Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

Antdawg said:

You got from the top quote to the bottom quote in the span of minutes. If I don't have the first clue, neither do you, yet in the very next post, you're telling us what he wasn't asked and what he was asked. Nobody knows. We're clearly speculating based on what we have.

Click to expand...

no no no, you misunderstood. What I meant was you clearly don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Antdawg said:

That said, if he was truly asked ""where are you coming from? what were you doing there?", not only would Kraft be extremely dumb to go right back to the mire the next morning,

Click to expand...

No matter what he was asked, he was extremely dumb to go back the next day. And yet that's what happened.

Antdawg said:

the question would be why the cops didn't make the arrest then if they had video evidence which answered the two questions you posed. Kraft didn't have to confess at the traffic stop for them to arrest. Why even make the stop and question if you're not going to arrest?

Click to expand...

It is perfectly plausible that they made the stops because they wanted to positively identify the johns. There is absolutely no rule whatsoever that they have to make an arrest at that time.

ivanvamp said:

Or at least be consistent. If it’s illegal to get paid for sex not in front of a camera then it should be illegal to get paid for sex in front of one. Or if it’s legal to get paid for sex in front of a camera it should be legal to get paid for sex not in front of one.

The “artistic” crap is just that. A crap justification. Just be consistent. (Not you...I mean the law)

Click to expand...

No, it's not a crap justification at all.

If there were no First Amendment porn almost certainly would be outlawed along with prostitution (and people paying and being paid to make porn could be prosecuted as prostitutes and johns and pimps) . But since porn, unlike prostitution, is a piece of media, the First Amendment protects it and blocks what would have been the default state of prosecuting the participants.

moosekill said:

No, I don't think it actually does. This was a legitimate business that was allowing illegal activities to go on. I am sure some people went there to get massages without a happy ending. I guess we will find out eventually.

Click to expand...

Remember, for a traffic stop only the "reasonable suspicion" standard is required. That is looser than "probable cause". From a legal site: "Reasonable suspicion for traffic stops requires that the officer have articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot.".

The cops (a) knew that prostitution was happening on an ongoing basis in the spa, and also (b) had just seen live a sex act being performed on Kraft (remember, they stopped the car after he left the joint Saturday evening after getting a BJ). Sure sounds like "articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot".

@Chevrolet I also vote B. Appreciate what he's done, but might be time for Jonathan to take over.

XLIX said:

no no no, you misunderstood. What I meant was you clearly don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

No no no, I got you the first time. It's rich that you'd flame someone in this manner and then turn around two seconds later and act as though you have the first clue what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

Chevrolet said:

Let's assume that Kraft's lawyers get the case thrown out. Let's also make a bigger assumption that Goodell does not punish him.

I would be very curious to know how people will feel about Kraft moving forward.

A. Opinion not changed, he was not found guilty of anything illegal, No big deal. He saved the Patriots for NE and brought 6 super bowl championships, cut the guy some slack

B. Terrible judgment, embarassing for organization, arrogance on display, Have less respect for him but he should stay as CEO and start to transition to Jonathan

C. Pervert, Immoral, unethical, guilty as hell, got off on technicality, evidence of a deep character flaw, as CEO of an important company he has to be held to a high standard...time for him to step aside ASAP

D. Since Myra died he has not seemd right, get him a medical and psychiatric check up, reserve judgment till then

I choose B

Click to expand...

B minus the transition part.

Two people who aren't lawyers arguing about law is always a slippery slope, plus it doesn't really matter what my thoughts are. However, from the little I know of law, I agree with the NY Post lawyer in that there is a very big chance that stop will be thrown out. If that is thrown out they will have to be able to ID Bob from the video.

moosekill said:

Two people who aren't lawyers arguing about law is always a slippery slope, plus it doesn't really matter what my thoughts are. However, from the little I know of law, I agree with the NY Post lawyer in that there is a very big chance that stop will be thrown out. If that is thrown out they will have to be able to ID Bob from the video.

Click to expand...

All the more reason to make the arrest at the time of traffic stop, yet they didn't. Botched...

Chevrolet said:

Let's assume that Kraft's lawyers get the case thrown out. Let's also make a bigger assumption that Goodell does not punish him.

I would be very curious to know how people will feel about Kraft moving forward.

A. Opinion not changed, he was not found guilty of anything illegal, No big deal. He saved the Patriots for NE and brought 6 super bowl championships, cut the guy some slack

B. Terrible judgment, embarassing for organization, arrogance on display, Have less respect for him but he should stay as CEO and start to transition to Jonathan

C. Pervert, Immoral, unethical, guilty as hell, got off on technicality, evidence of a deep character flaw, as CEO of an important company he has to be held to a high standard...time for him to step aside ASAP

D. Since Myra died he has not seemd right, get him a medical and psychiatric check up, reserve judgment till then

I choose B

Click to expand...

Really tough call. My gut instinct is C, but it is not as strong as the wording. I have some thoughts of D, but technically, grief recovery is normal and not a psychiatric condition,. While it is not an excuse per se, I must say morally I evaluate him differently if this never happened before his wife died. Also, not to be ageist, but I think even basically sharp people start to lose some ability to monitor impulses, etc. as they age, and late 70s is fairly old. We all know the idea of older people losing their filter, etc. It doesn't happen to everybody, but there are literal brain changes that subtly come into play, and I am not comfortable lumping people in their 70s entirely in with people in their 40s and 50s (not sure about 60s, lol). This is not a complete exoneration, BUT if he was basically faithful to his wife and went a bit off the rails after she died, it does soften my C answer. So maybe I've talked myself into D. :/ Hmmmm....

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I just found this article (and I know some would consider the Post to be only so so reliable). This claims that the two women who "serviced" Kraft were the co owners of the place, and were 45 and 58--and (as one would expect in that case) were not among the workers suspected of being trafficked. IF this is true, it certainly puts a different public face on it--not just due to lack of the women being trafficked, but also (whether it should be relevant or not), their age. AND, IF TRUE, the fact that the age was never mentioned until now makes one wonder how much good faith the police reporting and leaking, etc. was. Everybody sees this differently from the get go (even if seeing him as uncouth and immoral) than if it is younger woman, who one could more reasonably be expected to suspect might be trafficked, etc. In fact, if these ladies are the co owners, it even makes the idea that he might have had some kind of quasi relationship with them more plausible (even if he did pay them). For what it's worth.


https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/

Antdawg said:

All the more reason to make the arrest at the time of traffic stop, yet they didn't. Botched...

Click to expand...

They can stop based on reasonable suspicion. But they need probable cause (a higher standard) to arrest. So no, no botch.

Chevrolet said:

Let's assume that Kraft's lawyers get the case thrown out. Let's also make a bigger assumption that Goodell does not punish him.

I would be very curious to know how people will feel about Kraft moving forward.

A. Opinion not changed, he was not found guilty of anything illegal, No big deal. He saved the Patriots for NE and brought 6 super bowl championships, cut the guy some slack

B. Terrible judgment, embarassing for organization, arrogance on display, Have less respect for him but he should stay as CEO and start to transition to Jonathan

C. Pervert, Immoral, unethical, guilty as hell, got off on technicality, evidence of a deep character flaw, as CEO of an important company he has to be held to a high standard...time for him to step aside ASAP

D. Since Myra died he has not seemd right, get him a medical and psychiatric check up, reserve judgment till then

I choose B

Click to expand...

My thoughts are somewhat of a melange of A, B and D.
People F up, it happens. None of us is the person we are on our best or worst days but rather somewhere in between the two. If the time comes for some type of judgement, I'd hope my entire existence would be taken into account rather than certain extracts. I've had moments in this life that aren't reflective of who I am most of the time and certainly not of who I am now. If we are being honest most of us have done things we'd just as soon our kids did not know about, some worse than others. I'm fairly certain none of us is the person my dog and grandkids think I am.

QuantumMechanic said:

But they need probable cause (a higher standard) to arrest. So no, no botch.

Click to expand...

They had the same evidence then (a video) as they do now and he's being charged.

Antdawg said:

Ok, so they pulled him over to ID the man on the tape. Great. Why not arrest him then if he was a suspect?

Click to expand...

You don’t seem to follow things very well.
I am saying they were identifying him as part of their investigation in the event the tapes showed him committing a crime. You answered your own question. They didn’t arrest him because they werent viewing the tales in real time.

I'll get to that later. The whole point of the debate over the veracity of the traffic stop is whether the LEO had probable cause to do so. I don't know the letter of the law per se, but I would assume that when said traffic stop is made, the police are required to present their probable cause at that point in time.

Click to expand...

No they are not. They are required to have probable cause not debate it with the suspect.

I mean, the LEO can't just pull a car over, walk up to the driver's side window and say "give me your ID, now." They're typically required to cite reason for stoppage.

Click to expand...

No they aren’t. You are just making things up and presuming they are fact.
In a typical traffic stop they ASK do you know why I pulled you over. They do that because invariably criminals are stupid and divulge other criminal activity when asked that question.
The law does not require telling them why they were pulled over.

I'm assuming either Kraft or the driver would have been curious enough to at least ask and force the LEO to reveal his probable cause. So, what was the reason cited? Do we know?

Click to expand...

We don’t. But he could have said I’m checking you car for a stolen elephant and that wouldn’t change the existence of probable cause.
Probable cause exists or it doesn’t and that doesn’t change based upon how the officer chooses to investigate it interrogate the suspect.

We know the reason cited wasn't they'd just seen him leave a spa where they suspect illegal activity was occurring, because Kraft doesn't return the next day if that happened. So what reason did they give to request Kraft's ID and make the stop?

Click to expand...

Of course that was the reason.
Who cares what reason they gave him? It’s irrelevant.
By handling it properly the officer did not tip his hand and kraft returned to the scene of the crime the next day.

We should all understand the real reason the LEO stopped Kraft's Bentley is because LEO was hoping that Kraft would squeal on himself like many of the other johns did when they made similar stops on them after leaving the spa. When Kraft did not squeal, they were left with trying to prove solicitation with a video. They still could have arrested Kraft on that stop, but chose not to. Hmmm... wonder why. Whether you want to admit it or not, THIS IS VERY REVEALING, because it shows the PD wasn't confident enough in the evidence they had (videotape) and were hoping for a confession in lieu of. Because if they felt like the tape sealed the deal, they arrest Kraft right then and there.

Click to expand...

You are incorrectly assuming that they reviewed the tape in real time.

So, for all of you who think Kraft doesn't have a snowball's chance in wiggling out of this thing, bear this in mind and remember that he can afford the best legal representation money can buy. If there is any way he can legally maneuver himself out of this one, it will probably happen.

Click to expand...

Whether he is guilty or gets off on a technicality are 2 very different things.

Antdawg said:

No no no, I got you the first time. It's rich that you'd flame someone in this manner and then turn around two seconds later and act as though you have the first clue what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

Click to expand...

I clearly know more about criminal justice than you do. That much is beyond dispute. Beyond that, you're just making crap up out of thin air and then using your made up crap to describe how every single piece of evidence is going to be ruled inadmissible.

moosekill said:

Two people who aren't lawyers arguing about law is always a slippery slope, plus it doesn't really matter what my thoughts are. However, from the little I know of law, I agree with the NY Post lawyer in that there is a very big chance that stop will be thrown out. If that is thrown out they will have to be able to ID Bob from the video.

Click to expand...

The NY Post quoted unnamed legal experts who, according to the writer of the article, said the traffic stop "could be illegal." With all due respect, one does not need to be licensed to practice law to see how you've taken a huge leap from "could be illegal" to "very big chance that stop will be thrown out."

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if new information surfaces. But right now, going with what information has been made public, there's just nothing there. BTW, in case I didn't mention it, I reserve the right to change my mind if new information surfaces.

Sigh, lol.

Antdawg said:

All the more reason to make the arrest at the time of traffic stop, yet they didn't. Botched...

Click to expand...

Newsflash: The johns were not the main target of the investigation. That explains why they weren't arresting johns left and right as they came out of the parking lot.

XLIX said:

Newsflash: The johns were not the main target of the investigation. That explains why they weren't arresting johns left and right as they came out of the parking lot.

Click to expand...

Why don't you hedge a little more while you're at it? Just in case.

maust1013 said:

My thoughts are somewhat of a melange of A, B and D.
People F up, it happens. None of us is the person we are on our best or worst days but rather somewhere in between the two. If the time comes for some type of judgement, I'd hope my entire existence would be taken into account rather than certain extracts. I've had moments in this life that aren't reflective of who I am most of the time and certainly not of who I am now. If we are being honest most of us have done things we'd just as soon our kids did not know about, some worse than others. I'm fairly certain none of us is the person my dog and grandkids think I am.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention it, but I do have a dose of B as well, minus the transition part, as some have said.

PS don't understimate what your dog might know, lol.