urbanSTL

^ we have first hand account of it from the victim that includes text messages

Here


And here

I'm confused here. Has she made a criminal complaint against anyone? If she's made a criminal complaint then Hill would be obliged to hand over the evidence to the police. And if she hasn't filed charges, then why not? She's alleging that someone committed a pretty serious crime and that Green is helping to cover it up. But Green isn't accused of the crime, nor is Hill. And if it's a crime then you don't hand the evidence to her attorney, you hand it to the police, right? The government might even have an interest in keeping any evidence under seal until the criminal trial is complete, which means it would potentially be a crime to hand the information to her attorney. There's something very irregular here.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

I'm confused here. Has she made a criminal complaint against anyone? If she's made a criminal complaint then Hill would be obliged to hand over the evidence to the police. And if she hasn't filed charges, then why not? She's alleging that someone committed a pretty serious crime and that Green is helping to cover it up. But Green isn't accused of the crime, nor is Hill. And if it's a crime then you don't hand the evidence to her attorney, you hand it to the police, right? The government might even have an interest in keeping any evidence under seal until the criminal trial is complete, which means it would potentially be a crime to hand the information to her attorney. There's something very irregular here.

I believe most issues you raise in this comment are addressed within her thread.

^Not well or clearly. If I were the victim of a crime I'd call the police first and my lawyer later if at all. I can't see any reason on earth she needs this recording to file a police report. And if it's handed over, it should be handed to the police, not a private attorney. I'd want to talk to my own attorney before handing such a thing to anyone but the police. This whole thing is, frankly, quite odd. Inexperienced people do all kinds of odd things, so that isn't in and of itself evidence of anything at all. But it is odd. And I don't blame either Hill or Green for being hesitant about handing something that might be evidence of a criminal activity over to anyone but the government. Let's say for a second they hand it to a lawyer. They're not that attorney's clients, so it doesn't have attorney client privilege relative to them. The attorney hands it to the media. It turns out to be false, and potentially libelous. I could at least imagine that they might be held liable for such a move. A Twitter thread isn't the right forum to get to the bottom of this. But it's sure a darn nice forum to slander someone.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

^Not well or clearly. If I were the victim of a crime I'd call the police first and my lawyer later if at all. I can't see any reason on earth she needs this recording to file a police report. And if it's handed over, it should be handed to the police, not a private attorney. I'd want to talk to my own attorney before handing such a thing to anyone but the police. This whole thing is, frankly, quite odd. Inexperienced people do all kinds of odd things, so that isn't in and of itself evidence of anything at all. But it is odd. And I don't blame either Hill or Green for being hesitant about handing something that might be evidence of a criminal activity over to anyone but the government. Let's say for a second they hand it to a lawyer. They're not that attorney's clients, so it doesn't have attorney client privilege relative to them. The attorney hands it to the media. It turns out to be false, and potentially libelous. I could at least imagine that they might be held liable for such a move. A Twitter thread isn't the right forum to get to the bottom of this. But it's sure a darn nice forum to slander someone.

In the thread she notes that she filed for an order of protection and the recording would have been useful had she known about it at the time (and this is also a good reason why she'd want her attorney to have a copy). She also says that she filed a police report with the partial, edited recording and was told the relevant charge was beyond the statute of limitations hence why the police would no longer be interested (no potential of criminal charges). There are multiple reasons she would still want her attorney to have a copy such as pursuit of an order of protection or civil action. This is perfectly reasonable.

The only thing fishy is why withhold the recording? If Hill was worried about repercussions then he could have handed it directly to the police, he does not need to be a victim or named in the recording in order to do so. He could have suggested to her lawyer that they hand it in together.

I have seen no suggestion that the recording is inauthentic, but even if it was there is no legal liability in handing it to her lawyer assuming he is under the belief that it is authentic. Any liability would only be on the creator of the fake (if it proved to be one) and a person passing it on knowing that it is a fake.

Ideally none of this would be occurring in the public forum, but ideally she would not feel that she has fruitlessly exhausted all other options. I am certain that slander is not her goal in this.

^Sure, there are reasons she might want that. But without knowing the whole story there's also reasons to hesitate. I don't mean to say that I know her motives. I do not. All of this seems . . . quite odd to me. It just doesn't make sense. So let the lawyers sort it out. I don't honestly think it likely that she was trying to slander anyone.

But I do think it quite likely other people have latched onto her because her Twitter thread makes a convenient line of attack on people they'd like to attack anyway. For completely unrelated reasons. And I'm deeply skeptical that these people would care one iota about the issue if it weren't a convenient means to an end. To be completely fair, we all do that at least sometimes. And it's pretty much always tiresome. And worse still, it distracts from the real issue and makes it more difficult to actually resolve it.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

^I suppose I'm reacting to this because it reminds me of Donald Trump inviting Bill Clinton's personal enemies to the debate. Maybe Clinton should have behaved differently in regards to her husband's crimes, but she's still a darn site better than the alternative. Green is an awful lot better than her alternatives like Reed, say. And this is mighty convenient to her political foes. I'll buy she might have misbehaved. But the truth is I don't really know. And she's not on trial here. So let the courts figure this one out. And it's remarkably complicated to even sort that out without sounding like I'm dismissing the complainant. She absolutely has a right to air her grievances. And maybe she should get that tape, or get it quicker, or some such. But I don't think it's a good reason to vote against Green.

People will use anything available in a public forum to their own advantage, but we should be careful not to let how 3rd parties react to color the motives of the original experience. She had a personal experience with a candidate, felt harmed by that person's actions, and felt it relevant to put forward. I am certain these are her true feelings and not theater and no one put her up to it.

Whether this information affects how one votes is up to every voter. I think it's reasonable to say that this story makes one not want to vote for Green, I also think it's reasonable to say it makes no difference to Green's ability to execute the office so it won't factor into one's vote, voters can and should make that determination for themselves.

I do not want the way people react or how 3rd parties use her story to take anything away from it or impugne her in the slightest. Maybe her situation is odd, I sure hope it's not common, but I am certain that her motives and feelings are exactly what she says they are.

^I don't have enough information to really have any idea about anything here.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I wonder what variances the builder in that story required. Seems bad if even in FPSE's form based code developers need variances every single time they want to build a house. 

What a victory for me

That's all I need to see to call this election.

Bret Narayan announced his candidacy for the 4th ward.

Have to assume Vacarro is going to run for the 4th as well.

Laura Keys won the 21st ward last week.

Just moved to Narayan's ward.  Can anyone tell me how I should feel without digging through every board bill voting record?

Did Mark Kummer drop out of this race for Aldermanic president?

The ActiVote app no longer shows his name in the race. 

RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑

Aug 12, 2022

Did Mark Kummer drop out of this race for Aldermanic president?

The ActiVote app no longer shows his name in the race. 

A judge denied him ballot access because he apparently didn't meet the required residency rules.

Is there a "favorite" between Coatar and Green? 

Since the 9/13 “primary” is now irrelevant because both will move to the Nov general, it’s tough to say at this point, idk how much either will spent to campaign for next month.  Right now I’d give the edge to the candidate with the most money…Coatar

As of July
Coatar $143,400 campaign account + $10,000 PAC supporting him
Green $55,900 campaign account + $0 PAC supporting her (registered 7/20, so it may have raised money since)

Another factor is that Megan Green ran for PBOA last time, so she probably has higher name recognition citywide. 

I doubt this will be an issue in this election but one thing I really dislike about Coatar is his record on the preservation board. He rarely votes against allowing a historic building's demolition and doesn't recuse himself when the developer in question has given him campaign cash.