Started By
Message
re: The actual text of the text message
Posted on 2/24/23 at 1:56 pm to SingleMalt1973
Posted on 2/24/23 at 1:56 pm to SingleMalt1973
quote:he read it. 100%
The attorney never says Brandon didn’t read the text.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 1:57 pm
1
Posted on 2/24/23 at 1:59 pm to WDE24
quote:All good questions!
There is a lot we don’t know:
1. All of the other texts and calls made before and after the murder
2. Exactly where Miller was coming from when he delivered the gun
3. Why Miles needed a ride from Miller so badly when Bradley and his girlfriend were both there
4. Where did each person go immediately after the shooting and who drove whom where
5. Did they talk to each other about how they were going to handle it and try to avoid getting caught?
6. Who hid the gun in Quinnerly’s room?
7. Did Miller or Bradley call police to report the shooting? Why or why not?
Shouldn't the press and public hold off on their "assumptions and opinions" until the answers to these questions are released by the police?
I'm pretty sure both the authorities and the lawyers have advised those possibly involved to let THEM handle the release of any information.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:01 pm to SneezyBeltranIsHere
quote:99% chance this is it
It is possible the police know he read the text and, for improper reasons, are not charging him.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:03 pm to Slackaveli
quote:
he read it. 100%
Prove it.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:06 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:The standard for an arrest and to maintain charges is probable cause. There is clearly sufficient probable cause unless some unknown exculpatory evidence exists that Miller’s attorney failed to mention in his press release.
Can the DA prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn't the case?
Whether there is enough circumstantial evidence to ultimately prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt is uncertain. Typically, the police and the DA would arrest/bring charges and let the defense attorney attack the evidence of intent. For some reason, they have chosen a different path here. I’m curious to know more about that reasoning.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:08 pm to SingleMalt1973
quote:
quote:
The technology exists to know whether or not he viewed this text.
correct and Millers attorney knows the answer but did not include it in his statement
Miller's attorney said he offered to have the phone forensically examined. He did not say the phone had been forensically examined. Why would the DA choose not to have it examined?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:08 pm to coachcrisp
quote:The press and public should be pressing for the answers to these questions and challenging self serving or conclusory statements released.
All good questions! Shouldn't the press and public hold off on their "assumptions and opinions" until the answers to these questions are released by the police?
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:11 pm to coachcrisp
quote:
Shouldn't the press and public hold off on their "assumptions and opinions" until the answers to these questions are released by the police?
Naw bruh. Unfortunately, there is no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:13 pm to WDE24
quote:
There is clearly sufficient probable cause unless some unknown exculpatory evidence exists that Miller’s attorney failed to mention in his press release.
He doesn't owe an explanation to you or the public besides what he put in his statement. He knows what the evidence is they have in the case and that evidence in no way implicates Miller in the crime.
quote:
I’m curious to know more about that reasoning.
I'm sure they are concerned that YOU are curious and working on a solution for you and Jon Ham at this very moment.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:16 pm to SneezyBeltranIsHere
quote:
Will an Alabama loyalist please explain to me how this is benign? No BS, no spin......explain how Miller would think anything other than he is escalating a conflict by bringing the gun?
There's no proof he even saw the message, knew the gun was in his car, and was already going there to pick Miles up because he was his ride, try again message board lawyer
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:20 pm to Lg
quote:He didn’t even owe what he put in his statement. It was self serving and not issued based on obligation to me or the public. Why does that matter?
He doesn't owe an explanation to you or the public besides what he put in his statement.
quote:It is highly unlikely he knows all of it.
He knows what the evidence is they have in the case
quote:This is objectively false by any fair reading of the information available.
and that evidence in no way implicates Miller in the crime.
quote:Ok. I’ll await their explanation and continue to ask questions about things that don’t add up until they do.
I'm sure they are concerned that YOU are curious and working on a solution for you
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:29 pm to ThePTExperience1969
The text does not even tell Miller that Miles wants him to do anything.
It is just a declarative statement of "I need my joint"
You have to walk the whole jury through all of the context just to get them through the interpretation and convince them beyond all reasonable doubt that "I need my joint" means "My gun is in your car please bring it to me"
Then even if Miles text was "My gun is in your car please bring it to me" they then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "rl guy out here fakin" means that "I intend to use it to commit a crime." and not just that he wants it because he feels unsafe and has gotten into an argument or whatever.
Then, assuming, beyond a reasonable doubt, you've convinced the jury that the text message meant "My gun is in your car please bring it to me, I intend to use it to commit a crime" its still not over. Now you have to prove that Miller even read the text. Then you have to prove that Miller interpreted the text the same way you've convinced the jury to interpret the text.
It's not exactly an open-shut case here. Likely a decent amount of money and time would have to spent by the state just to throw a hail mary at a jury, with a lot of risk that in a high profile case you end up looking like a fool (or worse a racist) while talking in open court about things you read about on Urban Dictionary to try and parse this stupid text message.
It is just a declarative statement of "I need my joint"
You have to walk the whole jury through all of the context just to get them through the interpretation and convince them beyond all reasonable doubt that "I need my joint" means "My gun is in your car please bring it to me"
Then even if Miles text was "My gun is in your car please bring it to me" they then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "rl guy out here fakin" means that "I intend to use it to commit a crime." and not just that he wants it because he feels unsafe and has gotten into an argument or whatever.
Then, assuming, beyond a reasonable doubt, you've convinced the jury that the text message meant "My gun is in your car please bring it to me, I intend to use it to commit a crime" its still not over. Now you have to prove that Miller even read the text. Then you have to prove that Miller interpreted the text the same way you've convinced the jury to interpret the text.
It's not exactly an open-shut case here. Likely a decent amount of money and time would have to spent by the state just to throw a hail mary at a jury, with a lot of risk that in a high profile case you end up looking like a fool (or worse a racist) while talking in open court about things you read about on Urban Dictionary to try and parse this stupid text message.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:33 pm to WDE24
quote:
He didn’t even owe what he put in his statement.
Sure he did. Just like this board, a lot of the information being reported was not truth. Like how Miller allegedly blocked the Jeep in. There is video evidence that that didn't occur.
quote:
This is objectively false by any fair reading of the information available.
So you think the ADA is withholding evidence to the contrary. If he was implicated, she wouldn't have made the statement that she doesn't have any evidence to charge him with a crime. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:39 pm to JJxvi
A text was sent requesting a gun, and that someone was attempting to intimidate him. Miller received the text, showed up with the gun, which was used to kill someone Miles was in dispute with.
Any reasonable person can put 2 and 2 together. A request was made for a tool of violence. The tool was delivered, and violence occurred. All the "did he read the text", "did he know the gun was in his car", and "how did he know he was going to commit a crime" bs is just deflection from what a reasonable person can easily ascertain what Miller's involvement was.
Any reasonable person can put 2 and 2 together. A request was made for a tool of violence. The tool was delivered, and violence occurred. All the "did he read the text", "did he know the gun was in his car", and "how did he know he was going to commit a crime" bs is just deflection from what a reasonable person can easily ascertain what Miller's involvement was.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:45 pm to Lg
quote:According to his interpretation of the video. The police detective either misspoke or interpreted the video differently. Nevertheless, Miller’s atty only owed his press release to his client, not to anyone else.
Like how Miller allegedly blocked the Jeep in. There is video evidence that that didn't occur.
quote:He is clearly implicated. The question is first, is there PC for an arrest/charge (it is pretty apparent there is) and then, does the DA have a good faith belief that it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of whatever the charges might be, including the requisite intent (it appears this DA has decided the answer is no).
If he was implicated
quote:That’s not the statement she made, but her statement was 100% not true. The DA has made a decision not to charge Miller. It hasn’t yet provided the full reasoning why.
she wouldn't have made the statement that she doesn't have any evidence to charge him with a crime
quote:I understand it way more than you likely do. Miller has been treated differently by the DA than most in his exact situation (according to the public facts) would be. As I have said, there are potentially very legitimate and above board reasons that may be the case, but those reasons haven’t been publicized. So we all get to speculate until the full facts are released.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:51 pm to SneezyBeltranIsHere
Wow what happened?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:52 pm to WDE24
quote:
Nevertheless, he only owed his press release to his client, not to anyone else.
I think it was a shot over the bow to let media know that they need to watch how they "phrase" the way they are reporting on the situation concerning his client.
quote:
I understand it way more than you likely do.
No, you are speculating on what you think you know. Unless you are privy to the video evidence or the statements taken by the police and the DA's office.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:55 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
There's no proof he even saw the message
He either saw it or didn't see it. It is one or the other.
In his attorney's statement, he mentions the text asking for the gun to be brought to Miles. If Miller never saw this text, wouldn't his attorney have said, "My client never saw this text until AFTER he brought Miles the gun."
He saw the text.
Why isn't he being charged? THAT is the scandal in all of this.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:57 pm to Lg
quote:It was not. It was an attempt to provide an explanation for certain things that came out during the hearing that were potentially vague or incomplete and causing bad publicity for his client and the university.
I think it was a shot over the bow to let media know that they need to watch how they "phrase" the way they are reporting on the situation concerning his client.
quote:I am speculating on certain things, but I also understand the situation with the DA and the legal aspects likely better than you do.
No, you are speculating on what you think you know.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 2:58 pm to SingleMalt1973
quote:
Typical response incoming….
You forgot faux outrage
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News