In order to get the charges dropped Kraft has to admit he would have been found guilty. Would you guys do that?

Yeah, definitely a sticky situation to be in.

NigelUno wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Disagree. Nigel needs to provide proof that this is common besides a prosecutor claiming it. I mean, what is the prosecutor going to say, "No, this is not a common offer at all, but Mr Kraft is rich as fuck, so we are giving him a special deal."

He might not even take the deal.

Why would he? The prosecutors are trying to make a deal because they know the case is weak and were never really interested in going after the johns anyway (it was all about the spas, and they probably just wanted the johns to admit it to build the case against the spas). But when one of the johns is famous, and national attention lands on them, and he/they won't just take a simple plea, they'll look like schmucks in court. So they offer this "supposedly common" deal as a way to try to save some face before their careers go in the toilet.

Two angles here. Local and Federal. Two chicks were old Asian Florida residents. They don't fit the federal case of human trafficking the Feds are investigating. So their involvement falls to state or county law enforcement of which grabs Kraft.  Offenders with no priors get offered diversion programs but have to get an STD test, classes, public service blah blah. Kraft wants to avoid that because results are public. Kraft got very luck that these two visits where with women who felt the uncontrollable urge to blow him at first sight (that'll be his defense). Any case that meets the federal investigation or inquiry most certainly would not involve this plea offer. No chance in hell.

Kraft has the potential of losing control over his NFL team to consider.
He really likes being the face of the Patriots.

It appears he's relished the spotlight more since his wife died a few years ago.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/15/robert-kraft-love-and-loss-marked-eccentric-life-before-spa-scandal/3150945002/

NigelUno wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Why would he? The prosecutors are trying to make a deal because they know the case is weak and were never really interested in going after the johns anyway (it was all about the spas, and they probably just wanted the johns to admit it to build the case against the spas). But when one of the johns is famous, and national attention lands on them, and he/they won't just take a simple plea, they'll look like schmucks in court. So they offer this "supposedly common" deal as a way to try to save some face before their careers go in the toilet.

Same deal they offered 24 other guys...

Having this deal be common among the different defendants involved in this larger case doesn't make it common practice as a whole. Their individual cases are all going to be pretty much identical, so they can't offer a deal to one, and throw the book at the others. And they don't want to keep going down this path with charges on 25 very weak cases that a half decent defense attorney will pick apart. Typically, they'd probably drop the charges altogether, or plead down to a tiny fine. But with the national attention, they don't want the embarrassment of just dropping the charges. So they're stuck and trying to come up with this deal to save face.

NigelUno wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Having this deal be common among the different defendants involved in this larger case doesn't make it common practice as a whole. Their individual cases are all going to be pretty much identical, so they can't offer a deal to one, and throw the book at the others. And they don't want to keep going down this path with charges on 25 very weak cases that a half decent defense attorney will pick apart. Typically, they'd probably drop the charges altogether, or plead down to a tiny fine. But with the national attention, they don't want the embarrassment of just dropping the charges. So they're stuck and trying to come up with this deal to save face.

So, you think Robert Kraft will go to court and his attorney will let them play the video evidence?

Will he? No. Would he? Maybe. I don't think the prosecutors will let it to go to trial. What does that video evidence show? Him getting a blowie? Not a crime. Him giving a girl money? Not a crime. My understanding is that there is no audio, thus it's going to be pretty difficult to prove that he gave her the money as payment for the sexual services.

Do you think the prosecutors want to go to trial and go through all the time and expense that entails, against some of the best defense attorneys in the country (potentially a dream team, if Kraft wants to), with that as their case? And do you think they want to do this with dozens of other cases resting on the outcome of that? All for a misdemeanor against some men that aren't even the target of the investigation?

Now, if Kraft admitted that the money was for the blowie, or if one of the girls admitted that the money was for the blowie, then that is a different story. I haven't heard that to be the case, though.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

So, you think Robert Kraft will go to court and his attorney will let them play the video evidence?

Will he?  No.  Would he?  Maybe.  I don't think the prosecutors will let it to go to trial.  What does that video evidence show?  Him getting a blowie?  Not a crime.  Him giving a girl money?  Not a crime.  My understanding is that there is no audio, thus it's going to be pretty difficult to prove that he gave her the money as payment for the sexual services.  

Do you think the prosecutors want to go to trial and go through all the time and expense that entails, against some of the best defense attorneys in the country (potentially a dream team, if Kraft wants to), with that as their case?  And do you think they want to do this with dozens of other cases resting on the outcome of that?  All for a misdemeanor against some men that aren't even the target of the investigation?

Now, if Kraft admitted that the money was for the blowie, or if one of the girls admitted that the money was for the blowie, then that is a different story.  I haven't heard that to be the case, though.

Who's got more to lose?  Kraft is in a lose/lose situation. How does he "win" if he's acquitted when there's a video showing him getting blow jobs from elderly asian women and handing them money for it?

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Will he?  No.  Would he?  Maybe.  I don't think the prosecutors will let it to go to trial.  What does that video evidence show?  Him getting a blowie?  Not a crime.  Him giving a girl money?  Not a crime.  My understanding is that there is no audio, thus it's going to be pretty difficult to prove that he gave her the money as payment for the sexual services.  

Do you think the prosecutors want to go to trial and go through all the time and expense that entails, against some of the best defense attorneys in the country (potentially a dream team, if Kraft wants to), with that as their case?  And do you think they want to do this with dozens of other cases resting on the outcome of that?  All for a misdemeanor against some men that aren't even the target of the investigation?

Now, if Kraft admitted that the money was for the blowie, or if one of the girls admitted that the money was for the blowie, then that is a different story.  I haven't heard that to be the case, though.

Who's got more to lose?  Kraft is in a lose/lose situation. How does he "win" if he's acquitted when there's a video showing him getting blow jobs from elderly asian women and handing them money for it?

How does he lose if acquitted, regardless of the video? Everyone has heard what the video shows, so what does it matter if people see it (other than to those who see it, but unfortunately can not un-see it)?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Same deal they offered 24 other guys...

Having this deal be common among the different defendants involved in this larger case doesn't make it common practice as a whole.  Their individual cases are all going to be pretty much identical, so they can't offer a deal to one, and throw the book at the others.  And they don't want to keep going down this path with charges on 25 very weak cases that a half decent defense attorney will pick apart.  Typically, they'd probably drop the charges altogether, or plead down to a tiny fine.  But with the national attention, they don't want the embarrassment of just dropping the charges.  So they're stuck and trying to come up with this deal to save face.

But isn't that what they're doing?  They're not asking him to plead guilty for a lesser sentence.  They're offering to drop the charges if he admits he'd be found guilty.   I've heard of the former plenty; the latter, not so much.

StylesGShmooth wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Having this deal be common among the different defendants involved in this larger case doesn't make it common practice as a whole.  Their individual cases are all going to be pretty much identical, so they can't offer a deal to one, and throw the book at the others.  And they don't want to keep going down this path with charges on 25 very weak cases that a half decent defense attorney will pick apart.  Typically, they'd probably drop the charges altogether, or plead down to a tiny fine.  But with the national attention, they don't want the embarrassment of just dropping the charges.  So they're stuck and trying to come up with this deal to save face.

But isn't that what they're doing?  They're not asking him to plead guilty for a lesser sentence.  They're offering to drop the charges if he admits he'd be found guilty.   I've heard of the former plenty; the latter, not so much.

Yeah, but that's what's weird about it, and why it sounds like such a face saving move. It feels like the case isn't strong enough to get them to plead guilty to a little fine, or plead no contest for some community service, or anything like that. It's like a quasi guilty plea, and the prosecutors can essentially say that these guys admitted that they would have been found guilty, so they didn't drop the charges because the cases were too weak to hold up in court.

Or heck, maybe it's less about saving face, and more about the fact that if they just drop the charges, then they're saying no prostitution took place, which pretty much kills the whole case against the spas, sex trafficking, etc. So they need to show that there was still sex for money taking place.

Either way, they didn't do this whole big sting to bust a few dudes going for a rub and tug, so there's no point in spending a lot of time and resources trying to prosecute them when they have bigger fish to fry.

My understanding is there is no question it was a money for sex arrangement. The video shows him handing her money. It's just that there's no audio of the arrangement. Hell me or Miami can get Kraft aquitted. The money was a loan for lunch, it was for getting his shirt laundered, lol. Either way it doesn't make the BJ go away. He's screwed either way. Take the plea, and the NFL has a stronger case. Take the case to court and get aquitted and drag your BJ through the public limelight for a couple months. Either way he loses.

NFL has a personal conduct clause, that's what Kraft is worried about.

Welp, looks like Kraft got off.

Again.

MiamiSpartan wrote:Welp, looks like Kraft got off.

Again.

And people have the audacity to think there's separate justice systems..

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Welp, looks like Kraft got off.

Again.

And people have the audacity to think there's separate justice systems..

Interesting you say that. Best friend is an attorney. We’ve talked about the way courts have responded to covid. There are very few in-person jury trials, and like a lot of other workplaces, a lot of legal stuff is getting done via zoom. That move alone is cutting down on fees for clients and courts. For example, instead of a lawyer having to drive two or three hours one way for a jail visit or court appearance, that stuff gets done in minutes online. Instead of paying someone for several hours work, most of which is for being in a car, the work is done in under an hour.
If this were to become the norm, post-covid, which my friend prefers, it could mean a lot more people could have access to a higher quality of attorney, maybe bringing the playing field to something more level. Of course, there will be a large number of lawyers who will oppose such a change because they want to be able to bill clients as much as possible.

I’m guessing your friend isn’t tanfan.

It's good to see tGreenway has fully recovered from the savage beating Nigel gave him in this thread. Glad you made it buddy.

Rocinante wrote:I’m guessing your friend isn’t tanfan.

No.

Nordic wrote:It's good to see tGreenway has fully recovered from the savage beating Nigel gave him in this thread. Glad you made it buddy.

You still trying to preserve that narrative (I’m sorry, Floyd)? You made a bad call back then; don’t double down now just to save face. Even Jim Joyce admitted his fuck up. It’s time for you to do the same.