I understand your perspective as it relates to "winnability" of a case. As it relates to believe-ability, having people corroborate a bunch of stuff that isn't a crime doesn't really make the crime portion any more or less believable, to me. The only person who could do that would be someone who directly witnessed the incident. One could assume Ryan Allen (Tony Allen's brother), who called a month later to discuss the incident, isn't coming out and saying guilty, and nor are any of the other defendants. Everything else could potentially corroborate events around the act, the closest to the act being that roommate who came home with the one guy trying to force his way in. That would be the most damning corroboration, though still not evidence of a crime. Everything else, including all the defendants having sex with Jane Doe on the night in question could have certainly happened, without a crime taking place.
That's actually a really good point. I wondered about that part, to tell you the truth. I just wrote it off as "D" being admittedly intoxicated. Maybe she just went in her room and passed out? But yeah...kind of odd. Jane did mention that when Rose called her to come over, she thought he had changed his ways and wanted to reconcile. A little far fetched, sure, but there are some people who only see the good in other people. We all know a few of them. I also wondered about her being so conservative, yet her best friend is apparently a total sex fiend who has no qualms about stripping and giving the guy she's interested in a HJ with her present, and her roomate is apparently a raging alcoholic who comes home in the middle of the night so drunk that she is totally unconcerned about a strange man hanging out in her living room. Who knows what really happened. We probably never will.
This. I can't dismiss this outright. I would love to as I've been a fan of Rose, but I just don't know and I won't pretend to know anything unless/until there is a verdict.
I wasn't necessarily talking about her ability to win the civil suit. Honestly, the fact she waited so long will be very difficult for her to explain to jurors. My point is that this isn't someone that is simply crazy or is making a naked allegation of rape. There is a lot of time and detail involved. You are absolutely right all the details/events surrounding can be true and it doesn't mean we know what happened in that room. Her claim that she believes she was raped is further strengthened circumstantially by what appears to be a reference to long term counseling after that night. If she didn't believe she was raped, she put a lot of time and effort into making it looked like she was. At this point all we have is a complaint but it was more detailed and specific than I thought. I still think she has a high bar to get jurors to over look the fact it happened two years ago. It appears she will rely on mostly if not entirely circumstantial evidence. Innocent people ocassionally are convicted of rape and guilty people (Kobe Bryant) get away with it all the time. Rape is a very difficult crime to prove or disprove.
you are a fool if you believe kobe really raped or had to actually rape that chick, and im not even a kobrick fan. But i have to call it like i see it do you know how many white girls drooled over back then, too many too count here is a video i found on youtube <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5fV1FP38ecI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is a civil case. The bar for the burden of proof is much lower. Jane Doe and her lawyer doesn't need to prove that Rose absolutely did it. There is probably some truth to the 20 pages of allegations.
Everyone knows it is a civil case. The standard for a civil suit in California is the same as a majority of states: "More likely true than not." She still has the burden of proof and from a practical stand point she will have a hard time explaining away not going to the authorities and waiting 2 years to file a civil suit. Can she do it with what appears to only be circumstantial evidence? Yes but it won't be easy.
Ahh yes coming from the "fool" that believes that magically the black community will rally around Donald Trump. Also rape isn't usually about a lack of available sex partners. So this idea that Kobe didn't need to rape someone is ignorant. Kobe was very lucky that his accuser was severely depressed and suicidal. Had it been a victim with a different frame of mind, it would have been ugly and quite possibly that he would have been convicted.
How does anyone that's not a rapist know what "rape is really about". I hear the rhetoric a lot. "Rape isn't about sex or lack of access to it, it's about power". Unless you are in the head of a rapist, how can you really say what the motivation is?
The substantial amount of research done on the topic, including but not limited to doctors discussing the issue with rapists and through counseling/treating rapists. Is rape sometimes just about sex? I don't see why not, BUT it isn't always... So to assume that someone famous or wealthy wouldn't commit rape because they had easy access to consentual sexual partners is at a minimum short sighted.
hey Nook, Do you have a good link for the Kobe trial with facts sans opinion? I suspect that you have good reason to believe Kobe raped the girl (you're a lawyer, right?). I just never saw anything that would prove either way.
Reading between the lines in DRose's statement, I think some kind of sexual encounter happened but the question is, was it consensual? Bottom line is it's a money grab and it would be worth it for DRose to settle this for a million out of court before it blows up into a media circus.
You understand the Nook is a lawyer right? And so am I, and you're a fool if you think it's not possible or reasonable that Kobe raped her. But he didn't get convicted so we'll never know for sure.
I'm not a lawyer, however just by reading her allegations it doesn't make any sense as what that previous poster said if we're talking about getting drugged and gang raped against her will. These are the only two things that matter, the rest of the incidents could have really happened for all we know. Just based on what I know now, I am inclined not to believe her and think she is just a gold digger. Maybe Rose promised her something and reneged on it, either way IMHO DRose should just settle and charge it to experience, the longer this takes the more it could impact his image and future endorsement deals.
The other events matter for several reasons, mostly contextual. First it shows that the woman did know Rose, had intimate relations with him and there were a number of other people that were involved in the events around the situation. Does it prove that he raped her? No, but it proves that he had an opportunity to rape her and it shows that she is not just some crack pot that filed suit with little or no connection to Rose. The burden of proof is lower in a civil suit, but the accuser still has the burden of proof and as I said, I think her hardest part is going to be explaining why she let such a long period of time pass. She will most likely rely upon her therapist and the observations of those around her.
This always happens. I'm not discounting you dude, just pointing out how this always happens! I try to make sure when calling someone out on something remotely tied to intelligence that I triple and quadruple check what i write! nook, I think your experience as a lawyer is definitely coming through here. Most on here (well at least me, but I assume most) took it on face value that she wasn't just making up everything in its entirety. I assumed (though certainly not definitively and wanted evidence as such) the second I heard the story that DRose has definitely had sex with this woman, whomever she is. Your observations are helpful though. As a person (not an attorney), I don't struggle with the passage of time, because we've seen this happen a lot. Time passing before a victim speaking out. It's part of the psyche. I just have a problem, at this point, with the story as a whole. If a trial were to take place and everything in Jane Doe's story is proven to have happened, except for (i) what actually happened in the room, and (ii) Ryan Allen doesn't corroborate that it happened or that he called to say "sorry".... then it's just a she-said/he-said which proves nothing, imo. In which case she probably gets what she wants with this suit in particular, remuneration, as one would assume it doesn't get to that point if the lawyers know it is going to go that way. Both side will settle.
It sucks to know that any of my exes could bring me to court just by proving that I had opportunities to rape her. In my eyes that seems like the easiest part. As you allude to, chalk it up to emotional scarring. Or even the "conservative family" thing she seems to be going with. I would think the hardest part is proving the actual rape occurred. As far as I can tell, it's just her word against Rose and the other defendents.
They have already admitted they were in a relationship. Also, as a lawyer, you should be well aware of the sophistication of BS people will come up with for money. One thing that needs to be known...did she ever attempt to reconcile after the incident. Also, has she asked for money before the suit.
Also, sections 49 and 51 absolutely have to be corroborated by Doe's friends, E and F. Even then, the only one who might get into trouble is Allen. These sections don't even implicate Rose. I bet Rose settles anyways for PR purposes. I'll believe he's innocent until proven guilty, as it should be.
