysis presented for Bobby just like there was for Shady.  Again I didn't hear you mention any of it for Shady.  On the contrary, you're still clinging to what you want to believe and not the facts because you don't like him/think he's a POS.  Deny it if you want, you'll be fooling no one.  People don't spend pages upon pages talking about people or things that they care nothing about.

 

And the bottom line is that Shady didn't need a technicality to get off because he didn't commit a crime, unlike Bobby (which even you admitted).  Try as you might, as just can't get around that one.  It has nothing to do with hero worship, just the facts. 

[Doc]

32 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

 

There's not much to talk about. 

[PromoTheRobot]

Just like Goodell erasing Spygate. 

[Augie]

22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Just like Goodell erasing Spygate. 

 

If I got to pick which video to watch........I might learn something about football!

 

Beats 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Oh and it was "unanimous opinion of the internet" that Bobby was innocent of the charges leveled against him +/- that the video was definitely going to be thrown out?  LOL!  Yeah, OK. 

 

No, there was analysis presented for Bobby just like there was for Shady.  Again I didn't hear you mention any of it for Shady.  On the contrary, you're still clinging to what you want to believe and not the facts because you don't like him/think he's a POS.  Deny it if you want, you'll be fooling no one.  People don't spend pages upon pages talking about people or things that they care nothing about.

 

And the bottom line is that Shady didn't need a technicality to get off because he didn't commit a crime, unlike Bobby (which even you admitted).  Try as you might, as just can't get around that one.  It has nothing to do with hero worship, just the facts. 

 

 

No on innocent (I told you he was guilty).

 

Pretty much yes on the shaky ground re: the video and the traffic stop.  Why are you still struggling with this??

 

McCoy was filmed kicking a guy on the ground. You conceded this.  I don't know how else to help you at this point.