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
Seanflynn | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:06 am     If she is still a contestant, BB3 will make sure she shows up, escorted to the hearing, totally incommunicato otherwise. They would make sure their representatives are with her at all times. This is not a difficult problem to finesse. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:06 am     OK, you are right, she did get extensions, I agree, I just have my doubts that it is all that unusual, people probably get extensions all the time for one reason or another. For the record, I do consider this to be a very serious matter, I have no sympathy for DUI's, and would like to see her compelled to follow the judge's wishes. It's all part of the process. /me signing off this topic for now. |
Lurknomore | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:08 am     Real please don't make me cry....I lived on BU football dorm floors for 3 years. Least it was fun then. Thank goodness for BU Hockey |
Realtvfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:11 am     Lurknomore As a former Northeastern student who once dated a woman from Wellesley, I found your post entertaining. LOL |
Lurknomore | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:14 am     Keiffer this is a topic near and not sure dear is the right word to my heart. My boyfriend died when he was run down by a guy driving under the influence. The purpose of cracking down on DUI's before there is an accident is to get them off the road before they do what some guy did to me, ruin my life by killing someone. You are wrong about nothing much comes from a first offense. That depends on the state. I used to do a lot of work out of Nashville, TN a few years ago. There if you are arrested you and over the legal limit you go to jail PERIOD. Doesn't matter who you are or who you know. We also don't know if this is her only problem or if she's had any others. Lastly, talk to Robert Downey Jr. about your theory. I think he might disagree. Sometimes being a celebrity will work against you BIG time. Mostly I think it depends on what Judge you get, and what kind of record you have. |
Lurknomore | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:16 am     So Real would I have known you from Punters or the Cask? I went "slumming" now and again hehehehe (I am teasing). |
Bastable | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:16 am     This is totally disgusting! Of all the thousands of people who really desperately wanted to be on BB, applied, and heard nothing--why does he have to insist on Chiara? She's a jailbird! There are pending legal troubles! Why, oh why, was it so important to cast her, and only her, and not move on to a deserving contestant free of such embarrassing legal entanglements? Why? Because Arnold Shapiro, professional sleazebagger, WANTS the controversy. He wants attention brought to his trashy twelvesome. It's disgusting. I really hate this guy. |
Bbrock | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:18 am     There will soon be another reality TV show...."Reality's Court TV with Reality TV Players" |
Katrina | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:26 am     I would tend to think her excuse would have been presented as missing court due to work obligations, that she was a hired, committed cast member on a television production. After all, she is getting a weekly fee for being there, she had committed to the program, she had possibly left another job to do so, etc. So it doesn't seem so outrageous for it to be presented as an out-of-town job that will have her out of the jurisdiction. I don't like Chiara, and I am appalled at anyone who would drive with that much alcohol in their system, but I don't think it's so unusual that attorneys are arguing her temporary absence from the jurisdiction. Besides, we know for sure she's not driving or drinking and driving in the BB house! Now, the Lizzie Grubman case, that's one that smacks of lawyers trying to get her off with the tiniest little tap on the wrist. Reports suggest she wasn't willing to plead to about a month in the local (and not horrible) jail after mowing down all of those people and leaving the scene. We'll see if that one pleads out before opening arguments. In the meantime, what ditsy little Chiara has done is nothing compared to that. |
Sushigirl | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:28 am     Keiffer, I have to disagree with you about this matter. DUI is a very serious offense. It only takes one time for someone to be killed. So the argument of it being a first offense and that it's no big deal doesn't fly with me. |
Keiffer | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:28 am     Lurk for sure I did not want to offend a person on here with my statement. I do feel sorry for your situation. I would wonder though, bow much jail time does a first offense person get in Tenn? I know in KY a few years ago you got one day, and that was taken up with the booking, and the night they put you in the drunk tank. I suppose that in some states that they could be locking people up for extended periods of time for a first offense, I just have never heard of it. Also I do not want to minimize getting a DUI in general, just that I know how many people in this board hate Tonya, Lisa, and Chiara for whatever reason jumping on this like she was Justin from last year or something. Lets remember she has not been convicted of anything yet. She is still innocent here until they prove otherwise. |
Bastable | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:32 am     Keiffer has a point. Even if she is found guilty, this is NOT the sort of crime that would be considered a threat to other HGs. It's not a violent offense. So there's no reason she should be pulled out of the house on the grounds that she might hurt someone. But like I said before, there were surely better choices for casting who DIDN'T have unresolved rap sheets. Shapiro just wants to get a rise out of the press. |
Lawyerman | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:34 am     As someone who represents DUI defendants everyday, it doesn't sound to me that Chiara is getting any special treatement. While a continuance from June 20 to September 3 is somewhat long, it's not out of the range of what a defendant would get for a first time continuance. In my jurisdiction, most continuances at an initial appearance are granted from 30-60 days, but a 90 day continuance isn't something out of the ordinary either. Anything past 90 days would probably be considered special treatment. She's definitely at the long end of how much time judges would give other defendants, but it's not quite in the "special treatment" category. |
Goddessatlaw | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:35 am     Frankly, the longer she's in the house, the longer the judge can be sure she's not out driving drunk. I'd extend her continuances 'til October for that sort of insurance. |
Realtvfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:45 am     Lurknomore, We were over on the Charles River or in Boston Harbor sailing away the summer and fall of '95, or in Wellesley. |
Pcakes2 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 10:45 am     Does anyone know what her actual BAC was? In California, the legal limit is .08, which is one of the lowest in the country. I have a friend was was arrested initally for a DUI, then it was reduced to what's called a "wet reckless" which resulted in a hefty fine, and 30 AA classes, and 4 month suspension of license, and she never even had to appear in court. A note to all: In this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm not defending her alleged actions, but come on! Bastable: What makes one potential contestant more deserving than another? If you are so disgusted with all this, might I suggest not watching the show. |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:21 am     looks like some of the posters here are unsure of where she was arrested....it was Van Nuys, CA....the article said it was only about 6 miles from the BB house. The full article is here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:24 am     the link didn't work...trying again - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ |
Tracy | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:34 am     In Ohio, a person convicted of a first-time DUI gets (among fine, suspension, etc.) a mandatory 3 day jail term. The judge does have the discretion to change the 3 day jail term to 3 days in-house alcohol rehab center. Also, while a person is indeed supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, blood alcohol or urine tests in excess of the legal limit, are generally considered presumptive of guilt unless the test itself can be proved flawed. |
Pcakes2 | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:46 am     I was stating information from California, a specific case. Field sobriety tests are not always acurate, and many factors can influence the reading. I have a friend who works in the courts and has seen just about everything imaginable (and unbelieveable). I knew people who used to always keep a bottle of nyquil in their glove compartment in case they were pulled over. They would take a quick swig, for the scent, then claim that they had been taking it all day. Blood sugar levels also affect readings. Also, like I stated above, California has the lowest BAC in the country....what's condsidered drunk here isn't in other states. A while back there was a case of someone arrested for drunk driving, and they weren't a resident of CA. They were unaware of the BAC here, and if I remember correctly, they pleaad ignorant and got off. |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:51 am     The article at smokinggun.com has links to the actual police report and paperwork which said something about her being under the combined influence of alcohol AND a drug....(didn't mention what drug, though): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bb3berti3.html |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:52 am     From reading the smoking gun pages, in count 1, she was also under the influence of a drug other than alcohol. It does not say which, but I am guessing E or something like that. Count 2 alleges prior convictions as well. I would like to hear from one of our legal eagles to translate it into english though. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:52 am     Dang! You beat me SanFran. |
Ladytex | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:56 am     .08 is the legal limit in most states, to be precise, so it's not like an outrageous law. |
Crossfire | Monday, July 22, 2002 - 11:57 am     .08 is consistent with Ontario law where I live as well. |
|