Discussion:
MeToo icon and nutjob Rose McGowan, felony charges for cocaine possession
(too old to reply)
RichA
2018-06-13 03:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 04:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
RichA
2018-06-13 04:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Yeah, sure:

"McGowan and her attorney, Jim Hundley, argue that the drugs could have been planted, given the spans of time during which unknown individuals may have had access to the wallet."
Alan Smithee
2018-06-13 08:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 21:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
A Friend
2018-06-13 21:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictmen
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
EGK
2018-06-13 22:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictmen
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I don't necessarily believe her but in a trial, I don't see how she wouldn't
have reasonable doubt. Not when her wallet the drugs were found in was out
of her possession for that long.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 23:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I don't necessarily believe her but in a trial, I don't see how she wouldn't
have reasonable doubt. Not when her wallet the drugs were found in was out
of her possession for that long.
Not to mention allegedly coked-up actress is not a situation causing
great harm to all of society. Seriously, these possession laws for minor
amounts of cocaine need to be repealed.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 00:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I haven't been paying a lot of attention, so let me make sure I'm
following this right:

Rose' story is that she left her bags unattended on the plane, with her
wallet in them. Somebody stole the wallet out of the bag, put 2 bags of
cocaine in it, and then hid it on the plane were it wouldn't be found
until the clean up crew was working, on the theory that the crew would
turn it in and the cops would come after her for felony possession?

Also she claims that she reported the missing wallet before the cops
came after her, but there's no confirmation of this?

And somehow this is directly connected to Harvey Weinstein?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 00:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indict
men
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-
her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I don't necessarily believe her but in a trial, I don't see how she wouldn't
have reasonable doubt. Not when her wallet the drugs were found in was out
of her possession for that long.
She came across as such a total nutjob on Citizen Rose that if they let
her testify the jury will probably put her away just for good measure.

I mean:
"Imagining I'm going into sisterly solidarity, I can think of nothing
more opposed to that, energetically, that I would want in my body at
that moment," she said referring to the cocaine.

Is she pleading guilty or innocent?

and:
""I'm the only one who's had handcuffs on me so far in this situation,"
she told the publication. "That's not right.""
Because this is all about Harvey Weinstein.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2018-06-14 00:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indict
men
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-
her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I don't necessarily believe her but in a trial, I don't see how she wouldn't
have reasonable doubt. Not when her wallet the drugs were found in was out
of her possession for that long.
She came across as such a total nutjob on Citizen Rose that if they let
her testify the jury will probably put her away just for good measure.
"Imagining I'm going into sisterly solidarity, I can think of nothing
more opposed to that, energetically, that I would want in my body at
that moment," she said referring to the cocaine.
Is she pleading guilty or innocent?
""I'm the only one who's had handcuffs on me so far in this situation,"
she told the publication. "That's not right.""
Because this is all about Harvey Weinstein.
haha. I didnt see Citizen Rose but yeah, the fact she's a nutjob is why I
said I don't necessarily believe her. It was probably her coke. Just
saying she'd have plenty of room for reasonable doubt when the wallet it was
in was out of her posession that long.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 01:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-ind
ict
men
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-abo
ut-
her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
I don't necessarily believe her but in a trial, I don't see how she wouldn't
have reasonable doubt. Not when her wallet the drugs were found in was out
of her possession for that long.
She came across as such a total nutjob on Citizen Rose that if they let
her testify the jury will probably put her away just for good measure.
"Imagining I'm going into sisterly solidarity, I can think of nothing
more opposed to that, energetically, that I would want in my body at
that moment," she said referring to the cocaine.
Is she pleading guilty or innocent?
""I'm the only one who's had handcuffs on me so far in this situation,"
she told the publication. "That's not right.""
Because this is all about Harvey Weinstein.
haha. I didnt see Citizen Rose but yeah, the fact she's a nutjob is why I
said I don't necessarily believe her. It was probably her coke. Just
saying she'd have plenty of room for reasonable doubt when the wallet it was
in was out of her posession that long.
I agree, but if they put her on the stand, she's doomed. I don't even
believe her story about Weinstein. I mean, there was a camera crew
following her around, she had them wait outside Weinstein's door while
she went in, he rapes her, she comes back out to the film crew and they
continue following her around and nobody knows anything is wrong?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
RichA
2018-06-14 01:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictmen
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 01:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 02:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
David Johnston
2018-06-14 14:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
EGK
2018-06-14 14:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
She has no reason to testify.
That's never stopped her before though. She obviously likes to hear
herself speak.

Weinstein's obviously a class A douchebag but McGowan has never seemed like
much of a prize. Hell, she grew up in the Children of God, doomsday cult.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 17:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-abou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.

Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.

Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2018-06-14 17:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-abou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
I'm certainly not a lawyer but I would think a competent attorney could
simply cross examine the witnesses and note the time the wallet was out of
her posession and out of sight.

Unless they're lying, anyone, law enforcement or not would have to answer
yes if an attorney asks "is it possible someone else had access to this
wallet and planted that cocaine during those hours it was lost?".

If it was a TV show, they'd probably do that and also call witnesses that
would bring up Harvey Weinstein and his "fixers" and allude to them planting
news stories or evidence to discredit others.

In reality, I would think she'll reach some type of plea deal since the coke
is most likely hers. haha
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 18:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-i
ndi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-a
bou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
I'm certainly not a lawyer but I would think a competent attorney could
simply cross examine the witnesses and note the time the wallet was out of
her posession and out of sight.
But without her, asking anybody "how long was it laying around before
you found it" is gonna elicit a response of "how the Hell would I know?"
And her refusing to testify while sitting there carving crosses in her
forehead isn't gonna make the jury like her any.
Post by EGK
Unless they're lying, anyone, law enforcement or not would have to answer
yes if an attorney asks "is it possible someone else had access to this
wallet and planted that cocaine during those hours it was lost?".
Objection, your Honor, "hours" assumes facts not in evidence.
Post by EGK
If it was a TV show, they'd probably do that and also call witnesses that
would bring up Harvey Weinstein and his "fixers" and allude to them planting
news stories or evidence to discredit others.
In reality, I would think she'll reach some type of plea deal since the coke
is most likely hers. haha
heh
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
EGK
2018-06-14 18:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-i
ndi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-a
bou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession
of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
I'm certainly not a lawyer but I would think a competent attorney could
simply cross examine the witnesses and note the time the wallet was out of
her posession and out of sight.
But without her, asking anybody "how long was it laying around before
you found it" is gonna elicit a response of "how the Hell would I know?"
And her refusing to testify while sitting there carving crosses in her
forehead isn't gonna make the jury like her any.
Post by EGK
Unless they're lying, anyone, law enforcement or not would have to answer
yes if an attorney asks "is it possible someone else had access to this
wallet and planted that cocaine during those hours it was lost?".
Objection, your Honor, "hours" assumes facts not in evidence.
I'm not following this real close but I thought she flew to another
destination and her wallet wasn't found till later? The time between when
her plane left and the time her wallet was found would be in evidence
without her testilying (pun intended).

I just looked and found this on CNN but no idea of the time involved:

"The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
If it was a TV show, they'd probably do that and also call witnesses that
would bring up Harvey Weinstein and his "fixers" and allude to them planting
news stories or evidence to discredit others.
In reality, I would think she'll reach some type of plea deal since the coke
is most likely hers. haha
heh
Ed Stasiak
2018-06-14 19:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
E Gk
”The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
Maybe Weinstein had his Mossad buddies pick her pocket and plant the coke?
EGK
2018-06-14 19:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
E Gk
”The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
Maybe Weinstein had his Mossad buddies pick her pocket and plant the coke?
My money's on Avi.
FPP
2018-06-14 23:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
E Gk
”The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
Maybe Weinstein had his Mossad buddies pick her pocket and plant the coke?
Or anybody who wanted to make a few bucks by getting even with her.
The reasonable doubt is palpable.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 20:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-dru
g-i
ndi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-ou
t-a
bou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in
possession
of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you
that
she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But
if
She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
I'm certainly not a lawyer but I would think a competent attorney could
simply cross examine the witnesses and note the time the wallet was out of
her posession and out of sight.
But without her, asking anybody "how long was it laying around before
you found it" is gonna elicit a response of "how the Hell would I know?"
And her refusing to testify while sitting there carving crosses in her
forehead isn't gonna make the jury like her any.
Post by EGK
Unless they're lying, anyone, law enforcement or not would have to answer
yes if an attorney asks "is it possible someone else had access to this
wallet and planted that cocaine during those hours it was lost?".
Objection, your Honor, "hours" assumes facts not in evidence.
I'm not following this real close but I thought she flew to another
destination and her wallet wasn't found till later? The time between when
her plane left and the time her wallet was found would be in evidence
without her testilying (pun intended).
Her destination was Virginia. I don't think you fly from DC to
Virginia. But it's Virginia that's prosecuting her, so I don't
understand the DC part at all.

And the cleaning crew could have found the wallet 3 minutes after the
passengers disembarked.
Post by EGK
"The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
And by 'traces' they mean 'two bags full'
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 20:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
. . .
Her destination was Virginia. I don't think you fly from DC to
Virginia. But it's Virginia that's prosecuting her, so I don't
understand the DC part at all.
And the cleaning crew could have found the wallet 3 minutes after the
passengers disembarked.
Post by EGK
"The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
And by 'traces' they mean 'two bags full'
There are three airports in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area.
"A flight to Washington" can mean flying to any of the three.

Baltimore-Washington International Airport is operated by Maryland Aviation
Administration, a state agency.

Washington National Airport (Arlington County, Virginia) and Dulles
International Airport (Fairfax and Loudoun counties, Virginia) are
operated by Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, an interstate
compact created by Washington and the commonwealth of Virginia to lease
the two airports from the federal government. Previously, the two
airports were operated by FAA.

United Airlines flies to all three airports.

The court filings were in Loudoun County, so that means it was Dulles.
anim8rfsk
2018-06-14 23:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
. . .
Her destination was Virginia. I don't think you fly from DC to
Virginia. But it's Virginia that's prosecuting her, so I don't
understand the DC part at all.
And the cleaning crew could have found the wallet 3 minutes after the
passengers disembarked.
Post by EGK
"The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority obtained the warrant in
February last year after authorities allegedly found traces of narcotics in
her personal belongings that were left behind on a United flight in January
to Washington, D.C."
And by 'traces' they mean 'two bags full'
There are three airports in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area.
"A flight to Washington" can mean flying to any of the three.
Baltimore-Washington International Airport is operated by Maryland Aviation
Administration, a state agency.
Washington National Airport (Arlington County, Virginia) and Dulles
International Airport (Fairfax and Loudoun counties, Virginia) are
operated by Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, an interstate
compact created by Washington and the commonwealth of Virginia to lease
the two airports from the federal government. Previously, the two
airports were operated by FAA.
United Airlines flies to all three airports.
The court filings were in Loudoun County, so that means it was Dulles.
thanks
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
trotsky
2018-06-15 11:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by EGK
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-i
ndi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-a
bou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
I'm certainly not a lawyer but I would think a competent attorney could
simply cross examine the witnesses and note the time the wallet was out of
her posession and out of sight.
But without her, asking anybody "how long was it laying around before
you found it" is gonna elicit a response of "how the Hell would I know?"
And her refusing to testify while sitting there carving crosses in her
forehead isn't gonna make the jury like her any.
Yep, as usual, you have the misogynistic criticism of women covered.
David Johnston
2018-06-14 18:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-abou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Sure she does. She has the same defense everyone has, "demanding the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt". Can the prosecution prove that the cocaine was in her wallet when the wallet was in her possession? No? Then she walks.
Post by anim8rfsk
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 19:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession
of cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that
she has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Sure she does. She has the same defense everyone has, "demanding the
prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt". Can the
prosecution prove that the cocaine was in her wallet when the wallet was
in her possession? No? Then she walks.
I'm going to guess that her lawyers will ask for a ruling on the
admissibility of the evidence pre-trial. If it's inaddmissible, the
charges will have to be dropped. Otherwise it'll be left to the jury to
decide if it's evidence against her.

Her lawyer may have asked her specifically not to tell him if the
cocaine was ever in her possession to avoid suborning perjury.
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
David Johnston
2018-06-15 00:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession
of cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that
she has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Sure she does. She has the same defense everyone has, "demanding the
prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt". Can the
prosecution prove that the cocaine was in her wallet when the wallet was
in her possession? No? Then she walks.
I'm going to guess that her lawyers will ask for a ruling on the
admissibility of the evidence pre-trial. If it's inaddmissible, the
charges will have to be dropped. Otherwise it'll be left to the jury to
decide if it's evidence against her.
There's a different between "inadmissible" and merely "insufficient to meet the burden".
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Her lawyer may have asked her specifically not to tell him if the
cocaine was ever in her possession to avoid suborning perjury.
Well that's certainly possible. Confirming that it was her cocaine won't help him do his job. This isn't a complicated case.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 02:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .
I'm going to guess that her lawyers will ask for a ruling on the
admissibility of the evidence pre-trial. If it's inaddmissible, the
charges will have to be dropped. Otherwise it'll be left to the jury to
decide if it's evidence against her.
There's a different between "inadmissible" and merely "insufficient to meet the burden".
Didn't I just say that, Johnston? If it's inadmissible, then charges
will be dropped. If it's admissible, it proceeds to trial.

The judge cannot rule insufficient before the prosecution puts on its
case at trial, because insufficiency of evidence is a decision to be
made by the trier of fact, the jury (or the trial judge if a bench trial).
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Her lawyer may have asked her specifically not to tell him if the
cocaine was ever in her possession to avoid suborning perjury.
Well that's certainly possible. Confirming that it was her cocaine
won't help him do his job. This isn't a complicated case.
BTR1701
2018-06-15 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .
I'm going to guess that her lawyers will ask for a ruling on the
admissibility of the evidence pre-trial. If it's inaddmissible, the
charges will have to be dropped. Otherwise it'll be left to the jury to
decide if it's evidence against her.
There's a different between "inadmissible" and merely "insufficient to meet the burden".
Didn't I just say that, Johnston? If it's inadmissible, then charges
will be dropped. If it's admissible, it proceeds to trial.
The judge cannot rule insufficient before the prosecution puts on its
case at trial, because insufficiency of evidence is a decision to be
made by the trier of fact, the jury (or the trial judge if a bench trial).
The defense can make show-cause motion which, if granted, would require
the prosecution to establish a prima facie case before the judge. If the
prosecution can't show that it has a reasonable chance of proving the
elements of the crime charged, the defendant is entitled to a dismissal
without prejudice.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 03:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .
I'm going to guess that her lawyers will ask for a ruling on the
admissibility of the evidence pre-trial. If it's inaddmissible, the
charges will have to be dropped. Otherwise it'll be left to the jury to
decide if it's evidence against her.
There's a different between "inadmissible" and merely "insufficient to meet the burden".
Didn't I just say that, Johnston? If it's inadmissible, then charges
will be dropped. If it's admissible, it proceeds to trial.
The judge cannot rule insufficient before the prosecution puts on its
case at trial, because insufficiency of evidence is a decision to be
made by the trier of fact, the jury (or the trial judge if a bench trial).
The defense can make show-cause motion which, if granted, would require
the prosecution to establish a prima facie case before the judge. If the
prosecution can't show that it has a reasonable chance of proving the
elements of the crime charged, the defendant is entitled to a dismissal
without prejudice.
I stand corrected.

Most of what I know about criminal procedure is from Law and Order,
which is sufficient for a tv newsgroup. I vaguely recall episodes,
during pre-trial motions, that the defense argued that some piece of
evidence couldn't be tied closely enough to the defendant and Jack
argued that it should be left to the trier of fact how weak the evidence is.
FPP
2018-06-14 23:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by David Johnston
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indi
ctme
nt/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-abou
t-he
r-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
If she claims under oath she doesn't do cocaine, can they bring in 400
of her closest friends to testify she's lying?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
She has no reason to testify.
But if she doesn't, she has no defense at all.
Prosecution: Here's a bunch of witnesses that will tell you we found
her wallet just stuffed full of cocaine.
Defense: The defendant would prefer not to talk about it, your honor.
Man, that's just plain wrong!

"Your honor, the wallet in question was left unattended for hours, where
any number of people had access to it. My client has no knowledge of
the cocaine, but a lot of powerful enemies who would like to get even
with her."

Anyone who's ever lost anything can sympathize, and I don't see a jury
putting somebody behind bars when this is a perfect case of reasonable
doubt.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
RichA
2018-06-14 03:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
I can make the same claim if they find drugs in a car I'm driving and they'll still arrest me and probably convict me, even if I wasn't in my car and it wasn't in my line of sight 24hrs a day.
Alan Smithee
2018-06-14 04:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke
holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She
plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Do I really have to explain that there's no insanity plea as a defense
against evidence of possession? All she can do is argue that the drugs
never were in her possession and that the prosecution has no evidence
that the drugs ever were in her possession.
Did they find her *prints* on the bags? Even the hardy boys would check
for them...
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by A Friend
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictmen
t/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-
arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
Thanks for the link to the New Yorker story. I agree with you that she
has a defense. FWIW (probably not much) I believe her story.
Pretending to have been framed or mistaken as the owner of the coke holds about as much chance at trial as an insanity defense. But if She plead insanity, she would probably be found not guilty.
Your post sounds like an insanity defense.
m***@hotmail.com
2018-06-14 17:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Alan Smithee
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/12/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-drug-indictment/index.html
C'mon, Rich, you remember this story.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rose-mcgowan-speaks-out-about-her-arrest-on-drug-charges
Indicted... said she was framed with two packs of cocaine.
I think she has a defense as she's charged with being in possession of
cocaine that she didn't possess at the time of discovery.
This should settle it, right?
-------------------------------------------------

How long does cocaine stay in blood, hair, or urine?

-- http://drug.addictionblog.org/how-long-does-cocaine-stay-in-blood-hair-or-urine/
Loading...