The Knicks traded for Derrick Rose as he faced a lawsuit for rape. Rose denied the accusation, but disturbing (and complex) details have since emerged – leaving questions about what Phil Jackson knew and should’ve known when he made the deal.
Less than a week before Derrick Rose was deposed in a rape lawsuit, the Knicks traded for him without ever seeking the alleged victim’s side of the story, the woman’s lawyer said Wednesday.
Brandon Anand, who is representing the 30-year-old “Jane Doe,” said he suspects the Chicago Bulls dealt Rose because of the pending lawsuit.
“My first reaction was maybe they’re hiding this from the Knicks and passed him off without giving full disclosures, but it seems to me like the Knicks should’ve done their own investigation,” Anand told the Daily News.
Asked about Anand’s charge that he was never contacted by the Knicks, the team declined to comment and pointed to an earlier statement from Knicks President Phil Jackson that he was “aware” of the lawsuit.
Jackson admitted he never felt compelled to investigate the allegations into Rose — saying after acquiring the 28-year-old in June, “We are aware of it. Investigation is a big word.”
Let’s be clear: Jackson saying publicly “investigation is a big word” does NOT mean he failed to do his due diligence. He’s not required to reveal the scope of the Knicks’ investigation, especially because doing so could create the impression of a serious problem even if that investigation relieved concerns about Rose.
But it seems impossible to conduct a proper investigation without speaking to the plaintiff and her lawyer. Nobody else is equipped to give her side of the story.
On one hand, this should be a matter for the judicial system – not a sports team – to handle. On the other hand, the Knicks should probably know a great deal about someone they’re paying more than $20 million and asking to represent the franchise.