Why Jamie Leigh Jones Could Lose Her KBR Rape Case

[groovedaddy]

The allegations were explosive when they first hit in 2007: A 20-year-old woman named Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that four days after going to work in Iraq for contracting giant KBR in July 2005, she was drugged and gang-raped by fellow contractors. She accused the company, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, of imprisoning her in a shipping container after she reported the rape, and suggested KBR had tampered with some of the medical evidence that had been collected at an Army hospital. The harrowing story has made international headlines. It's been the subject of congressional hearings and has inspired legislation. Jones even plays a starring role in the new documentary Hot Coffee, about efforts to limit access to the justice system.

Jones' charges fell on fertile ground, compounding KBR's reputation as a corporate scofflaw—all the more so when it came out that the firm's contract had included a mandatory arbitration clause intended to block employees from suing it. Jones spent years fighting for a jury trial, and now, six years after the alleged attack, she is finally getting her day in court in a civil suit that accuses KBR of knowingly sending her into a hostile workplace. The verdict could come as early as Thursday. And—in a twist that's likely to shock her numerous supporters—there's a good chance she will lose.

Jones' trial, which started on June 13, is highlighting significant holes and discrepancies in her story. Not only has the federal trial judge already thrown out large portions of her case, evidence introduced in the trial raises the question of whether Jones has exaggerated and embellished key aspects of her story.

None of this means that Jones was not raped in Iraq. But the evidence does undermine her credibility and could create serious doubts in jurors' minds.

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

[ThatPoetGuy]

1. Oh bullshit.

What a disgusting smear job. Stephanie Mencimer is arguing "she may have been drunk, so it wasn't rape." Yeah, it's ok to gang-rape the drunk girl. Because she was drunk, right? And then it's ok to lock her up for four days. Because she was drunk.

But it's worse than that. Mencimer is lying, deliberately deceiving readers, on par with the worst of FOX News. Lies, lies, lies:

"The false-imprisonment allegation didn't surface until two years after Jones' original rape complaint, when Jones hired a new lawyer."

No, the false-imprisonment allegation "surfaced" right away, you lying piece of shit, Stephanie Mencimer. She told her father she was imprisoned, her father told Rep. Ted Poe she was imprisoned, and Ted Poe told the State Department. There is NO DISPUTE over these facts.

It didn't enter the LEGAL proceedings until two years later, which is what you're trying to twist with this sentence. But it was always part of the facts around this case, you fucking garbage.

Vile piece of shit Stephanie Mercimer says a drunk woman can't be raped because she was drunk, and she thinks that a woman who was once on anti-depressants can't be traumatized by rape.

Stephanie Mercimer presents all the actions of KBR's legal team as the steps of any careful white knight trying to learn the truth. Getting a hold of Jones' medical records, dating back to childhood, isn't abuse, poking around in Jones' sexual history for every slight event ever, is just fine, to Mercimer, but for Jones to, ZOMG, sell a book about the events? That condemns Jones as a self-serving cunt, in Mercimer's eyes.

Stephanie Mercimer: you hate women. Commit suicide, please.

[just55650]

3. +1

[Ilsa]

2. Let us hope that the jurors are paying attention and hear the story. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. A few thoughts:

:-Reading the whole article, it doesn't actually contain much evidence that Jones was lying, just that many of her claims can't be substantiated. Many true claims can't, though.

:-I didn't, and don't, expect anyone to be convicted for this - I think she may well be able to show that the balance of probabilities is that she's telling the truth, but very hard for her to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If she can't prove that she's telling the truth beyond reasonable doubt, I think that the people she's accusing should be acquitted, even if they're *probably* guilty.

:-If no-one is convicted for this, I very much hope (but don't expect) that the media will report not report it as evidence that she was lying or that the people she accused were innocent. What it will be is an indication that reasonable doubt exists, nothing more.

:-If she were convicted of perjury or similar on the strength of her testimony, *that* would be evidence that the people she accuses are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. Nothing I have read suggests that there is any chance of that happening.