Derrick Rose facing persuasive case against him in rape lawsuit

Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
6 Comments

Knicks guard Derrick Rose is being sued for rape. He denies the accusation, saying the group sex was consensual.

Unfortunately, evidence in the case is disturbing.

Lindsay Gibbs of ThinkProgress:

Rose flat-out denies ever having group sex with Doe, because every time he pushed the issue, she would refuse.

Q: Have you ever had a threesome or a foursome with [Plaintiff]?

Rose: No.

Q: All the other times that you pushed that issue with her, she refused; isn’t that right?

Rose: Yeah

Jessica Groff, Doe’s friend who was at Rose’s party with her, said in her deposition that it was “very obvious” Doe was intoxicated. In fact, Doe even burned her hand after she picked up rocks in the fire pit for “no rational reason.”

After Groff allegedly had a fight with Allen that night, she decided to leave the party. However, she refused to leave Doe alone at the house.

“I knew [Doe] was very intoxicated,” Groff said in her deposition. “I definitely was not going to leave her there alone. I did not feel safe and did not believe [Doe] would be safe if left alone.”

So Groff and Doe got a cab, and Groff dropped Doe off at her apartment.

Later that night, Rose inquired about whether Doe got home safely, and the two began conversing again through text message. Rose wanted to send someone to pick up Doe and return her to his house, but she wanted Rose to come to her apartment, alone.

Texts between Derrick Rose and Jane Doe on the night of the alleged rape.

Eventually, Rose arrived at Doe’s apartment with Allen and Hampton. She stopped responding to texts well before they arrived, as was revealed in the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Rose’s Motion to Preclude Use of Pseudonym at Trial, filed on August 29:

The evidence shows that Plaintiff was unconscious when Defendants arrived to her apartment in the early morning hours of August 27, 2013, and that she did not respond to texts or calls from Defendants Rose and Allen:

2:05 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:12 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:27 AM Text from Defendant Rose to Plaintiff “Hello?”

2:29 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:49 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:50 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “We outside”

2:50 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:51 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:52 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

2:52 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “Wake yo ass up”

2:53 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

In a deposition on June 17, Rose says that he didn’t talk with Allen and Hampton about the reason they were going to Doe’s apartment, but that the reason was understood because “we men.”

Q: Did either Mr. Hampton or Mr. Allen tell you why they wanted to go to Plaintiff’s home on the night in question?

Rose: No. No.

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to Plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1:00, there’s nothing to talk about.

However, while the defense is using Doe’s texts inviting Rose over to her apartment that night as proof that she consented, Rose admitted in his deposition that nowhere in the text message did she consent or even mention group sex.

Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages, is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintif wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26th, 2013?

Rose: No.

Perhaps, the alleged victim sobered up and then consented to group sex after previously repeatedly rejecting it. Anything short of that – her consenting while overly intoxicated or not consenting at all – is rape. That’s a narrow window for Rose to prove the legality of his actions, though he certainly deserves an opportunity to do so.

I suggest reading the entire ThinkProgress article for more details on the case.