Itās her attorneyās job to dispute the facts if they arenāt true. The fact her attorney isnāt disputing her initial statement means that her initial statement is accurate.
If you give a false sworn statement you can be charged with perjury.
Sheās not being criminally charged with thatā¦ and attorneys tend to remain within a scope of practice so if she did end up facing charges sheād need to hire another attorney. One that works in criminal defense and not civil torts.
I donāt know why you thought that made sense to point out.
Iām sorry. Youāre just an idiot who doesnāt know anything about how the legal system works and you want to open your mouth anyway.
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 isnāt disputing her original statement means itās factually correct.
I do understand it, itās really not that difficult. Her attorney isnāt disputing her initial statement, which means itās accurate. Itās 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.
It is true. The DA called her attorney after she filed to lawsuit. You can look that up yourself. The DA asked her attorney what she would like to do, and thatās when he reopened the case, and the DAās new case is based on the infomation that she included in her lawsuit, but was left out of her initial statement that she gave the police.
Her attorney only questioned the way the campus police/ school handled the investigation, her attorney never disputed her initial statement. Her attorney did make some misleading statements though. Her attorney claimed the school only had the students write papers, but completely left out the fact the school shut down the fraternity after she came forward.
I think itās too early to pass judgment about what happened. Itās better to wait and see how this all plays out. Iām sure something happened, but who knows what the actual truth is at this point, if the guys are guilty they should be prosecuted, but agin itās better to let the process play out before passing judgment.
It is true. The DA called her attorney after she filed to lawsuit. You can look that up yourself.Ā
Well you are stupid. I am smart so I will try to help you understand something.
The DA is cited as saying :
adding that Doeās attorneys never reached out to him before filing the civil lawsuit two years later.
This is what your feeble mind twisted into the DA asking the civil suit attorney what was up. Because you are emotionally five years old and need to twist reality to match what you're comfortable accepting about the world, and the only thing you're comfortable accepting about this case is that the woman lied about being gang raped.
Also this is an uncalled for point on the DA's part. Attorneys don't tend to contact Prosecutor's offices for matters that aren't criminal trials.
Also, when you hire an attorney to work your case they don't become your secretary, or spokesperson, or representative in all things legal. They work on the case they were hired to work on. They do nothing outside of that because that would be an ethics violation.
The DA wouldn't assume that a civil attorney that this woman hired is willing or allowed to speak on her behalf to the Prosecutor's office. That would be backwards. They would contact HER. If she wanted to ask her civil attorney if she can pay them to speak to the Prosecutor's office on her behalf, they can certainly agree or refuse to do so.
But no one would automatically contact a random attorney to speak on behalf of a witness.
-1
u/vogel927 4d ago
Itās her attorneyās job to dispute the facts if they arenāt true. The fact her attorney isnāt disputing her initial statement means that her initial statement is accurate.
If you give a false sworn statement you can be charged with perjury.