- 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: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:21 am to ell_13
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:21 am to ell_13
quote:
Because it was more important to get the charges out asap to get arrests and worry about the details later. It sounds like the DA is going to punt it to the grand jury to decide if there’s enough for 1st degree.
But if the videos contain what is claimed, why even try upgrading the charges?
1
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:23 am to LNCHBOX
Public perception. Low risk. It hasn’t happened and may not happen. Again, the DA seems to be handing this off to the grand jury. They do that when there’s a chance they could look bad to some while not looking too bad to others. Like people have said, race could come into play in terms of perception. The DA won’t want to look like he’s being lenient on the white kid vs the others.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:25 am to ell_13
quote:
Low risk
It seems like the opposite of low risk to up charges if the video shows what is claimed.
quote:
The DA won’t want to look like he’s being lenient on the white kid vs the others.
If this was an issue, why seek to increase the charges at all if the video shows her begging for dick from all of them? That makes no logical sense.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:26 am to LNCHBOX
I don't think the video has any bearing on what are they upgrade the charges and it's weather the prosecutors want to try to prove that it was an act of more than one person. I don't do rape cases so I don't know how courts and interpreted that language of the statute to know if this is a bad or a good idea but it seems like it's a reach when they have a slam dunk case for third degree rape due to the intoxication
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:28 am to LNCHBOX
quote:Not if 3rd degree is still on the table. You have to get into the mind of a jury. If you go for 1st and you have people who think it’s that bad and people who think it’s not rape at all, 3rd can seem like a compromise and a jury will come back with the lesser charge. It may be what the DA wanted all along, but now the jury feels like they considered both sides and came to a middle ground. SFP could explain better but it’s why DAs always go for the toughest charge especially in a public issue like this. You also have the leverage it could provide for a plea deal. These guys looking at mandatory life may be more willing to bargain.
It seems like the opposite of low risk to up charges if the video shows what is claimed.
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 8:29 am
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think the video has any bearing on what are they upgrade the charges
Obviously I'm not a lawyer, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
If I was a DA I wouldn't essentially bluff on trumped up charges if such a video existed. We are also speculating over second and third and accounts right now, so like the rest of the thread it's all pretty trivial
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:35 am to LNCHBOX
It's not a bluff. Also if they want to go for a first degree it's likely political and public relations more than legal. This is a very high profile case and they can't look like they're bending over. It's just what is on the video almost assuredly does not change anything. What I'm saying is that they could upgrade the charges to first degree without the video, especially if they're using the argument that it was a group endeavor to satisfy the statue
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not a bluff
It would feel like a bluff is she's on video asking for all the guys to frick her. That's a far cry from the needing to be asked 5 times for consent that was in the affidavit.
What I'm getting at is it seems highly unlikely given the statements already made that the video would contain her begging for dick from everyone. That's the polar opposite of what the perps have already stated.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:43 am to LNCHBOX
You have to remember that the affidavit is the investigator’s edited version of what they said took place. It won’t contain every comment that Carver made. He may have told them that she asked him for sex and that she hit him but that’s not something they would put in the statement. I’m not saying it actually happened that way. But it’s just something to consider when reading the affidavit. It’s not meant to contain every detail and especially not details that would benefit the accused.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:45 am to ell_13
So Haley is saying this?
Is the driver even his client?
Is the driver even his client?
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:46 am to LNCHBOX
quote:Investigators leave out details all the time in an affidavit. Carver could have told them she slapped him etc etc, and they simply won’t include that
What I'm getting at is it seems highly unlikely given the statements already made that the video would contain her begging for dick from everyone. That's the polar opposite of what the perps have already stated.
I think ell is owed the biggest “sorry man” in this thread. He never once victim blamed or took up from the criminals, but simply said nothing ever is as clear as you want it to be in 3rd degree rape cases. Well this is turning out to get really muddy
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:49 am to JudgeHolden
Nak was able to watch the videos and his interpretation is in a video posted a couple times now. It sheds light on her willingness to at least be friendly with the 4 guys and how they went to 3 different places to drop her off based on her directions before finally leaving her where they did.
Angel lady is going a step further and making it seem like she was asking for sex from them and the driver refused and was called gay for it along with a slap. Whether he actually told that to investigators is unknown.
Angel lady is going a step further and making it seem like she was asking for sex from them and the driver refused and was called gay for it along with a slap. Whether he actually told that to investigators is unknown.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:50 am to ell_13
all of these rumor of her behavior is just proof of her inebriated and volatile state of mind she was in.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:50 am to ell_13
quote:
You have to remember that the affidavit is the investigator’s edited version of what they said took place. I
So the instigator may have lied in the affidavit when he said "the co-defendant stated he overheard his 17-year-old juvenile friend as he asked the victim five times, if she wanted to have sex with him" and "the co-defendant stated once he stated 'we gat to stop this, let's go'"...
That's pretty fricking bold.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:52 am to ell_13
quote:
. It sheds light on her willingness to at least be friendly with the 4 guys
Can we move on from anyone that supposedly argued otherwise? They haven't been in this thread for many many pages now, and aren't any of the active posters.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's from the Nak video
It’s from the grifter lawyer’s mouth
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:53 am to ell_13
quote:
Nak was able to watch the videos and his interpretation is in a video posted a couple times now. It sheds light on her willingness to at least be friendly with the 4 guys and how they went to 3 different places to drop her off based on her directions before finally leaving her where they did.
I still don't think this helps their case very much, given that they've said she was "drunk drunk," and if one of the guys in the car said he was uncomfortable with what was happening because of her state. I admit it makes it more muddy, but if her drunkenness is the central point and has been confirmed by testing and statements from people in the car, she can't consent regardless of her words or actions.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:55 am to LNCHBOX
quote:I never said this nor implied it. Investigators likely spoke to Carver for a very long time. A lot can be said in an hour. They can ask leading questions. They can even make up scenarios that they believe could have happened to try and get more details. They take what they need. They can even lie in an interview. They’re allowed to do all this for a reason. But it’s also why it’s good to have a lawyer around especially if you’re innocent (not implying any of these 4 guys are).
So the instigator may have lied in the affidavit
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:56 am to ell_13
She quoted him in the warrant numerous times. You’re just making shite up
Posted on 1/30/23 at 8:56 am to ell_13
quote:
I never said this nor implied it.
Then what is claimed to have happened in the video goes directly against what he said.
Page 276 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News