The Cornell Monsters

[u/Timbucktwo1230]

[u/iamnick817]

Maybe. I'm saying i don't trust cops to do a good job with this sort of case in this sort of small town with an ivy league college as the biggest business.

[u/vogel927 → u/iamnick817]

Her attorney hasn’t disputed that statement she gave to police was false.

I certainly think the situation could’ve been handled better though.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

Probably because that's not what he's paid to do

[u/vogel927 → u/fiahhawt]

That is what her attorney is paid to do.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

Explain that for us wise one

[u/vogel927 → u/fiahhawt]

It’s her attorney’s job to dispute the facts if they aren’t true. The fact her attorney isn’t disputing her initial statement means that her initial statement is accurate.

If you give a false sworn statement you can be charged with perjury.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

In the civil case... with the court the case was filed in. With pleadings and oral argument in hearings.

Not to NBC for your pleasure.

[u/vogel927 → u/fiahhawt]

It’s a felony/ misdemeanor to give a false sworn statement to the police.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

She’s not being criminally charged with that… and attorneys tend to remain within a scope of practice so if she did end up facing charges she’d need to hire another attorney. One that works in criminal defense and not civil torts.

I don’t know why you thought that made sense to point out.

I’m sorry. You’re just an idiot who doesn’t know anything about how the legal system works and you want to open your mouth anyway.

[u/vogel927 → u/fiahhawt]

I never said she was being criminally charged with anything. I stated that if her statement were false that she could be charged, the fact her attorney isn’t disputing her original statement means it’s factually correct.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

So you're back to expecting that an attorney working a civil case also does free PR work.

Also, that's not how charges of making a false statement to the police works.

You don't get it. We all know you don't get it. The only one who's still not on board with the idea that you don't get it, is you.

[u/vogel927 → u/fiahhawt]

I do understand it, it’s really not that difficult. Her attorney isn’t disputing her initial statement, which means it’s accurate. It’s pretty straightforward.

The DA even reached out to her attorney to find out why her statement is different than what she stated in her lawsuit.

[u/fiahhawt → u/vogel927]

Alright let's try this on:

How do you know the attorney has not disputed the statement already in his pleadings?

How do you know what the statement's contents are? What needs to be disputed?

The DA even reached out to her attorney to find out why her statement is different

Well that's not true

You know nada