OT: TMZ - Rose being sued/accused of drugging and gang raping former GF

[Rerisen]

D. Rose speaks:

"“I am just focusing on staying healthy and getting ready for the season,” Rose said in the statement. “I am not going to comment other than to say – I know the truth, and am confident I will be proven innocent.”"

Don't forget a link.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/derrick-rose-on-rape-allegations---i-know-the-truth--and-am-confident-i-will-be-proven-innocent-151909698.html

[LordBaldric]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

Except that her allegations include a number of witnesses, that along with texts and other telecommunication records, will back up her story if it's true. And if those people and things don't back her up, her story is in the dumpster bin. Thus her story can be checked out, which in my mind would be a weird kind of story to make up if you were just lying to make $$$.

[musiqsoulchild]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

I was talking about this a few pages ago - and was vociferously rejected.

Hear me out - Skype and GROUP sex - whats common to both of those things? They are verifiable and with some digging can easily be proven/disproven.

I think those things ACTUALLY happened and they involved Rose - which is why his lawyers came out at the outset and were very specific in admitting the existence of a NON-EXCLUSIVE relationship with the plaintiff. They will continue to say that enough number of times so that the public/jury/judge are inured to the fact that any gory sexual details that are presented by the plaintiff will all be swept under the blanket of "relationship".

The rape itself is MUCH more he said - she said. There is no evidence that we know of at this point ( like Skype, or video cameras for example). The only witnesses are people who have a stake with either the plaintiff or the defendant.

This makes the co-worker and the cab driver - the MOST important witnesses. But they are not really WITNESS-es. They are corraborators and used to establish timelines.

So, yeah, I think Rose's lawyers are conceding that Rose particpated in some of the activities that the plaintiff has ascribed to him ( the Skype, the group sex --- not the rape).

[Stratmaster]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

As if Rose would be in the minority because he wanted a girlfriend to "do her thing" for him on skype. I was never into the group sex thing but I know a lot of people who were or are. I could give a crap about that stuff. If he raped her I hope he goes to jail. If he didn't, the other stuff means nothing.

Personally, just from the account given, I am having trouble believing the naive little girl abgle. This is the same girl who brought her friend, a "sex therapist" with her to see Derrick and had no problem with this "friend" fondling his ...well, you know what... but then both her and her friend were "offended" when he suggested more. What? The same girl who had a roommate who came home drunk and was not surprised to find men in their apartment. When one man approached the roommate she pointed to the bathroom and said "the bathroom is over there". Not "what the hell are you doing here?". Not "who the hell are you?" Not seeking out her roommate. That tells me that either the accuser was in the room with the men and seemed fine or the roommate was used to coming home and finding men in the apartment.

BUT..... that is all conjecture and I don't think anyone outside of those whow ere there will ever be able to state for sure what did or didn't happen. Unless the cab driver or roomate end up having more information and are awfully credible with it this is likely going to stay a he-said/she-said situation for eternity.

[Red Larrivee]

Did any of you read the entire lawsuit? From a Bulls fan perspective, what irks me the most is to think that Rose was doing all this stupid **** when he decided to sit out in 2013 but was cleared to play.

Also noticed the lawsuit saying somewhere that Rose returned to his house after a game he had played in and invited Jane Doe over. But the supposed timeline of this day was in Spring 2013....and Rose DEFINITELY did not play in a game then. Something doesn't add up.


[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/276510161/Rose-Derrick-v-Jane-Doe-Complaint[/url]

Being cleared to play or being injured has zero correlation with someone's sex life.

[truth18]

From a lot of comments I've seen no one has called Rose a rapist, so I wouldn't worry about that. Only fans that will are LBJ/Cavs fans and trolls who's just trying to get attention.

And Rose has a lot of respect from players all around the league so I doubt it'd be brought up in trash talk during games.

I expect this to be dismissed in a week.

People didn't hate Rose before this like they hated Brady, but people hate the Bulls. This won't go away for a bit imo, or until proof comes out that she lied.

Winning cures all though. Look at Kobe and Arod. Public perception is an odd beast

[DuckIII]

Wow. I just read the lawsuit. Its well drafted. The strategy is interesting. Its highly unusual to go into that level of detail in a complaint. Its not at all required. Typically a plaintiff's attorney will plead the bare minimum necessary so as to not box their theory of the case into any particular set of facts. In particular the identification of all of these potential witnesses is rare.

This suggests a few things to me:

(a) They did their research already and are confident they can corroberate all of the "non rape" facts, which they hope will lend credibility to the case as a whole.

(b) They wrote it with this level of detail and gave it to Rose's lawyers prior to filing it to say, "look, not only will we publicly state it with this level of detail, but if you don't settle, look who all gets drug in as witnesses." (Rose's agent, adidas representatives being the most notable)

(c) These attorneys either have thought this through in great detail and have strong strategic foresight, or they are really myopic and short-sighted if they can't support all of the gratuitous allegations.

P.S. The jab about Rose not being able to give the plaintiff an orgasm was probably just a ridiculous attempt to appeal to his manhood, but kind of a funny touch in a general sense.

[Indomitable]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

If he raped her I hope he goes to jail.

He is not being tried and this probably gets settled. He is not being tried in a court of law. He is being sued.

[DuckIII]

Did any of you read the entire lawsuit? From a Bulls fan perspective, what irks me the most is to think that Rose was doing all this stupid **** when he decided to sit out in 2013 but was cleared to play.

Also noticed the lawsuit saying somewhere that Rose returned to his house after a game he had played in and invited Jane Doe over. But the supposed timeline of this day was in Spring 2013....and Rose DEFINITELY did not play in a game then. Something doesn't add up.


[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/276510161/Rose-Derrick-v-Jane-Doe-Complaint[/url]

Being cleared to play or being injured has zero correlation with someone's sex life.

Abstaining from basketball and abstaining from sex are linked. This is why despite being married I've had no sex in nearly 6 years. Though I'm strongly thinking about finding a pick-up game on my home from work tonight to put an end to this madness.

[red222]

Did any of you read the entire lawsuit? From a Bulls fan perspective, what irks me the most is to think that Rose was doing all this stupid **** when he decided to sit out in 2013 but was cleared to play.

Also noticed the lawsuit saying somewhere that Rose returned to his house after a game he had played in and invited Jane Doe over. But the supposed timeline of this day was in Spring 2013....and Rose DEFINITELY did not play in a game then. Something doesn't add up.


[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/276510161/Rose-Derrick-v-Jane-Doe-Complaint[/url]

Being cleared to play or being injured has zero correlation with someone's sex life.

Abstaining from basketball and abstaining from sex are linked. This is why despite being married I've had no sex in nearly 6 years. Though I'm strongly thinking about finding a pick-up game on my home from work tonight to put an end to this madness.

WTF

[Indomitable]

Did any of you read the entire lawsuit? From a Bulls fan perspective, what irks me the most is to think that Rose was doing all this stupid **** when he decided to sit out in 2013 but was cleared to play.

Also noticed the lawsuit saying somewhere that Rose returned to his house after a game he had played in and invited Jane Doe over. But the supposed timeline of this day was in Spring 2013....and Rose DEFINITELY did not play in a game then. Something doesn't add up.


[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/276510161/Rose-Derrick-v-Jane-Doe-Complaint[/url]

Being cleared to play or being injured has zero correlation with someone's sex life.

Abstaining from basketball and abstaining from sex are linked. This is why despite being married I've had no sex in nearly 6 years. Though I'm strongly thinking about finding a pick-up game on my home from work tonight to put an end to this madness.

Damn playing ball is the secret to a sex life. Who knew

[musiqsoulchild]

Wow. I just read the lawsuit. Its well drafted. The strategy is interesting. Its highly unusual to go into that level of detail in a complaint. Its not at all required. Typically a plaintiff's attorney will plead the bare minimum necessary so as to not box their theory of the case into any particular set of facts. In particular the identification of all of these potential witnesses is rare.

This suggests a few things to me:

(a) They did their research already and are confident they can corroberate all of the "non rape" facts, which they hope will lend credibility to the case as a whole.

(b) They wrote it with this level of detail and gave it to Rose's lawyers prior to filing it to say, "look, not only will we publicly state it with this level of detail, but if you don't settle, look who all gets drug in as witnesses." (Rose's agent, adidas representatives being the most notable)

These attorneys either have thought this through in great detail and have strong strategic foresight, or they are really myopic and short-sighted in they can't support all of these gratuitous allegations.

P.S. The jab about Rose not being able to give the plaintiff an orgasm was probably just a ridiculous attempt to appeal to his manhood, but kind of a funny touch in a general sense.

Exactly, Duck - I agree with you a 100%.

Also, I read the full lawsuit - like yourself - only today. I tried to give myself a timeout yesterday because I dont do analysis when the moment is super-charged with emotion.

After, I read it today there can be only 2 possibilities as pertains to the existence of a relationship between the two:
1) The woman and her lawyer completely made this ish up
OR
2) All of the sexual details are true

Derrick's lawyers have confirmed to us ( implied) that it is actually Option 2.

As pertains to the rape allegations, I really think it will depend on how compelling a case the plaintiff's lawyer can make in linking Option 2 and all of the details of the sexual relationship (s) AND the hearsay of the co-worker and the roommate. Still not a strong case.

Also, my conspiratorial instincts tell me that Rose paid her off the last couple of times and she keeps coming back for more. This is really blackmail that is now taking on a more formal, legal form. Derrick must have told her that he's not gonna pay anymore.

[musiqsoulchild]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

If he raped her I hope he goes to jail.

He is not being tried and this probably gets settled. He is not being tried in a court of law. He is being sued.

Tried in the public court of opinion.

[DuckIII]

Being cleared to play or being injured has zero correlation with someone's sex life.

Abstaining from basketball and abstaining from sex are linked. This is why despite being married I've had no sex in nearly 6 years. Though I'm strongly thinking about finding a pick-up game on my home from work tonight to put an end to this madness.

Damn playing ball is the secret to a sex life. Who knew

No balling? No balling allowed.

[Stratmaster]

One thing that's bothered me since this story came out is that people will acknowledge that the rape allegations could be false, but will then talk about the other accusations (group sex, Skype, etc) like they're actually true. It's very possible that those were all fabricated as well to make the rape allegations seem more believable. Obviously they could also be true, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a lot of credibility on the plaintiff's side. The only things we know for certain is that these two were in a consensual relationship for some period of time and that the plaintiff now wants money.

If there had been any actual misconduct, you would think that the Rose camp would've gladly cut a check to make the story go away, but who knows with those guys. So at this point, it seems like the plaintiffs tactics are to craft an extremely one-sided narrative (i.e. the naive, demure young woman vs the sleazy, millionaire athlete) intended to generate negative publicity for Rose and hope that he eventually caves and pays them out instead of letting this drag on and further damage his reputation.

If he raped her I hope he goes to jail.

He is not being tried and this probably gets settled. He is not being tried in a court of law. He is being sued.

If he raped her, I hope he goes to jail. You are right, he won't. But he should.

[Indomitable]

If he raped her I hope he goes to jail.

He is not being tried and this probably gets settled. He is not being tried in a court of law. He is being sued.

He doesnt need to be tried. The state can levy charges against him if they so wish. He is of course a star player and they will wait it out until its absolutely necessary.

Then the state can stay the civil trial until the criminal trial has proceeded.


I just wish we knew if she ever filed a police report.

[DuckIII]

As pertains to the rape allegations, I really think it will depend on how compelling a case the plaintiff's lawyer can make in linking Option 2 and all of the details of the sexual relationship (s) AND the hearsay of the co-worker and the roommate. Still not a strong case.

That's the strategically interesting thing about the complaint. If they can corraborate all of the collateral details, then they'll be building credibility by including it all in the complaint up front. "Look at the complaint, members of the jury. We've told you the whole story from the very beginning. We didn't hold back. And we've proven every aspect of it that can be proven except for the final piece, which is up to you to decide. Do you believe the rapist or the victim? We've told the truth from the very first day of this lawsuit." Followed by listing areas where Rose and his co-defendants may have been caught in subtle lies or half truths during the discovery process to juxtapose the plaintiff's credibility with theirs. That's an impressive and smart strategy, well thought out far in advance. If you can prove all of that stuff.

If, on the other hand, the strategy was to add a ton of detail solely on your client's word without doing your homework first to see if you could actually corraborate it, in the hopes of forcing a quick settlement, then its a borderline incompetent strategy because you will hang yourself with your own allegations.

[musiqsoulchild]

He is not being tried and this probably gets settled. He is not being tried in a court of law. He is being sued.

He doesnt need to be tried. The state can levy charges against him if they so wish. He is of course a star player and they will wait it out until its absolutely necessary.

Then the state can stay the civil trial until the criminal trial has proceeded.

Yup - but I dont think it will ever get there.

I still have a good feeling that this case has no merit.

What I have bad feelings about are Rose himself - this has left me feeling pretty irritated with him. We now have a full off-season of this to look forward to.

[DuckIII]

I just wish we knew if she ever filed a police report.

Given the extreme level of detail in the complaint as well as the public statement from Rose's attorney, I think its safe to assume she did not. If she did, one of the sides would have mentioned it. The plaintiff to say that she did it, or Rose's lawyer to say that the police already investigated and found no basis for charges.

But that's just a guess.

[DuckIII]

[
If he raped her, I hope he goes to jail. You are right, he won't. But he should.

California has no statute of limitations on aggravated rape (which includes by statutory definition gang rape).