Yesterday’s crazy keeps on keepin’ on…

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    2 months ago

    A noteworthy paragraph for context:

    The minor, who was a junior in high school at the time, arrived in her mother’s car for a July 15, 2017, party at the Florida home of Chris Dorworth, a lobbyist and friend of Gaetz’s, according to a court filing written by defense attorneys who interviewed witnesses as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit Dorworth brought in 2023.

    And shortly following that, this:

    One eyewitness cited in the court filings, a young woman referred to as K.M., provided a sworn affidavit that claimed the teenage girl was naked, partygoers were there to “engage in sexual activities,” and “alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy … and marijuana” were present. The teenage girl was identified in the filings only as A.B.

    This is all horrible.

    The article then goes into detail about recent developments with testimony. Many dots appear to be connected.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Is this more detail on the prior reports of him being a human trafficking pedophile that came out years ago, or something new?

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn’t testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          After educating myself, agree - nothing mysterious.

          However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -

          The recommendation comes in part because prosecutors have questions over whether the central witnesses in the long-running investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury.

          Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.

          • Tyfud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            No objective evidence. It’s tough to build a case around key witnesses and testimonies that are easily assailable by the defense, especially ones that could play well to a jury.

            It’s not fair, and this all very, very likely happened as the court documents allege. But proving it in a court of law is a whole different thing.

            Prosecutors generally try not to take cases they’re not confident they can win. They’re underpaid and overworked and try and follow the 80/20 rule, which is that they can do more good prosecuting the 80% of cases that are slam dunks, than waste tax payer money chasing 20% of the cases that require just about “everything to go right” for them to come out on top.

            It’s one of the many things flawed within our justice system right now that a DA won’t pursue this because the blowback of losing the case would end their career.

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I had understood that the girl wouldn’t testify and the DA didn’t want that in any case?

        • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          since started an OF site

          Link?

          (You were all thinking it, I just care less about my fake internet points)

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why fucking bother? They’re just going to do what they did last time and let him go.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, he wasn’t “let go”. The feds didn’t have the evidence and the witnesses wouldn’t talk. Now it’s different.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          He’s my Congressman so I’ve followed this sordid tale closely. You, on the other hand, are going off memes and social media commentary.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m not looking at him. It doesn’t matter what he’s done or how much evidence there is.

            I’m looking at our legal system. It’s useless at holding the wealthy and connected accountable. He’ll walk.