Derrick Rose’s best argument in the court of public opinion as he defends himself in a rape lawsuit was the lack of criminal charges. There is no burden of proof for filing a lawsuit. Just because his alleged victim sued him proved nothing. If Rose broke the law, why wasn’t he facing criminal charges?
That question prevented the lawsuit from drawing major attention. It allowed Rose to paint the plaintiff as money hungry. It allowed the Knicks to operate without concern.
About that…
Rose should be concerned, given the compelling evidence against him. There’s certainly a wide gap between some compelling evidence and a conviction, and the fact that the night in question was three years ago makes a conviction less likely. Rose hasn’t even been charged.
We’ll see what the investigation uncovers, but Rose just lost some benefit of the doubt.