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

[DuckIII]

The one thing that could potentially work against her is that she is saying a bunch of guys were a part of said rape, but is only suing Derrick. Or does that not matter?

She named them all as defendants.

[Indomitable]

So how do they know these 3 in particular "discussed" and "planned" this?

Where is that coming from?

Why would they ask for her to bring a friend over and not drug her too. You are feeding them both drinks and how does she know her friend was not drunk. She was in no condition to vouch for her.

Why not drug both women and simply have your way with them? You invited her and her friend over. If you planned to drug her would you not be better prepared. I mean the suit stated they tried to get into her roommates room later. Why not drug both women and fully indulge your demonic pleasure onto both these women. They obviously had no respect for anyone why not jump her drunk roomate. It was implied they attempted to earlier.

[Dieselbound&Down]

So how do they know these 3 in particular "discussed" and "planned" this?

Where is that coming from?

They are the three defendants. Rose is the only one with money. If you want Rose to be on the hook, you want him to know about and been part of the drugging, whether doing it personally or being part of a plan.

If you fall back on Chris Carter's suggestion of having a fall guy in your crew, Rose just has someone else be the one to plant the drugs and say he didn't tell the others he did it. That guy, who has no net worth, then becomes the prime/only one really hit with a big judgment.

[mj234eva]

So how do they know these 3 in particular "discussed" and "planned" this?

Where is that coming from?

Its an allegation. Technically, it should say "On information and belief," as a precursor to that allegation, which the lawyer employed at other points in the complaint (I think I recall it preceding the "drugging" allegation). It was likely just a drafting oversight to not include that here. But its not required regardless. A plaintiff isn't subject to proofs at the complaint stage. She can say what she wants.

Okay, thanks for that information.

[Keller61]

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.

There are a lot of things in the collateral details that I find dubious.

- That she didn't know about Rose's publically-known GF and child
- That she believed they were "exclusive", even though she only saw him 10 times a year and presumably went months without seeing him during the basketball season
- She was unwilling to fly to Chicago to see him until May 2013, yet apparently was willing to fly to Orlando in February 2012 to be present at his adidas contract signing.
- She went to college basketball games with him. Can anyone remember seeing Rose at a college basketball game on TV, or seeing it on social media, let alone with a woman? Usually when the NBA MVP shows up to a game, it gets noticed.
- The horny "sex therapist"
- The text message of Rose allegedly requesting group sex seems vague and could easily be taken out of context. In two years of texting each other, you'd think she could come up with something more explicit than that.
- She claims the relationship went from October 2011 to July 2013, while Rose's lawyer claims that it lasted over two years.
- If Derrick were only in the relationship for sex, as she seems to be implying, and she wasn't giving him good sex, why would he keep seeing her for two years?

If it turns out that this woman wasn't really as naive and "innocent" as she makes herself out to be, and actually willingly participated in blowjobs and threesomes and things of the sort, that could hurt her credibility. But even if all those collateral details are true, I'm not sure how it really relates to the alleged crime. Enjoying group sex doesn't mean you have a sadistic urge to gang-rape, and there doesn't seem to be anything else that would suggest a motivation for Rose to rape her (he seemingly ended the relationship himself on good terms, with no apparent desire to "punish her" or anything like that).

Btw, do you think Rose's people will have a written response to the complaint soon? I don't see how he can go into the season and expect support from fans without at least putting out his side of the story.

[mj234eva]

I assume they meant the way the document was drawn up to make Derrick look like a hedonist.

Yea, and her the young, naive, innocent, & well meaning girl.

No doubt. They are trying to establish a narrative right up front that she was naive and for the most part sexually inexperienced and non-experimental. Hard to second guess that strategy when, as this thread validates to vivid degrees, the predictable response to such allegations is "she's a whore who was **** a professional athlete."

I think it's hard because, considering some people she is close with, seem to be a bit wild themselves. So in effect, she's suggesting to some degree, that all her friends were a bit slutty (to say the least), but she wasn't. Bit of a hard sell, for me.

[Shill]

(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.

My guess is they have plenty of corroboration for the sexual relationship, hoping that will make her rape claims believable. She very well could be telling the truth, but the crux of the complaint is the flimsiest. She was drugged, somehow escaped, and took a cab home. Then Rose & his posse went to her apartment and got inside because her gate AND front door are routinely left open (in LA), then gang-raped her. And she knew she had been raped because she remembered flashes of Rose and the posse assaulting her AND they left condoms behind.

I don't know, man. We'll see how it plays out.

[mj234eva]

So how do they know these 3 in particular "discussed" and "planned" this?

Where is that coming from?

Why would they ask for her to bring a friend over and not drug her too. You are feeding them both drinks and how does she know her friend was not drunk. She was in no condition to vouch for her.

Why not drug both women and simply have your way with them? You invited her and her friend over. If you planned to drug her would you not be better prepared. I mean the suit stated they tried to get into her roommates room later. Why not drug both women and fully indulge your demonic pleasure onto both these women. They obviously had no respect for anyone why not jump her drunk roomate. It was implied they attempted to earlier.

Yea posted something about blogabull, asking why would Rose tell her to bring a friend, if it was their intent to rape the accused (only). That, to me, would suggest there actually WASN'T an intent to rape her, but that's just how I'd read it. Someone else, could think otherwise reading that.

[mj234eva]

The one thing that could potentially work against her is that she is saying a bunch of guys were a part of said rape, but is only suing Derrick. Or does that not matter?

She named them all as defendants.

Can you explain the "Does 1-10" part? So, is she saying that there are 10 other parties involved?

[meekrab]

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.

Ah, civil trials. Where you can prove X, Y, Z, L, M, N, O, and P and then ask the jury to award damages for Q and W.

Wouldn't be much difference if it were a criminal trial when it comes to undocumented rape. Its ultimately going to come down to the credibility of the participants. Its not fair to either the accuser or the accused, really. But I don't see what there is to be done about it.

The difference is that in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove the charges Q and W "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil trial the standards are much lower and only involve convincing the jury that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for 'damages'.

[truth18]

Do you guys see this affecting his game? On a scale of Kobe-Neutral-Tiger, what would you say your thoughts his efficiency and effectiveness this season with this issue in mind?

[RememberLu]

Does anyone know why the plaintiff is on her 3rd lawyer? I see a lot of speculation but nothing concrete. Some say it's part of her legal strategy. Others say this is an indication that her previous two lawyers dropped her case.

[Shill]

Do you guys see this affecting his game? On a scale of Kobe-Neutral-Tiger, what would you say your thoughts his efficiency and effectiveness this season with this issue in mind?

Kobe and Tiger had serious marital issues to deal with. Rose is a free bird. Plus, those were fresh wounds. Tiger had new women coming out the woodwork every other day. And Kobe was facing criminal charges.

My guess is probably closer to Kobe.

[truth18]

Do you guys see this affecting his game? On a scale of Kobe-Neutral-Tiger, what would you say your thoughts his efficiency and effectiveness this season with this issue in mind?

Kobe and Tiger had serious marital issues to deal with. Rose is a free bird. Plus, those were fresh wounds. Tiger had new women coming out the woodwork every other day. And Kobe was facing criminal charges.

My guess is probably closer to Kobe.

Not a direct comparison, I just meant do you think he'll come out angry with an excellent season (Brady would be another example after Spygate), completely disintegrate like Tiger, or have a similar season to last?

[DuckIII]

Btw, do you think Rose's people will have a written response to the complaint soon? I don't see how he can go into the season and expect support from fans without at least putting out his side of the story.

In California a defendant has 30 days to answer a complaint once it is served. Its been filed, but I don't know that its actually been served on Rose. Once he's served properly, he will have 30 days. Though its not uncommon to get an extension of time to respond.

Also, a response can be in the form of a motion to dismiss rather than as an answer to the individual allegations one by one. I don't see what basis there could be to move to dismiss rather than answer, but I'm just telling you the possible options.

I suspect they'll just answer and deny all of the allegations. I would be surprised if you saw detailed factual denials though. Again, as with the oddity of the plaintiff's complaint, it would be unusual to unnecessarily assert detailed facts at an early stage. You don't want to box yourself in. The typical strategy is to simply respond with, for example: "Defendant Rose denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff's complaint." And just say it over and over and over again after each paragraph. They can always get their side out through the press, like they did already by calling it a false and blatant money grab.

But who knows? Maybe they'll respond in kind with detailed support for the denials. But I certainly wouldn't if it were my case.

[DuckIII]

Yea, and her the young, naive, innocent, & well meaning girl.

No doubt. They are trying to establish a narrative right up front that she was naive and for the most part sexually inexperienced and non-experimental. Hard to second guess that strategy when, as this thread validates to vivid degrees, the predictable response to such allegations is "she's a whore who was **** a professional athlete."

I think it's hard because, considering some people she is close with, seem to be a bit wild themselves. So in effect, she's suggesting to some degree, that all her friends were a bit slutty (to say the least), but she wasn't. Bit of a hard sell, for me.

I agree that its a hard sell. Hell, being a side piece for a professional athlete, regardless of her friends' conduct, makes it hard to sell that you are sexually naive. Lets face it, society thinks that if you are sleeping with a professional athlete on the side, you are likely a gold digging groupy slut. She's got an uphill battle on that front, which probably explains the strategy of coming out right of the bat with the "sheepish young lady caught up in a whirlwind of debauchary" angle.

[jnrjr79]

I assume they meant the way the document was drawn up to make Derrick look like a hedonist.

Yea, and her the young, naive, innocent, & well meaning girl.

No doubt. They are trying to establish a narrative right up front that she was naive and for the most part sexually inexperienced and non-experimental. Hard to second guess that strategy when, as this thread validates to vivid degrees, the predictable response to such allegations is "she's a whore who was **** a professional athlete."

That reaction makes it hard to second-guess the strategy? Wouldn't that knee-jerk reaction call the strategy into question (i.e. make it hard not to second-guess it), or do you think the inevitable blowback to that initial reaction would be a net benefit?

Also, pushing back on those allegations can certainly be done without reacting so boorishly as to simply say "Oh, she's a whore." The complaint indicates she was raised to believe that "a woman should have sex only with one person - her spouse." The very next paragraph talks about her sex life with Rose. The complaint discusses a previous pregnancy that apparently occurred prior to her relationship with Rose. She only saw Rose about once a month, even during the long stretches he was living in California. Yet she thought they were girlfriend/boyfriend? She continued to see him after learning Rose had a girlfriend in Chicago. The whole "sex therapist thing." She claims not to know Rose had a child, which seems like a stretch when your very famous purported boyfriend's fatherhood has been discussed in the media ad nauseum.

The plaintiff seems pretty clearly to either be lying about the degree of her prudishness, or to just be an odd, odd person. A lot of this stuff just seems really inconsistent.

It is interesting though the degree to which all of the witness corroboration has been pled, including the content of text messages that should be relatively easily verified. Like you note, the degree of unnecessary detail is staggering, and there is a shithouse full of witnesses that will need to testify consistently with the allegations. It would be crazy irresponsible to file something like this without verifying it in advance, which sure makes you believe there are some folks lined up to testify consistently. If it is just a ploy to extract a settlement, that would be a crazy inadvisable practice.

[DuckIII]

The one thing that could potentially work against her is that she is saying a bunch of guys were a part of said rape, but is only suing Derrick. Or does that not matter?

She named them all as defendants.

Can you explain the "Does 1-10" part? So, is she saying that there are 10 other parties involved?

In most states you can name "Does" in order to get around the statute of limitations. Then if discovery unveils additional bad actors or conspirators you can "substitute" their real identities for one of the "Doe Defendants" in the event the statute of limitations had expired by that point. Its basically a way of saying "You have always been a defendant to this lawsuit, we just didn't know who you were when we filed it."

[DuckIII]

Do you guys see this affecting his game? On a scale of Kobe-Neutral-Tiger, what would you say your thoughts his efficiency and effectiveness this season with this issue in mind?

How could his play get worse? bad-ump-bump-ching

[jnrjr79]

Btw, do you think Rose's people will have a written response to the complaint soon? I don't see how he can go into the season and expect support from fans without at least putting out his side of the story.

In California a defendant has 30 days to answer a complaint once it is served. Its been filed, but I don't know that its actually been served on Rose. Once he's served properly, he will have 30 days. Though its not uncommon to get an extension of time to respond.

Also, a response can be in the form of a motion to dismiss rather than as an answer to the individual allegations one by one. I don't see what basis there could be to move to dismiss rather than answer, but I'm just telling you the possible options.

I suspect they'll just answer and deny all of the allegations. I would be surprised if you saw detailed factual denials though. Again, as with the oddity of the plaintiff's complaint, it would be unusual to unnecessarily assert detailed facts at an early stage. You don't want to box yourself in. The typical strategy though is to simply respond with, for example: "Defendant Rose denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff's complaint." And just say it over and over and over again after each paragraph. They can always get their side out through the press, like they did already by calling it a false and blatant money grab.

But who knows? Maybe they'll respond in kind with detailed support for the denials. But I certainly wouldn't if it were my case.

Plus, I don't know what the law is in California, but in some states you can just do a single general denial of the allegations of the complaint without having to address them one-by-one.