Archive through July 22, 2002
The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Two:
Chiara is currently out on bail on drunk driving charge:
Archive through July 22, 2002
Ryanc2002 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:03 pm     She told of this in the hottub one night. Just woke up from a nap and totally can't remember who she told but... |
Pcakes2 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:05 pm     My apologies...I didn't realize she had "priors", and that another substance was involved. |
Maryk | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:09 pm     Maybe she thought she could get away with a .10 - thats the BAC for NY State: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmvfaqs.htm#dwi |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:12 pm     Maryk....I hadda LOL at the thought of Chia carrying around her own BAC kit to figure out if she was .08 or .10. I don't think a person can actually determine his/her BAC by judging the effects he/she feels...especially since by the time he/she has reached .08 they are already legally drunk in most states...too drunk to judge something as precise as BAC! :-) |
Maryk | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:15 pm     I don't know either Sanfran. :-) I don't drink myself. :-) But maybe she can drink 2 or 3 glasses of alcohol and that was OK in NY but just over in CA. I leave that up to the experts! :-) |
Ryanc2002 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:19 pm     Much ado about nothing considering we had Justin (almost typed Jason) the knife weilding maniac, and George the murderer (kidding) in the house. And to the people complaining about special treatment: She ain't the first person to get it, won't be the last, and it's perfectly legal, end of discussion. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:23 pm     You forgot one. Did not one of the girls (shannon?) last year have an auto accident that resulted in a death to an older gent? |
Snee | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:24 pm     keiffer and bastable, gotta disagree with some of what you said. i consider DUI to be a violent offense; it's just sheer luck that someone doesn't kill or maim every single time. that said, chiara hasn't been convicted of it at this point. |
Ryanc2002 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:26 pm     You are correct Crossfire. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:27 pm     Just had a look at the available paperwork. I am not a California attorney, and so not authoritative on interpreting California charging informations. Without the probable cause affidavit, there's little to glean from these documents except that in Count I, it appears since they didn't use the "and/OR under the influence of a drug" she may have had in her possession a drug that has yet to be tested or field tests made the police suspicious and there are blood tests pending to show whether she had ingested the same. It may be the case that they always use this language until a blood test clears them of suspicion of additional drug ingestion. Lawyerman? Any clues? There is no indication of a prior offense - where I practice, a heightened offense based on a prior conviction is charged on a separate page and presented to a jury only AFTER guilt has been determined on the underlying offense. It looks like the reference in Count II is boilerplate language saving the prosecutor the trouble of having to reiterate the provenance of the prior offense IF IN FACT one had been alleged in count I. In this case, there was no prior offense alleged in Count I. Also, I believe like most states, California's laws create operating while intoxicated with a prior as a felony - and her charges at this point are clearly misdemeanors. This help at all? |
Ryanc2002 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:27 pm     Snee - They're speaking legally. I would agree in a general sense but legally it's not. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:30 pm     Yep, sure does, it seems to mean we don't have enough info yet. One pending count is good enough for me though. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:31 pm     BTW, is anyone able to bring up the first page of count 1? It's a 404 bad link for me. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:36 pm     I'll get right on it, immediately following which I'll prepare to join Chiara in taking an involuntary tour of my nearest county hotel. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:39 pm     Who is moderating us right now? Your mouse must be smoking. That was like Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles. I'm impressed. |
Snee | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 12:41 pm     yeah, ryan. i know they're speaking legally. i guess what i meant to say was that i think it SHOULD be considered a violent offense legally. no offense to keif and bast. |
Classycassfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 01:27 pm     I guess some could say it all depends on who your boss is as to if being at work *in this case on the show* is more important than facing the charges. However, with this said I have to think of the Seattle Mariners last month demanding that their Short Stop Carlos Guillen not attend the All Star game and show in court, rather than seek a later court date, on his DUI charge. But then again it's one of those priority things.
 |
Santo | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:02 pm     I'll say here what I said on the UK message board when it was publicised that one of those had a criminal past... If a person has committed one or two offences, it doesn't really affect my perception of them... a string of 5 or 6 arrests then yes, but anything less I don't hold against people, because everybody makes mistakes... the alcohol limit here in the UK is substantially higher also... I read the documents in question (excluding the missing page), and as far as I can see I agree with the earlier poster in so far as there is no indication of a prior offence.. The text around that area all seems standard. I notice that the bods in CA can't even be bothered to change the 'he' to 'she'.. I personally have no problems with Chiara from what I've seen of the feeds and the shows, the attacks on her I found when I discovered this board came as quite a surprise, but perhaps I'm missing something |
Oregonfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:06 pm     Hey Santo, it's called Puritan mentality. You must be glad that we had the Boston Tea Party right about now.  |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:10 pm     Santo: are you able to watch the show or just the feeds in the UK? Nice to have a overseas observer. Heard the UK based show got a bit of controversial press this year regarding one houseguest in particular. Chiara dislike doesn't begin to touch what the UK girl took on in the press. |
Santo | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:16 pm     I watch the shows too... they're posted in newsgroups by the time I get up the morning after (UK time), I download and watch in the afternoon... I imagine you're referring to Jade, who is now one of the final 4. Her popularity has improved lately, I imagine she'll get a mixed reaction when she leaves in the final Friday. I joined this board late, but all the references to 'Chiapet' (which I don't get, I imagine it's an American phrase), and the general dislike surprised me... she seems a funny, likeable charachter from all of what I've seen... was it her reaction to the web people cracking her code that upset severyone? |
Santo | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:20 pm     Despite consulting with several american friends, I've been unable to come up with the definition of 'puritan mentality'... so I can't tell if you were agreeing or not :p |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:24 pm     A "Chiapet" is an animal-shaped piece of porcelein through which seeds can be dropped and varieties of weeds grown. It costs money to buy these things, and they used to be advertised endlessly like "Ronco" products. They look like sheep, for example, and the attraction is growing "hair" on them. They have no known use or value - they're just low-rent curiosities. The commercials were so prevalent years ago, though, that they have sort taken on their own cult status. Yes, it was Jade that was taking so much abuse. We must seem like non-starters compared to the trashing that girl took in the press (which I, like you, didn't necessarily understand). Glad to hear she's still in and faring better. I had heard the backlash was starting to backlash on itself in her favor. |
Oregonfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:26 pm     Santo, it means getting in an uproar about all things sexual, in my book. Others may have a different take. I, for one, feel as if I am descended from the lower deck, Hester Pryne strain of the Mayflower. I am definitely in the minority about liking Chiara. |
Delilah | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 03:29 pm     Hi Santo, I am also glad to see a UK BB fan here. I am a transplanted Brit myself currently living in New York and I would love to see the BB UK. I do read about it quite a lot. I think it is more popular than the US BB mainly because most of the British viewing public only has 4 - 6 channels and I also feel the quality of British TV is superior. Anyway, I digress.... "Chiapet" refers to an awful pottery thing that comes out at Christmas here, usually in the shape of a head or hedgehog. One smears seeds on the pottery, waters it and some sort of grass grows on it (on the head = hair, on the hedgehog= spines) It is the tackiest thing you have ever seen! No it is not only the code thing that annoys a lot of us, there are many threads here regarding why a lot of us don't like her, too many to list here without being considered way OT.... |
|