Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Deus Irae]

And both sides think the burden of proof lies with the other.

What burden of proof would lie with the defendants in this case?

 

[PatsWSB47]

I think the burden of proof lies on both sides.
Both of the things you describe above are feelings and biases and people are bending the facts or making up facts to suit their bias.

I think the difference here is that we have a pretty good understanding of what the evidence that he committed the crime is.

We have pretty much zero story from krafts side that disputes the facts.

So one side, my side, is everything we see indicates he did it and until we see more to dispute that, as of now, it seems obvious.

At this point the only way to dispute that is to
1) argue he can get off on a technicality (if which there is yet no proof one exists)
2) prove innocence by attacking those accusing him of being guilty (the police suck and lie and cheat so they did something and kraft had innocent)
3) deflect (kraft is charged with soliciting a prostitute during an investigation that has chatter it was related to trafficking. So let’s argue that there wasn’t trafficking to deflect that kraft is equally guilty whether the prostitute in question was also being trafficked or not)
4) argue the crime doesn’t deserve punishment

Don't confuse believing the police went about the investigation wrong or may have exaggerated the crime with whether Kraft paid for a hand job or not.

 

[PatsWSB47]

What burden of proof would lie with the defendants in this case?

Or any case?

 

[Ring 6]

No but they told him the judge would go 10 times harder in him if he fought the charge and that he'd lose anyway so it wss better just to appear and plead guilty. Some cops think everyone is guilty and think every confession no matter how they get it is therefore okay

And some don’t but now I see where your bias comes from.

 

[Ring 6]

Don't confuse believing the police went about the investigation wrong or may have exaggerated the crime with whether Kraft paid for a hand job or not.

They are totally different things.

 

[PatsWSB47]

They are totally different things.

You're the one calling procedure complaining a deflection from Kraft's guilt.

 

[Ring 6]

You're the one calling procedure complaining a deflection from Kraft's guilt.

Exactly. They are 2 different things.
Actually I said whether he committed the crime. His “guilt” is what is proven in court.

 

[VectorPrime]

If Kraft had just showed some basic contrition and willingness to cooperate from the start I bet the police and prosecution would have been happy to bury the video evidence forever. But instead he’s taken to outright insulting and accusing the people with possession of the evidence of being a bunch of corrupt liars.

The only logical conclusion is that Kraft actually does want the video to come out as part of some kink.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Breakdown of the two major “sides” arguing here:

I’m seeing in general people who mistrust the police, and perhaps authority on a deeper level, and those who feel strongly about privacy (anti-sureveillance, Snowden stuff), are naturally supcisous of the PD - myself included - and are naturally suspecting that the PD is “the bigger problem here” and the idea of them being corrupt/overzealous is potentially very scary and dangerous in the way our society is heading.

Those who don’t have those strong feelings see a red-handed guilty billionaire doing gymnastics with the law, because he has the money and resources to do so, with the police department being spun into the bad guys when the focus should be on BK himself. And that type of thing is not good for society either, when someone clearly broke the law but has money and connections to all go away.

And both sides think the burden of proof lies with the other.

Is that a fair take?

Also, I’d like to point out that regardless of this entire debate, it’s another issue on ethically if you agree with this Sunshine law? To me it seems pretty darn stupid. What’s wrong with a written description of the event in public records? Kind of a warped, perfected voyeurism in Florida if you ask me. And that video seems to be the real issue here that’s holding back Kraft and the PD from reaching an agreement.

When the police do good things, like fighting crime, I cheer; when they do bad things, like abusing authority, I boo.

I think this surveillance camera thing is a very dangerous slippery slope and the results are not self-justifying.

"feelin guilty, feelin scared! Hidden cameras everywhere!!!!"

 

[PatsWSB47]

And some don’t but now I see where your bias comes from.

B

Exactly. They are 2 different things.
Actually I said whether he committed the crime. His “guilt” is what is proven in court.

my mistake. I meant dont confuse people complaining about police exaggeration and other tactics with deflecting whether or not he committed a crime. And answer deuse's question. What burden of proof does a defense have in this case?

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

The only logical conclusion is that Kraft actually does want the video to come out as part of some kink.

Google Image Result for https://media3.giphy.com/media/oOTTyHRHj0HYY/giphy.gif

 

[PatsWSB47]

And some don’t but now I see where your bias comes from.

How is it bias to not blindly accept whatever the police say and then double down and not require defendants prove they are wrong?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What burden of proof would lie with the defendants in this case?

None, legally.

More from a perspective of where people are starting their viewpoint about the likely legality of the taping. Some are assuming the PD overreached and are arguing you need to prove they didn’t since the facts appear to them that they did, or likely did, overreach. Others are assuming the PD did everything legally - based on what they’ve stated - and and are arguing you need to prove it was indeed illegal/went beyond the warrant before taking the stance of PD overreach/illegal taping.

That comes from a strong, intrinsic feeling of trust or mistrust for law enforcement, and I believe deeper views about privacy vs. surveillance.

 

[Deus Irae]

None, legally.

More from a perspective of where people are starting their viewpoint about the likely legality of the taping. Some are assuming the PD overreached and are arguing you need to prove they didn’t since the facts appear to them that they did, or likely did, overreach. Others are assuming the PD did everything legally - based on what they’ve stated - and and are arguing you need to prove it was indeed illegal/went beyond the warrant before taking the stance of PD overreach/illegal taping.

That comes from a strong, intrinsic feeling of trust or mistrust for law enforcement, and I believe deeper views about privacy vs. surveillance.

So people are now arguing burden of proof in a suppression hearing instead of just looking it up or asking one of the attorneys who post on the board?

I'm gonna take that as a sign to bow out until new information on the case is presented to us.

 

[Ring 6]

B
my mistake. I meant dont confuse people complaining about police exaggeration and other tactics with deflecting whether or not he committed a crime. And answer deuse's question. What burden of proof does a defense have in this case?

Guessing that maybe they did something is deflecting.

When did I say the defense has a burden? They never do. If I implied that I must have meant the burden of the argument not the legal case.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

So people are now arguing burden of proof in a suppression hearing instead of just looking it up or asking one of the attorneys who post on the board?

I'm gonna take that as a sign to bow out until new information on the case is presented to us.

Essentially, yes. There is inherent bias on what will be revealed in the suppression hearing, and the sides are

“I’m sure the police had good intentions and followed the warrant, the burden is on you to prove otherwise; otherwise my PREDICTION on the outcome is better than yours”

VS

“I’m sure the police completely overreached here and misused the warrant, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise; otherwise, my PREDICTION on the outcome is better than yours.”

So yes, it’s an argument about who is a better critical thinker and who is best at connecting the dots based on what is known now. And as I’ve said, much of this is traced to strong assumptions about the nature of law enforcement.

 

[Ring 6]

How is it bias to not blindly accept whatever the police say and then double down and not require defendants prove they are wrong?

The bias is assuming the police are wrong before seeing any evidence to back it up.

 

[Ring 6]

Essentially, yes. There is inherent bias on what will be revealed in the suppression hearing, and the sides are

“I’m sure the police had good intentions and followed the warrant, the burden is on you to prove otherwise; otherwise my PREDICTION on the outcome is better than yours”

VS

“I’m sure the police completely overreached here and misused the warrant, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise; otherwise, my PREDICTION on the outcome is better than yours.”

So yes, it’s an argument about who is a better critical thinker and who is best at connecting the dots based on what is known now. And as I’ve said, much of this is traced to strong assumptions about the nature of law enforcement.

How about not making things up in order to make a prediction?

 

[venecol]

I don't care about the technicalities for this case...my perspective is whether this is even worth prosecuting? If this were some normal dude without deep pockets...would this even go to trail?

I am not sure they are prosecuting. A lot of grandstanding going on now....the video's admissibility will play a major part in this, IMO. If the video is knocked out...the case is dead in water. And police officers testifying? From the same department known for misconduct....and the same cops who would then now have been told by a judge that they RECORDED things illegally. Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy the credibility these cops on the stand easily.

Just my 2 cents...but IMO this case is dead in the water already and not worth the DA's time. The DA should punt and take the win in ruining Kraft's reputation. The NFL will still try to get the tape, IMO....and they will still suspend Kraft which would hurt Kraft more than a conviction that is a long shot at the very best.

Defense, in the motion to suppress, is already accusing cops of lying just about everything in the affidavit, warrant application, about traffic stops, testimony of health dept worker, human trafficking, etc. They are not done either.

As you say, seems like an awful lot of trouble for a bunch of misdemeanors. Just yesterday a judge reduced the bond for the so called madame from $256k to $75k based on the charges (12 misdemeanors and 1 felony prostitution). Her attorney said bond would normally be $7500 but this case has too many eyes on it and is being made out to something that is not. Listen to her attorney's take in the below video.

This case may actually end of backfiring for SA and turn from human trafficking to people's privacy rights, where it belongs.

Robert Kraft Says Massage Video Illegally Obtained In Bogus Spygate

 

[DarrylS]

Public Service Reminder:

This is about two alleged handjobs that happened behind closed doors on a high profile suspect, it is not a federal case, I come from a strong belief that what happens behind closed doors of consenting adults is a private matter.. if there was evidence of coercion or trafficking would feel different, but this is not as big a deal as the world wants it to be.

Then there are the pundits who want to somehow link this to "cameragate" and "deflategate", which is complete and utter bullsh...t.

The Police and AG have completely mismanaged this case from the onset they used a lot of resources to accomplish what they did, and continue to use them while I am certain there are bigger crimes they need to prosecute.. their effort to try this misdemeanor case in the media is about as limp dycked as it gets..