Remember Halliburton/KBR/Jones rape case?

[monovillage]

It seems she lost her rape and sexual harassment lawsuit against KBR. When the case came out i had a number of friends that indicated that the accused KBR guys were obviously guilty, or that this was the result of the "evil of Cheney". But it seems like it's another case of waiting till the evidence is in, waiting for the facts and then making the call. In earlier threads here at P&N there were some people calling for the shooting of the accused, good thing that type of lynch mob behavior didn't happen in this case. Here's the link to the story, a word of caution it comes from the right wingnut publication Mother Jones, so all progressives can take it with a grain of salt.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial?page=1

"Roofies: Jones claims that she was dosed with the date rape drug Rohypnol, which she believed was slipped into her drink by one of the KBR firefighters she was partying with in the Green Zone. In one of her congressional appearances, Jones said a contractor handed her a mixed drink and that "I took two sips from the drink, and don't remember anything after that." She testified before Congress in 2009 that "[w]hen I awoke in my room the next morning, I was naked, I was sore, I was bruised, and I was bleeding. I was groggy and confused and didn't know why."

The Evidence: After reporting the alleged attack to a KBR co-worker, who drove Jones to the Army hospital at Camp Hope, she was examined by Dr. Jodi Schultz. Schultz took urine and blood samples, which tested negative for Rohypnol or any other date-rape drug. Jones' legal team has challenged the lab work, arguing that it was never done properly, and also hired an expert to testify that just because the lab tests didn't turn up the drugs doesn't mean they weren't there. But KBR has offered an alternate explanation for her memory loss: Jones was drunk."

"Disfigured breasts: Jones' civil lawsuit alleges that during the gang rape she was so severely beaten that her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles were torn, requiring extensive reconstructive surgery.

The Evidence: The Army's Dr. Schultz testified in her deposition that Jones didn't report any problems with her chest during the exam, and Schultz did not observe any implant leakage or rupture. Franklin Rose, a Houston plastic surgeon who reviewed the records from Jones' original breast implant surgery for KBR, found no evidence that the implants had ruptured......"

 

[Craig234]

Couple things not in your post:

There's the liberal magazine covering the story about problems with the case of the woman - nice journalism.

Didn't see any mention of the fact there is a lot of solid information about a problem with rape in the military.

 

[monovillage]

It was just dealing with the one story, not the entire military. I used Mother Jones because it's on the left end of the political spectrum, it's always a good idea to check different viewpoints then our own, since i'm on the right side politically i like to check opposing publications to balance my information. I did think that Stephanie Mencimer let Jones off too easy in terms of how false allegations damage womens credibility in the long run. Also from the story.
"For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.

When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction."

 

[Craig234]

I did think that Stephanie Mencimer let Jones off too easy in terms of how false allegations damage womens credibility in the long run.

From the article, seems appropriate and not too soft to me:

However, if Jones hasn't been entirely truthful and the jury rules against her, it could be a major setback for sexual assault victims, particularly women serving in war zones. "The problem with cases like this is, if it turns out that she's making it up, it really does a disservice to the many women who really are raped who have trouble coming forward," Levenson says.

 

[monovillage]

Good point, she should have stressed that Jones wasn't truthful and did do serious damage, but i shouldn't have downplayed it though.

 

[Double Trouble]

Didn't see any mention of the fact there is a lot of solid information about a problem with rape in the military.

That has nothing to do with the merits of this particular case or the OP's point (about everyone jumping to conclusions back when this first came out). If you want to start a thread about the larger topic of rape in the military, have at it, but that's a completely different discussion.

 

[Double Trouble]

Wow, after reading that article about all the stuff that came out at trial about the plaintiff, it's pretty clear that she's full of crap, a complete liar and has done a lot of damage to the real rape cases of women in the military (or anywhere else). She has a prior history of passing out after drinking, alleging rape and sexual assault without any evidence to back it up, a history of mental issues, a history of lying for attention and on and on.

Looks like all the idiots who quickly jumped on her bandwagon (Franken, Clinton etc) have some crow to eat, but something tells me they won't admit they were wrong, they'll just dig in and find some rationale to defend their position.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Many of the those that also jumped on the case for her were against KBR; because they were tied to Cheney/Bush.

Anything to smear that name/association was fine by them; rape was just one avenue.

 

[PokerGuy]

Typical. The dimlibs jumped all over this case as a good excuse to bash KBR, Cheney and Bush. Turns out they were wrong.... as usual.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Turns out they were wrong.... as usual.

Mission Accomplished.

 

[PokerGuy]

Mission Accomplished.

And that has what to do with the Jamie Jones case? Nothing. Idiot.

 

[UberNeuman]

Well, count me in as one eating a shit sandwich.... I made the mistake back then that I've been trying to avoid these day (Brietbart) - which is going into rage mode before getting more facts...

\Mother Jones - good work on reporting and the follow-up.

 

[Phokus]

Well, count me in as one eating a shit sandwich.... I made the mistake back then that I've been trying to avoid these day (Brietbart) - which is going into rage mode before getting more facts...

\Mother Jones - good work on reporting and the follow-up.

Problem with equivocating Brietbart to this is that the government did an investigation into the case and concluded that she was 'indeed' sexually assaulted with physical trauma apparent and that KBR had done an inadequate investigation into the allegation:

See page 6, last paragraph

http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/10-07-09%20Jones testimony.pdf

It's not like it received media attention only because of her word against KBR.

 

[Corn]

Problem with equivocating Brietbart to this is that the government did an investigation into the case and concluded that she was 'indeed' sexually assaulted with physical trauma apparent and that KBR had done an inadequate investigation into the allegation:

See page 6, last paragraph

http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/10-07-09%20Jones%20testimony.pdf

It's not like it received media attention only because of her word against KBR.

LOL, your link page 6 last paragraph states Ms. Jones to be "credible", and appears to base the "indeed" mostly on her testimony. As demonstrated in Ms. Jones civil trial, her testimony was not credible. Investigative findings of guilt does not equal guilt, otherwise we wouldn't need a court system to determine guilt, would we? Or do you believe we should just proclaim all civil and criminal defendants to be guilty without trial since an investigation concluded their guilt.

 

[Phokus]

LOL, your link page 6 last paragraph states Ms. Jones to be "credible", and appears to base the "indeed" strictly on her testimony. As demonstrated in Ms. Jones trial, her testimony was not credible. Investigative findings of guilt does not equal guilt, otherwise we wouldn't need a court system to determine guilt, would we? Or do you believe we should just proclaim all civil and criminal defendants to be guilty without trial since an investigation concluded their guilt.

LoL no, you're reading that wrong. They're saying the investigation agreed with ("credits") her testimony that she was sexually assaulted and physical trauma was there, not that the investigative conclusion of her rape and trauma are BASED on her testimony.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub\08/08-20380-CV0.wpd.pdf

Initially, Jones filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. It conducted an investigation and determined: she had been
sexually assaulted by one or more employees; physical trauma was apparent;
and Halliburton/KBR’s investigation had been inadequate.

P.S. OJ's innocent too, based on your standard. It's still possible she was raped.

 

[Corn]

LoL no, you're reading that wrong. They're saying the investigation agreed with ("credits") her testimony that she was sexually assaulted and physical trauma was there, not that the investigative conclusion of her rape and trauma are BASED on her testimony.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\pub\08/08-20380-CV0.wpd.pdf



P.S. OJ's innocent too, based on your standard. It's still possible she was raped.

Anything is possible, I may be Bill Gates.

Silly liberals, my "standard" is the law of the land you moron. All are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obviously the prosecution in OJ's criminal trial was unable to prove OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of his peers. He was, however, found guilty in his civil trial where the standard for guilt is the lesser preponderance of the evidence.

Ms. Jones was unable to convince a jury she was gang raped by a preponderance of the evidence in her lawsuit against Halliburton. End of story.

 

[trenchfoot]

What I find so funny is that there's not one rightie in here totally discounting the story because the source is a "libtard left wing rag".😀

 

[cubby1223]

Anything is possible, I may be Bill Gates.

Silly liberals, my "standard" is the law of the land you moron. All are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obviously the prosecution in OJ's criminal trial was unable to prove OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of his peers. He was, however, found guilty in his civil trial where the standard for guilt is the lesser preponderance of the evidence.

Ms. Jones was unable to convince a jury she was gang raped by a preponderance of the evidence in her lawsuit against Halliburton. End of story.

Well, everyone's "standard" is different, yours, even his. I'd be more surprised if there were an instance where you *didn't* proclaim someone guilty before a verdict.

People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, anything goes 😛

 

[Corn]

I agree cubby. But there is a difference between saying: "I think they are guilty" versus "they are guilty". I generally don't like to opine regarding guilt, especially if I've only heard one side of the story.

 

[monovillage]

I've got to hand it to Neuman, admitting you made a mistake is class, trying not to make the same mistake in the future is wisdom. I've had to eat my share of shit in mistakes i've made about politics and especially in real life, but of all the regrets i have in life admitting mistakes and trying to do better aren't one of them.

 

[Phokus]

Anything is possible, I may be Bill Gates.

Silly liberals, my "standard" is the law of the land you moron. All are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. Obviously the prosecution in OJ's criminal trial was unable to prove OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of his peers. He was, however, found guilty in his civil trial where the standard for guilt is the lesser preponderance of the evidence.

Ms. Jones was unable to convince a jury she was gang raped by a preponderance of the evidence in her lawsuit against Halliburton. End of story.

That's the LEGAL standard you idiot, but that doesn't really say anything about reality. Lots of people are acquitted of crimes they commit, lots of people are convicted of crimes they didn't. The very fact that OJ was found guilty in one system but not guilty in another actually illustrates my point. Also, Lots of people who commit crimes don't even face prosecution.

Also, sorry for the fact that you don't know how to read 🙁

 

[werepossum]

Well, count me in as one eating a shit sandwich.... I made the mistake back then that I've been trying to avoid these day (Brietbart) - which is going into rage mode before getting more facts...

\Mother Jones - good work on reporting and the follow-up.

I think most of us made that mistake, but don't blame Breitbart. This story was hyped by the mainstream media, led by the New York Times.

Congrats to Mother Jones for doing an honest followup rather than a Times-style one paragraph Saturday throwaway.