Roethlisberger faces several charges including sex charges

[Kazkal]

What I don't want to see happen is a bunch of people come on here and start spouting off about how Ben is a rapist and how much the Steelers suck and how we took so much sh*t about Henry and now it's there turn with the criminals they have on their team. While they do have things to deal with, this shouldn't be the thing to attempt bashing them about.

Honestly, if Ben didn't do any of this, I would love to see just once someone go back after the person that made all the sh*t up to start and crucify them.

If he did, BASH AWAY !!!

Agreed,As much as I love bad things to happen to the Steelers Ben is innocent until proven guilty and it just seems like the chick is trying to get free money.

[gregstephens]

I don't care if its fair to Baltimore or not. In the ESPN eulogizing of McNair, they were quick to highlight the 13-win season he led them to after he left Tennessee.

And, yes, they still have the murdering LBer on their team. But I am giving them McNair as well, as that is what ESPN did.

Yeah, but that's like Bearcat...err...groundhog...whatever...citing Peter King as a support for an argument. Don't take the shortcut when Lewis is such a gimme.

[BengalByTheBay]

This is all about her at this point.

If she is crazy, and this is all made up, that will quickly become clear.

But, IF something happened, then she will decide how far to push this and to what end. Victims of sexual assault need to get some power back. If what happened is what she said happened, then it may be worth it to her to proceed even in the face of his celebrity and the inevitable laying bare of her personal life (recall what we learned about Kobe's victim).

There has to be some evidence otherwise anybody could accuse anybody anytime. I'm far from "assuming she's a gold digger" just as I am far from assuming that everything she's saying is automatically true. That's why you look for evidence that either corroborates her story (ie, reported to somebody less than a year later, witnesses to portions of the story, etc.) or doesn't, which brings us right back to what I originally said.

[COB]

So she's claiming that she didn't physically resist in any way? I find for the defendant.

Also, she appears to be crazy.

What's Roeth, 6'5", 270? What kind of resistance do you, a man, deem proper?

Flight. Or attempted flight. If he grabs her and overpowers her, ok, then I'd think about it. But to just go along with it, then cry rape afterwards, is pretty indicative of someone looking to get paid.

Also, she sued like 9 people at once, in the same lawsuit. Ben is just one of them. Guess what? The others are employees of a very deep pocketed casino, and Ben is deep pocketed himself, and a sub contractor/quasi employee of a deep pocketed entity, the Steelers. Funny how everyone who has wronged this woman happens to be very well situated to pay her off.

I hate ESPN, and I hate the Steelers, but in this case I respect them for not reporting on this "incident." This lawsuit is obviously bogus.

[BengalByTheBay]

Also, she sued like 9 people at once, in the same lawsuit. Ben is just one of them. Guess what? The others are employees of a very deep pocketed casino, and Ben is deep pocketed himself, and a sub contractor/quasi employee of a deep pocketed entity, the Steelers. Funny how everyone who has wronged this woman happens to be very well situated to pay her off.

Actually, that's the one part that makes sense so far. If she was specifically told to make the VIP happy and then told (by superiors) not to do anything about it, then that would go a long way toward explaining any delay. However, I'm assuming a lot that hasn't been reported, so whatever.... I just think you have to come at the issue without a bias one way or the other and a lot of people (unfortunately) have experience with these situations and project that experience to "fill in the blanks."

[bwillycuse]

4 pm Eastern

ESPN does not have the story yet.(this broke this morning)

If it were the Bengals it would be up instantly. Suspension would come down tomorrow.

He will skate - narrowly slipped away again.

At least we know Mr. Ben is a class act

[COB]

If she was specifically told to make the VIP happy and then told (by superiors) not to do anything about it, then that would go a long way toward explaining any delay.

I get it, like the employer said, "don't report it, bad for business," then she sues over that and the original perpetrator. Possible.

[membengal]

I don't care if its fair to Baltimore or not. In the ESPN eulogizing of McNair, they were quick to highlight the 13-win season he led them to after he left Tennessee.

And, yes, they still have the murdering LBer on their team. But I am giving them McNair as well, as that is what ESPN did.

Yeah, but that's like Bearcat...err...groundhog...whatever...citing Peter King as a support for an argument. Don't take the shortcut when Lewis is such a gimme.

f**k that. The entire network assigned him to Baltimore too. That ain't just one person.

[COB]

If it were the Bengals it would be up instantly. Suspension would come down tomorrow.

All true. Goodell plays favorites, and now his business partner, ESPN, is doing the same thing. I still side with ESPN on this one. Some things seem so obviously false on their face, that it doesn't warrant reporting. The good thing for Ben is that now, with ESPN refusing to report it, no one will find out. Ha.

[Ickey44]

So she's claiming that she didn't physically resist in any way? I find for the defendant.

Also, she appears to be crazy.

What's Roeth, 6'5", 270? What kind of resistance do you, a man, deem proper?

Flight. Or attempted flight. If he grabs her and overpowers her, ok, then I'd think about it. But to just go along with it, then cry rape afterwards, is pretty indicative of someone looking to get paid.

Well, the harder a woman resists, the more the man hurts her right? She was probably just taking the path of least resistance so he didn't start beating the crap out of her.

[membengal]

This is all about her at this point.

If she is crazy, and this is all made up, that will quickly become clear.

But, IF something happened, then she will decide how far to push this and to what end. Victims of sexual assault need to get some power back. If what happened is what she said happened, then it may be worth it to her to proceed even in the face of his celebrity and the inevitable laying bare of her personal life (recall what we learned about Kobe's victim).

There has to be some evidence otherwise anybody could accuse anybody anytime. I'm far from "assuming she's a gold digger" just as I am far from assuming that everything she's saying is automatically true. That's why you look for evidence that either corroborates her story (ie, reported to somebody less than a year later, witnesses to portions of the story, etc.) or doesn't, which brings us right back to what I originally said.

It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada.

And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.

I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...

[membengal]

So she's claiming that she didn't physically resist in any way? I find for the defendant.

Also, she appears to be crazy.

What's Roeth, 6'5", 270? What kind of resistance do you, a man, deem proper?

Flight. Or attempted flight. If he grabs her and overpowers her, ok, then I'd think about it. But to just go along with it, then cry rape afterwards, is pretty indicative of someone looking to get paid.

Also, she sued like 9 people at once, in the same lawsuit. Ben is just one of them. Guess what? The others are employees of a very deep pocketed casino, and Ben is deep pocketed himself, and a sub contractor/quasi employee of a deep pocketed entity, the Steelers. Funny how everyone who has wronged this woman happens to be very well situated to pay her off.

I hate ESPN, and I hate the Steelers, but in this case I respect them for not reporting on this "incident." This lawsuit is obviously bogus.

Yeah, you're off my jury. That's exactly the kind of pre-conceived attitude over what constitutes a "correct" response to a rape that makes some victims so reluctant to come forward...

[membengal]

4 pm Eastern

ESPN does not have the story yet.(this broke this morning)

If it were the Bengals it would be up instantly. Suspension would come down tomorrow.

He will skate - narrowly slipped away again.

At least we know Mr. Ben is a class act

Thank. you. That's my initial point.

Si.com, sportsline.com, foxsports.com all have links. Espn.com still does not.

Weird, huh?

[membengal]

So she's claiming that she didn't physically resist in any way? I find for the defendant.

Also, she appears to be crazy.

What's Roeth, 6'5", 270? What kind of resistance do you, a man, deem proper?

Flight. Or attempted flight. If he grabs her and overpowers her, ok, then I'd think about it. But to just go along with it, then cry rape afterwards, is pretty indicative of someone looking to get paid.

Well, the harder a woman resists, the more the man hurts her right? She was probably just taking the path of least resistance so he didn't start beating the crap out of her.

You, sir, get to be on my jury.

That would be correct. One very likely reason for not "fighting back" is not wanting to get hurt further. And a 6'5" 270 pound dude sawing away at you might make you want to get it over as possible if the contact is indeed unwanted...

[BengalByTheBay]

It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada.

And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.

I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...

From what we both read, it appears there were witnesses to the contact prior to this alleged rape, right? Whether they could testify to anything important is not known, unless you assume it.

You're right, I don't live in Nevada. I have, however, sampled the local entertainment on many an occasion. Do you live in Nevada? More importantly, what's your point?

I admire your naivete about lawyers. Yes, a civil complaint is typically allowed to generally plead the general elements of the cause of action rather than every specific item of evidence. That, however, undermines your suggestion that there has to be specific evidence in order to file a complaint. Frivolous claims are filed every day. If you don't believe that, please see the first sentence of this paragraph. Moreover, an attorney is allowed by law to believe everything his/her client tells them, regardless of how fanciful it may be. Therefore, if your client lies to you, you are allowed to believe him/her and to file a complaint based only on the "rosy scenario" you were given. None of that would violate any oath administered to any lawyer. If, as you say, it's "her word against his" an attorney is completely entitled to simply believe her story (or not question it) and file a complaint. As such, the simple existence of a complaint proves absolutely nothing.

You are asking me to "assume" that there is more evidence to support this claim because you have a high regard for this lawyer. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but if you're not allowed to "assume" anything, then this is useless speculation on your part. The only thing we know for sure is that there was no criminal prosecution. I know that, I don't have to assume it. That could only be because she didn't press charges or the DA didn't have enough......wait for it........evidence in his opinion. Does that mean a civil case will fail? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either.

I have no idea of either the legal acumen nor the integrity of this lawyer, but that isn't really significant because there are probably a lot of reasons to take this case whether it can be won at trial or not. I suggest to you that this case will be settled with a monetary payment to the plaintiff because, whether it's true or not, the defendants have something to lose just because the case exists...public image. The attorney will get paid (because the case is no doubt on a contingency fee and he'll get between 30 and 40% depending on when it settles). So, this lawyer has every incentive to believe his client, not question her actions, and take home some money and exposure. As you say, he just represented the governor of the state, right? So, I doubt he's camera shy. Again, the choice of lawyer doesn't mean anything about whether she is lying or telling the truth.

What I can tell you is this -- it's clear that in a "he said, she said" situation like this, you are going to believe the "she." All I'm telling you is, I'm not necessarily going to. To you, that means I'm assuming she's lying which, if you read what I said, is incorrect. One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

[HairOnFire]

I find it interesting how ESPN claims it won't acknowledge the charges due to the harm they may cause Roethlisbergers reputation, while at the same time making repeated announcements about the Erin Andrews nude videotape scandal. Those announcements made in regards to Andrews may seem to be supportive, but have actually served to broaden and publicize a story that wasn't very well known, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of websearches made by those looking for images of Andrews in the nude. In fact, some have accused ESPN of using the crime committed against Andrews as a way of promoting her career.

Frankly, the idea ESPN is refusing to cover a story about Roethlisberger due to lofty ideals doesn't really match their past reputation or their current one.

[gregstephens]

It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada.

And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.

I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...

From what we both read, it appears there were witnesses to the contact prior to this alleged rape, right? Whether they could testify to anything important is not known, unless you assume it.

You're right, I don't live in Nevada. I have, however, sampled the local entertainment on many an occasion. Do you live in Nevada? More importantly, what's your point?

I admire your naivete about lawyers. Yes, a civil complaint is typically allowed to generally plead the general elements of the cause of action rather than every specific item of evidence. That, however, undermines your suggestion that there has to be specific evidence in order to file a complaint. Frivolous claims are filed every day. If you don't believe that, please see the first sentence of this paragraph. Moreover, an attorney is allowed by law to believe everything his/her client tells them, regardless of how fanciful it may be. Therefore, if your client lies to you, you are allowed to believe him/her and to file a complaint based only on the "rosy scenario" you were given. None of that would violate any oath administered to any lawyer. If, as you say, it's "her word against his" an attorney is completely entitled to simply believe her story (or not question it) and file a complaint. As such, the simple existence of a complaint proves absolutely nothing.

You are asking me to "assume" that there is more evidence to support this claim because you have a high regard for this lawyer. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but if you're not allowed to "assume" anything, then this is useless speculation on your part. The only thing we know for sure is that there was no criminal prosecution. I know that, I don't have to assume it. That could only be because she didn't press charges or the DA didn't have enough......wait for it........evidence in his opinion. Does that mean a civil case will fail? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either.

I have no idea of either the legal acumen nor the integrity of this lawyer, but that isn't really significant because there are probably a lot of reasons to take this case whether it can be won at trial or not. I suggest to you that this case will be settled with a monetary payment to the plaintiff because, whether it's true or not, the defendants have something to lose just because the case exists...public image. The attorney will get paid (because the case is no doubt on a contingency fee and he'll get between 30 and 40% depending on when it settles). So, this lawyer has every incentive to believe his client, not question her actions, and take home some money and exposure. As you say, he just represented the governor of the state, right? So, I doubt he's camera shy. Again, the choice of lawyer doesn't mean anything about whether she is lying or telling the truth.

What I can tell you is this -- it's clear that in a "he said, she said" situation like this, you are going to believe the "she." All I'm telling you is, I'm not necessarily going to. To you, that means I'm assuming she's lying which, if you read what I said, is incorrect. One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

Well-speaked.

[membengal]

It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada.

And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.

I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...

From what we both read, it appears there were witnesses to the contact prior to this alleged rape, right? Whether they could testify to anything important is not known, unless you assume it.

You're right, I don't live in Nevada. I have, however, sampled the local entertainment on many an occasion. Do you live in Nevada? More importantly, what's your point?

I admire your naivete about lawyers. Yes, a civil complaint is typically allowed to generally plead the general elements of the cause of action rather than every specific item of evidence. That, however, undermines your suggestion that there has to be specific evidence in order to file a complaint. Frivolous claims are filed every day. If you don't believe that, please see the first sentence of this paragraph. Moreover, an attorney is allowed by law to believe everything his/her client tells them, regardless of how fanciful it may be. Therefore, if your client lies to you, you are allowed to believe him/her and to file a complaint based only on the "rosy scenario" you were given. None of that would violate any oath administered to any lawyer. If, as you say, it's "her word against his" an attorney is completely entitled to simply believe her story (or not question it) and file a complaint. As such, the simple existence of a complaint proves absolutely nothing.

You are asking me to "assume" that there is more evidence to support this claim because you have a high regard for this lawyer. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but if you're not allowed to "assume" anything, then this is useless speculation on your part. The only thing we know for sure is that there was no criminal prosecution. I know that, I don't have to assume it. That could only be because she didn't press charges or the DA didn't have enough......wait for it........evidence in his opinion. Does that mean a civil case will fail? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either.

I have no idea of either the legal acumen nor the integrity of this lawyer, but that isn't really significant because there are probably a lot of reasons to take this case whether it can be won at trial or not. I suggest to you that this case will be settled with a monetary payment to the plaintiff because, whether it's true or not, the defendants have something to lose just because the case exists...public image. The attorney will get paid (because the case is no doubt on a contingency fee and he'll get between 30 and 40% depending on when it settles). So, this lawyer has every incentive to believe his client, not question her actions, and take home some money and exposure. As you say, he just represented the governor of the state, right? So, I doubt he's camera shy. Again, the choice of lawyer doesn't mean anything about whether she is lying or telling the truth.

What I can tell you is this -- it's clear that in a "he said, she said" situation like this, you are going to believe the "she." All I'm telling you is, I'm not necessarily going to. To you, that means I'm assuming she's lying which, if you read what I said, is incorrect. One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

I am naive about lawyers?

That's, um, funny.

I've been a lawyer for eight years now, so. Well.

Dismiss what I say if you want, form opinions in the absence of fact if you want, but don't think you can presume to know anything about a person's motivations or the truth of allegations contained in a complaint. But you CAN know, based on who the attorney is, whether that attorney thinks he or she has a good faith basis to make the Complaint. SOME attorneys, I wouldn't give that latitude to. This attorney? You can safely assume some initial invesitgation of the allegations have been made to satisfy him he is in good faith to file the Complaint. Sorry if that is to "inside baseball" for you, but from the legal profession, that's the facts in how Complaints come to be filed.

You are absolutely NOT entitled, as an attorney, to believe your client a liar and yet still file a Complaint, no more than you can put them on the stand believing they are a liar. Attorneys are oath bound to do the opposite of what you are describing, to do otherwise is to put their law license on the line.

And, you presume too much about me. In a "he said" "she said" situation, I am not prone to believe either party in the absence of facts. But what I have seen in this thread is an immediate assumption about the accuser that is unwarranted.

[membengal]

It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada.

And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.

I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...

From what we both read, it appears there were witnesses to the contact prior to this alleged rape, right? Whether they could testify to anything important is not known, unless you assume it.

You're right, I don't live in Nevada. I have, however, sampled the local entertainment on many an occasion. Do you live in Nevada? More importantly, what's your point?

I admire your naivete about lawyers. Yes, a civil complaint is typically allowed to generally plead the general elements of the cause of action rather than every specific item of evidence. That, however, undermines your suggestion that there has to be specific evidence in order to file a complaint. Frivolous claims are filed every day. If you don't believe that, please see the first sentence of this paragraph. Moreover, an attorney is allowed by law to believe everything his/her client tells them, regardless of how fanciful it may be. Therefore, if your client lies to you, you are allowed to believe him/her and to file a complaint based only on the "rosy scenario" you were given. None of that would violate any oath administered to any lawyer. If, as you say, it's "her word against his" an attorney is completely entitled to simply believe her story (or not question it) and file a complaint. As such, the simple existence of a complaint proves absolutely nothing.

You are asking me to "assume" that there is more evidence to support this claim because you have a high regard for this lawyer. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but if you're not allowed to "assume" anything, then this is useless speculation on your part. The only thing we know for sure is that there was no criminal prosecution. I know that, I don't have to assume it. That could only be because she didn't press charges or the DA didn't have enough......wait for it........evidence in his opinion. Does that mean a civil case will fail? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either.

I have no idea of either the legal acumen nor the integrity of this lawyer, but that isn't really significant because there are probably a lot of reasons to take this case whether it can be won at trial or not. I suggest to you that this case will be settled with a monetary payment to the plaintiff because, whether it's true or not, the defendants have something to lose just because the case exists...public image. The attorney will get paid (because the case is no doubt on a contingency fee and he'll get between 30 and 40% depending on when it settles). So, this lawyer has every incentive to believe his client, not question her actions, and take home some money and exposure. As you say, he just represented the governor of the state, right? So, I doubt he's camera shy. Again, the choice of lawyer doesn't mean anything about whether she is lying or telling the truth.

What I can tell you is this -- it's clear that in a "he said, she said" situation like this, you are going to believe the "she." All I'm telling you is, I'm not necessarily going to. To you, that means I'm assuming she's lying which, if you read what I said, is incorrect. One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

Well-speaked.

Bull f**kin' s**t that was.

Give me a f**kin' break.

All I have counseled is that the knee-jerk initial reactions in this thread are formed off of nothing, and mentioned people might want to wait a moment before determining that the woman is a liar. Or an implied gold digger. Or assume it isn't rape because the victim doesn't fight back in just the right sort of way.

[membengal]

I find it interesting how ESPN claims it won't acknowledge the charges due to the harm they may cause Roethlisbergers reputation, while at the same time making repeated announcements about the Erin Andrews nude videotape scandal. Those announcements made in regards to Andrews may seem to be supportive, but have actually served to broaden and publicize a story that wasn't very well known, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of websearches made by those looking for images of Andrews in the nude. In fact, some have accused ESPN of using the crime committed against Andrews as a way of promoting her career.

Frankly, the idea ESPN is refusing to cover a story about Roethlisberger due to lofty ideals doesn't really match their past reputation or their current one.

Well f**kin' said. In fact, it is rank hypocrisy from that network of the highest order.

And, again, if that were Carson Palmer, I am betting the same "courtesy" isn't extended.

[Ickey44]

One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

I didn't read anything like that in his post. All he's saying, basically, is that he believes (from the attorney's reputation) that this particular attorney wouldn't take the case unless there was some merit to it. Meaning he's not going to take the case if he knows that the client is making up the story. At no point did I read anything in his post indicating that he assumes he already knows who's guilty and who's not.

[Ickey44]

I find it interesting how ESPN claims it won't acknowledge the charges due to the harm they may cause Roethlisbergers reputation, while at the same time making repeated announcements about the Erin Andrews nude videotape scandal. Those announcements made in regards to Andrews may seem to be supportive, but have actually served to broaden and publicize a story that wasn't very well known, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of websearches made by those looking for images of Andrews in the nude. In fact, some have accused ESPN of using the crime committed against Andrews as a way of promoting her career.

Frankly, the idea ESPN is refusing to cover a story about Roethlisberger due to lofty ideals doesn't really match their past reputation or their current one.

Well f**kin' said. In fact, it is rank hypocrisy from that network of the highest order.

And, again, if that were Carson Palmer, I am betting the same "courtesy" isn't extended.

You're right. For some reason, most media outlets are reluctant to print anything negative about the Steelers. I don't know if they're afraid of a fan backlash or what. I know the Steelers (for some reason) have the biggest following in the NFL, but it's still they're job to report the news no matter what it is. With Cedric Wilson, James Harrison, and Santonio Holmes' (many) run ins with the law you'd think that stuff would be more publicized but it seems like the only people reporting these things is Profootballtalk. Nobody else seems to give a crap about the bad stuff they do off the field.

[membengal]

One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.

I didn't read anything like that in his post. All he's saying, basically, is that he believes (from the attorney's reputation) that this particular attorney wouldn't take the case unless there was some merit to it. Meaning he's not going to take the case if he knows that the client is making up the story. At no point did I read anything in his post indicating that he assumes he already knows who's guilty and who's not.

Thanks former Ickey44.

Correct.

When a lawyer signs a pleading, they are saying pursuant to Rule 11, that they have a good faith basis for making the statements contained therein. Does that mean the statements as pled will ultimately be proven to be true? Of course not. Far from it, or we would never have trials. But what it does put on a lawyer is an initial obligation to perform some sort of investigation to satisfy themselves that they believe in the basis from which they are making their allegations. So perhaps she is VERY believeable, to him. Doesn't mean a jury will ultimately buy it, or people on a message board, or nuns in a convent. But, as an attorney, I have some faith, still, that the initial filing of a Complaint is based on more than just "taking a case" regardless. And, given who this particular attorney is, I think that initial threshhold has probably been met.

None of that means she isn't lying, or crazy, or a gold-digger, or the rest of what people may want to presume. But her attorney doesn't think so, so that's the first hurdle she has cleared. Based on that, she gets to pursue this thing and see if anyone else will believe her as well.

[BengalByTheBay]

Dismiss what I say if you want, form opinions in the absence of fact if you want, but don't think you can presume to know anything about a person's motivations or the truth of allegations contained in a complaint. But you CAN know, based on who the attorney is, whether that attorney thinks he or she has a good faith basis to make the Complaint. SOME attorneys, I wouldn't give that latitude to. This attorney? You can safely assume some initial invesitgation of the allegations have been made to satisfy him he is in good faith to file the Complaint. Sorry if that is to "inside baseball" for you, but from the legal profession, that's the facts in how Complaints come to be filed.

Your "inside baseball" is an assumption based on an opinion formed in the absence of fact.

[BengalByTheBay]

All I have counseled is that the knee-jerk initial reactions in this thread are formed off of nothing, and mentioned people might want to wait a moment before determining that the woman is a liar. Or an implied gold digger. Or assume it isn't rape because the victim doesn't fight back in just the right sort of way.

But you accused me of assuming she was a liar. And I responded that I don't assume anything. And they you reply that it's safe to assume this lawyer would only take a case he had already investigated. Where is the assumption I made?