Post by: Manedwolf on October 19, 2007, 06:55:48 AM
Quote
Cops: Seattle Woman Claims David Copperfield Raped Her
Friday , October 19, 2007
A Seattle woman has made a rape claim against magician David Copperfield, law enforcement sources tell FOX News.
The woman told Seattle police the magician raped her while she was in the Bahamas, sources told FOX News. Because the alleged incident happened abroad and the woman did not report it until she returned to the United States, Seattle authorities turned over the case to the FBI.
On Thursday, FBI officials raided a Las Vegas warehouse used by Copperfield. A Seattle FBI Agent Robbie Burroughs said Thursday that the case was related to one in Washington.
"The investigation is related to a Seattle case. The Seattle case is pending and that means we can't say anything about it," Burroughs said.
Copperfield has been contacted by law enforcement authorities and the FBI has conducted an investigation in Las Vegas, where the magician regularly performs, his lawyer and the FBI confirmed.
Copperfield's Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, told FOX News that possible sexual abuse claims against the illusionist were false.
"If in fact those are the allegations, unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals," said Chesnoff. "But we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably."
"We are in touch with the investigators, and are respecting the confidentiality of the investigation," he said.
Copperfield has a warehouse in Las Vegas that he has dubbed the International Museum & Library of the Conjuring Arts. He apparently stores tricks and memorabilia from around the world at the warehouse.
"I can confirm that there's investigative activity at the warehouse," FBI Special Agent David Staretz, spokesman for the Las Vegas office, said Thursday. Staretz wouldn't give further details.
KLAS-TV reported that an FBI raid with 12 agents took place Wednesday at Copperfield's warehouse.
Copperfield, 51, has been a longtime performer at the Hollywood Theater at the MGM Grand casino-hotel on the Las Vegas Strip, where he has performed in six- to eight-week stints several times a year, said MGM Mirage Inc. spokeswoman Yvette Monet.
Monet said Copperfield performed two shows Wednesday night, which were at the end of his most recent run. Monet said Copperfield was next scheduled to perform in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Friday , October 19, 2007
A Seattle woman has made a rape claim against magician David Copperfield, law enforcement sources tell FOX News.
The woman told Seattle police the magician raped her while she was in the Bahamas, sources told FOX News. Because the alleged incident happened abroad and the woman did not report it until she returned to the United States, Seattle authorities turned over the case to the FBI.
On Thursday, FBI officials raided a Las Vegas warehouse used by Copperfield. A Seattle FBI Agent Robbie Burroughs said Thursday that the case was related to one in Washington.
"The investigation is related to a Seattle case. The Seattle case is pending and that means we can't say anything about it," Burroughs said.
Copperfield has been contacted by law enforcement authorities and the FBI has conducted an investigation in Las Vegas, where the magician regularly performs, his lawyer and the FBI confirmed.
Copperfield's Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, told FOX News that possible sexual abuse claims against the illusionist were false.
"If in fact those are the allegations, unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals," said Chesnoff. "But we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably."
"We are in touch with the investigators, and are respecting the confidentiality of the investigation," he said.
Copperfield has a warehouse in Las Vegas that he has dubbed the International Museum & Library of the Conjuring Arts. He apparently stores tricks and memorabilia from around the world at the warehouse.
"I can confirm that there's investigative activity at the warehouse," FBI Special Agent David Staretz, spokesman for the Las Vegas office, said Thursday. Staretz wouldn't give further details.
KLAS-TV reported that an FBI raid with 12 agents took place Wednesday at Copperfield's warehouse.
Copperfield, 51, has been a longtime performer at the Hollywood Theater at the MGM Grand casino-hotel on the Las Vegas Strip, where he has performed in six- to eight-week stints several times a year, said MGM Mirage Inc. spokeswoman Yvette Monet.
Monet said Copperfield performed two shows Wednesday night, which were at the end of his most recent run. Monet said Copperfield was next scheduled to perform in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 19, 2007, 07:47:46 AM
Seriously... why on earth would there be evidence in his magic museum or performing stage of an alleged rape that occurred 4000 miles away?
Post by: Laurent du Var on October 19, 2007, 07:54:04 AM
and then he rapes a woman on the bahamas
and then the FBI raids his warehouse with twelve agents !
That reminds me a little of :
This picture is not explainable
Post by: ilbob on October 19, 2007, 07:56:20 AM
in fact, why is the fbi investigating a crime alleged to have happened in the bahamas at all?
Post by: HankB on October 19, 2007, 07:59:59 AM
Are the Bahamas now under FBI jurisdiction?
Have charges been filed in the Bahamas, or have Bahamian authorities requested extradition?
On what basis was cash
Post by: Chris on October 19, 2007, 08:50:20 AM
Post by: ilbob on October 19, 2007, 09:35:27 AM
Okay, let's be sure and put the blame where it lies. If there is indeed no evidence of a crime which was committed within U.S. jurisdiction, let's slam the federal judge/magistrate who signed off on the search warrant. If there's not enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant shouldn't be signed. It ain't that hard to say no.
LE has gotten very good at getting warrants. The courts have told them what weasel words and phrases to use, and thats what they do. A clever LEO can get a warrant on anyone, if they really want to. If you want to get a big laugh, read a few warrants some time. It will open your eyes up a lot.
Post by: JonnyB on October 19, 2007, 11:38:59 AM
a) Slim
B) Fat
c)None
jb
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 19, 2007, 12:11:47 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 19, 2007, 12:16:45 PM
Post by: Waitone on October 19, 2007, 01:36:50 PM
Post by: Thor on October 19, 2007, 03:45:50 PM
Post by: Chris on October 19, 2007, 04:02:35 PM
Okay, let's be sure and put the blame where it lies. If there is indeed no evidence of a crime which was committed within U.S. jurisdiction, let's slam the federal judge/magistrate who signed off on the search warrant. If there's not enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant shouldn't be signed. It ain't that hard to say no.
LE has gotten very good at getting warrants. The courts have told them what weasel words and phrases to use, and thats what they do. A clever LEO can get a warrant on anyone, if they really want to. If you want to get a big laugh, read a few warrants some time. It will open your eyes up a lot.
Maybe I should introduce myself to you, ilbob. See, I was a criminal prosecutor for 14 years, and now I'm a magistrate. I've written maybe a hundred warrant requests in my old career. Mainly meth labs, but a couple of computer cases and a sex offense or two as well. And, yes, I have laughed at more than one warrant request, though. In my county, all warrant requests had to be reviewed and written by a prosecutor before being presented to a judge. I still remember getting a call on Christmas day a few years back. A man hit another man in the head with a ball bat. The suspect was seen running into an apartment buiding with 8 apartments. Officer on the phone wanted me to leave friends and family to request a warrant for one apartment. When I asked how they knew it was that apartment, the response was that it had to be, as it was the only one where no one answered the door, and all teh lights were off.
Turns out the guy went in one door and out the back, and the dark apartment was vacant. Glad I didn't bother a judge with that garbage.
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 20, 2007, 06:40:33 PM
why is the fbi investigating a crime alleged to have happened in the bahamas by searching a warehouse in las vegas?
in fact, why is the fbi investigating a crime alleged to have happened in the bahamas at all?
in fact, why is the fbi investigating a crime alleged to have happened in the bahamas at all?
DING!!!!!
Go to the head of the class.
Also, why did the FBI confiscate $2 million in cash from the warehouse? How does cash in a warehouse possibly relate to an alleged rape that took place in a foreign country?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 20, 2007, 06:57:59 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 20, 2007, 07:00:58 PM
...and did the amount of cash increase by 40 mill or are we dealing with the usual flexible facts
Nope. We're dealing with the usual fumble-fingered typist. Look carefully at your keyboard, and see what's above the '4' -- I slipped and missed the shift key.
I fixed it -- thanks for the catch.
Post by: De Selby on October 21, 2007, 12:44:14 PM
What makes me angry about this situation is that the woman waited until she got back to the US to file rape charges. She's ruined any forensic evidence. At this point, I don't see how she could even come close to proving rape.
A credible witness to the crime is proof. I don't believe that every rape accusation should be required to come with CSI style evidence to prove the case.
Quote
The evidence they confiscated MAY be of some assistance, as there was a camera, a computer and other stuff that could help her case. However, I don't see where the FBI could even proceed as it allegedly happened in the Bahamas. I'm pretty sure that doesn't fall under US jurisdiction. I think Copperfield will have a myriad of lawsuits to file after all is said and done. All in all, it just goes to further prove that the US is moving ever closer to a true police state.
Agreed with the camera idea-I wonder if any documents will hit the net to show us what they were really after, but I would be on this if I had to.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 21, 2007, 01:06:46 PM
Post by: Warren on October 21, 2007, 01:07:51 PM
And I don't get the whole raid the warehouse-sieze the money angle either.
Post by: Unisaw on October 21, 2007, 01:53:24 PM
Post by: Firethorn on October 21, 2007, 02:10:27 PM
Maybe David should be more careful with what he pulls out of his pants.
This wouldn't be the first false accusation of rape/molestation against a famous person either. I'm not saying that this situation is false, just that false accusations have happened.
Quote from: shootinstudent
A credible witness to the crime is proof. I don't believe that every rape accusation should be required to come with CSI style evidence to prove the case.
How do you define 'credible'? I certainly wouldn't want to see another Duke type situation occurring.
I certainly don't need CSI style evidence - but I do want 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. To me, that requires multiple witnesses or at least some physical evidence. DNA samples, evidence of struggle, video tapes, even sound tapes would all help.
It gets especially complicated if it's a case of 'date rape' where the woman at least initially consented. I especially dislike the cases where the woman decides that she doesn't consent the day after. For example, one case the man and woman were actually in the act, the woman said 'no, stop', he stopped pulled out, and presumably went to sulk*.
Afterwards she reported it as rape to the police on the urging of female friends, and he found himself up on rape charges - because he was 'in' when she said 'no'.
*I know I would.
Post by: De Selby on October 21, 2007, 02:20:15 PM
Quote
How do you define 'credible'? I certainly wouldn't want to see another Duke type situation occurring.
I think it depends on the complainant's story. If the witness can answer questions, appears credible in her speech, and has a consistent story with details that tend to confirm the account, that's pretty solid proof to me.
I don't agree with requiring physical evidence, because especially in rape cases, the issue isn't the physical act, it's the state of mind of the particpants. You are looking for consent, not whether or not a sexual act occured, when you investigate the crime of rape-and only a witness can give you that answer.
It's always possible for accusers to lie-that's true of any crime, like assault. I don't think it's any more likely or troubling when a sex crime is alleged.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 21, 2007, 02:43:06 PM
It is far too easy to seem "credible", and the reward for accusing a famous wealthy person too lucrative, to not expect more than just the word of one or more people.
Post by: Firethorn on October 21, 2007, 02:59:57 PM
It's always possible for accusers to lie-that's true of any crime, like assault. I don't think it's any more likely or troubling when a sex crime is alleged.
Yes, but as carebear points out, rape has far greater consequences, and in some ways is far easier to fake than something like assault - which generally has a battery component and therefore physical injuries.
Meanwhile if you get the right investigation department* they'll practically lead the woman on in what to say to get the guy.
*Not necessarily a good one, one that's too dedicated to 'getting the rapist'.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 21, 2007, 03:02:34 PM
Duke
Lacrosse
Team
Post by: DustinD on October 21, 2007, 03:06:23 PM
If the case centered around them having vs not having sex than it could be easier if physical evidence was present. Rape is one of those crimes where alleged consent can make things tricky unlike most other crimes.
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 21, 2007, 03:55:18 PM
Does it? If so ... how?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 21, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
Post by: Firethorn on October 21, 2007, 04:55:37 PM
Does it? If so ... how?
What about crimes committed at sea? Maybe the FBI claims jurisdiction for crimes committed between US Citizens when no other jurisdiction claims it.
Or, in this case, the country that the crime allegably occurred in declines to demand jurisdiction because the crime occurred between visiting US citizens, why worry about the cost of a trial/punishment if the country they belong to is willing to do it?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 21, 2007, 05:21:32 PM
Post by: Chris on October 22, 2007, 06:05:05 PM
The Duke case sucked because the prosecutor lost track of what's right versus what would keep him elected. He forfeited his honor far his paycheck, and now he has neither. At the same time, he made many real cases all the more difficult to prosecute. hope he saved his thirty silver pieces...
Post by: Glock Glockler on October 23, 2007, 10:19:37 AM
Just for starters, if someone is the victim of an assault they'd probably have at least some physical trauma that could be shown to the police.
If the witness can answer questions, appears credible in her speech, and has a consistent story with details that tend to confirm the account, that's pretty solid proof to me
Do you think there's even the slightest bit of problem with this standard, convicting someone without the slightest bit of "evidence" aside from someone's claim? People can lie, some are actually quite good at it, and with that guilty until proven innocent standard you'll have even more bogus accusations and men's lives will be destroyed because of it.
Post by: De Selby on October 23, 2007, 12:06:53 PM
Just for starters, if someone is the victim of an assault they'd probably have at least some physical trauma that could be shown to the police.
Sorry, I was thinking of the traditional legal definition of an assault, in which there is no contact. So no, there wouldn't be any trauma.
Quote
Do you think there's even the slightest bit of problem with this standard, convicting someone without the slightest bit of "evidence" aside from someone's claim? People can lie, some are actually quite good at it, and with that guilty until proven innocent standard you'll have even more bogus accusations and men's lives will be destroyed because of it.
I only ever see this raised as controversial in sexual assault cases-how many people have lambasted murder convictions based on the fact that a witness positively identified the defendant as the murderer?
A woman testifying in a murder case, for example, saying "I saw that the defendant shoot the store clerk and run out, and yes, I'm 100 percent sure that's the guy." That's going to be pretty damning evidence, even if no gun was found and they didn't do CSI analysis of the shoe prints in the store to match it to the suspect's sneakers. Would you say any such murder conviction should be overturned? I wouldn't, and I don't think most people would either.
Seems to me there's a double standard-eyewitness accounts are accepted as good evidence in any case other than a sex crime case. Even when the penalty might be life in prison or death for those other crimes.
Post by: Glock Glockler on October 23, 2007, 01:22:12 PM
yeah, sorry, but in that case your point is essentially meaningless because you're down to the same problem of "he tried to hit me" and "no, I didn't" and trying to base a conviction off that.
A woman testifying in a murder case, for example, saying "I saw that the defendant shoot the store clerk and run out, and yes, I'm 100 percent sure that's the guy." That's going to be pretty damning evidence, even if no gun was found and they didn't do CSI analysis of the shoe prints in the store to match it to the suspect's sneakers. Would you say any such murder conviction should be overturned? I wouldn't, and I don't think most people would either
The difference is that in cases like that you actually KNOW a crime has been committed because you have a dead body, it's just a matter of properly identifying the one who did it. That is worlds apart from convicting someone simply because they say a crime has been commited with no evidence. The accusor has the up-hill battle of proving one guilty from the de facto status of not guilty, you should need more than just an accusation.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 23, 2007, 02:32:20 PM
did i miss something? was someone convicted?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 23, 2007, 02:34:15 PM
As soon as the media runs with "OMG RAEP!!!!11one" , their character is assasinated.
Post by: De Selby on October 23, 2007, 03:43:46 PM
Quote
That is worlds apart from convicting someone simply because they say a crime has been commited with no evidence.
Again, so people are credible to identify a murderer, but not to identify when a rape has occurred? I don't accept that. What you are basically saying is that rape should never be tried, because it's a crime for which there is almost never evidence of a physical sort-sexual contact isn't proof of a crime, the state of mind of the victim is the element that makes the sexual contact a crime. And there's absolutely no evidence that rape victims are more likely to lie about whether a crime was committed than say, a witness is likely to lie about who he/she saw commit a murder.
A credible witness's story is not a "mere accusation"-anymore than a murder witness's identification is a "mere accusation" that a particular defendant was there and committed the crime. It will be judged by a jury for its credibility, and a defendant will be able to confront the witness in order to expose holes or inconsistencies.
If you don't think juries can tell the difference between a lying witness and a truthful one, then your problem is with the entire jury trial system, not with rape versus murder testimony.
Post by: tokugawa on October 23, 2007, 04:41:26 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 23, 2007, 04:53:50 PM
Quote
Shootinstudent- Did you just say if the accuser is a good lier, to convict?
No-you should convict if you think the accuser is telling the truth. That is what I said.
Quote
You seem to discount physical evidence, but one of the essentials of a rape claim should be to ensure that a sexual encounter DID occur- then we can discuss whether or not it was consensual.
I don't discount it-it's just not the only, or even most important, evidence there is. If we applied this standard, it would be almost impossible to ever put child molestors in jail. Do you think that's a good thing?
Yes, innocent people can be jailed by good liars-but they can be jailed by bad police, faked evidence, and any number of things. This is a risk in any system where you don't have an oracle to tell you the truth, and the risk that a rape victim is lying is no greater than the risk that any of these other witnesses are lying. Yet I don't see people arguing for the whole justice system to be thrown out-they only want to make it harder for rape victims.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 23, 2007, 05:32:01 PM
As far as eyewitness testimony goes, that's been demonstrated to be very unreliable and I for one would be unlikely to vote to convict on it for murder or any other major felony without other supporting evidence.
Post by: Mabs2 on October 23, 2007, 05:40:08 PM
Guilty or not, we could never keep him locked up.
IT'S DAVID COPPERFIELD.
Post by: Firethorn on October 24, 2007, 03:46:02 AM
No-you should convict if you think the accuser is telling the truth. That is what I said.
You should convict if you believe that the accused commited the act beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry, but I don't trust people that much very often. It becomes a big character test. The prosecuter attempts to build up his witness's integrity and tear down the defendent's, the defense attorney the opposite. The general result is both sides end up drug through the mud.
Let's put it this way: You have a female college student, valedictorian in HS, swearing somebody raped her. Great case, right?
But the guy she says did it is ALSO a college student, valedictorian in HS, and swears he didn't do it(or that it was consensual). Who do you believe?
Let's say she has average grades and does some MJ(comes out in trial). Who do you believe?
For stuff like this - you need physical evidence, or multiple witnesses. Not necessarily of the act, but events leading up to the proposed incident. Skilled questioning can help, because it has the ability to poke holes in false testimony. But a skilled, but biased, questioner can skew the results the way he or she wants it.
If the guy's already a convicted rapist, it gets a lot easier - but that ties into physical evidence.
Child molestation is another one that's ended up with a fairly large number of false convictions - they've had cases of psychologists, in 'treating' and 'coaxing the details out of' a young child, they end up causing the child to imagine things that didn't happen. It happened with a girl who imagined her father raped her - problem, she was at summer camp in the USA and he was in Europe the summer she ended up saying it happened. The father ended up divorced, in jail, seperated from his family, ostricized, and ultimately ended up commiting suicide over it. It turns out that the psychologist had a huge rate - she had issues with her father and ended up projecting them onto her patients.
Please note that most molestation charges that stick have multiple witnesses over a period of time, or there's physical evidence - video, pictures, physical injuries, etc...
Post by: Glock Glockler on October 24, 2007, 05:11:49 AM
I said no such thing, what I did say was that the situations were not comprable for a specific reason. A statement by a witness is information and I don't think I would convict someone based on that alone, but if you have other evidence pointing to someone's guilt the eyewitness identifying the accused could be some very nice icing on the cake.
What you are basically saying is that rape should never be tried, because it's a crime for which there is almost never evidence of a physical sort-sexual contact isn't proof of a crime, the state of mind of the victim is the element that makes the sexual contact a crime.
No, I am saying that the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing is kinda cool and I don't think we should abandon it because rape stirs up a lot of emotion. The accused should be considered not guilty until the prosecution PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, if more evidence is required for that than a mere "he did it" than so be it.
And there's absolutely no evidence that rape victims are more likely to lie about whether a crime was committed than say, a witness is likely to lie about who he/she saw commit a murder
Wrong, the witness to the liquer store robbery probably doesn't have a relationship with the person they identify, if they do then that fact is highly relevant and the nature of that relationship should be examined. In the case of date rape there obviously is a somewhat intimate relationship there to begin with, and strong emotions in one direction can very easily be strong in another. I personally know someone who's life was seriously messed up because of a completely bogus rape accusation, and unfortunately due to the standard that you support he basically had to prove himself not guilty, and proving a negative in that situation is kinda impossible.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 05:20:49 AM
Does this really matter?
Guilty or not, we could never keep him locked up.
IT'S DAVID COPPERFIELD.
Guilty or not, we could never keep him locked up.
IT'S DAVID COPPERFIELD.
That's a good point. Every time they locked the cell door and turned around, he'd be coming through the hallway door facing them, or just missing completely.
Post by: ilbob on October 24, 2007, 06:14:24 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 06:17:45 AM
I think people are savvy enough that mere accusations of rape are no longer taken anywhere near as seriously as they were a few years ago.
Tell the media that.
Post by: ilbob on October 24, 2007, 08:09:53 AM
I think people are savvy enough that mere accusations of rape are no longer taken anywhere near as seriously as they were a few years ago.
Tell the media that.