Hmm. OP joins today, just to post this.
Certainly there's no agenda, here.
This is a cross-complaint. It's a standard defense strategy. Even if it's completely fictitious, anybody could see it coming from a mile away.
The only interesting piece of information in the article is that it's finally been revealed for the record that there were two separate incidents, several minutes apart.
And the hostess' strategy is also very clear, say whatever you can so you can even if they are lies so she can sue RU and Caroo to get as much money as she can. Even though she was f#%^ing around with someone's boyfriend and there is no no evidence of any injuries to her.The legal strategy is really, really clear.
The intent is for Carroo's side of the dispute to generate as much, or more, paperwork than the prosecution in the hopes that the court will instruct the prosecutor to dispose of all the cases before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. Everybody walks.
The legal strategy is really, really clear.
The intent is for Carroo's side of the dispute to generate as much, or more, paperwork than the prosecution in the hopes that the court will instruct the prosecutor to dispose of all the cases before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. Everybody walks.
And the hostess' strategy is also very clear, say whatever you can so you can even if they are lies so she can sew RU and Caroo to get as much money as she can. Even though she was f#%^ing around with someone's boyfriend and there is no no evidence of any injuries to her.
No, no, no! We have undisputed video evidence that the ENTIRE incident too place in all of 16 seconds!
And that proves what? Does it make Carroo any more likely guilty or innocent?
e.
The legal strategy is really, really clear.
The intent is for Carroo's side of the dispute to generate as much, or more, paperwork than the prosecution in the hopes that the court will instruct the prosecutor to dispose of all the cases before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. Everybody walks.
Or perhaps the legal strategy is to present the facts?
Hmm. OP joins today, just to post this.
Certainly there's no agenda, here.
The crow eating thread on this board is going to be an all time great. I mean all
Who cares who eats crow if carroo doesn't play the rest of the year. It's a mute point.
Who cares who eats crow if carroo doesn't play the rest of the year. It's a mute point.
Exactly, treated for NOTHING and released the same night because no injuries unless you consider a scratch a major injury. If she was injured she would have spent the night for observation and healing.You do realize that LC was "f*cking around" on HIS girlfriend, right? No "evidence" of injuries? Wasn't she taken to the hospital and treated for minor injuries to her hands, hips, and head? Am I missing something here?
(** not making any claim as to knowing anything other than what has been published and police reports)
That's one of my favorites. At work, very early in my career, we had a senior exec who used to always call out "mute" points and we'd all snicker in the back. A few of us who are still around still make sarcastic jokes about it to this day..."Moot". Not "mute". I'm callin' @RU848789.
She is a Rutgers hostess AKA I. fuk4fun AKA Moral less trampI mean seriously, enough with the domestic violence nonsense. Just release the other girl's name already.
Wait, we have hostesses?
She is a Rutgers hostess AKA I. fuk4fun AKA Moral less tramp
Wait, we have hostesses?
She tried to press charges initially but was rebuffed. Maybe it wasn't a strategy, but appropriate if she is telling the truth that she was attacked.Hmm. OP joins today, just to post this.
Certainly there's no agenda, here.
This is a cross-complaint. It's a standard defense strategy. Even if it's completely fictitious, anybody could see it coming from a mile away.
The only interesting piece of information in the article is that it's finally been revealed for the record that there were two separate incidents, several minutes apart.
She tried to press charges initially but was rebuffed. Maybe it wasn't a strategy, but appropriate if she is telling the truth that she was attacked.
Exactly, treated for NOTHING and released the same night because no injuries unless you consider a scratch a major injury. If she was injured she would have spent the night for observation and healing.
She tried to press charges initially but was rebuffed. Maybe it wasn't a strategy, but appropriate if she is telling the truth that she was attacked.
Using her words, she said she tried to press charges but was " rebuffed."What would prohibit someone from pressing charges? What does "rebuffed" mean in this instance? They refused to do the paperwork at the scene? The next day? The next week?
Using her words, she said she tried to press charges but was " rebuffed."
Nonsense. If she had insisted on signing a complaint they would have let her sign a complaint.
What happened the night of the incident was that they didn't arrest anybody but Leonte Carroo. That's the only thing we know to be a fact. That and what I just wrote in the first sentence - which obviously didn't happen.
She could have signed a complaint at absolutely any time. That she chose to do it two days after being charged, herself (by the police) is a legal tactic.
Your opinion. She said she tried to press charges initially, but was rebuffed. If you believe she is lying, that is your right. But that is what she said.Nonsense. If she had insisted on signing a complaint they would have let her sign a complaint.
What happened the night of the incident was that they didn't arrest anybody but Leonte Carroo. That's the only thing we know to be a fact. That and what I just wrote in the first sentence - which obviously didn't happen.
She could have signed a complaint at absolutely any time. That she chose to do it two days after being charged, herself (by the police) is a legal tactic.