Jump to content

Kraft Wins again


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, bigalbarracuda said:

Not sure what this means -- is it possible for them to share the video with the judge/jury when this goes to trial and not to the larger public? I imagine so. 

They can't use the video at all so basically kraft got away with it. Shocking, that a rich guy with powerful lawyers would get off, but here we are..

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

They can't use the video at all so basically kraft got away with it. Shocking, that a rich guy with powerful lawyers would get off, but here we are..

I thought we were here to begin with because he got off? 

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

They can't use the video at all so basically kraft got away with it. Shocking, that a rich guy with powerful lawyers would get off, but here we are..

Yes, but the NFL can still provide punishment, so Goodumb will will impose a $25K fine to Kraft, which is like a penny to any of us, and take a 2030 7th round pick from the Pats and say he did his job. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bigalbarracuda said:

Not sure what this means -- is it possible for them to share the video with the judge/jury when this goes to trial and not to the larger public? I imagine so. 

 

7 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

They can't use the video at all so basically kraft got away with it. Shocking, that a rich guy with powerful lawyers would get off, but here we are..

Without reading the pleadings or the order suppressing the video...essentially jeremy2020 is right.  They can't use the video to prove he got a handy in exchange for money. 

It will be interesting to see on what grounds the judge suppressed the evidence.  Did they argue the video was inconclusive in terms of whether or not it was actually Kraft in the video? Was the manner in which they obtained the warrant to conduct surveillance legally deficient? Was it suppressed under some other legal/technical grounds?

None of the above actually means that the video can't be released to the public....it only means that it can't be used as evidence against Kraft at trial.

Again, without looking at the pleadings and the order....a Motion to Suppress usually only means the video can't be used at trial to prove his guilt. 

It is still a video that was part of government record and still falls into the freedom of information laws...so unless there is some other order saying it cannot be released, the Order to Suppress doesn't mean we don't get to see Krafty getting a crafty.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

They can't use the video at all so basically kraft got away with it. Shocking, that a rich guy with powerful lawyers would get off, but here we are..

Got away with what though?  Consensual sex (in exchange for money) between 2 adults?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/in-legal-victory-for-robert-kraft-judge-suppresses-video-in-prostitution-case/ar-AABjfGT?ocid=spartanntp

Robert Kraft scored a major legal victory Monday when a Florida judge suppressed video evidence that allegedly shows the New England Patriots owner paying for sex acts inside a spa, substantially weakening the government’s case.

In a 10-page ruling in Palm Beach County, Judge Leonard Hanser sided with Kraft’s lawyers, who had argued the warrant Jupiter, Fla., police obtained to secretly install cameras inside the Orchids of Asia Day Spa was flawed.

“Defendant’s motion to suppress is granted and all evidence obtained against defendant through and in connection with the search warrant is suppressed,” Hanser wrote.

The cameras allegedly captured Kraft and 24 other men paying for sex at the Jupiter spa during a multi-day surveillance operation in January. Kraft, 77, has denied engaging in criminal activity, pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor prostitution solicitation charges, and requested a jury trial.

It wasn’t immediately clear if State Attorney Dave Aronberg’s office would appeal Hanser’s ruling, continue prosecuting the case against Kraft without the footage, or drop the charges.

The ruling followed a recent hearing on Kraft’s motion to suppress the video footage, in which Hanser heard testimony from police and public health officials involved in the Orchids case.

Bob Hohler of the Globe Staff contributed to this report. Travis Andersen can be reached at travis.andersen@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @TAGlobe. John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jrebosglobe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Got away with what though?  Consensual sex (in exchange for money) between 2 adults?

well, if that were the case i'd say you are right, but doesn' this case involve girls who were trafficked? in that case its a bit differenrt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scoop24 said:

 

Good!

 

Know how that video was obtained?  The cops got a warrant to install cameras inside the "spa".  The police then called in a false bomb scare and ordered everyone out of the building while they "investigated" their own false bomb warning, and installed the video cameras.  And that's how they got the video on Kraft.

 

Can't go along with it.  If you or I called in a false bomb scare and got everyone to evacuate, we'd go to jail.  But the police are supposed to be able to do this?  Sounds unconstitutional to me.  I'm glad the judge suppressed the video.

 

As far as the Patriots and their crummy QB goes, I hope for nothing but the worst.  But Kraft is right on this.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kelticwizard said:

Good!

 

Know how that video was obtained?  The cops got a warrant to install cameras inside the "spa".  The police then called in a false bomb scare and ordered everyone out of the building while they "investigated" their own false bomb warning, and installed the video cameras.  And that's how they got the video on Kraft.

 

Can't go along with it.  If you or I called in a false bomb scare and got everyone to evacuate, we'd go to jail.  But the police are supposed to be able to do this?  Sounds unconstitutional to me.  I'm glad the judge suppressed the video.

 

As far as the Patriots and their crummy QB goes, I hope for nothing but the worst.  But Kraft is right on this.

 

 

Seeing how they been the last 2 decades..I'd say your hoping skills need work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kelticwizard said:

Good!

 

Know how that video was obtained?  The cops got a warrant to install cameras inside the "spa".  The police then called in a false bomb scare and ordered everyone out of the building while they "investigated" their own false bomb warning, and installed the video cameras.  And that's how they got the video on Kraft.

 

Can't go along with it.  If you or I called in a false bomb scare and got everyone to evacuate, we'd go to jail.  But the police are supposed to be able to do this?  Sounds unconstitutional to me.  I'm glad the judge suppressed the video.

 

As far as the Patriots and their crummy QB goes, I hope for nothing but the worst.  But Kraft is right on this.

 

 

they got a warrant so whats the problem? couldnt exactly just walk in and tell the place they were installing cameras. this is why our justice system sucks

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

I really dont care that Kraft will get this thrown out. Maybe it should be tossed maybe it shouldnt. It just burns my britches that average Joes would never have the legal firepower to beat the rap like the billionaire. I'd bet he already spent 500K on this. Just further evidence of the 2 tiered legal system.

Although if any average Joe still had their case pending, they could literally just copy the motion Kraft's lawyers filed and seek the same result.

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigalbarracuda said:

Not sure what this means -- is it possible for them to share the video with the judge/jury when this goes to trial and not to the larger public? I imagine so. 

I've already seen the video. Not kidding. Its an old guy getting jerked off on a massage table. Can't unsee. Be glad its "supressed".. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read through the order....the most striking thing to me as a former prosecutor......Kraft had 7 private attorneys on the case.  A misdemeanor case in which he was never going to do a day of time.

All of that, and unless there is something specific in the Florida access to public records laws, I don't think anything in this order prevents the tape from becoming public.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case for me was never about him being prosecuted. It was about the embarrassment that it brought. The worst case scenario for Kraft isn't being found guilty its about that tape getting out into the public. The decision accelerates the release of that tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...