- 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 2/13/23 at 10:12 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Posted on 2/13/23 at 10:12 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Also, in the first video they show, the guy in the plaid shirt is in the back behind the passenger. She’s trying to get out on passenger’s side.
In the next video where she actually gets out, dude in plaid is in the back behind the driver and she gets out on driver side.
These videos aren’t even taken at the same time. Creative editing.
In the next video where she actually gets out, dude in plaid is in the back behind the driver and she gets out on driver side.
These videos aren’t even taken at the same time. Creative editing.
This post was edited on 2/13/23 at 10:13 pm
3
Posted on 2/13/23 at 10:19 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Can someone update the op with the videos?
Posted on 2/13/23 at 10:31 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
These videos aren’t even taken at the same time. Creative editing.
The audio also doesn't match the movements of her mouth from what I'm seeing. So there's longer video and they edited it together to create this?
Curious to hear "Judge" chime in here.
Posted on 2/13/23 at 10:44 pm to TheRouxGuru
quote:
Can someone update the op with the videos?
I've tried to compile links to original content on p. 349. Just added this most recent one from WBRZ.
Posted on 2/13/23 at 10:50 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Good catch.
I watched it again. Maybe not incoherent but clearly very drunk. Drunk drunk.
Thought the defense lawyer said early on he didn’t want to try this case in the media.
These snippets of videos pieced together reek to high heaven.
By the way, Nak is a POS for playing along with these lawyers.
I watched it again. Maybe not incoherent but clearly very drunk. Drunk drunk.
Thought the defense lawyer said early on he didn’t want to try this case in the media.
These snippets of videos pieced together reek to high heaven.
By the way, Nak is a POS for playing along with these lawyers.
Posted on 2/13/23 at 11:23 pm to 9rocket
They absolutely want to 'try it in the media' to create bias with the grand jury and eventual jury pool.
Also good press for them as they're getting their faces on TV w/o paying for it.
Also good press for them as they're getting their faces on TV w/o paying for it.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 3:28 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
They absolutely want to 'try it in the media' to create bias with the grand jury and eventual jury pool. Also good press for them as they're getting their faces on TV w/o paying for it.
Whether or not that’s true, this is a terrible strategy for the defense IMO. It is extremely high risk. They are very publicly burning their hole card.
Also, I didn’t see Joe Long there. He represents the driver IIRC.
It’s curious that although each of the other three has his own lawyer, only one of them says anything publicly.
This post was edited on 2/14/23 at 3:35 am
Posted on 2/14/23 at 5:01 am to lsupride87
quote:
Having her on video antagonizing him for not wanting to have sex with her is going to be a hard sell for the prosecution against him with a jury
This girl raped or not? Seems suspect if this true.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 5:02 am to lsupride87
quote:
Having her on video antagonizing him for not wanting to have sex with her is going to be a hard sell for the prosecution against him with a jury
I didn’t see that in the video. Link?
Posted on 2/14/23 at 5:09 am to whoa
quote:
She apparently called the driver a fig.
That’s the lawyer spin, and he said “implying.” I think he’s overselling here.
Do we have that on video?
Posted on 2/14/23 at 5:45 am to AlwysATgr
That post is under “Top Replies” o the first page of this thread.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 5:45 am to HodsonTiger13
quote:
Have to question at least the ethics of any reporter...
"Ethics" & "Reporter" in the same sentence?
LOL!
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:10 am to JudgeHolden
Casen's lawyer not there.
Just a scheduling issue or do we think Casen is now cooperating and will testify against the others?
Folks still can't seem to understand that .319 = incapable of consent, regardless of what she says.
Just a scheduling issue or do we think Casen is now cooperating and will testify against the others?
Folks still can't seem to understand that .319 = incapable of consent, regardless of what she says.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:22 am to LSUFAITHFUL
I hope they fry all 4 of those guys
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:47 am to Klondikekajun
So let me get this straight. We know the four defendants recorded much of their interaction with Madison that evening.
At least one of the defense lawyers went through all the footage from various times and different cell phones, and spliced together enough video and audio to create a single video clip less than 30 seconds long.
He presented his video to WBRZ. They failed to notice and/or report the video was heavily edited. So much so that some of the audio isn’t synched, and it’s obvious portions of the video were recorded at different times due to background clues such as the seating arrangements of the occupants in the vehicle.
WBRZ aired the video, and built a segment around it which gave the impression this was raw footage of the truth. I guess the final version of the edited video wasn’t as explosive as the lawyers had hoped when they came up with the idea, so the lawyer had to narrate and offer his analysis.
His interpretation of the fake video was that Madison was mad at the driver because he wouldn’t have sex with her. His evidence? She appears to use the word ‘fig’ or a similar gay slur.
Again, WBRZ thought this outrageous claim was newsworthy, and included it in the story in such a way that it almost appears WBRZ is reporting that Madison was mad at the driver for not having sex with her, and many consumers of this story will be left with that impression unless they carefully dissect the actual source.
At least one of the defense lawyers went through all the footage from various times and different cell phones, and spliced together enough video and audio to create a single video clip less than 30 seconds long.
He presented his video to WBRZ. They failed to notice and/or report the video was heavily edited. So much so that some of the audio isn’t synched, and it’s obvious portions of the video were recorded at different times due to background clues such as the seating arrangements of the occupants in the vehicle.
WBRZ aired the video, and built a segment around it which gave the impression this was raw footage of the truth. I guess the final version of the edited video wasn’t as explosive as the lawyers had hoped when they came up with the idea, so the lawyer had to narrate and offer his analysis.
His interpretation of the fake video was that Madison was mad at the driver because he wouldn’t have sex with her. His evidence? She appears to use the word ‘fig’ or a similar gay slur.
Again, WBRZ thought this outrageous claim was newsworthy, and included it in the story in such a way that it almost appears WBRZ is reporting that Madison was mad at the driver for not having sex with her, and many consumers of this story will be left with that impression unless they carefully dissect the actual source.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:51 am to Ghost of Colby
Yes.
Nak and WBRZ wanted the "exclusive" so they became the mouthpiece for the defense and aired a heavily edited video.
Even that, according to the Judge in the case, showed Madison was severely intoxicated.
Not sure where they got the audio but it appears (1) Madison is being kicked out of the car for offending the driver (2) "Uber" is mentioned by her but, according to another poster 'in the know' Madison did NOT have her phone as she left it back at the bar.
So they raped then dumped a severely intoxicated girl a mile from Gardere Lane at 3 a.m. in the morning with no phone not having a clue what she would do.
She was 'in the roadway' on Burbank 'second later' (according to the family attorney) where she was struck and later died from her injuries.
Nak and WBRZ wanted the "exclusive" so they became the mouthpiece for the defense and aired a heavily edited video.
Even that, according to the Judge in the case, showed Madison was severely intoxicated.
Not sure where they got the audio but it appears (1) Madison is being kicked out of the car for offending the driver (2) "Uber" is mentioned by her but, according to another poster 'in the know' Madison did NOT have her phone as she left it back at the bar.
So they raped then dumped a severely intoxicated girl a mile from Gardere Lane at 3 a.m. in the morning with no phone not having a clue what she would do.
She was 'in the roadway' on Burbank 'second later' (according to the family attorney) where she was struck and later died from her injuries.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:53 am to 9rocket
quote:
Thought the defense lawyer said early on he didn’t want to try this case in the media.
He said it at a press conference. He’s held at least three by my count. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 6:54 am to JudgeHolden
Did the lawyers violate this in the news story?
quote:
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 7:03 am to HodsonTiger13
You need to look at all of it.
I’d guess Charlie and his team are watching this with the rest of us. Maybe Kerry will make a complaint.
quote:
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
I’d guess Charlie and his team are watching this with the rest of us. Maybe Kerry will make a complaint.
Posted on 2/14/23 at 7:04 am to Ghost of Colby
quote:
We know the four defendants recorded much of their interaction with Madison that evening.
O think a lot of people assume that. I don’t think we know that.
Page 369 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News