| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Bernstein: Guilty if Accused https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=102466 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | WaitingforRuffcorn [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Quote: “Those are legal issues. That’s not our purview … We wish him well.” Paxson should have stopped before that last remark, considering that the LAPD is trying to find out if a violent crime was committed by Rose and his friends against another human being who’s now fighting for justice. We may never know what exactly happened the night of the incident, but as long as so many possibilities remain open, it’s best for all involved to balance concern much more mindfully until and after there’s resolution of some kind. There’s no reason to wish a rapist well, and Derrick Rose might be one. Yeah. Don't wish him well. He "might" be a rapist. No projecting there at all. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/ ... tent=10093 |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote: Quote: “Those are legal issues. That’s not our purview … We wish him well.” Paxson should have stopped before that last remark, considering that the LAPD is trying to find out if a violent crime was committed by Rose and his friends against another human being who’s now fighting for justice. We may never know what exactly happened the night of the incident, but as long as so many possibilities remain open, it’s best for all involved to balance concern much more mindfully until and after there’s resolution of some kind. There’s no reason to wish a rapist well, and Derrick Rose might be one. Yeah. Don't wish him well. He "might" be a rapist. No projecting there at all. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/ ... tent=10093 This is why you need multiple voices.....doesn't he have an editor? |
|
| Author: | billypootons [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
formerlyknownas wrote: WaitingforRuffcorn wrote: Quote: “Those are legal issues. That’s not our purview … We wish him well.” Paxson should have stopped before that last remark, considering that the LAPD is trying to find out if a violent crime was committed by Rose and his friends against another human being who’s now fighting for justice. We may never know what exactly happened the night of the incident, but as long as so many possibilities remain open, it’s best for all involved to balance concern much more mindfully until and after there’s resolution of some kind. There’s no reason to wish a rapist well, and Derrick Rose might be one. Yeah. Don't wish him well. He "might" be a rapist. No projecting there at all. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/ ... tent=10093 This is why you need multiple voices.....doesn't he have an editor? did JDC write this for him? it's 4 times the length of his usual "columns" |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
That is not justice, your daughter is still alive |
|
| Author: | Godfella [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Why did you go to the police? Why didn't you come to me first |
|
| Author: | Hussra [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Quote: The disclosures under oath were indeed damning enough to get the renewed attention of the LAPD in a case still well within the statute of limitations. Julie DiCaro of 670 The Score in Chicago reported via Twitter that a member of the accuser’s legal team confirmed that Rose’s deposition resulted in investigators being “not at all happy” with the facts that emerged. We had this conversation a month ago re: Rose talking too much during civil discovery. Rose's lawyers done fucked up: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=102086 Hussra wrote: Pretty sure your right to invoke your 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to/supersedes civil proceedings and civil discovery. Regardless of whether or not there's an extant criminal proceeding against D-Rose with this particular plaintiff, most of his answers should've been:
"Based on the advice of counsel, I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and respectfully decline to answer the question." other than basic fact questions and likely financial discovery questions. anything about the night in question or D-Rose's relationship with this particular plaintiff? 5th amendment. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Hussra wrote: Quote: The disclosures under oath were indeed damning enough to get the renewed attention of the LAPD in a case still well within the statute of limitations. Julie DiCaro of 670 The Score in Chicago reported via Twitter that a member of the accuser’s legal team confirmed that Rose’s deposition resulted in investigators being “not at all happy” with the facts that emerged. We had this conversation a month ago re: Rose talking too much during civil discovery. Rose's lawyers done fucked up: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=102086 Hussra wrote: Pretty sure your right to invoke your 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to/supersedes civil proceedings and civil discovery. Regardless of whether or not there's an extant criminal proceeding against D-Rose with this particular plaintiff, most of his answers should've been: "Based on the advice of counsel, I assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and respectfully decline to answer the question." other than basic fact questions and likely financial discovery questions. anything about the night in question or D-Rose's relationship with this particular plaintiff? 5th amendment. However, can't invocation of the Fifth during civil proceedings be used by the jury to infer culpability, unlike in a criminal proceeding? Of course the upside is, here you only lose a couple million of your hundreds of millions of dollars, as opposed to your liberty. |
|
| Author: | Hussra [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
dunno, prolly depends on how good Rose's lawyer is at arguing against it vs the other side's lawyers arguing the other way. but if Rose doesn't say anything, sounds like the police either didn't want to or didn't have enough to go forward with a criminal complaint. like NAS noted in the previous thread, no way that civil case should've been at the point where Rose is giving sworn testimony in the first place: NAS wrote: For the life of me I can't understand how his brother or someone else didn't give this woman the $25k to make it go away. He has a lot of idiots around him. the idiot-appellation also applies to whatever lawyers Rose has handling this case. your lawyer, if you're already in trouble, is supposed to at a bare-minimum not make the situation worse; and definitely not let you do or say anything to make it worse. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Godfella wrote: Why did you go to the police? Why didn't you come to me first Then take the justice from the judge, the bitter with the sweet, Bonasera. But if you come to me with your friendship, your loyalty, then your enemies become my enemies, and then, believe me, they would fear you... |
|
| Author: | Franky T [ Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bernstein: Guilty if Accused |
Using the phrase "fighting for justice" necessarily assumes a wrongful act. That phrase has always bothered me. You can't say that without assuming guilt. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|