Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
IvanKaramazov

Robert Kraft (yes, THAT Robert Kraft) charged with soliciting prostitution

Recommended Posts

^ fair enough but upthread you were talking about a rich dude getting off on the charges but I see it has morphed into the general category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Because in this case (which we are talking about not in general) the DA said in the investigation nothing of the sort turned up.  Just because you think something squirrely is going on doesnt make it so.

Again, I was talking in general. But if you want to make it specific to this case:

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-cb-day-spa-crackdown-whats-next-20190326-story.html

Quote

 

“It’s manifestly obvious to us that this is human trafficking, but without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court,” Sheriff William Snyder told reporters.

“There is a law against prostitution. But if you’re forced into it, we can help you, but you have to cooperate,” Snyder said of the alleged sex trafficking ring.

Palm Beach County State Attorney Aronberg followed the human trafficking narrative introduced by Jupiter’s police chief and Martin County’s Sheriff.

“The larger picture, which we must all confront, is the cold reality that many prostitutes in cases like this are victims, often lured into this country with promises of a better life, only to be forced to live and work in a sweatshop or a brothel, performing sex acts for strangers,” Aronberg said recently.

 

Again, what I find discouraging is when the prosecution isn't able to convince a witness to testify (when she has lots of reasons not to testify) that a case isn't brought and everyone gets to :shrug: and act like it's all good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

“It’s manifestly obvious to us that this is human trafficking, but without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court,” Sheriff William Snyder told reporters.

Interesting, didn’t realize this is what is going on.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of blame is being put to the cops here but part of me wonders how much political pressure there is on the force to stamp out the national evil of a guy trying to pay for a happy ending?

I have no evidence to prove my thoughts but I do consider the fact that enough pressure might be used that causes the police to exaggerate sex trafficking claims so that they can try and shut down the prostitution part.

==========

I keep coming back around to if people want to better combat trafficking, make prostitution legal and regulate it.  It certainly won't stop trafficking all together but it will do two things

a) trafficking would be reduced

b) Use the funds generated  by taxation of prostitution to help the police be more focused on actually catching sex traffickers instead of the litany of "none was turned up here" that has been detailed in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Interesting, didn’t realize this is what is going on.

they need that piece because the 100's of hours of footage they obtained showed them nothing.  With out a witness, they have no case.  

I don't know if the DA's are offering complete and unconditional immunity to the perspective witnesses but with out it, no one is ever going to talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think my point is it's more complicated than many want to see.

In reality, it's not always a bright line between what one might call consenting or consensual prostitution and what one might see as human trafficking or sex trafficking or slavery. I'm calling human and sex trafficking and slavery evil. 

What I find discouraging is what seems like flippant dismissal or minimization of anything related to this topic as not evil.

I see a lot of shoulder shrugging with "that's how it is" or "overreaching cops" or "witch hunt for my favorite NFL owner" or "isn't it like Tinder?" type stuff that feels like noise that gives cover, maybe unintentionally, to the evil of human or sex trafficking and slavery.

I'm not sure I agree or understand your point.  I've read this entire thread several times and I haven't seen any post that indicates that anybody here disagrees that human trafficking and sexual slavery is not evil.   That to me seems like an obvious and massive consensus.  

The stance that most of us have is crystal clear--and easy to understand.  There is nothing wrong with any sex that is cosented and voluntary between adults--whether or not payment is involved.  I'm not sure how that stance can be viewed by you or anybody else as being "flippant" towards the topic of human trafficking.  Those are two completely separate scenarios--and it seems like people like you and Henry Ford (both of whom I respect very much) seem to want to connect dots that have no place being connected.  

In regards to the topic of police overreaching--it is crystal clear that they bent and abused rules and power here--do you not agree? To me it's just as important that the police follow rules and protocols more than it is the general public.  I love and respect police--but it is naive to say that every action that they take is above the ability to be scrutinized. I will not give police a pass for shotty police work-period.   Lastly--I think that if anybody (including yourself) wants to remind people of the evils of human trafficking--it'd be best to use a case that actually and clearly involves it.  

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote is kind of interesting.  I wonder how true it is? 

==========

One former sex worker says the moral panic over prostitution is a "combination of the conservative fetish for going after people for doing 'sex stuff' and the liberal instinct to help a group of people that they can't be bothered to understand."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

I'm not sure I agree or understand your point.  [clipped]

The stance that most of us have is crystal clear--and easy to understand.  There is nothing wrong with any sex that is cosented and voluntary between adults--whether or not payment is involved.  I'm not sure how that stance can be viewed by you or anybody else as being "flippant" towards the topic of human trafficking.  Those are two completely separate scenarios--and it seems like people like you and Henry Ford (both of whom I respect very much) seem to want to connect dots that have no place being connected.  

 

The point I'm making and the point I think @Henry Ford is making is the line between "consenting" prostitution and trafficking is not as clear and separate as some want to believe. 

And what seems flippant is when people overlook the fact the primary line connecting the two is the testimony of the prostitute involved. Who happens to be a likely scared woman, likely undocumented and participating in an illegal activity. In other words, a person with painfully obvious reasons not to cooperate with the police and testify against a powerful man. In this case, one of the most powerful men in the world. This seems obvious. 

I tend to believe the Sheriff and State Attorney when they say:

Quote

 

It’s manifestly obvious to us that this is human trafficking, but without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court,” Sheriff William Snyder told reporters.

“There is a law against prostitution. But if you’re forced into it, we can help you, but you have to cooperate,” Snyder said of the alleged sex trafficking ring.

Palm Beach County State Attorney Aronberg followed the human trafficking narrative introduced by Jupiter’s police chief and Martin County’s Sheriff.

“The larger picture, which we must all confront, is the cold reality that many prostitutes in cases like this are victims, often lured into this country with promises of a better life, only to be forced to live and work in a sweatshop or a brothel, performing sex acts for strangers,” Aronberg said recently.

 

It's my opinion just because the woman won't testify doesn't mean the dots are not there to connect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewlyRetired said:

A lot of blame is being put to the cops here but part of me wonders how much political pressure there is on the force to stamp out the national evil of a guy trying to pay for a happy ending?

 

I don't understand the tone here. Why do you say there's a "national evil of a guy trying to pay for a happy ending?" Who thinks that? I live in the Bible Belt and there are places like that around and I see virtually no political pressure of any sort on them. Why do you think people think it's a "national evil"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

The point I'm making and the point I think @Henry Ford is making is the line between "consenting" prostitution and trafficking is not as clear and separate as some want to believe. 

And what seems flippant is when people overlook the fact the primary line connecting the two is the testimony of the prostitute involved. Who happens to be a likely scared woman, likely undocumented and participating in an illegal activity. In other words, a person with painfully obvious reasons not to cooperate with the police and testify against a powerful man. In this case, one of the most powerful men in the world. This seems obvious. 

I tend to believe the Sheriff and State Attorney when they say:

It's my opinion just because the woman won't testify doesn't mean the dots are not there to connect. 

The police monitored the place for months. They investigated every tangent possible--and after all of that--they are claiming that one person that isnt talking holds ALL of the evidence and info needed to verify trafficking? I don't buy that for a split second. Trafficking would involve networks of people,  the evidence would not be consolidated in the hands of 1 or 2 people- there would be a debris field of evidence.  Sometimes prostitution is just prostitution and nothing more. Law enforcement clearly has cheated, lied and has mismanaged this entire sting.  Teams of people couldnt find one tie or shred of evidence to trafficking.  Why not believe that? I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Edited by jvdesigns2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

The police monitored the place for months. They investigated every tangent possible--and after all of that--they are claiming that one person that isnt talking holds ALL of the evidence and info needed to verify trafficking? I don't buy that for a split second. Trafficking would involve networks of people,  the evidence would not be consolidated in the hands of 1 or 2 people- there would be a debris field of evidence.  Sometimes prostitution is just prostitution and nothing more. Law enforcement clearly has cheated, lied and has mismanaged this entire sting.  Teams of people couldnt find one tie or shred of evidence.  Why not believe that? I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Ok. If you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Ok. If you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree. 

 

Testify against what--that they voluntarily accepted money in exchange for intimacy?  That has been established.   Nobody is arguing that. Kraft himself has publically admitted and apologized to it.   Let's say it loud and clear---it has 1000000% been established that prostitution occured.  You need the prostitute to verify what happened on camera? It honestly seems like you will not be satisfied unless the outcome is somehow traffficking--and are offended by the fact that most people are completely okay with the idea of plain old prostitiuon.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Again, I was talking in general. But if you want to make it specific to this case:

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-cb-day-spa-crackdown-whats-next-20190326-story.html

Again, what I find discouraging is when the prosecution isn't able to convince a witness to testify (when she has lots of reasons not to testify) that a case isn't brought and everyone gets to :shrug: and act like it's all good.

In this case in particular, I seem to remember their initial "evidence" of ongoing trafficking was that there was food in a refrigerator, dirty dishes in a sink, and it appeared that someone might have slept on the premises because there were blankets on site. IIRC, the authorities came out after the article you linked and later said they did not have evidence or knowledge of trafficking having occurred at this particular location. IMO, once they determined that and before they went public, they should have abandoned pursuit of the case, packed up shop, called it a day, and moved on to bigger priorities and not charged anyone with anything. The D.A. should have known at that point that the case would eventually crumble for all the reasons it is getting dinged for.

As for your running theme that not enough people care about human and sex trafficking (or appear indifferent) and both of those are evil, I think plenty of people would agree with that as a concept. However, I am not sure that this is the cornerstone case to use to trumpet that cause. We all have heard of horrible sex trafficking cases where young women and underage girls are kidnapped, taken to foreign countries, and basically shackled in a basement and used and abused as blow up dolls for years without even seeing the outdoors or sunlight.

I don't know all the details of the Kraft case (and I would guess that most of us don't really have strong knowledge of everything and everyone involved), but I don't see the place in Florida on par with what I just described above. Not to make a callous comment or make light of the situation, but I have a fridge and at times have slept at my office, too, and would attest that there is nothing illicit going on. I believe Kraft is said to have interacted with the 58-year-old woman who owned the spa. Not sure that is in the same category as a 12 or 13 year old girl that was kidnapped or lied to and transported to a different country.

As far as Kraft goes, nothing has surfaced that he knowingly and willingly engaged in activities that had anything to do with human trafficking. However, there are still plenty of people out there that haven't paid much attention and still think he is fighting human trafficking charges (just read the comments on any article about the case). 

People asking to connect the dots and suggesting maybe there was more going on seems like is a fair position to have . . . but that doesn't mean the dots automatically can be connected. However, if things were so horrible, one would think the women at the spa would have commented about how terrible things were and thank goodness they were saved and they got their lives back. But they haven't. 

What we also don't know is if the cases against all the men are thrown out if the cases against the women will get thrown out, too. And who's to say Kraft isn't paying for the women's defense team as well and they have been told to keep quiet and everything will work itself out. There are a lot of wrinkles and permutations that could be going on in the background that we have no idea about.

Personally, I would have been all in favor if law enforcement had figured out there wasn't much going on at this location and then chose to pursue another one that had more evidence of trafficking (or if they supported the ongoing investigations at other sites).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't understand the tone here. Why do you say there's a "national evil of a guy trying to pay for a happy ending?" Who thinks that?

There was no tone intended.  I think there are plenty of people in the country who think prostitution is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvdesigns2002 said:

Testify against what--that they voluntarily accepted money in exchange for intimacy?  That has been established.   Nobody is arguing that. Kraft himself has publically admitted and apologized to it.   Let's say it loud and clear---it has 1000000% been established that prostitution occured.  You need the prostitute to verify what happened on camera? It honestly seems like you will not be satisfied unless the outcome is somehow traffficking--and are offended by the fact that most people are completely okay with the idea of plain old prostitiuon.  

I'm not sure how many more times I can say it.

What I find discouraging is when the prosecution isn't able to convince a witness to testify (when she has lots of reasons not to testify) that a case isn't brought and everyone gets to :shrug:  and act like it's all good. 

You can keep trying to make it I'm somehow offended by people being "okay with the idea of plain old prostitiuon." Continuing to say it doesn't make it true. 

I don't think prostitution and trafficking are as separate as people like to think.

I don't dismiss the sheriff when he says,

Quote

"It’s manifestly obvious to us that this is human trafficking, but without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court,” Sheriff William Snyder told reporters.

And I believe if you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree. And I think the refusal to give even a split second of consideration to something that seems obvious and important feels flippant. 

So yes we'll disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewlyRetired said:

There was no tone intended.  I think there are plenty of people in the country who think prostitution is evil.

What's your guess as to what percentage of the population would say it's a "national evil"?

Edited by Joe Bryant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

What's your guess as to what percentage of the population would say it's a "national evil"?

15-20.   Just a wild guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I'm not sure how many more times I can say it.

What I find discouraging is when the prosecution isn't able to convince a witness to testify (when she has lots of reasons not to testify) that a case isn't brought and everyone gets to :shrug:  and act like it's all good. 

You can keep trying to make it I'm somehow offended by people being "okay with the idea of plain old prostitiuon." Continuing to say it doesn't make it true. 

I don't think prostitution and trafficking are as separate as people like to think.

I don't dismiss the sheriff when he says,

And I believe if you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree. And I think the refusal to give even a split second of consideration to something that seems obvious and important feels flippant. 

So yes we'll disagree. 

Just one last question.  So you believe that in this case--ALL of the evidence is in the hands of one or two people that aren't testifying--and that there is no other evidence that teams of law enforcment could have found to connect ties to trafficking?  You think that an intricate global ring of human trafficking would not kick up any residual evidence outside of the spoken testimony of one or two people?  That is what the sheriff and and attorney general seem to imply by the comment you seem to be quoting over and over again.  Just curious on your thoughts on that--and we can absolutey agree to disagree after your next post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

And I believe if you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree

Is Kraft the powerful man? Why would they have to testify against Kraft? Was Kraft ever accused of human trafficking? I thought he was just charged with soliciting?

Wouldn't the human trafficking case and kraft's case be completely separate? 

Maybe I am missing something. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Just one last question.  So you believe that in this case--ALL of the evidence is in the hands of one or two people that aren't testifying--and that there is no other evidence that teams of law enforcment could have found to connect ties to trafficking?  You think that an intricate global ring of human trafficking would not kick up any residual evidence outside of the spoken testimony of one or two people?  That is what the sheriff and and attorney general seem to imply by the comment you seem to be quoting over and over again.  Just curious on your thoughts on that--and we can absolutey agree to disagree after your next post.  

I keep quoting the sheriff as people seem to not be reading what he's saying. I think he believes without the testimony of the asian prostitutes and the people running the illegal prostitution operation, they don't have enough to win. I think he's not lying when he says "without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court." 

Now maybe he's stupid or maybe he's lying or maybe he has no idea what it takes to bring a case that has a chance in court. I don't know. I know nothing about him. But I don't dismiss him. Not on a topic where if he's remotely right, there's serious evil happening with human trafficking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

The point I'm making and the point I think @Henry Ford is making is the line between "consenting" prostitution and trafficking is not as clear and separate as some want to believe. 

NextAnd what seems flippant is when people overlook the fact the primary line connecting the two is the testimony of the prostitute involved. Who happens to be a likely scared woman, likely undocumented and participating in an illegal activity. In other words, a person with painfully obvious reasons not to cooperate with the police and testify against a powerful man. In this case, one of the most powerful men in the world. This seems obvious. 

I tend to believe the Sheriff and State Attorney when they say:

It's my opinion just because the woman won't testify doesn't mean the dots are not there to connect. 

What do you base this assumption on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Ok. If you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world, then yes, we'll have to disagree. 

 

Now you are just making up reasons to be outraged.  The place was investigated for literally months.  God knows how much video they have and yet they still couldnt find one shred of evidence of trafficking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I keep quoting the sheriff as people seem to not be reading what he's saying. I think he believes without the testimony of the asian prostitutes and the people running the illegal prostitution operation, they don't have enough to win. I think he's not lying when he says "without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court." 

Now maybe he's stupid or maybe he's lying or maybe he has no idea what it takes to bring a case that has a chance in court. I don't know. I know nothing about him. But I don't dismiss him. Not on a topic where if he's remotely right, there's serious evil happening with human trafficking. 

I personally think that given the tactics the police have used so far, and knowing the malfeasance that often goes on from the prosecution's side, that he's lying.

I'm not beating around the bush. I think he has nothing, and is using whatever weasel language he can to get away from his lies. This is the guy that called in a fake bomb threat and installed video cameras to capture hundreds of hours of intimate footage (which, by the way, caught nothing but simple prostitution) of massage patrons, came away with nothing, and now needs a big, fat CYA excuse for it.

This reeks to high heaven of typical prosecutorial overreach and malfeasance. We see it over and over.

Do I trust elected officials? No way, no how. Not with their political ambitions and union code. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I keep quoting the sheriff as people seem to not be reading what he's saying. I think he believes without the testimony of the asian prostitutes and the people running the illegal prostitution operation, they don't have enough to win. I think he's not lying when he says "without the evidentiary piece of a victim’s testimony we could not prevail in court." 

Now maybe he's stupid or maybe he's lying or maybe he has no idea what it takes to bring a case that has a chance in court. I don't know. I know nothing about him. But I don't dismiss him. Not on a topic where if he's remotely right, there's serious evil happening with human trafficking. 

The sheriff is just covering his rear. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantherclub said:

The sheriff is just covering his rear. 

See my post above. This is CYA language if I've ever heard it. I think the plausibility, given the evidentiary techniques he was able to use, of there having been human trafficking is extraordinarily low. He doesn't want to:

  1. Look bad to the public, who generally doesn't want video cameras watching their every intimate move
  2. Get his ### sued
  3. Lose an election if he is an elected official
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I personally think that given the tactics the police have used so far, and knowing the malfeasance that often goes on from the prosecution's side, that he's lying.

I'm not beating around the bush. I think he has nothing, and is using whatever weasel language he can to get away from his lies. This is the guy that called in a fake bomb threat and installed video cameras to capture hundreds of hours of intimate footage (which, by the way, caught nothing but simple prostitution) of massage patrons, came away with nothing, and now needs a big, fat CYA excuse for it.

This reeks to high heaven of typical prosecutorial overreach and malfeasance. We see it over and over.

Do I trust elected officials? No way, no how. Not with their political ambitions and union code. 

It is really all part of the process IMO

He absolutely has to make this statement to the press (be it truthful for false), else it might make it that much harder in the future to use the same tactics when looking to install camera or the such during the next sting.

By making this statement, it gives him plausible deniability when he has to go in front of a judge again.

To be specific, I am unsure if he is lying or telling the truth but he clearly has a reason to lie here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewlyRetired said:

It is really all part of the process IMO

He absolutely has to make this statement to the press (be it truthful for false), else it might make it that much harder in the future to use the same tactics when looking to install camera or the such during the next sting.

By making this statement, it gives him plausible deniability when he has to go in front of a judge again.

To be specific, I am unsure if he is lying or telling the truth but he clearly has a reason to lie here.

Yep. I'm being a little more direct about motive, when I should probably be more cautious, but my Spidey senses about lying lies and the law enforcement liars who tell them being activated. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can say the sherriff is lying.  He probably is of a similar mindset of Joe and that is of course this is about human trafficking.  The DA looking at the six month investigation results the Sherrif provided, and declares there is no evidence.  I tend to believe the DA is shooting straighter than the sherrif.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Now you are just making up reasons to be outraged.  

Not taking the bait here. Sorry. 

For you other guys, thanks for the discussion. We can just agree to disagree. All good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraft's "special" legal team isn't the reason this case is going to go away. What they filed wasn't just a remedy available to rich guys.. Public Defenders and Pro Bono attorneys file Motions to Suppress by the boatloads every week and they prevail just as much as big dollar attorneys. 

Law enforcement bumbled this one--plain and simple. I posted in this thread back in February that there were elements that jumped out to me as problematic for the DA. I erroneously believed Kraft may have taken a simple diversion offer to make it go away, but as the complete over-reaching by the sheriff became apparent, they realized they had a winner here. 

What I will find interesting is how many lawsuits come out of this. People, such as the female patron, who was there getting a legit massage, were viewed by LE and their images are still stored on servers.  I bet this is going to cost that jurisdiction big time when it is all said and done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Not taking the bait here. Sorry. 

For you other guys, thanks for the discussion. We can just agree to disagree. All good. 

Its not bait, we just discussed why the sheriff would say what he did.  I am not trolling you or whatever but you are looking at this on a small level.  Once you see the big picture you will understand about the prosecutor and the sheriff.  Rockaction above has a nice post on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Its not bait, we just discussed why the sheriff would say what he did.  I am not trolling you or whatever but you are looking at this on a small level.  Once you see the big picture you will understand about the prosecutor and the sheriff.  Rockaction above has a nice post on it.

You're confusing not understanding with disagreeing. Common theme here. All good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

You're confusing not understanding with disagreeing. Common theme here. All good. 

We good man.  Sorry if you thought that was "bait".  Not trying to do that with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

The sheriff is just covering his rear. 

This.   Law enforcement wasted tons of tax payer money on a sting operation that exposed nothing more than plain prostitution.  Teams of people watched footage for months, I assure you that teams of people investigated and searched peoples homes/computers and everything---and not one piece of evidence.   A large criminal global trafficking ring would by nature spin off all sorts of evidence beyond the spoken words of one or two people.   Admitting that their tactics were wrong and that the results were not what they expected is not an option for them--even if it is the truth.   Mark my words--they will continue to try to connect this case to trafficking just to save face for their own indiscretions.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

This.   Law enforcement wasted tons of tax payer money on a sting operation that exposed nothing more than plain prostitution.  Teams of people watched footage for months, I assure you that teams of people investigated and searched peoples homes/computers and everything---and not one piece of evidence.   A large criminal global trafficking ring would by nature spin off all sorts of evidence beyond the spoken words of one or two people.   Admitting that their tactics were wrong and that the results were not what they expected is not an option for them--even if it is the truth.   Mark my words--they will continue to try to connect this case to trafficking just to save face for their own indiscretions.  

Zero interest in discussing it with you but completely disagree. You told me everything I need to know when you said you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world. 

If you're wrong, you're glossing over a heinous crime. The fact you won't even consider something this serious is puzzling at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Zero interest in discussing it with you but completely disagree. You told me everything I need to know when you said you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world. 

If you're wrong, you're glossing over a heinous crime. The fact you won't even consider something this serious is puzzling at best. 

R Kraft is an afterthought in this. They want to go after the traffickers. They used Kraft to "expose"  the problem.
We all know what happened, Their testimony in court only gets Kraft in trouble-FOR A MISDEMEANOR CRIME.

Do you seriously believe Kraft is threatening people over that? He would get into more trouble for the threats.
We're talking felony level crime for trying to get out of a fine.

For trafficking to work the traffickers would have to exert COMPLETE control over these women. 
Six months of the most extensive surveillance should have exposed that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Is Kraft the powerful man? Why would they have to testify against Kraft? Was Kraft ever accused of human trafficking? I thought he was just charged with soliciting?

Wouldn't the human trafficking case and kraft's case be completely separate? 

Maybe I am missing something. 

I am totally confused on this part of the thread as well. 

I assume I am just misunderstanding the law but I don't understand how a John is going to be involved in a sex trafficking trial such that one of the women would have to testify "against" the john....

Are the sex trafficking laws broad enough that they can encompass the John's as being able to get convicted of the trafficking crime itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Zero interest in discussing it with you but completely disagree. You told me everything I need to know when you said you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world. 

If you're wrong, you're glossing over a heinous crime. The fact you won't even consider something this serious is puzzling at best. 

I never disagreed that prostitutes are hesistant to testify.  They are hesitant to testify because the crime of prostitution has been villianized by the public--when there is no reason for it to be (and I'm not talking about trafficking--they are two completely different crimes and it seems like you enjoy taking my thoughts on prostitution and somehow linking it to trafficking).  People have sex for free all of the time. People have sex for an uptick in their lifestyles. People wine and dine each other for the ultimate goal of having sex. No matter how it's done--people exchange money, services for sex all of the time on a voluntary basis.  I personally have no problem with that.  There are videos of the two women being intimate with Kraft and many others.  That has been established.   Nobody is arguing with you.  The facility has been gone through with a fine tooth comb by teams of people for weeks.  I'm sure search warrants, computers, bank records have also been checked--and so far nothing.   What exactly do you want those two prostitutes to testify to--that they exchanged intimacy for money?  That doesn't change a thing.   

I'm not glossing over a heinous anything.   You are assuming that every asian massage parlor where prostitution occurs must be linked to trafficking some how--and that's just not true.   You are assuming they are all evil, and I'm saying thats not true.  I agree that all human trafficking and sex slavery is evil---but I firmly do not believe that straight prostitution is.   I also do not buy for a second that it's possible for there to be a complete lack of evidence for a giant ring of human traffickers beyond the spoken words of a couple women.   If there was trafficking involved--there would be shreds of evidence all over the place--and so far nothing.  When evidence exists to show that there may have been trafficking--I will absolutely consider it--but do not paint me or anybody else in this thread in a picture of not taking sex trafficking seriously.   That comes across as you riding a "higher horse"  than  us and there is no place for it in here.   

 

We all consented that trafficking is evil--but some of us are able to identify that there is a vast difference between prostitution and trafficking.   One of the biggest ways to differentiate these two totally different crimes is through evidence.  There hasn't been any in this case even with vast resources allocated to find some.   That lack of evidence leads many of us to believe that this was just mere prostitution--we are allowed to have that train of thought without being labeled as "not caring" about human trafficking and sexual slavery.  

Edited by jvdesigns2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Again, I was talking in general. But if you want to make it specific to this case:

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-cb-day-spa-crackdown-whats-next-20190326-story.html

Again, what I find discouraging is when the prosecution isn't able to convince a witness to testify (when she has lots of reasons not to testify) that a case isn't brought and everyone gets to :shrug: and act like it's all good.

 

4 hours ago, pantherclub said:

The sheriff is just covering his rear. 

Exactly. Just because he's framing as "nobody would step forward and testify" does not make it true. They overstepped their bounds and this is the easiest cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

When evidence exists to show that there may have been trafficking--I will absolutely consider it--but do not paint me or anybody else in this thread in a picture of not taking sex trafficking seriously.  

Sorry. But you don't get to decide that. I said i thought you were being flippant about it. I stand by that 100%.

We clearly disagree on this. You writing a lot of words saying I'm saying things I'm not saying won't change that. 

Probably best that I get back to productive work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Zero interest in discussing it with you but completely disagree. You told me everything I need to know when you said you think it's completely implausible to give a split second of consideration that asian prostitutes are hesitant to testify against one of the most powerful men in the world. 

If you're wrong, you're glossing over a heinous crime. The fact you won't even consider something this serious is puzzling at best. 

I am extremely puzzled why you really believe that Kraft is the reason they are not testifying.   He is not a crime figure.  He is not going to harm them or their families.  They might be scared of something, but to suggest they are scared of Kraft is kind of ridiculous, IMHO.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sorry. But you don't get to decide that. I said i thought you were being flippant about it. I stand by that 100%.

We clearly disagree on this. You writing a lot of words saying I'm saying things I'm not saying won't change that. 

Probably best that I get back to productive work. 

If being "flippant" means that I prefer not to accuse people of one of the must heinous crimes on the planet while not having a single shred of evidence that supports that accusation--then so be it.   I believe that "innocent until proven guilty"  should still stand in this country when there is no single shred of evidence supporting it.   I'm also sorry for my use of many words that create dialogue in your forum.   I didn't realize that you would prefer us to quote things in 140 characters or less like twitter.   My bad.  

I would bet that none of my comments in this thread come across as me or anybody else being "flippant" about sex trafficking outside of you.   My thoughts are clearly stated and they are politely written.   I personally feel that your comments come across as condescending, "holier than thou" and rude.   I hope you have a productive work day and thank you for the discussion. 

Edited by jvdesigns2002
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I am extremely puzzled why you really believe that Kraft is the reason they are not testifying.   He is not a crime figure.  He is not going to harm them or their families.  They might be scared of something, but to suggest they are scared of Kraft is kind of ridiculous, IMHO.  

Especially because kraft has nothing to do with the trafficking side of it. He wasnt some underground ringleader. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sorry. But you don't get to decide that. I said i thought you were being flippant about it. I stand by that 100%.

We clearly disagree on this. You writing a lot of words saying I'm saying things I'm not saying won't change that. 

Probably best that I get back to productive work. 

Joe, here's my final take on this, If there was trafficking they would not have charged R Kraft and exposed the "network".
The police would have got the guy who trafficked the women to that location or if was out of state involvement passed this up 
to the feds and maybe bust a national network. Once the police bust those women and their was some one else involved they
are gone. Probably back to their home country and a new fresh(unknown) face comes in to take over. I don't think anything
like that happened. I think the police some how thought their was trafficking there, did their thing, and were wrong. What's left
is this mess.    

I don't expect any kind of reply to this. This thread has run it's course and it's gone into that back and forth nonsense with
nothing new being said.
 

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.