Are All These DV cases Going to Screw up Hope Solo?

Of course not. And if he'd been able to defend himself, then he wouldn't have let his mother get beaten up, wouldn't have gotten hurt himself, wouldn't have needed the broken bb gun, and wouldn't have needed to call the cops.

There is nothing unusual about family members being reluctant to testify against other family members, and there is nothing unusual about accusers being intimidated by a skilled defense attorney working every angle. These arguments give us no insight into the nature of what happened. In contrast, the new information from the police reports give a much clearer picture of Solo's aggressive drunkenness.

In light of the new information that's been reported, have any of Solo's supporters on this thread admitted they were wrong about anything? Seems like they're just digging their heels in.

 

Olberman is a douche. Yes Hope F'd up. She was drunk, got in a brawl, and lied about it. It happens everyday...for Christ sake....look at the riots in Baltimore. They aren't even arresting those idiots. This is rediculous

 

You're right, it does happen everyday. And that's why we have jails.

Big and aggressive aren't mutually exclusive. From the accounts floating around he sounds rather passive, unlike Hope.

 

Physician, heal thyself of your dug in heels...

And I can't resist pointing out that while it's not unusual for victims in DV cases to be reluctant to testify, bringing THAT up in relation with THIS case (which actually isn't a DV case at all in the sense you'd like it to be or legally) is either dishonest or laughable seeing as these folks are happy to talk with anyone and everyone EXCEPT where they'll be cross examined. It's not like they went AWOL on a trial date, they refused to appear to be deposed, which means they had months to show up at their convenience and didn't.

I realize you won't be moved by the facts of the case, but sheesh.

 

To be clear. No family member has given any credible evidence in court or has been deposed.

Wait until they say something under oath.

 

So what kind of punishment did Solo's husband, Jerramy Stevens, get for this incident? Has anyone heard, or has his case not gone to trial yet?

I'm curious to know, because from what I've read it would be at least his third DUI, on top of multiple other past arrests (battery, drug possession, hit-and-run, etc.).

 

Wasn't that a different incident that Stevens was involved in? It was five months ago. Don't know what's the average length of time for those to come to trial. Maybe it takes longer with celebrity defendants like Stevens.

 

http://patch.com/california/manhatt...d-hope-solo-pleads-guilty-dui-manhattan-beach

 

In one of the first skirmishes in the case, the judge gave Hope's attorneys the right to ask certain questions in the depositions they wanted to take. Once the judge did that, I think the case was pretty much over as the accusers did not want to have to answer the questions under oath. I believe that is why the did not show up for the depos, after being ordered to by the judge. What would those questions have been about? Use your imagination ....

 

So are most people on here believe in guilty before proven innocent, or are you just Solo Haters?

 

Because everything has to be about taking sides...

Labeling people haters/detractors is one of the laziest things that has become common with arguing in recent years.

 

Leaving aside your ridiculous accusations, how about responding to the direct questions that you've been ignoring:

1. Are you alleging that the Kirkland cops did something inappropriate, or do you think it's a good idea to treat responsible police officers as targets for vulgar and homophobic abuse (as Solo did)?

2. In light of the new information that's been reported, have any of Solo's supporters on this thread admitted they were wrong about anything?

In my view, @sitruc 's point about mindlessly taking sides hits the mark.

 

His punishment...

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? According to ABC News, Maybrown subjected each of them to extensive questioning.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/docume...e-solos-actions-june/story?id=31590895&page=7

"The transcripts reflect Obert and her son answered virtually all of Maybrown's questions -- except ones that sought medical information they and their lawyer believed was private and unrelated to the domestic violence incident, particularly from Obert's son. On this point, their lawyer, Mary Gaston, repeatedly objected, citing medical privilege, and her clients refused to answer. Among other things, Maybrown appeared to be trying to suggest that the boy was mentally unstable and, thus, unreliable or prone to behavioral problems."

 

If I recall correctly, after the initial depositions, Hope's attorney took the questions objected to to court, which is a right they had, and asked that the judge require that the questions be answered. The judge agreed. It was the continuation of the deposition in order to get these questions answered at which the accusers did not appear. I don't have time now, but I believe somewhere back on one of these Solo threads, there are sources for this information.

I suspect that the basis for the pending appeal is the question whether the judge correctly ordered that the accusers answer the questions.

 

Ok, your comment about "one of the first skirmishes" made it sound like they hadn't shown up at all, when in fact, they had each been through extensive questioning. And in any case, your previous comment about "use your imagination" still seems ill-justified. After all, it's clear that Maybrown was going after the child's medical history.

Solo's high-priced lawyer successfully intimidated the victims.

 

"I told [my son] he would never have to be alone with [Maybrown] again unless he was in court, you know, at trial," Obert says. "It was so upsetting."

Interesting. It's somewhat exaggerated, because in a deposition her son wouldn't have been alone with Maybrown. Although it's possible he did not have an attorney representing him, if he did then his attorney would have been there, and a court reporter would have been there. Depending on his age, his mother might have been there too, but if I'm right in my recollection he's well over the age of majority, so I don't know if he would have had the right to have her there, possibly she could have been excluded since she also was a witness.

For a deposition (part of "discovery"), the questions that can be asked are different than at trial. For a depo, an attorney can ask questions that might lead to relevant evidence. In a trial, the questions must be about something that is relevant. Thus depositions can be more in the nature of "fishing expeditions."

Sounds like a mucked up family, to me. I say that not as criticism, just an observation. Also sounds like the son might have wanted out of the whole thing in the first place. But, it's all speculation.

In relation to all of the recent "revelations," however, I really think there's nothing new there. It's all pretty much a re-hash of what came out earlier, but with slightly more detail.

 

... yet we continue to see the "no new information" line.

 

It's really simple for me. Those of you who think she's lying through her teeth are free to do so. Those who think we should let due process take place are free to do so. Until she's off the NT, we all have to deal with her talent on the field and her insanity off it. Going back to and fro about it here won't change the fact that she's currently in Winnipeg playing for the country *shrug*

Personally, my biggest worry right now is how adamant Jill Ellis has been about not using a DM and leaving the midfield wide open but that's just me.

 

No, it is not just you...

 

AKA a sign you have a great life.

 

Well, there isn't any point in worrying about the other stuff; I can do or not do-- but I can't do anything about that but wait and see...

 

New Yorker piece hits the nail on the head.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/the-hope-solo-fiasco

 

No, it doesn't. The piece is as well-written as any random blog post, and the writer seems to assume Solo's guilty until proven innocent. There's really nothing to see there. Solo's no angel, but her family members don't strike me as particularly believable either.

This is all a nice distraction from our team's crappy tactics though!

 

One of these days, people here will realize they are in the 'guilty before proven innocent' bandwagon, like how they approve of civil forfeitures. It's really nice.