Not necessarily. There could just be not enough evidence to rule in favor of the plaintiff. That's like saying OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife.
The justice system is not here to deliver how we want the world to be. It's only purpose is to find out what's provable, evaluate it fairly and publicly and gives everyone's due as far as the evidence allows it. Those people advocating for goal-seeking "reforms" (reversing the burden of proof) to get what they want (more convictions) however justified do not want justice. They want the law to give them what they want damn good and damn hard. Derrick Rose and his accuser had their day at court and they got what they deserve based on what is known and proved and not what has been wished on twitter or tumblr.
Is Rose a sleazy dude. Sure. Did he use this girl for sex. Yes. Is he dumb. Very likely so. However, after a string of evidence and text messages were released right before the verdict, I don't think Rose raped the girl. The evidence was strongly against her. Judging by what I've read, she was no angel and definitely had money in mind before this suit was filed. In this case, I think justice was served.
18 pg thread and not one picture or mention of the accusers name. Is it not PC even if she lost her case to mention her name and post a pic of her in a ball forum?
I do too. I don't necessarily think he raped her, but by letting his friends go at her I think he was guilty. There are lots of texts of her denying group sex.
No there wasn't. Which is why Rose and Co could claim gratuitously that they indeed had group sex. Doe on the other hand failed to provide the defense with contradictory texts and then lied about whether it was her who wrote them.
Guilty of what exactly? No offense, but chicks gets ran train on everyday. Especially by athletes with $$$. If anything he needs to sue her for defamation
Rich athletes need to learn that if some girl is down with a gang bang, she might be trying hustle you. make a video just in case
