If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   Pro tip: When being arraigned for one rape case, don't state "You didn't see [expletive] and you can't prove [expletive], I beat that rape case and my lawyer will beat this [expletive] case too"   (bostonglobe.com) divider line 39
    More: Dumbass, relaxed pronunciation, prisons, Jake Wark, Charlestown Monday morning, Charles River Esplanade  
•       •       •

7960 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-08 09:35:43 AM
One of the officers had observed the suspect on top of the woman, sexually assaulting her, the police report stated.

Sounds like someone saw shiat just fine.
 
2013-07-08 09:36:12 AM
teh best kind of sex
 
2013-07-08 09:38:15 AM
if you don't want to have sex, dont party with a dude. not seeing a lot of culpability here.
 
2013-07-08 09:41:13 AM
The defendant's listed address is the New England Center for Homeless Veterans at 17 Court St., next to Government Center. The veterans center did not return phone calls for comment.

Huh... Why the hell would they? If I'd been charged with a crime but not convicted, I sure as fark wouldn't expect my landlord to have a damned thing to say to the media either.
 
2013-07-08 09:41:19 AM
Also, try to be white.  You have no idea how useful this can be.
 
2013-07-08 09:42:22 AM
He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.
 
2013-07-08 09:43:33 AM

for good or for awesome: Also, try to be white.  You have no idea how useful this can be.


www.greenpeace.org
 
2013-07-08 09:47:29 AM
there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread
 
2013-07-08 09:47:44 AM

southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.


And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:03 AM
According to a police report, the victim said she and Barthel drank alcohol and did heroin at Long Wharf Park...

cdn.pastemagazine.com

Long Worf frowns upon your shenanigans.
 
2013-07-08 09:51:28 AM

Lady J: there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread


They're trying to be funny; because, you know, rape is funny...
 
2013-07-08 09:53:54 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Lady J: there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread

They're trying to be funny; because, you know, rape is funny...


www.fastcocreate.com
 
2013-07-08 10:07:32 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Lady J: there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread

They're trying to be funny; because, you know, rape is funny...


Imagine Porky Pig trying to rape Elmer Fudd.

/RIP Carlin
 
2013-07-08 10:07:41 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: CapeFearCadaver: Lady J: there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread

They're trying to be funny; because, you know, rape is funny...

[www.fastcocreate.com image 850x478]


yeah this is fark remember

welcome to fark
 
2013-07-08 10:10:51 AM
Homeless people problems.
 
2013-07-08 10:13:16 AM
Well technically he did beat the case

/Until they can locate the victim
 
2013-07-08 10:17:31 AM

GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.


Excited utterance?

If someone is in the process of being arrested and blurts out a bunch of crap, it can be used against them if I remember properly.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
 
2013-07-08 10:18:09 AM

GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.


Nah, his defense lawyer probably isn't an idiot who knows that such a motion would be laughingly denied with an order from the judge to go to a real law school rather than basing his knowledge of criminal procedure on two episodes of Boston Legal.
 
2013-07-08 10:18:50 AM

GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.


That's not how Miranda works. If he was spontaneously saying that crap, and it wasn't in response to police questioning (even indirect questioning), then it would be admissible. The 5th amendment protects people from being coerced into self incrimination, but it doesn't protect them from stupidly blurting out incrminating statements and having those statements used against them.
 
2013-07-08 10:22:53 AM

inglixthemad: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

Excited utterance?

If someone is in the process of being arrested and blurts out a bunch of crap, it can be used against them if I remember properly.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer.


Excited utterance is a hearsay exception, which is a rule of evidence, and has nothing to do with Miranda.
 
2013-07-08 10:44:39 AM

zeroman987: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

That's not how Miranda works. If he was spontaneously saying that crap, and it wasn't in response to police questioning (even indirect questioning), then it would be admissible. The 5th amendment protects people from being coerced into self incrimination, but it doesn't protect them from stupidly blurting out incrminating statements and having those statements used against them.


I am amazed at the stuff that gets excluded from being revealed to jurors, and comes out only after a verdict has been reached.  Certainly it could be argued that revealing a previous charge could taint jurors' opinions on this case.  Hopefully the evidence in the case is strong enough that they don't need the prior charges to get a conviction.
 
2013-07-08 10:52:31 AM

GoldDude: And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.


Given that he was arrested previously for being a rapist, I'd argue he was already aware of his Miranda rights whether or not he was read them the second time.
 
2013-07-08 10:56:03 AM

Lady J: there's some real reprehensible freaks around, arent there.

and im talking about people posting in this thread


SOMEONE doesn't like surprises!

Theaetetus: Nah, his defense lawyer probably isn't an idiot who knows that such a motion would be laughingly denied with an order from the judge to go to a real law school rather than basing his knowledge of criminal procedure on two episodes of Boston Legal.


Having three episodes of Boston Legal under my belt, I'd try to get it tossed and tell the judge she was askin' for it.  They were at the Longfellow Bridge.  What did she expect?  But after 20 years of Law & Order, in a change of heart I'd plea to a lesser charge of Man 2, 10 to 25.  McCoy can be pretty tough.
 
2013-07-08 10:56:53 AM
To be fair, what he said only indicates that he's been prosecuted for rape before, and been cleared no less.  Frankly if I had been prosecuted for rape not once but twice and was cleared the first time I'd be a little pissed off too.

That said, the rest of the case makes him look like an idiot.  A cop saw you on top of the woman and the woman told you "stop that" before she passed out.  You're going to jail, you idiot, just get used to the concept and save us all some time.
 
2013-07-08 10:58:33 AM

GoldDude: zeroman987: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

That's not how Miranda works. If he was spontaneously saying that crap, and it wasn't in response to police questioning (even indirect questioning), then it would be admissible. The 5th amendment protects people from being coerced into self incrimination, but it doesn't protect them from stupidly blurting out incrminating statements and having those statements used against them.

I am amazed at the stuff that gets excluded from being revealed to jurors, and comes out only after a verdict has been reached.  Certainly it could be argued that revealing a previous charge could taint jurors' opinions on this case.  Hopefully the evidence in the case is strong enough that they don't need the prior charges to get a conviction.


It's not just a "could be argued", it's inadmissible, period:
FRE 404(b)(1):  Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Massachusetts has a similar rule.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:04 AM
FTFA:
The defendant's listed address is the New England Center for Homeless Veterans at 17 Court St., next to Government Center. The veterans center did not return phone calls for comment.

Barthel met the victim through a mutual friend with whom they had been drinking earlier in the day, said Michael Glennon, Suffolk assistant district attorney, during the arraignment.


Sooooo, not enough money to establish a real residence, but you DO have enough money to buy booze. Surprising.

No sympathy. One bullet solution. The end. Problem solved. Court adjourned.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:07 AM
The victim told police she passed out as Barthel was sexually assaulting her

My goodness.  How insulting.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:48 AM

Theaetetus: GoldDude: zeroman987: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

That's not how Miranda works. If he was spontaneously saying that crap, and it wasn't in response to police questioning (even indirect questioning), then it would be admissible. The 5th amendment protects people from being coerced into self incrimination, but it doesn't protect them from stupidly blurting out incrminating statements and having those statements used against them.

I am amazed at the stuff that gets excluded from being revealed to jurors, and comes out only after a verdict has been reached.  Certainly it could be argued that revealing a previous charge could taint jurors' opinions on this case.  Hopefully the evidence in the case is strong enough that they don't need the prior charges to get a conviction.

It's not just a "could be argued", it's inadmissible, period:
FRE 404(b)(1):  Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Massachusetts has a similar rule.


Depending on what he said, it wouldn't be inadmissible. If he said something like "the last time I raped someone my lawyer got me off, and he will get me off this time too!" That would be admissible because it is not being used to prove his propensity for commiting rape.

Furthermore, if they could tie the rapes together. For example, during both rapes he lured the women back to a secluded place, drugged them, and did something very specific, the previous incident could be used as modus operandi. Also if there is an issue with intent, it could be used depending on the facts; I.e. he didn't intend to drug her and rape her, it was a spur of the moment thing. The idea being premediated rape is a more serious crime. (Which of course depends on the jurisdiction).

Moreover, if he makes his character an issue, for example, he stated that he never raped anyone, they could use it to impeach his testimony.

All the rule of evidence does is state that you can't use the evidence for that specific purpose. However it can get in for some other reason.
 
2013-07-08 11:15:09 AM

Theaetetus: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

Nah, his defense lawyer probably isn't an idiot who knows that such a motion would be laughingly denied with an order from the judge to go to a real law school rather than basing his knowledge of criminal procedure on two episodes of Boston Legal.


Denny Crane!
 
2013-07-08 11:24:56 AM

zeroman987: Theaetetus: GoldDude: zeroman987: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

That's not how Miranda works. If he was spontaneously saying that crap, and it wasn't in response to police questioning (even indirect questioning), then it would be admissible. The 5th amendment protects people from being coerced into self incrimination, but it doesn't protect them from stupidly blurting out incrminating statements and having those statements used against them.

I am amazed at the stuff that gets excluded from being revealed to jurors, and comes out only after a verdict has been reached.  Certainly it could be argued that revealing a previous charge could taint jurors' opinions on this case.  Hopefully the evidence in the case is strong enough that they don't need the prior charges to get a conviction.

It's not just a "could be argued", it's inadmissible, period:
FRE 404(b)(1):  Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Massachusetts has a similar rule.

Depending on what he said, it wouldn't be inadmissible. If he said something like "the last time I raped someone my lawyer got me off, and he will get me off this time too!" That would be admissible because it is not being used to prove his propensity for commiting rape.

Furthermore, if they could tie the rapes together. For example, during both rapes he lured the women back to a secluded place, drugged them, and did something very specific, the previous incident could be used as modus operandi. Also if there is an issue with intent, it could be used depending on the facts; I.e. he didn't intend to drug her and rape her, it was a spur of the moment thing. The ...


True, but I figured the exceptions would be a bit difficult for Gold Dude to understand, and they weren't really relevant given what he was suggesting. The less complete but more direct explanation may be more useful.
 
2013-07-08 11:48:43 AM

willfullyobscure: if you don't want to have sex, dont party with a dude. not seeing a lot of culpability here.


Are you arguing that all men are rapists?  Because I hate it when other people steal my lines.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:55 PM
Imagine what homeless rape smells like ...
 
2013-07-08 12:04:25 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: willfullyobscure: if you don't want to have sex, dont party with a dude. not seeing a lot of culpability here.

Are you arguing that all men are rapists?  Because I hate it when other people steal my lines.


Yes. Filthy, dirty, animals with uncontrollable urges that make them barely contained vessels of sexual potency. I'm not sure they can be blamed for their actions when tempted by brazen hussys showing off their tantalizing womanly assets in public..
 
2013-07-08 12:06:30 PM
wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

Understands bridges and smack.
 
2013-07-08 12:15:06 PM
"I beat that rape case and my lawyer will beat this [expletive] case too"    But did they find him on Grand Avenue?
 
2013-07-08 12:54:55 PM

GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.


Depends on the circumstances. If someone runs out of a house saying "Oh my god, I killed him" and the police hear it they can use it in court. I think it's called a spontanious confession or some such thing, IANAL. If he was read his rights and wasn't able to exercise his right to remain silent I think that can be used also. Again, IANAL
 
2013-07-08 01:08:25 PM

Theaetetus: GoldDude: southpawtn: He didn't say that at the arraignment, subby. He said it when he was drunk and getting arrested.

And he likely said that before he was read his Miranda rights, so his defense lawyer will move to have that excluded from evidence at the trial.

Nah, his defense lawyer probably isn't an idiot who knows that such a motion would be laughingly denied with an order from the judge to go to a real law school rather than basing his knowledge of criminal procedure on two episodes of Boston Legal.


I'll have you know that's how Jack Thompson started his career.
 
2013-07-08 01:13:24 PM
You said [expletive] thrice.
 
2013-07-08 01:15:02 PM
Ah yes, the Bart Simpson defense.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report