I wonder when Hilaria will dump her sugar daddy. ...


Lee

Why would she? If he goes to jail she spends his money. If he doesn't and becomes a pariah then she can split....and spend his money.

True, but how much are the lawsuits and settlements going to cost him? ...


Lee

My guess is she’ll move back to Spain.

And IMO he looks stoned/drunk in the video. He's probably been hitting the bottle every since it happened.
Considering his anti-gun stance & political history... This accidental shooting is probably the worst thing that could have happened to him.

Some really smart people often talk about us living in a simulation.
- I don't believe we do but then occasionally stuff like this happens! :eek:

If (when?) the sugar runs out she'll be on her way. Beautiful women, who seek out men with money often find themselves on a fiscal leash but they always walk if things go bad.

Hilaria is 38 and an ex yoga instructor. Trust me, even with six kids in tow she'll be fine whatever happens. :D

lol... :D

why, who wants to stop him. :D


of course. Hollywood has NO grasp of the real world.

I saw that he has refused to turn over his cell phone.

He should be tried, then Epstein himself.

Which one???

How do you refuse a "search warrant" from the authorities investigating someone's wrongful death?

(From Jan 10 2022)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-cell-phone-warrant/

"Alec Baldwin said Saturday that any suggestion he's not complying with the investigation into last fall's deadly shooting on a New Mexico film set is a lie.

At issue is a search warrant for Baldwin's cell phone, which authorities hope can provide information helpful in the probe. Baldwin was holding a revolver during a rehearsal for his movie "Rust" on October 21 when it fired, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding the film's director.

Authorities still don't have the actor's phone."

even though they had a warrant for his phone I "think" they had to go through another legal office, perhaps due to jurisdiction, to get it so he refused. not sure about that.

I like his comment, things on my phone might incriminate me. duh.


kyle R handed his phone over voluntarily, no warrant. HE had nothing to hide.

ha!

same way you destroy emails requested by the FBI I guess

Repeat after me. The police are not your friends. They want to close the case. They are not interested in finding 'truth'. Their job is to make a case and present to the DA.

The courts find 'truth'.

Do not talk to the police. Period.

First question: Am I under arrest or am I free to go? REPEAT until answered. The police will deflect for as long as possible.

If told you are under arrest then you invoke your 5th amendment right and ask for a lawyer and SHUT UP.

We have an adversarial judicial system. It works pretty well. So DO NOT HAND IT OVER TO THE POLICE. let them do their job.

It is not a matter of 'hiding' anything. It is a matter of you hanging yourself. You will NEVER talk your way out of anything with the police.

^^^ Tad is correct. My brother, the retired Detective Cop, would tell you the same thing.

It really bothers me that the authorities can even request his phone under the authority of a warrant. In the old days, if police wanted to listen in on our telephone conversations, they had to seek a warrant to do so, and then it was only a "from then on" privilege. They had no right to demand one reveal their conversations that happened in private, before that warrant was issued. It's called The Fifth Amendment. We have no obligation to speak with the police. We are protected against "self incrimination" through our right to remain silent. I believe that right is abrogated, unlawfully, when they demand access to prior, private conversations. The mere fact that modern technology allows them that access is no reason to believe that our Constitution allows them that access.

As I understand it, I don't think they can recreate actual conversations from a phone or data. Anyway, telephone conversations, just like face-to-face conversations, are not admissible as there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Anything else is admissible, including texts and emails, though.

Data can and has been seized which would provide all kinds of information such as phone records, purchases, locations.

Carrying a phone is pretty much carrying a very, very thorough tracking devide.

I would hope that this "reasonable expectation of privacy" would apply to any private communication, regardless of the form. I would hope it would apply to locational tracking as well. We do have the right to not answer "where were you on the night of...". Just because an electronic device that we are carrying can answer that, it doesn't mean the authorities have any right to that. Not the one owned by the "suspect", anyway, as that would be self incrimination. Like the old days, witness reports on where one was, surveillance video, credit card transactions, etc. - sure. They are arguably "third party" accounts of one's whereabouts. One's cell phone is, to me, akin to self incrimination and should be disallowed.