Posted on 07/30/2010 7:46:55 PM PDT by RDangerfield
This just in about the investigation of a woman’s sexual abuse allegations dealing with former Vice President Al Gore: . . .
“After evaluating the materials submitted by PPB I have concluded that I agree with the assessment that a sustainable criminal case does not exist,” Rees said in the memo released today.
Among other factors Rees cited in not prosecuting Gore based upon the allegations massage therapist Molly Hagerty made about Gore trying to force himself on her in a downtown Portland hotel suite on Aug. 24, 2006 was “other contradictory evidence, conflicting witness statements, credibility issues, lack of forensic evidence and denials by Mr. Gore.”
One of the case deficiencies, according to Rees, was that “Ms. Hagerty, who has red hair, states she called Mr. Gore immediately following the alleged incident and told him to ‘dream of redheaded women’ seemingly in contradiction to her assertions that she was terrified of Mr. Gore. Two days after the alleged incident Ms. Hagerty also sent an email to the Hotel Lucia stating that she appreciated the business referrals she received from the hotel. She did not mention any problem with Mr. Gore.’
1) Investigators say Hagerty failed to provide medical records, and other records that she promised to hand over.
2) Gore’s denial to local investigators of any wrongdoing at the Hotel Lucia in Portland includes his strong denial of newer sexual-misconduct allegations by massage therapists in Beverly Hills and Tokyo that were reported in the National Enquirer.
3) . . . Also, pants that Hagerty says she wore the night she went to give Gore a massage were tested by the Oregon State Police Crime Lab on July 12 and tested negative for seminal fluid.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wweek.com ...
So what are you saying, RDangerfield, Al doesn’t get any respect?
So, what will the authorities do to this liar? Can’t she be charged with something?
Maybe Michael Savage will get some respect. He called her a fake early on, even though he despises Algor.
Perhaps this one woman is a fraud, but what about the others that came out accusing him of sexual harrassment? Are they all frauds?
I notice nothing more was ever printed, or at least I’ve not seen anymore of the other women that accused Gore of sexual harrassment, or unwanted advancements since the original articles a couple to three weeks ago, maybe more. Time flies. Only this one woman, the original complainant about Gore has been given media attention while the others have been left in obscurity.
What’s cookin’ with them? Are they all nutcases such as Molly Hagerty has been found to be? What!?
Gore’s movie and over the top claims are legitimate targets for complaint and exposure for their exaggerations and hyped claims. That does not change.
But this might teach us the lesson we should have known in the first place: don’t let your hatred of a man convince you that he is guilty of a serious crime based on zero evidence, just tabloid claims. You might want to consider going tabloid and blog-free for at least a week. Like quitting smoking cold turkey.
A lot of freepers have a lot of fess-ups today. Especially the ones who posted serial cartoons of Gore as a rapist, a poodle and a sumo wrestler. Such serial posts based on nothing but hatred makes us all look like fools when we applaud it.
The Enquirer was right about Edwards, right about Tiger, but then returned to their normal programming: wild rumors and speculation. All to make a few more million bucks and we aided and abetted them. And this time they knew they had no proof. Do not hold your breath waiting for the Enquirer to post a full apology to Gore and an admission of their guilt.
Obamajustice strikes again ...
Friday night news dump strikes again.
Good questions.
Speak for yourself. And feel free to sign whatever you wish. It's possible to relish the mess the execrable Al Gore got himself into by foolishly ordering up massage in a hotel room (as many of us, myself included, did), without believing he should be prosecuted for anything.
And the fact that accuser looks to have embellished, doesn't prove the Big Buffoon didn't behave badly. It just means he won't be prosecuted for anything. It also means his power to cause irreparable harm to our liberties is somewhat curtailed, as more people begin to realize what a disgusting piece of filth he is, and always has been. I have a hard time feeling bad about that.
This blog presented EVIDENCE.
The hundreds of blog items and tabloid screeds that have been presented before were based on a tissue of lies that they quoted from each other as their “sources.” There was not an ounce of evidence in this case, as the police reported and this one honest blog, at least, admitted. Meanwhile there are many people who need to say: I was duped out of hatred of the man for other reasons. Not a very pretty sight. If we want to be better than the MSM and feel morally and politically superior to our opponents, then we need to stop being swayed by mob action and ideas. Otherwise we look as bad as “those other guys.”
As far as I’m concerned, the “sex poodle” is innocent until proven guilty. So, I’m not sure what the problem is.
I don’t read the enquirer, or any of those tabloids, so you assume because I responded I s’pose that I need to go tabloid free for some period of time?
You might read that crap, but I get all the information I need from articles posted at FR, and the information I was educated about this mess came from blogs that were analyzing the news, not from reading the Enquirer.
Quite frankly I’ve considered the Enquirer less than newsworthy since I can remember, and was quite surprised to read about their success with the Edwards story, and another I have forgotten who it was about.
You seem to me to be more concerned about being duped yourself, and trying to pass it on to those responders here at FR.
I’ll take responsibility for myself thank you. You don’t have to.
Your statement that “she lied about just about everything” is as much a baseless exaggeration as someone claiming that there could be absolutely no doubt that Gore sexually assaulted her in the hotel room.
Why she expected there to be semen on her pants from her own description in her deposition was unclear in the first place. She said essentially that Gore came at her with his robe open and put her in a (polar?) bear hug, and that she was afraid to look down. That encounter would not necessarily result in semen on her, by her own description. She’s clearly not too bright to think it would, but stupid women can be sexually assaulted as well as smart women. That she continued to push it in the newspaper may be simply that she was somehow, someway, trying to get the authorities to do their job and look into the case, and was using the potential for physical evidence to draw attention to case and put pressure on the police, even though she may have known at that later point that the physical evidence did not pan out.
And the idea that she called him afterward and pretended to be friendly? Look, she was clearly conflicted about whether to pursue anything against him, as she said in her statement. Gore is a powerful member of a corrupt political party in bed with a dominant media. These are he said - she said cases. Her own friends told her to shut up about it for the good of the planet.
The problem is that absent a camera inside the room, the fact is that there is very little corroborating evidence possible in these cases. The most credible is whether the victim contemporaneously told her family and friends about the attack, and in this case she did. The fact that she was initially so reluctant to press charges against such a powerful man, where even if the charges were true he could easily go free and find her own life ruined for her trouble, doesn’t necessarily make the charges untrue.
There are two other massage therapists from other hotels who are also claiming Gore tried to sexually assault them.
The bottom line is, we don’t know. The contemporaneous statements by the victim and the pattern of allegations supports her charge; the fact that it is basically a he-said she-said type of case makes it difficult for there to exist enough evidence to convict someone on, even if it were all in reality just as she said.
Re: your complaint:
The problem is that absent a camera inside the room, the fact is that there is very little corroborating evidence possible in these cases. The most credible is whether the victim contemporaneously told her family and friends about the attack, and in this case she did. The fact that she was initially so reluctant to press charges against such a powerful man, where even if the charges were true he could easily go free and find her own life ruined for her trouble, doesn’t necessarily make the charges untrue.
There are two other massage therapists from other hotels who are also claiming Gore tried to sexually assault them.
Answers:
1. She not only did not complain to the hotel or tell them of the “attack.” She thanked them for the referral and business. That makes the entire story open to doubt as being concocted afterwards. She brought that upon herself.
2. The other “complainants” have not given their name, any verifiable evidence, zero. Yet they were quoted by the Enquirer verbatim without any verification and then requoted in dozens of blogs. Why should Gore or anyone accused in a tabloid have to answer to anonymous charges?
3. If we are going to demand the truth from the MSM, then we must not allow ourselves to make conclusions about a very serious crime based on tabloid charges backed up with zero evidence.
4. As we can see from the cartoons posted above, some people continue to guide their actions by their hatred alone. I counsel to say above the sewer and address the man’s actual political weaknesses. Otherwise you look petty and foolish.
My point is that we are just not in a position to make a categorical conclusion about the case one way or the other. That includes you.
She didn’t complain to the hotel? Well, as she said she was conflicted about whether to report what happened. If she had decided never to report and just to shut up about it, why would she burn her bridge to the hotel?
Why don’t the other two massage therapists come out and publicly give their names? Well why would they? To have their lives ruined by the Gore-loving press? If their evidence is of no more than the he-said she-said variety, then even if they are telling the truth it is doubtful Gore would ever end up suffering a legal conviction. It is a bit surprising they are willing to tell their stories to the police at all, given how little chance there is of someone being convicted for that, even if they are telling the truth.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.