CNN Discuss Chris Brown’s Felony Charges

CNN Newsroom’s Rick Sanchez and his guests Ashleigh Banfield of ‘In Session’ and Brooke Anderson of ‘Showbiz Tonight’ talked about the ramifications of the felony charges against singer .

“It’s remarkable the amount that Rihanna was able to actually remember and articulate in her conversations with police officers,” Banfield said. “And what’s really important here, Rick, is the details are actually corroborated by forensics, the blood in the car and on the clothes, the text messages that went back and forth, which, by the way, that’s the reason for this search warrant. This was a warrant to get the cellular records from all of the phones involved. And now those text messages, those phone calls out and in, and also the messages that were left, and the calls that went from the police officer’s cell phone on the scene will all play into this case, because they corroborate the detail that Rihanna actually provided herself.”

As for whether Brown had any chance in the court of public opinion with the complaint stating that the “assault caused her mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over the clothing while he struck her repeatedly,” Anderson said, “Well, it is much more serious, I think, than anybody anticipated, Rick. And, you know, the DA tells us that, if he’s convicted, the sentence could range from probation to time in state prison. Now, state prison, where most of the violent offenders go. We’re not talking about just county jail here. So, it depends on what happens in terms of this case, what kind of plea he enters, if he is convicted, whether people will forgive him, whether he can bounce back. And let me tell you this. If he convicted, Rick, that makes him eligible for a first strike in California’s three-strike law. This is very serious. If he goes on to get two more strikes in his life, that’s 25 years to life.”

Video of the segment at Turner.com has since been removed.


Related News

One thought on “CNN Discuss Chris Brown’s Felony Charges

  1. Tia says:

    I came the CNN website with the hopes of finding unbiased coverage on the Chris Brown & Rihanna aka Robyn F. February 8th incident. I never expected to read/hear this by Ashleigh Bankfield:

    “It’s remarkable the amount that Rihanna was able to actually remember and articulate in her conversations with police officers,” Banfield said. “And what’s really important here, Rick, is the details are actually corroborated by forensics, the blood in the car and on the clothes, the text messages that went back and forth, which, by the way, that’s the reason for this search warrant. This was a warrant to get the cellular records from all of the phones involved. And now those text messages, those phone calls out and in, and also the messages that were left, and the calls that went from the police officer’s cell phone on the scene will all play into this case, because they corroborate the detail that Rihanna actually provided herself.”

    Yes, Rihanna’s recollection is amazingly surreal. What has been corroborated? Have forensic evidence or the cell phone records been presented in this case yet? If so, when was that done? What I saw yesterday was an arraignment hearing that was requested and granted a postponement until April 6th. This was not a trial, no evidence or plea was submitted, nor the accused, Chris Brown, police statement provided. Again, I ask, where is the corroboration?

    The detectives affidavit was an account of Rihanna’s statement since there were no other witnesses besides her & Mr. Brown. The affidavit addresses t blood splatters in the car, her mouth filled with blood (proof required), pictures of her wounds, her dress and cell phone records being used as evidence. Frankly, I don’t see a very strong case because if these two were fighting or even if it was a one sided altercation of that magnitude, of course there would be blood in the car & on her dress. Cell phone records only corroborate her story about a text message he received, not how & who started the altercation. Usually the person finding this kind of thing, perceives the other as “cheating” on them, so would be the person who starts the argument and/or altercation. If Robyn started the altercation, is it against the law for Chris to have defended himself because he is the male?

    I also question whether Chris’ blood, bruises, scratches, bites or injuries recorded by photographs or evident by police when he was arrested that same day? I realize that this is a defensive issue but it has not been mentioned in any report I’ve seen or read about on this incident, which is not obligated to be covered, but because it may give him the benefit of doubt, it wasn’t. The only thing that has been covered, derogatorily I might add, is his family history of spousal abuse.

    I hope I made my point about providing biased views of events. I’m not sure who Ms. Bansfield is, but media should be required by law to always have a neutral stance by not providing their individual opinions as well as providing accurate information on any event. Unfortunately,too many media outlets are contributors of biased views that may lead to the outcome of relevant life affecting decisions for Chris & Robyn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

rnbdirt.com