|
GOT
Apr 6, 2024 14:29:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by olmucky on Apr 6, 2024 14:29:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 6, 2024 17:44:21 GMT -5
gardawg likes this
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 6, 2024 17:44:21 GMT -5
It's a serious problem. When someone can make that kind of accustion, it ends up on the front page. When the allegation is dropped, it's never covered.
|
|
|
Post by Mango Man on Apr 6, 2024 19:08:56 GMT -5
In a situation like this where does he get his reputation back. They aught to throw that little shit in jail.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 7, 2024 0:30:59 GMT -5
To protect and serve.
Gatt alleges the forensic investigator was not allowed to present his findings in court and that the investigator and actor were threatened with jail time if they made the findings public or spoke publicly about the district attorney's office or Brunson.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 7, 2024 0:31:57 GMT -5
In a situation like this where does he get his reputation back. They aught to throw that little shit in jail. The little shit here, while a problem, is nothing compared to what the corrupt cops and DA did to him.
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 7, 2024 4:06:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bullfrog on Apr 7, 2024 4:06:00 GMT -5
To protect and serve. Gatt alleges the forensic investigator was not allowed to present his findings in court and that the investigator and actor were threatened with jail time if they made the findings public or spoke publicly about the district attorney's office or Brunson.That’s the part of his story that made me pause and question whether he’s telling the truth or not. Its wouldn’t be unrealistic for a false case to make it out the gate where a minor-victim was faking her story and her evidence. The ability of a child to convincingly forge what would normally be damning digital evidence is relatively new. Ideally, the DA and law enforcement should have considered that even a child may have a motive to fake a sexual conversation with a celebrity. And the guy should have had the sense to not private message a minor fan for any reason outside of parental supervision. I could see a perfect storm scenario where the case could have went too far before the child’s lies became apparent. But the threats about going public would be criminal themselves. There wouldn’t likely be a need for someone scared of a lawsuit to even make the threats because generally law enforcement and the DA will be covered by qualified immunity as long as there isn’t evide of malicious prosecution (which he is actually alleging because he claims the DA knew him personally and had some prior bone to pick because of… “car shows?”). I see Defendants make fanciful allegations all of the time. If he really was threatened by the authorities about going public, the FBI or appropriate state-level law enforcment agency should be all over that. Its not outside the realm of possibilities that something very normal went wrong on the case, it got dropped, its really still up in the air whether he really did it or not irregardless as to the charges being dropped, and he’s just looking for money.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 7, 2024 4:25:22 GMT -5
Its also not unrealistic for defendants with means to pay off victims to recant. Even if a case of full-blown forcible rape. Pervs that go after teenage victims usually choose victims that fit a profile; troubled girls seeking attention who may not seem credible if they make accusations. Usually the same sort of teenager that will use the situation to receive or even extort gifts. That’s just as realistic as him being the victim of a conspiracy.
There should be names, places, dates, and times, as to the alleged threats to stay silent.
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 7, 2024 8:45:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by garycoleco on Apr 7, 2024 8:45:07 GMT -5
It's just an isolated incident.....
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 7, 2024 11:52:05 GMT -5
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 7, 2024 11:52:05 GMT -5
To protect and serve. Gatt alleges the forensic investigator was not allowed to present his findings in court and that the investigator and actor were threatened with jail time if they made the findings public or spoke publicly about the district attorney's office or Brunson.That’s the part of his story that made me pause and question whether he’s telling the truth or not. Its wouldn’t be unrealistic for a false case to make it out the gate where a minor-victim was faking her story and her evidence. The ability of a child to convincingly forge what would normally be damning digital evidence is relatively new. Ideally, the DA and law enforcement should have considered that even a child may have a motive to fake a sexual conversation with a celebrity. And the guy should have had the sense to not private message a minor fan for any reason outside of parental supervision. I could see a perfect storm scenario where the case could have went too far before the child’s lies became apparent. But the threats about going public would be criminal themselves. There wouldn’t likely be a need for someone scared of a lawsuit to even make the threats because generally law enforcement and the DA will be covered by qualified immunity as long as there isn’t evide of malicious prosecution (which he is actually alleging because he claims the DA knew him personally and had some prior bone to pick because of… “car shows?”). I see Defendants make fanciful allegations all of the time. If he really was threatened by the authorities about going public, the FBI or appropriate state-level law enforcment agency should be all over that. Its not outside the realm of possibilities that something very normal went wrong on the case, it got dropped, its really still up in the air whether he really did it or not irregardless as to the charges being dropped, and he’s just looking for money. Good point considering she's a trainer for other prosecutors. Wonder if she got lazy or let her bosses hard on for the defendant affect her judgement? Hard to see how she loses qualified immunity given her expert status in the field. Angela has completed both the Level 1 and Level 2 Digital Evidence for Prosecutors training programs provided by the United States Secret Service at the National Computer Forensics Institute.
cirinc.org/events/event-pages/lessons-from-la.html
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 7, 2024 13:10:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swampdog on Apr 7, 2024 13:10:55 GMT -5
Sounds like an episode of Law and Order…
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 7, 2024 14:11:02 GMT -5
That’s the part of his story that made me pause and question whether he’s telling the truth or not. Its wouldn’t be unrealistic for a false case to make it out the gate where a minor-victim was faking her story and her evidence. The ability of a child to convincingly forge what would normally be damning digital evidence is relatively new. Ideally, the DA and law enforcement should have considered that even a child may have a motive to fake a sexual conversation with a celebrity. And the guy should have had the sense to not private message a minor fan for any reason outside of parental supervision. I could see a perfect storm scenario where the case could have went too far before the child’s lies became apparent. But the threats about going public would be criminal themselves. There wouldn’t likely be a need for someone scared of a lawsuit to even make the threats because generally law enforcement and the DA will be covered by qualified immunity as long as there isn’t evide of malicious prosecution (which he is actually alleging because he claims the DA knew him personally and had some prior bone to pick because of… “car shows?”). I see Defendants make fanciful allegations all of the time. If he really was threatened by the authorities about going public, the FBI or appropriate state-level law enforcment agency should be all over that. Its not outside the realm of possibilities that something very normal went wrong on the case, it got dropped, its really still up in the air whether he really did it or not irregardless as to the charges being dropped, and he’s just looking for money. Good point considering she's a trainer for other prosecutors. Wonder if she got lazy or let her bosses hard on for the defendant affect her judgement? Hard to see how she loses qualified immunity given her expert status in the field. Angela has completed both the Level 1 and Level 2 Digital Evidence for Prosecutors training programs provided by the United States Secret Service at the National Computer Forensics Institute.
cirinc.org/events/event-pages/lessons-from-la.htmlThe immunity isn’t based on how well she applied her training, but instead whether her decisions were within the realm of those a prosecutor is allowed to make. If she sincerely believed a lying victim, she’s generally going to be covered. What isn’t covered is prosecuting someone because you don’t like them.
|
|
|
GOT
Apr 7, 2024 16:26:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by illinoisfisherman on Apr 7, 2024 16:26:53 GMT -5
Good point considering she's a trainer for other prosecutors. Wonder if she got lazy or let her bosses hard on for the defendant affect her judgement? Hard to see how she loses qualified immunity given her expert status in the field. Angela has completed both the Level 1 and Level 2 Digital Evidence for Prosecutors training programs provided by the United States Secret Service at the National Computer Forensics Institute.
cirinc.org/events/event-pages/lessons-from-la.htmlThe immunity isn’t based on how well she applied her training, but instead whether her decisions were within the realm of those a prosecutor is allowed to make. If she sincerely believed a lying victim, she’s generally going to be covered. What isn’t covered is prosecuting someone because you don’t like them. You mean like they are doing to Trump? 😊
|
|