re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case

quote:

---

Why is it ok for you to assume their statements they willingly gave are wrong?

---

I think what you know about those statements is incomplete. You only know the parts the arresting officer chose to emphasize.

Does anybody know who is representing the 17yo?

The article I read say a public defender. The NAACP might be trying to distance themselves now that it turns out thru may be backing a serial rapist

I would assume that the interview was video and audio recorded and that the officer would get in trouble (even if with internal affairs) if he purposely left out or misrepresented pertinent information in order to get an arrest.

quote:

---

What reason do they have for saying what they said?

---

1). You have the version of their statements given by the detective. There is no tone, intonation, or timing.

Remember the scene in My Cousin Vinny when one of the titles exclaims in surprise when accused “I killed the guy?” The sheriff reads it flat at trial, and a denial becomes a confession. Be careful with statements.

2). The statements as we know them are absolutely incomplete. The detective (properly) chose the parts that supported the arrest. There is more to the interviews, and some of it may tend to exonerate them.

Washington may have said she was “drunk/drunk,” then followed it up by saying “but she knew what she was doing.” The detective doesn’t have to include that part.

3). Fact selection and emphasis are immensely powerful. You only know the facts that have been chosen by interested parties.

Here’s a little thought experiment. I’ll tell you a true story.

I met a young man near a downtown office building. He was handsome and well dressed. A price was agreed to. I had to pay in advance, though. We arranged to meet about a week later. He gave me drugs, and we went back into a dark room. I blacked out. When I woke up, my butt hurt.

Pause here. What do you think just happened?

Every fact I told you is objectively true. But likely you were misled. I just described a colonoscopy. Likely you thought it was something else.

You can be deceived by facts even if they are objectively true. It’s all in how you order and emphasize them.

ETA: My wife (no pics) read this and said, “It sounds like you are defending the accused.” I’m not. I think they are likely guilty.

quote:

---

Here’s a little thought experiment. I’ll tell you a true story. I met a young man near a downtown office building. He was handsome and well dressed. A price was agreed to. I had to pay in advance, though. We arranged to meet about a week later. He gave me drugs, and we went back into a dark room. I blacked out. When I woke up, my butt hurt. Pause here. What do you think just happened? Every fact I told you is objectively true. But likely you were misled. I just described a colonoscopy. Likely you thought it was something else.

---

This is so dumb. Holy shite. At no point did I think your story involved something nefarious

It also isn't analogous at all to one of the rapists saying she was drunk drunk and the driver saying they need to stop. It's ok to call those pieces of shite what they are.

quote:

---

It also isn't analogous at all to one of the rapists saying she was drunk drunk and the driver saying they need to stop.

---

What if the next thing he said was, “but she was walking and talking and making sense.”

The point is you only know the piece of it the deputy gave you. Are you judging the car video because it was heavily edited? I’d say yes. Understand that Washington’s statement was edited too.

Try to get this: pointing out facts that favor the defense doesn’t mean I’m pro-defense. It means I’ve been around the block enough times to know that facts you think are awfully clear get awfully murky in a hurry.

Kaivon is a serial rapist

quote:

---

Does it change anything in anyway in the legal world if it is shown and known that say Carver knew of Washington's previous rapes before 1/14/23? If so, that would be like turning a rabid dog loose in a playground.

---

Interesting question. My first reaction is that technically it does not, but practically it could.

As Professor Pugh used to say, let’s go to the scripture. It’s La.Rev. Stat. 14:24, entitled “Principals.”

quote:

---

All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.

---

He didn’t “directly commit” the offense. He didn’t “counsel or procure” as far as we know.

He likely aided and abetted by driving. He may argue that he did not know what was going to happen when he was driving. That would throw the door open wide to his knowledge of Washington’s propensities, in my view. It would also eliminate some evidentiary objections to that evidence in Carver’s trial, I think.

So the more I think about it, the more I gravitate toward my own position. It probably will matter because of the defense Carver is likely to assert.