Rose found not liable: Update pg. 62

[AmazingJason]

This is what Rose needed, so I can't see it going on much longer after this evidence submission.

Agreed. Especially if there is corroboration on the events of her testimony. It pulls it out of he said/she said territory.

I wonder if Phil knew they were working on this piece of evidence when he seemed unconcerned about the case recently.

I'm pretty sure Phil believed Rose when he told him he was not guilty. Plus Noah was surely going to be highly emphatic to Phil about Rose's innocence and vouch that he knows Rose too well to think there was any lying going on. That's all I think Phil required and he trutsted they were being truthful.

I don't know that Phil would have access to Rose's counsel even if Rose agreed to it. That just may not be kosher. If he did talk to them it would probably be at most a verbal assurance they believed in their client's innocence without sharing any documentation.

And lastly, let's not forget this is an NBA party girl who got it on with JR. That sort of makes it hard to believe her from the get-go, but it also means there is probably plenty of intel within the NBA grapevine that other players could share that would get to Phil. I doubt any of Rose's fellow players would want to see him go down on false charges by a gold digger so there is probably some support for him within the community and Phil would've been informed of this.

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about how the rich and famous lead "that life." People are making it sound like Rose drugged a girl at the club or dragged her into the alleyway and forced himself on her. This is a woman that the players know about or have heard of. She's a part of "that life" and sometimes partaking in it is having to pay them off. It's not just in the NBA, but it happens in other sports like hockey and basketball as well. This is why some players have women sign legal contracts - like JJ Reddick - to be with them, or operate with a specific protocol - like Derek Jeter - but for most, they go about it more loose-goosey like Rose.

[DaKnicksAreBack]

To me the most disturbing part of this is how glib Phil was when he was asked about it. Rape is really, really serious sh*t. If he is so certain that Rose is innocent, he should've said so in no uncertain terms. Instead, he made it seem like he doesn't consider the allegations to be that big of a deal, which is problematic for a host of reasons.

Not trying to criticize, but how did you want Phil to respond? He's not a lawyer, is most likely not familiar with all the hundreds of pages of (often conflicting and/or unclear) evidence, and did not witness the alleged rape. (At least I didn't see his name listed....) Accordingly, Phil really can't say anything more than, “We’re just going to let the process work itself out.”

As far as the trial goes, I hope the truth comes out. It doesn't look great for either party.

It's a civil trial--not criminal--meaning the necessary evidence to "convict," as well as the possible consequences, are far less. Given this, not to mention the nature of the evidence listed on the White Bronco website, I really doubt any "truth" will come out.

Any trial is going to be an absolute mess...a complete circus for both sides. I think the judge knows this, and has been pressuring both sides to settle with his recent judgements (including rejecting the Rose camp's objections and allowing this case to go to trial yet telling the plaintiff that she will lose anonymity if it does). Hopefully, a settlement can be reached, and soon.

If Phil believes Rose is innocent then he should have given him his firm support. If he's not sure then he should have stated that this is a serious matter that the organization is monitoring closely and that he has no further comment. To brush the topic aside is completely inappropriate. And there is no conviction in a civil case, it only has to do with $$$$.

I haven't really followed this case at all. All I know is I hope Rose didn't rape anyone. The best case scenario for my liking would be that Rose didn't do anything wrong and he wins the trial or the case gets dismissed. If by chance that he did commit an egregious crime such as rape, I hope he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[NYKAL]

To me the most disturbing part of this is how glib Phil was when he was asked about it. Rape is really, really serious sh*t. If he is so certain that Rose is innocent, he should've said so in no uncertain terms. Instead, he made it seem like he doesn't consider the allegations to be that big of a deal, which is problematic for a host of reasons.

Not trying to criticize, but how did you want Phil to respond? He's not a lawyer, is most likely not familiar with all the hundreds of pages of (often conflicting and/or unclear) evidence, and did not witness the alleged rape. (At least I didn't see his name listed....) Accordingly, Phil really can't say anything more than, “We’re just going to let the process work itself out.”

As far as the trial goes, I hope the truth comes out. It doesn't look great for either party.

It's a civil trial--not criminal--meaning the necessary evidence to "convict," as well as the possible consequences, are far less. Given this, not to mention the nature of the evidence listed on the White Bronco website, I really doubt any "truth" will come out.

Any trial is going to be an absolute mess...a complete circus for both sides. I think the judge knows this, and has been pressuring both sides to settle with his recent judgements (including rejecting the Rose camp's objections and allowing this case to go to trial yet telling the plaintiff that she will lose anonymity if it does). Hopefully, a settlement can be reached, and soon.

If Phil believes Rose is innocent then he should have given him his firm support. If he's not sure then he should have stated that this is a serious matter that the organization is monitoring closely and that he has no further comment. To brush the topic aside is completely inappropriate. And there is no conviction in a civil case, it only has to do with $$$$.

I haven't really followed this case at all. All I know is I hope Rose didn't rape anyone. The best case scenario for my liking would be that Rose didn't do anything wrong and he wins the trial or the case gets dismissed. If by chance that he did commit an egregious crime such as rape, I hope he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

the very signing of Rose was in itself a show of full support. His comments since have only reinforced the Zen Masters superiority over the average human.

[TyrusRose2425]

It was only a matter of time

[CJackson]

This will ruin Rose's jump shot and he will play worse for the team. He is still worse than Jose Failderon and will make the Knicks lose 50 games this year. He is still a rapist and they will find out he also rapes grandmothers. - bNo

don't even joke. no hexing even in jest

[BKlutch]

This will ruin Rose's jump shot and he will play worse for the team. He is still worse than Jose Failderon and will make the Knicks lose 50 games this year. He is still a rapist and they will find out he also rapes grandmothers. - bNo

don't even joke. no hexing even in jest

I couldn't resist. I wanted to write it before he did.

But it does seem more likely, given that affidavit, that the plaintiff won't prevail. This may be why Rose's attorneys refused to settle. They can't tell all of us their strategy, so we have to speculate and fret. Meanwhile, it was a f*cked up relationship either way you look at it. Very poor judgment to choose to do what he did with a girl like that. When you're famous and rich and she has nothing going on for her besides her physical appearance, it's never going to end well, even if he intended no harm. I'm hoping he did nothing wrong, and it's beginning to look more that way. Let's hope he's more capable of learning than others were.

[CJackson]

This will ruin Rose's jump shot and he will play worse for the team. He is still worse than Jose Failderon and will make the Knicks lose 50 games this year. He is still a rapist and they will find out he also rapes grandmothers. - bNo

don't even joke. no hexing even in jest

I couldn't resist. I wanted to write it before he did.

But it does seem more likely, given that affidavit, that the plaintiff won't prevail. This may be why Rose's attorneys refused to settle. They can't tell all of us their strategy, so we have to speculate and fret. Meanwhile, it was a f*cked up relationship either way you look at it. Very poor judgment to choose to do what he did with a girl like that. When you're famous and rich and she has nothing going on for her besides her physical appearance, it's never going to end well, even if he intended no harm. I'm hoping he did nothing wrong, and it's beginning to look more that way. Let's hope he's more capable of learning than others were.

Anybody here know a nice girl Rose can sponsor and keep him out of trouble?

[kingquan316]

Until there is an actual criminal case on Rose, then I can't see this other then being a money grab by the chick. Again, her not pursuing a criminal case was a huge red flag in all of this. Justice in rape isn't getting money, it's putting the rapist behind bars. She doesn't want justice to me, she wants the money.

[Oscirus]

Regardless of what happens in this case, he's likely to always be guilty in the public eye. Similar situation as the Nate Parker sitch.

[CJackson]

Regardless of what happens in this case, he's likely to always be guilty in the public eye. Similar situation as the Nate Parker sitch.

To the uniformed person who doesn't watch pro hoops maybe, but most basketball fans that will care to know the truth may think he is a deviant at worst, but not a rapist. Considering there were probably more compelling reasons to believe Kobe was guilty, I don't see how Rose would be tarnished that much if what we've seen already is the extent of it.

[Oscirus]

Regardless of what happens in this case, he's likely to always be guilty in the public eye. Similar situation as the Nate Parker sitch.

To the uniformed person who doesn't watch pro hoops maybe, but most basketball fans that will care to know the truth may think he is a deviant at worst, but not a rapist. Considering there were probably more compelling reasons to believe Kobe was guilty, I don't see how Rose would be tarnished that much if what we've seen already is the extent of it.

I don't know. It seems to me that nowadays,journalists are so determined to make sure that rape accusers don't get slut shamed that anything short of the accuser admitting to falsifying charges won't convince them that the accused is innocent.

[CJackson]

Regardless of what happens in this case, he's likely to always be guilty in the public eye. Similar situation as the Nate Parker sitch.

To the uniformed person who doesn't watch pro hoops maybe, but most basketball fans that will care to know the truth may think he is a deviant at worst, but not a rapist. Considering there were probably more compelling reasons to believe Kobe was guilty, I don't see how Rose would be tarnished that much if what we've seen already is the extent of it.

I don't know. It seems to me that nowadays,journalists are so determined to make sure that rape accusers don't get slut shamed that anything short of the accuser admitting to falsifying charges won't convince them that the accused is innocent.

Those are not journalists. That's social media promoters and the sites that profit off it. They have short attention spans. Serious people will not cling to assumption of guilt if process was followed and the evidentiary trail largely points to him being innocent. Right now the testimony that she is lying pretty much guarantees that unless there is a major revelation unveiled by the prosecution which at this point I seriously doubt will happen.

[Oscirus]

To the uniformed person who doesn't watch pro hoops maybe, but most basketball fans that will care to know the truth may think he is a deviant at worst, but not a rapist. Considering there were probably more compelling reasons to believe Kobe was guilty, I don't see how Rose would be tarnished that much if what we've seen already is the extent of it.

I don't know. It seems to me that nowadays,journalists are so determined to make sure that rape accusers don't get slut shamed that anything short of the accuser admitting to falsifying charges won't convince them that the accused is innocent.

Those are not journalists. That's social media promoters and the sites that profit off it. They have short attention spans. Serious people will not cling to assumption of guilt if process was followed and the evidentiary trail largely points to him being innocent. Right now the testimony that she is lying pretty much guarantees that unless there is a major revelation unveiled by the prosecution which at this point I seriously doubt will happen.

Look at the stuff that Nate Parker is going through. He was found not guilty years ago and there are legit journalists that are still trying to get him to apologize to his accuser for everything he put her through. I mean there are some differences, but ultimately, I have a feeling that Rose will get put through a similar ringer regardless of the facts.

[CJackson]

I don't know. It seems to me that nowadays,journalists are so determined to make sure that rape accusers don't get slut shamed that anything short of the accuser admitting to falsifying charges won't convince them that the accused is innocent.

Those are not journalists. That's social media promoters and the sites that profit off it. They have short attention spans. Serious people will not cling to assumption of guilt if process was followed and the evidentiary trail largely points to him being innocent. Right now the testimony that she is lying pretty much guarantees that unless there is a major revelation unveiled by the prosecution which at this point I seriously doubt will happen.

Look at the stuff that Nate Parker is going through. He was found not guilty years ago and there are legit journalists that are still trying to get him to apologize to his accuser for everything he put her through. I mean there are some differences, but ultimately, I have a feeling that Rose will get put through a similar ringer regardless of the facts.

I haven't followed that closely, but that was basically a story that was not going to get covered heavily when he was younger because he wasn't a public figure yet. The timing of it being brought to light now is not evidence of how everyone is treated by the press. It is indicative of it becoming newsworthy now because he is famous now.

Plus, Parker may have actually done something wrong so why are you surprised? And if he is guilty, then you can see from his accuser's point of view how they may finally feel they will get listened to because it will get coverage now.

I don't know that that is a very good comparison actually.

If anything, so far Rose does not seem to be targeted by the media at all. The reportage we seen is basically obligatory and not a lot more.

Basically, the woman in Parker's case killed herself. That's serious. Her brother wants justice. I don't see anything surprising about that if Parker is guilty and family members have that wound to heal.

[CJackson]

The only I would add about the Parker case is the woman who made the accusation claimed after she filed her complaint that the two plaintiffs stalked her and tried to intimidate her. Basically, she was saying they tried to scare the bejesus out of her to try and get her to recant her accusation. For that reason and because Parker's co-plaintiff was found guilty of assault is why it lingers on to this day even though Parker himself got off.

[blueNorange]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/improv-comic-banned-ucb-theatre-rape-allegations-article-1.2755492

[Oscirus]

I haven't followed that closely, but that was basically a story that was not going to get covered heavily when he was younger because he wasn't a public figure yet. The timing of it being brought to light now is not evidence of how everyone is treated by the press. It is indicative of it becoming newsworthy now because he is famous now.

Plus, Parker may have actually done something wrong so why are you surprised? And if he is guilty, then you can see from his accuser's point of view how they may finally feel they will get listened to because it will get coverage now.

I don't know that that is a very good comparison actually.

If anything, so far Rose does not seem to be targeted by the media at all. The reportage we seen is basically obligatory and not a lot more.

Basically, the woman in Parker's case killed herself. That's serious. Her brother wants justice. I don't see anything surprising about that if Parker is guilty and family members have that wound to heal.

The only I would add about the Parker case is the woman who made the accusation claimed after she filed her complaint that the two plaintiffs stalked her and tried to intimidate her. Basically, she was saying they tried to scare the bejesus out of her to try and get her to recant her accusation. For that reason and because Parker's co-plaintiff was found guilty of assault is why it lingers on to this day even though Parker himself got off.

We could argue merits of that case all day. Hell, the stalking part of her case was used in a lawsuit against the university where she settled out of court. Mind you, she didn't name neither of her so called stalkers were named in said lawsuit.
However, that's not important. The incident occurred in 1999, the court case took place in 2000, the accuser committed suicide in 2012. Yet for some reason this case hasn't become important until September of this year, about a month before the debut of "Birth of a Nation" and it wasn't her family that was pushing for it to become known.
The only reason why anybody gives a damn about this case is because Parker became a public figure. Rose fits under the same criteria. His ignorance of the definition of consent won't help matters.

[CJackson]

I haven't followed that closely, but that was basically a story that was not going to get covered heavily when he was younger because he wasn't a public figure yet. The timing of it being brought to light now is not evidence of how everyone is treated by the press. It is indicative of it becoming newsworthy now because he is famous now.

Plus, Parker may have actually done something wrong so why are you surprised? And if he is guilty, then you can see from his accuser's point of view how they may finally feel they will get listened to because it will get coverage now.

I don't know that that is a very good comparison actually.

If anything, so far Rose does not seem to be targeted by the media at all. The reportage we seen is basically obligatory and not a lot more.

Basically, the woman in Parker's case killed herself. That's serious. Her brother wants justice. I don't see anything surprising about that if Parker is guilty and family members have that wound to heal.

The only I would add about the Parker case is the woman who made the accusation claimed after she filed her complaint that the two plaintiffs stalked her and tried to intimidate her. Basically, she was saying they tried to scare the bejesus out of her to try and get her to recant her accusation. For that reason and because Parker's co-plaintiff was found guilty of assault is why it lingers on to this day even though Parker himself got off.

We could argue merits of that case all day. Hell, the stalking part of her case was used in a lawsuit against the university where she settled out of court. Mind you, she didn't name neither of her so called stalkers were named in said lawsuit.
However, that's not important. The incident occurred in 1999, the court case took place in 2000, the accuser committed suicide in 2012. Yet for some reason this case hasn't become important until September of this year, about a month before the debut of "Birth of a Nation" and it wasn't her family that was pushing for it to become known.
The only reason why anybody gives a damn about this case is because Parker became a public figure. Rose fits under the same criteria. His ignorance of the definition of consent won't help matters.

I agree with the basic premise that if somebody goes through the judicial system then whether you believe the courts got the verdict right or not it is best to respect the result. If someone is absolved of guilt by the courts or there is a settlement, then that should be abided by.

If we stray too far away from this core principle then you can get vigilantism and mob behavior that tries to perform the role of justice.

And if we subscribe to the notion of a legal system being a foundational aspect of civilization then you pretty much have to go with the verdicts. If one feels they are wrong, there may be appeals processes for the parties involved to pursue.

But the court of public opinion is not more reliable than the court system. Both make mistakes, but I'd side with due process over emotional accusations posted on any form of social media.

As far as Parker is concerned, I'm not following it, but based on what I did know I'd agree it probably is not something that can be addressed on legal terms now so whatever people say or report that differs from the previously established facts of the case is mostly opinion and hearsay. I guess some want to make it a scandal now and I'm just not their audience so I won't be reading about it.

[trophywinner]

first phil, now jeff

http://nypost.com/2016/09/28/derrick-rose-plans-to-get-accusers-ex-friend-to-testify-in-rape-case/

Knicks coach Jeff Hornacek seemed to hint at a settlement Wednesday when he said he is confident that Rose won’t miss any preseason time. “I anticipate Derrick’s going to be here,” he said.

we'll see

[Zooropa]

To me the most disturbing part of this is how glib Phil was when he was asked about it. Rape is really, really serious sh*t. If he is so certain that Rose is innocent, he should've said so in no uncertain terms. Instead, he made it seem like he doesn't consider the allegations to be that big of a deal, which is problematic for a host of reasons.

Not trying to criticize, but how did you want Phil to respond? He's not a lawyer, is most likely not familiar with all the hundreds of pages of (often conflicting and/or unclear) evidence, and did not witness the alleged rape. (At least I didn't see his name listed....) Accordingly, Phil really can't say anything more than, “We’re just going to let the process work itself out.”

As far as the trial goes, I hope the truth comes out. It doesn't look great for either party.

It's a civil trial--not criminal--meaning the necessary evidence to "convict," as well as the possible consequences, are far less. Given this, not to mention the nature of the evidence listed on the White Bronco website, I really doubt any "truth" will come out.

Any trial is going to be an absolute mess...a complete circus for both sides. I think the judge knows this, and has been pressuring both sides to settle with his recent judgements (including rejecting the Rose camp's objections and allowing this case to go to trial yet telling the plaintiff that she will lose anonymity if it does). Hopefully, a settlement can be reached, and soon.

If Phil believes Rose is innocent then he should have given him his firm support. If he's not sure then he should have stated that this is a serious matter that the organization is monitoring closely and that he has no further comment. To brush the topic aside is completely inappropriate. And there is no conviction in a civil case, it only has to do with $$$$.

This is more or less exactly my opinion on the topic. The only other thing is that the LAPD has now opened a criminal investigation, so the possibility of a criminal trial is now on the table to a degree. Phil should've either maintained Rose's unequivocal innocence, or he should've spoken up about how concerning the allegations are. To basically say that he didn't feel the need to investigate is to minimize the horrors of sexual assault. Especially in 2016, when it's such a prevalent conversation in the public discourse.