- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Allegedly, Madison Brooks had sex the day before incident that caused that caused injuries
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:19 pm to GreenRockTiger
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:19 pm to GreenRockTiger
quote:
If she was upset one of the guys wouldn't frick her, she was perfectly capable of consent.
quote:
that’s not how it works
Unfortunately a juror may think differently. I'd almost bet on it.
0
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:25 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Why has this dude not rolled over on the others?
The DA should make him a deal to testify against the actual rapists.
That's what I thought they would do but instead they over-charged him.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:34 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
I think what the defense attorney is trying to do is blame the anal bruising noted in the autopsy to the encounter she had the night before. Evidently she complained about it to a friend thru text message(s).
Has that been reported anywhere?
Also - not a lawyer so I don’t know how this normally plays out but if the above is true, would the prosecution have a path to agreeing to exclude the anal tearing from evidence rather than allowing the defense to drag previous sexual history into the argument?
I realize that the rape kit (reportedly, as leaked by the defense) did not find DNA and they have to prove the sex occurred, but there may be enough other evidence to prove that between the defendants’ statements to police, video/texts from phones, etc.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:39 pm to lostinbr
quote:
would the prosecution have a path to agreeing to exclude the anal tearing from evidence rather than allowing the defense to drag previous sexual history into the argument?
I realize that the rape kit (reportedly, as leaked by the defense) did not find DNA and they have to prove the sex occurred, but there may be enough other evidence to prove that between the defendants’ statements to police, video/texts from phones, etc.
I don't think there is as much actual evidence real sex occurred outside of the rape kit. It's not an argument I would bet my life on in a vacuum, but the fact that little/no DNA of the Defendants was found is a wedge that can open up that avenue as reasonable doubt.
And Casen's statements to LEO when he was in the front seat may not be enough to "prove" this.
Video evidence (of which we clearly do not have access to) may be able to lock up this for the prosecution. I have a feeling it may not, given the strategies at hand.
Now the old guy who wasn't charged (to my memory, but someone can correct me) may also blow up the defense theory.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:41 pm to lostinbr
quote:
Also - not a lawyer so I don’t know how this normally plays out but if the above is true, would the prosecution have a path to agreeing to exclude the anal tearing from evidence rather than allowing the defense to drag previous sexual history into the argument?
Why on earth would the defense agree to excluding potentially exculpatory evidence?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:41 pm to lostinbr
quote:
Has that been reported anywhere?
I've followed pretty close and I'm almost certain I read that in an update around the time Joe Long filed his motion in March. I think that's why he wants her text history so bad... And wants the guy who had sex with her the night before. I think all he'd have to do is subpoena both of them as witnesses.. But I'm not a lawyer either so who knows??
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
I hadn’t followed super closely, but I still would bet (even tho I’m 100% speculating) there’s video of them actually doing the deed with her. It wouldn’t make any sense at all that they have video before, AND supposedly after, but not during??? Ok. These are 17/18 year olds here. They freaking film and “snap” EVERYTHING. I’m holding fast to the prosecution having hard evidence that sex was had.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think there is as much actual evidence real sex occurred outside of the rape kit.
We all remember the attorneys saying on camera that the sex was consensual and if she'd have survived there's be no complaint.. I'm paraphrasing of course.... That will have to come back to bite them.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:45 pm to gsvar2004
quote:
I hadn’t followed super closely, but I still would bet (even tho I’m 100% speculating) there’s video of them actually doing the deed with her. It wouldn’t make any sense at all that they have video before, AND supposedly after, but not during??? Ok. These are 17/18 year olds here. They freaking film and “snap” EVERYTHING. I’m holding fast to the prosecution having hard evidence that sex was had.
Agreed
Posted on 7/9/24 at 2:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now the old guy who wasn't charged (to my memory, but someone can correct me) may also blow up the defense theory.
Could he be the prosecutions star witness?? If I remember correctly he got out of the car.. And I also remember reading that a shirt or something was hung in the window so he may not have actually been able to see anything.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 3:03 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
Why on earth would the defense agree to excluding potentially exculpatory evidence?
Presumably they wouldn’t, which is why I’m asking.
My understanding is that typically the defense would not be able to introduce her sexual history as evidence. But again I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m mistaken.
That said, if I’m correct then I believe they would be able to bring her history into the discussion if it’s in direct rebuttal to the prosecution’s evidence (in this case evidence from the rape kit and/or autopsy).
So my question is: if the prosecution doesn’t use any evidence of anal tearing as part of their case, can the defense still use her sexual history at trial? Is there a path for them to go that route, or has that ship already sailed?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 3:06 pm to gsvar2004
quote:
I hadn’t followed super closely, but I still would bet (even tho I’m 100% speculating) there’s video of them actually doing the deed with her. It wouldn’t make any sense at all that they have video before, AND supposedly after, but not during??? Ok. These are 17/18 year olds here. They freaking film and “snap” EVERYTHING. I’m holding fast to the prosecution having hard evidence that sex was had.
This is basically where I’m at as well. I think there is probably some pretty damaging video evidence. Everything that has been seen by the public was leaked by the defense, which means it is the video that paints the defendants in the best possible light.
At a minimum, whatever video evidence remains is worse for them. The question is how much worse.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 3:40 pm to Tempratt
quote:
The girl was 14?
You think a 14 year old was at a tigerland bar? Do you know the facts of the case at all?
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:18 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
That's what I thought they would do but instead they over-charged him.
If he knew of Kavion's (may not be the right one) prior sexual misconduct activities, he took a rabid dog to a kids park. I think he had a pretty good idea of what the outcome would be.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:20 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
You think a 14 year old was at a tigerland bar? Do you know the facts of the case at all?
Kavion did much worse to an underage girl than take her to a bar. Just sayin.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 7:47 pm to Edward Rooney
quote:
Maybe this happens to a family member of yours and we'll see if your tune changes a bit
it wouldn't...
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:10 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
No they didn't at all. Good try. Not even interested in you're pro rapists defense bullshite.
You are clearly stupid.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:28 pm to jizzle6609
quote:
Complete and utter lack of morals. Disgusting.
That's a defense attorney doing their job. Someone gets charged with a crime, hires a defense attorney and their job is to try to prove their client's innocence.
Both sides gather evidence and ideally, the side that has clear evidence to prove whether that person is innocent or guilty will win the case. They don't know if their client is guilty or not (although I am sure they usually have a pretty good idea, maybe they don't. They make assumptions like everyone else).
I know everyone hates defense attorneys, but not everyone charged with a crime is guilty.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:41 pm to OweO
I wish a mod would boneyard this shitty thread.
.
TD is better than this.
.
TD is better than this.
Posted on 7/9/24 at 9:47 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
Joe Long is definitely earning his money, regardless if he's a slimy cocksucking defense attorney.
He’s a fricking long. Doesn’t matter what profession he is, he’s a fricking cocksucking pile of shite
Page 40 of 41
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News