PDA

View Full Version : Should Ben's lawyers look to settle with McNulty?


zulater
02-21-2011, 12:35 PM
Simple question, if they were approached with a reasonable offer should Ben's lawyers settle with McNulty, as long as there's no admission of guilt?

Don't get me wrong, I think the bitch is nuts and her story doesn't hold water.. But if that case goes to court, even if the jury eventually finds in Ben's favor, I can't help but think there's going to be some testimony that will make Ben look pretty bad, even if it doesn't make him look guilty of rape. So if you can make the whole thing go away for 1 million dollars ( give or take), and space the payments out over a period of time so if McNulty gets chatty you can rescind the remaining payments and have legal recourse to get what you've already paid out back, would you think about it?

I know Ben's haters would jump on any settlement as an admission of guilt, but those people are going to think the worst of Ben no matter what happens with this case anyway. So why worry about them? The reason you would do it in my opinion is to get this whole part of your life behind you once and for all.

Am I wrong? :noidea:

tony hipchest
02-21-2011, 12:40 PM
imo there will not be anything to make ben look worse than seeing the picture of that skank he banged.

Atlanta Dan
02-21-2011, 12:43 PM
As I have posted previously, my guess is he settled up with Miss Milledgeville and he probably needs to do the same with Nevada unless McNulty and her attorneys now are treating this like a Powerball ticket.

Non-admission language and a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement will keep publicity to a minimum - agreed that even if he would win having a trial will stir up all the bad pub again and writers will cry a river about celebrities not being held accountable for their misdeeds

Judge might order the parties to mediation (which is confidential) to get it done

zulater
02-21-2011, 12:46 PM
As I have posted previously, my guess is he settled up with Miss Milledgeville and he probably needs to do the same with Nevada unless McNulty and her attorneys now are treating this like a Powerball ticket.

Non-admission language and a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement will keep publicity to a minimum - even if he would win having a trial will stir up all the bad pub again

Yeah that's my thought too. You know the press would spin it to make Ben the devil himself , even if the case was going in his favor. In other words, even if Ben wins, he wont win if that case ever sees the light of a court room.

He just needs to get this shit behind him once and for all.

Deserei90
02-21-2011, 12:47 PM
imo there will not be anything to make ben look worse than seeing the picture of that skank he banged.Ben had to be seriously drunk to bang her. I dt judge people, but damn:toofunny: But seriously, there's no way he touched an inch of her.:horror:

Fire Arians
02-21-2011, 01:02 PM
i think he should countersue

the best way for him to repair his image would be to prove he didn't do anything illegal and have HER be the one in the wrong

zulater
02-21-2011, 01:09 PM
i think he should countersue

the best way for him to repair his image would be to prove he didn't do anything illegal and have HER be the one in the wrong

He already has. But the problem with that is he'll be required to take the stand. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he raped McNulty or anyone else for that matter. But there's still things that could come up with him on a witness stand that would probably be better off forgotten or left unsaid. And you know damn well the press would sensationilize and twist every word Ben says under oath to make him look like as bad as possible.

I think there's a real possiblity that Ben could win the battle, but lose the war of public perception all the same.

steelerchad
02-21-2011, 02:16 PM
I don't think he can settle with this one. This one has already been made to look like a crazy bi***. Just roll with that and let her hang herself. Suppossedly, she's got friends that have contradicted her story.

stb_steeler
02-21-2011, 02:18 PM
I wouldnt give her the F'ing wrapper off my gum!!! End of story.....:coffee:

zulater
02-21-2011, 02:30 PM
I don't think he can settle with this one. This one has already been made to look like a crazy bi***. Just roll with that and let her hang herself. Suppossedly, she's got friends that have contradicted her story.

Good points. :hatsoff:

JEFF4i
02-21-2011, 06:47 PM
I would definitely, definitely, do her. :D

And no, he shouldn't settle.

Fire Arians
02-21-2011, 07:07 PM
He already has. But the problem with that is he'll be required to take the stand. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he raped McNulty or anyone else for that matter. But there's still things that could come up with him on a witness stand that would probably be better off forgotten or left unsaid. And you know damn well the press would sensationilize and twist every word Ben says under oath to make him look like as bad as possible.

I think there's a real possiblity that Ben could win the battle, but lose the war of public perception all the same.

i want an example to be made out of her, and i want people to be afraid to throw false accusations in court.

i want to see her sued for every penny she owns, and have to live on the street

Atlanta Dan
02-21-2011, 07:28 PM
i want an example to be made out of her, and i want people to be afraid to throw false accusations in court.

i want to see her sued for every penny she owns, and have to live on the street

Like the jury that acquitted OJ made an example out of him and Simpson's defense team was afraid to throw out false accusations in Judge Ito's courtroom? Sometimes juries return verdicts that do not appear to have a lot to do with the evidence.

McNulty has a lot of baggage that Roethlisberger's attorneys can use but #7 might not be the best witness a defense attorney could hope for either - if he wants to avoid further damage to what is left of his own reputation taking this case to trial (it is he said/she said and will never be dismissed on summary judgment) might not be his best move.

TRH
02-22-2011, 08:24 AM
i want an example to be made out of her, and i want people to be afraid to throw false accusations in court.

i want to see her sued for every penny she owns, and have to live on the street



I absolutely agree with you and thats what should happen. She should lose everything.

Problem is that these crazy, looney, unpredictable and unqualified juries and judges (and the scum attorneys), you never know what they're going to do and how they're going to rule. Juries and progressive judges in this country seem to like to give plaintiffs, almost any plaintiff's, massive amounts of money that they don't deserve and shouldn't have. I wish more lawsuits would be shut down immediately by juries/judges recognizing "lottery win seekers". This is clearly a case of just that.
It p***es me off to no end. It's a huge, huge problem in this country.

Curtain_of_Steel
02-22-2011, 09:55 AM
The GA girl there was no evidence to prove a case. So why settle, it wasn't her call to prosecute at that point, it was the DA with or without her! The worst was already listed, and she had negatives like being underage and drinking in a bar etc etc. Never would have stuck.

As far as the Reno girl and settling? I would highly doubt he is settling. First and foremost, in the public eye, a settlement is an admission of guilt. Plenty of people will say, see I told you so. Plus all the reports out there, are this girl is a wacko, and her friends dont buy into it, the text messages about ben etc. Ben won't lose this one.

siss
02-22-2011, 12:53 PM
As I have posted previously, my guess is he settled up with Miss Milledgeville and he probably needs to do the same with Nevada unless McNulty and her attorneys now are treating this like a Powerball ticket.

Non-admission language and a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement will keep publicity to a minimum - agreed that even if he would win having a trial will stir up all the bad pub again and writers will cry a river about celebrities not being held accountable for their misdeeds

Judge might order the parties to mediation (which is confidential) to get it done

What makes you think he settled with DTF? Further more if he had settled with her, don't you think McNutty's lawyer would find out about that. I believe thats called witness tampering and is a federal offense.

Personally I don't think Ben needed to settle with DTF.

The time to settle would have been when he was first sued. Now he has to see it through.

This case has wreaked of a money grab from the very beginning. She waited a year to say anything. And only after her medical bills mounted. Thats a victim right there. It makes me sick. I have said it before and I will say it again, Rape is a heinous crime. But crying false rape for your own gain is just as bad. I don't care who you are or what team you play for. Furthermore, Ben is not the first athlete to be accused of rape in civil court. It is not uncommon for women to make these claims, get money from these men and go and do it to another man. It happens all the time. And the guys pay it to protect their reputation.

I hope Ben does fight it. And I hope he wins and not because he plays for the steelers. And hopefully it will give money grabbing *****s something to think about. Plus I think with Ben's rep. in the gutter he has nothing more to lose (well except money) and everything to gain by fighting it at this point.

Atlanta Dan
02-22-2011, 02:29 PM
What makes you think he settled with DTF? Further more if he had settled with her, don't you think McNutty's lawyer would find out about that. I believe thats called witness tampering and is a federal offense.

Personally I don't think Ben needed to settle with DTF.

The time to settle would have been when he was first sued.

With regard to settling Nevada, Roethlisberger's attorneys had her on the run (with no small assistance from her former employer whom she also sued and which published the nutty e-mails she sent using her work computer) - at that time there was no compelling need to settle since the public image of Roethlisberger at that time was as a hard partying 2 time Sup[er Bowl winning QB who did not need to and presumably would not force himself on women - I assume you would agree events last March changed that image - McNulty probably figures she has a lot better shot now with a jury and Roethlisberger has a greater interst in damage control and avoiding a trial than he did pre-Milledgeville

As for resolving the other unpleasantness, I have posted at length previously regarding my theory on Miss Milledgeville having settled - ask yourself why her family would retain a plaintiff's civil (not criminal defense) attorney specializing in sexual harassmnet lawsuits if all she wanted to do was participate inthe DA's investigation, why that attorney then wrote the letter to the DA saying she no longer wanted to talk about this anymore, and, when asked if there had been a civil settlement, that attorney said he could not comment on that (standard response if the civil settlement agreement has a confidentiality clause) - she might have simply decided she made it all up but Ben had a major incentive to pay her to go away - and no that is not obstruction of a criminal investigation - this was not the first rodeo for Miss Milledgeville's Atlanta attorney Lee Parks or for Ben's legal defense team led by Attlanta attorney Ed Garland.

siss
02-22-2011, 02:51 PM
With regard to settling Nevada, Roethlisberger's attorneys had her on the run (with no small assistance from her former employer whom she also sued and which published the nutty e-mails she sent using her work computer) - at that time there was no compelling need to settle since the public image of Roethlisberger at that time was as a hard partying 2 time Sup[er Bowl winning QB who did not need to and presumably would not force himself on women - I assume you would agree events last March changed that image - McNulty probably figures she has a lot better shot now with a jury and Roethlisberger has a greater interst in damage control and avoiding a trial than he did pre-Milledgeville

As for resolving the other unpleasantness, I have posted at length previously regarding my theory on Miss Milledgeville having settled - ask yourself why her family would retain a plaintiff's civil (not criminal defense) attorney specializing in sexual harassmnet lawsuits if all she wanted to do was participate inthe DA's investigation, why that attorney then wrote the letter to the DA saying she no longer wanted to talk about this anymore, and, when asked if there had been a civil settlement, that attorney said he could not comment on that (standard response if the civil settlement agreement has a confidentiality clause) - she might have simply decided she made it all up but Ben had a major incentive to pay her to go away - and no that is not obstruction of a criminal investigation - this was not the first rodeo for Miss Milledgeville's Atlanta attorney Lee Parks or for Ben's legal defense team led by Attlanta attorney Ed Garland.

It is obstruction of justice if the investigation is still going on.

You have said nothing that leads me to believe Ben paid her off.

It also wasn't the first rodeo for DTF either and her lawyer knew that Ben's lawyer would ripe her a new one. Plus with the inconsistent testimony of her and friends, the case was dead in the water. They didn't have probable cause in the first place. Plus the DA stated that not only did he not have probable cause (the standard for an arrest), but he knew where the case was going from the beginning. He did not need to pay her off, there was never a case in the first place. I have read your theory, and I think you are wrong. Just because her lawyer said no comment doesn't mean anything. I think everyone involved wanted it to go away.

Atlanta Dan
02-22-2011, 03:01 PM
It is obstruction of justice if the investigation is still going on.

You have said nothing that leads me to believe Ben paid her off.

It also wasn't the first rodeo for DTF either and her lawyer knew that Ben's lawyer would ripe her a new one. Plus with the inconsistent testimony of her and friends, the case was dead in the water. They didn't have probable cause in the first place. Plus the DA stated that not only did he not have probable cause (the standard for an arrest), but he knew where the case was going from the beginning. He did not need to pay her off, there was never a case in the first place. I have read your theory, and I think you are wrong. Just because her lawyer said no comment doesn't mean anything. I think everyone involved wanted it to go away.

We disagree - FWIW I do have a working knowldge of how parallel civil and criminal investigations are resolved and the elements of 18 USC 1512 (I suppose obstructing the state investigation could be a federal offense if the obstruction involved mailing or wiring the improper settlemnt/obstruction payment and you could convince an AUSA to bring a mail fraud or wire fraud charge in federal court for obsructing a state investigation)


:drink:

SteelCityMom
02-22-2011, 03:06 PM
It is obstruction of justice if the investigation is still going on.

Attempting to settle out of court is not obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice deals with tampering with evidence, interfering with the work of police or prosecutors (lying to police or investigators, physically hindering their duties), perjury...etc. (Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice for lying in a sworn deposition about Lewinsky; Nixon was being investigated for the same because of his involvement in Watergate)

If Ben and his lawyers did indeed settle out of court, that in no way absolves him of criminal prosecution...it just makes the DA's case harder to prove, basically meaning she just wants to drop the charges...a witness dropping charges in an assault case does not mean charges cannot be brought up if there is sufficient physical evidence.

You may be thinking of something along the lines of witness tampering, but that is harming or otherwise threatening a witness, hoping to influence his or her testimony...and settling or attempting to settle out of court is not that.

siss
02-22-2011, 03:08 PM
We disagree - FWIW I do have a working knowldge of how parallel civil and criminal investigations are resolved and the elements of 18 USC 1512 (I suppose obstructing the state investigation could be a federal offense if the obstruction involved mailing or wiring the improper settlemnt/obstruction payment and you could convince an AUSA to bring a mail fraud or wire fraud charge in federal court for obsructing a state investigation)


:drink:
You could try and convince me otherwise. But I say he didn't need to pay her off because there was never a case in the first place.

SteelCityMom
02-22-2011, 03:23 PM
My own personal thoughts on this...I wouldn't feel like he was any more guilty or innocent if he settled than I do now.

What I do know though is that his odds of winning the Nevada case went down significantly after the Georgia incident. It's not like a criminal case where the jury only needs a shred of doubt to find someone innocent. The jury in this civil case would only need to feel a little more strongly that he did it rather than not to find him liable. He knows that, his lawyers know that...and they'll advise him of what the smart thing to do is (which is probably settle and put it in the past).

Atlanta Dan
02-22-2011, 03:24 PM
You could try and convince me otherwise. But I say he didn't need to pay her off because there was never a case in the first place.

I humbly submit you and I both have spent enough time pondering the events of last March that we are not liklely to be turned around on our conclusions by postings on a message board.:chuckle:

By taking the position Ben settled Milledgeville and probably will settle Nevada I am not saying I personally believe he committed sexual assault. But it certainly would not be the first time a civil case settled without the plaintiff probably being able to carry the lower civil burden of proof if the case went to trial - civil cases are about $$ and sometimes settling is the right financial choice - just going to trial often has a significant adverse financial (and adverse publicity) impact even if the verdict is for the defendant. Depending on how much it would cost to settle, continuing to litigate civil actions for the Milledgeville and Nevada allegations has a big downside for what is left of Roethlisberger's reputation based on the anticipated testimony alone.

siss
02-22-2011, 03:57 PM
I humbly submit you and I both have spent enough time pondering the events of last March that we are not liklely to be turned around on our conclusions by postings on a message board.:chuckle:

By taking the position Ben settled Milledgeville and probably will settle Nevada I am not saying I personally believe he committed sexual assault. But it certainly would not be the first time a civil case settled without the plaintiff probably being able to carry the lower civil burden of proof if the case went to trial - civil cases are about $$ and sometimes settling is the right financial choice - just going to trial often has a significant adverse financial (and adverse publicity) impact even if the verdict is for the defendant. Depending on how much it would cost to settle, continuing to litigate civil actions for the Milledgeville and Nevada allegations has a big downside for what is left of Roethlisberger's reputation based on the anticipated testimony alone.

Ben has to fight it. Even if he loses he has to fight it.