Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
If I were assessing this as a potential party to the matter [as opposed to a media consumer or fan or whatever], I would be developing a hypothesis that the relationship between Brown and the accuser wandered into a gray area between consensual quid pro quo and nonconsensual coercion.
I am not saying what happened, but exploring the possibilities of what facts may come to light given what is already established.
But it seems plausible that Brown asserted a right/privilege to impose his sexual impulses on the accuser, which he then defended after the fact with a blend of 'you didn't stop me' and 'I'm sorry, I'll make it up to you with xxx, yyy, zzz.'
More like a Harvey Weinstein scenario where he isolates her as a sex target by maneuvering his power and resources as an enticement [of sorts] then performs his sexual gratification before an opportunity for refusal or consent arises.
These are not easy transgressions to litigate, and a lot of tangential matters become nearly dispositive when the particulars are so murky.
You covered my thoughts very well. Apparently, Brown isn’t too shy about what he texts or how he communicates on social media. There’s is likely a long electronic paper trail that will tell most of the story.
I would be interested in seeing if she confided in any family members or close friends after the incidents through text as well. Those would have a time stamp. They wouldn’t prove anything necessarily, but they would help her case for sure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
On the flipside, when you're holding the nuts, sometimes its smart to not bet too strong and push guys out of the pot. You slow play it because you know that you're safe either way.
But when you're sitting on a high pair, you may/may not like your odds, you may bet a little harder earlier to try to push some guys out and maybe keep them from staying in the hand and hitting on a straight draw or something.
You may be right, he may be confident. But with the Hill thing - he HAD to be confident - based on the facts as they emerged and as he and Hill surely knew at the time, there was no reason for him not to be. And he was quiet.
Might this bluster suggest the opposite?
Hmm. You might have something there. This certainly has to be desperate times for a guy who is on his last strike. [Reply]
If it's true they have audio of her telling another girl she was going to sue him for rape to get money, it seems like a open and shut case Johnson [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
On the flipside, when you're holding the nuts, sometimes its smart to not bet too strong and push guys out of the pot. You slow play it because you know that you're safe either way.
But when you're sitting on a high pair, you may/may not like your odds, you may bet a little harder earlier to try to push some guys out and maybe keep them from staying in the hand and hitting on a straight draw or something.
You may be right, he may be confident. But with the Hill thing - he HAD to be confident - based on the facts as they emerged and as he and Hill surely knew at the time, there was no reason for him not to be. And he was quiet.
Might this bluster suggest the opposite?
The difference in the clients revolves primarily around the fact that one is wildly unpredictable. This also caught the hoodie by surprise so what’s an agent supposed to say? [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
If it's true they have audio of her telling another girl she was going to sue him for rape to get money, it seems like a open and shut case Johnson
Originally Posted by -King-:
If it's true they have audio of her telling another girl she was going to sue him for rape to get money, it seems like a open and shut case Johnson
She passed a lie detector test saying that what she said was true [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
If it's true they have audio of her telling another girl she was going to sue him for rape to get money, it seems like a open and shut case Johnson
If that’s accurate, why would she go through this?
Was she not aware of the audio? Did the other girl record her without her knowledge? Obviously, that would still destroy her case.
I would think Brown would’ve just told her that he has the audio and she wouldn’t even pursue a lawsuit. He seems like enough of a loud mouth. It would be better for him if this never went public at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
If it's true they have audio of her telling another girl she was going to sue him for rape to get money, it seems like a open and shut case Johnson
Sprinkle some crack on him and get out of here. [Reply]