Violence against women has properly received much more attention today than in years past. The “facts” of the Derrick Rose case distasteful, but from an objective standpoint, I am not sure about which way I would vote if I were a jury member in this case. Honestly, I would have a natural bias against the accused because a group assault is alleged, but the defendants claim that it was all consensual. Most folks do not consent to multiple partners simultaneously. I am also fighting the ‘narcissist athlete’ stereotype in my mind. If Rose is telling the truth, shouldn’t he have known better?
The Brock Allen Turner case at Stanford, the Sam Ukwuachu case at Baylor, the Vanderbilt football players etc. This nonsense needs to stop.
Please don’t ask me why, but I have been reading many of the daily reports from the trial and it is a world I cannot relate to in any fashion. I’m with the OP, no idea who I believe. I think the arrogance exists on both sides of this case.
Note that this is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors think that it’s more likely than not that Rose raped the accuser, they should find him responsible.
That makes it harder. I don’t see how the accuser could say she had proved her case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think if I were a juror I’d say she was more likely to be telling the truth.
Yuck I feel dirty just reading the link. She’s a peach and that’s being nice, her texts are pretty lurid. They are probably all lying. She’s suing for 21 million and promised one of her housemates a million for testimony according to the NYTimes…I don’t think she’ll get it.
And that’s how is should be because you haven’t heard what the jury has heard. Often the reporters report what’s happened in the courtroom, but the jury is not always there and they hear a lot less. They can also see the witnesses, see people in the courtroom, see the plaintiffs and defendants. All kinds of twitches and looks and coughs go into what a jurors consider.
I used to watch a lot of court TV, and once there was a trial from my town, so one day I went downtown to watch. Much different than what was on TV and that was more than the jurors saw/heard.
For the Casey Anthony trial, I wasn’t surprised at all that she was not found guilty of the major charges. The prosecutor had overcharged, and the evidence just wasn’t strong enough to support those charges. There are just so many pieces of evidence excluded, tweaks to the jury instructions, to be able to judge from the outside.
Hah that didn’t take long. I figured this would be the outcome, no way was a jury going to give her 21 million. And why didn’t she go after him in criminal court? Still a slilmy story.
It is not her choice to ‘go after him’ in a criminal court. That decision is up to the DA and if there wasn’t enough evidence for a civil verdict, unlikely there was anything for a criminal one.