Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[venecol]

I've seen a bunch of people here saying that, and while it may well turn out to be true, I wouldn't assume it to be true just because.

Evidence being suppressed at a criminal trial is done in order to prevent a 4th amendment violation in the process of prosecuting the defendant. But being suppressed for that reason has no intrinsic linkage to not being a public record. The point of a public record is to promote transparency by allowing the public to see information their government is generating/collecting/using. That is a completely distinct purpose from the purpose of evidence in a trial. So it doesn't follow that not allowing it for one purpose (evidence in a trial) means it is not allowed for another purpose (governmental transparency). That said, it's certainly possible that the FL public records law specifically designates suppressed evidence as not a public record.

So it would be interesting to see if any articles (especially in the Florida papers) have touched on this specific point, especially if there are quotes for lawyer types not involved in the case.

You are saying that cops can illegally tape or video record an act or conversation, try to use the illegal recording to charge you with a crime, but when illegal recording gets thrown out, the cops can just turn it over to media because of FL disclosure laws?

Damn that would be some fv*ked up **** if FL law allows such a thing.

 

[PP2]

Since Bob is such a high profile person, he should ignore this as it will simply go away.

It works like a charm for Politicians.

That would work except for the picture Kraft has sought to paint of himself for his entire life, as a moral family man, a philanthropist, a do-gooder, as someone who is heavily involved in charitable causes. All of which is coming down in a big crash.

I don't fault him for wanting to relieve sexual urges- what man doesn't? What I fault him for is doing so in such a careless and stupid way.

 

[Ring 6]

You just got done saying that there is no evidence of human trafficking.
There was no collusion. Etc.

I can speak English fairly well but if you prefer French or Latin, we can do that. Or rather, I can.

This isn’t that difficult.
My comments before were that based upon what was available to us the warrant was based upon trafficking. I never said I knew there was trafficking. How could I? We didn’t have facts.
Now we have some facts that might indicate that information was not correct. We also have a statement from the sheriff that he was investigating trafficking.
How could I possibly be “wrong” when I say based upon what has been reported x,y,z happened is it turns out the reporting was inaccurate.
You are making the major mistake of acting as if me discussing what has been reported is me saying I know what actually occurred.

Let me give you an example.
If a friend of mine tells me they saw your wife banging some guy in the backseat of his car in a parking lot last night and I tell you that he told me that, if it turns out it wasn’t your wife that doesn’t mean I was wrong. If instead I told you your wife is a whore then I am wrong.
If you want to have a reasonable grown up discussion you have to understand that.

When people WITHOUT facts are screaming there is no trafficking and I say the facts we know as of know do not back that up I am not wrong if the facts change because I am not guessing at the facts I am only basing my current belief on the current facts.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy will only acknowledge black and white. Until an abstract becomes a proof, it's still an abstract to him.

Debating him on conjecture, subtleties or trying to convince him to read between the lines is a waste of time.

That is because I only argue in Black and White.
I am not going to argue whether trafficking happened or not until there are facts to prove it. If the facts change I was not wrong because my opinion was based upon, and clearly stated as based upon, the available facts.
I don’t understand how anyone could ever waste their time arguing about what they are guessing.

 

[PatsWSB47]

The problem arises when after a month goes by you keep telling everyone that a friend of yours told you he saw a guy banging someone's wife even though that guy isn't claiming that anymore

 

[1960Pats]

Still not sure what you mean or why you are projecting sarcastic anger at me. I am not “ready” to punish Kraft. I was commenting on what I think might happen. That’s it. And Tom Brady was the victim of an idiotic witch hunt way more than Bob Kraft. Kraft did something stupid and got caught, perhaps by cops who overreached, but “dirty” is a little much.

It seems like there are a few posters here who have issues with the police. Who knows, maybe they had some bad experiences dealing with them. For me it's the opposite. All my dealings with them have been positive.

I also noticed that the same poster who used Nixon tactics as a comparison is avoiding a much more accurate and recent use of law enforcement's overreaching.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That is because I only argue in Black and White.
I am not going to argue whether trafficking happened or not until there are facts to prove it. If the facts change I was not wrong because my opinion was based upon, and clearly stated as based upon, the available facts.
I don’t understand how anyone could ever waste their time arguing about what they are guessing.

I know how you evaluate data. I'm cool with it. Others don't understand that.

 

[venecol]

This isn’t that difficult.
My comments before were that based upon what was available to us the warrant was based upon trafficking. I never said I knew there was trafficking. How could I? We didn’t have facts.
Now we have some facts that might indicate that information was not correct. We also have a statement from the sheriff that he was investigating trafficking.
How could I possibly be “wrong” when I say based upon what has been reported x,y,z happened is it turns out the reporting was inaccurate.
You are making the major mistake of acting as if me discussing what has been reported is me saying I know what actually occurred.

When people WITHOUT facts are screaming there is no trafficking and I say the facts we know as of know do not back that up I am not wrong if the facts change because I am not guessing at the facts I am only basing my current belief on the current facts.

But you never had any facts at all because you never saw the warrants to support they were based on human trafficking yet you clung to the narrative because it came from the cops.

Yet when I and others brought up from the beginning countless counter claims by attorneys and others questioning the human trafficking police narrative, you just discounted it by saying, well of course an attorney is going to say that or some such nonsense. So you weighed who you chose to believe and who you refused to listen to as you see fit, even while having ZERO facts.

Now, when the police narrative is starting to fall apart, you conveniently simply say, well I wasn't wrong because the cops were wrong so how would I know?

That is the lamest position to take, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Bottom line none of us had any facts aside from what was in the media, both for human trafficking and against that narrative. You chose to believe the cops. Cops were wrong so you are WRONG.

Just be a man and admit it. No one here will look down on you for simply saying, yea I believed the cops but it seems they were wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

This is where I wonder whether you lack comprehension or intellect. If that happtnef I would say it was clear they investigated him. See when you argue something didn’t happen and I argue they were investigating it. If it turns out AN INVESTIGATION proved it didn’t happen we were both right.

Above exagerration to make the point that there is no possible way anybody can win an argument with a person that isn't intellectually honest or that performs mental gymnastics in an attempt to not admit being wrong.

And YOU are the one that either isn’t either intellectually honest or just can comprehend what they read.
Here I will prove to you why.
Go back and find any example in this entire thread where I argued that I know or even believe that there was trafficking going on.
You won’t find it. I never said it.
Instead when you said, before knowing facts, that it unequivocally wasn’t, I argued what facts we knew. I didn’t misstate any of them to my knowledge. I said that the investigation was reported to be based upon trafficking that the warrant was reported to be based upon trafficking (you in fact posted dozens of times that it was and that it was a trick to catch kraft ).
Trafficking didn’t happen is either a corre t or incorrect statement that at the time it was made was a guess by you.
The information available to us says the warrant was for trafficking and kraft got caught up in it because he walked into the wrong place at the wrong time, and everyone involved is saying the investigation was about trafficking is a factual statement that was 100% correct. It being 100% correct does not change if it the future the facts change because it’s not a prediction it’s an assessment of what we know now.

If you predict something and I say based on what we know now that’s unlikeky I don’t become wrong when your prediction comes out correct.

Honestly, it's kind of amusing although in an annoying sort of way.

It’s annoying as hell because you don’t listen to what anyone else says.

 

[sieglo]

I think it’s just effed up that this thread is longer than the Malcolm Butler Megathread.

Bob Kraft’s handy didn’t cost us a Super Bowl.

 

[borg]

Andy will only acknowledge black and white. Until an abstract becomes a proof, it's still an abstract to him.

Debating him on conjecture, subtleties or trying to convince him to read between the lines is a waste of time.

My rule of thumb...Avoid humorless people, life's too short.

 

[Ring 6]

But you never had any facts at all because you never saw the warrants to support they were based on human trafficking yet you clung to the narrative because it came from the cops.

Yet when I and others brought up from the beginning countless counter claims by attorneys and others questioning the human trafficking police narrative, you just discounted it by saying, well of course an attorney is going to say that or some such nonsense. So you weighed who you chose to believe and who you refused to listen to as you see fit, even while having ZERO facts.

Now, when the police narrative is starting to fall apart, you conveniently simply say, well I wasn't wrong because the cops were wrong so how would I know?

That is the lamest position to take, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy. Bottom line none of us had any facts aside from what was in the media, both for human trafficking and against that narrative. You chose to believe the cops. Cops were wrong so you are WRONG.

Just be a man and admit it. No one here will look down on you for simply saying, yea I believed the cops but it seems they were wrong.

I just don’t think you are capable of understanding this.
Basically you never listened to a word I said from the start.
We were having 2 different conversions side by side.
You were predicting.
I was assessing the facts that we knew at the time.

You chose not to actually read what I said but to assign a position to me that was the opposite of whatever yours was and that I predicted the opposite.

You literally cannot find a definitive statement that I made that was wrong because I didn’t make definitive statements.
I assessed what was available to us as fact.

The one place we were diametrically opposed was that I accepted the reports as the facts until they were proven otherwise and you took conjecture and potential legal arguments and called them facts.
That is not me “siding with the cops” that is me taking
-you are charged with x as the fact of the moment and not using
-but maybe the evidence could be thrown out if y happened as sufficient to disprove that fact.

Ultimately what I said about trafficking was that what was available to us said it was a trafficking investigation.
A trafficking investigation that can’t orobe trafficking is still a trafficking investigation.

 

[Ring 6]

The problem arises when after a month goes by you keep telling everyone that a friend of yours told you he saw a guy banging someone's wife even though that guy isn't claiming that anymore

If that happened yes it would be wrong but that’s not really appropriate to this analogy.

 

[XLIX]

As incredible as it seems, I was too busy yesterday to follow all things Patriots (after some morning postings). I know this forum should be my only priority but I have to sometimes put food on the table for mother and baby.... my apologies.... so that aside....

Did we ever figure out the confusion over the whole county issue? It sure seemed to me that the warrant Florio reported on was a different county.... but I don’t see any retraction if the report and what little radio I listened to yesterday afternoon discussed this report as if it applies to Kraft....

 

[IcyPatriot]

Whatever happened to good old agree to disagree? Case will play out and forum victories can be claimed if it really matters so much who was right.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As incredible as it seems, I was too busy yesterday to follow all things Patriots (after some morning postings). I know this forum should be my only priority but I have to sometimes put food on the table for mother and baby.... my apologies.... so that aside....

Did we ever figure out the confusion over the whole county issue? It sure seemed to me that the warrant Florio reported on was a different county.... but I don’t see any retraction if the report and what little radio I listened to yesterday afternoon discussed this report as if it applies to Kraft....

Yeah -- unless there was a centralized entity (like the State Police) filing warrant applications in the different counties I wouldn't assume what was asked for was even the same. And even if it was, you've got different judges issuing the warrants and they might not use the same conditions when issuing the warrants.

Has the warrant that covers the county Kraft was in been released yet? If not, why are people talking as if they know the only warrant that matters in the Kraft case has the same language that's in the one(s) that have been released?

 

[Clonamery]

It seems like there are a few posters here who have issues with the police. Who knows, maybe they had some bad experiences dealing with them. For me it's the opposite. All my dealings with them have been positive.

I also noticed that the same poster who used Nixon tactics as a comparison is avoiding a much more accurate and recent use of law enforcement's overreaching.

Congratulations. Cops are human, that is all. You get good, you get some bad. So it’s natural that there will be ones that have a difficult time with stress or complex situations or make bad choices even with training and support or come from all kinds of backgrounds like the rest of us with preconceived notions and prejudices.

 

[borg]

This Florida sheriff is a pandering politician in damage control mode right now.
His narrative has collapsed yet he chooses too double down and continue his unsupported accusations.
It's not about law, its about votes, and this guy wants his constituents to know he will protect them from all nonexistent crimes as long as he is in office......for the children.

I mentioned before and I still wonder what kind of liability damage conversations are going down in these counties. Linking a Billionaire to a phantom human trafficking ring has to be a concern. Continuing this narrative adds risk. Taking this narrative to Bob's home turf via the Boston Globe's Op Ed section strikes me as a foolish maneuver that could wind up being expensive.

 

[PatsWSB47]

If that happened yes it would be wrong but that’s not really appropriate to this analogy.

Sure it is. You're the one repeating the reports of trafficking excuse for a warrant. You can say I'm only saying what they said. How is that different than to keep telling everyone that's what your friend told you? When you keep beating that drum it sure looks like your trying to advance that story as fact. You see you can say you have no idea if a guy was banging someone's wife because it hasn't been proven but all the while you keep telling everyone that's what your friend told you. Andy it's kind of obvious where you stand.

 

[venecol]

As incredible as it seems, I was too busy yesterday to follow all things Patriots (after some morning postings). I know this forum should be my only priority but I have to sometimes put food on the table for mother and baby.... my apologies.... so that aside....

Did we ever figure out the confusion over the whole county issue? It sure seemed to me that the warrant Florio reported on was a different county.... but I don’t see any retraction if the report and what little radio I listened to yesterday afternoon discussed this report as if it applies to Kraft....

I looked into this, the only video warrants made public are for Martin County. There was a claim that the same types of warrants were used for other cases. The Jupiter case began as a result of the Martin County investigation and it followed similar procedures.

However, from what I can gather, Jupiter judge has released 3 warrants for access to banks only. There were a total of about 6 warrants: 3 for bank information, 2 for GPS on vehicles, and the camera placement one. The warrant that allowed the placement of cameras in Jupiter is still under seal as of yesterday.

It is possible the warrants are very similar in both Martin County and Jupiter cases but until we see the Jupiter warrants we just don't know. I noticed everyone has taken the WPTV story and ran with it as if it was related to Kraft's case.