Insurer’s Civil Suit Warning Halts Probe of N.C. Lacrosse Rape Case

August 29, 2007

  • August 29, 2007 at 9:22 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I fail to see why otherwise reasonable people seem to believe that whatever a stripper gets she deserves. I have no problem with the “adult industry” myself so that might color my view, but if I woman is being paid to take off her clothes – that’s it. Unless they paid for sex they don’t get to touch. There is a code of ethics here. That’s why most strippers that do house calls come with a big burly driver.

    She should be sued for her lies, but doesn’t have any money. Had Nifong not gone off all half-cocked (pun intended) the city would be blameless. This whole thing has been absurd from the beginning.

  • August 29, 2007 at 11:40 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Unfortunately Durham is going to be on the hook because of Nifong. It sucks, but he did materially affect these students’ lives and they should be compensated for their losses.

    To risk opening up a basketball sized can of worms – can we say “damaged reputation”?

  • August 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe the Rutger’s women’s basketball player suing Imus has been taking notes. Whatever her name was, reputation has been so damaged I don’t even care about her, come to think of it I don’t care about these kids either.

    Think it’s funny though that they’re stopping the investigation because it might show they screwed up. Isn’t that like changing your thesis two weeks before graduation?

  • August 29, 2007 at 1:42 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    First of all, notice how the article identifies by name the falsely accused but not the accuser. Second, the police department is going to halt the investigation because they might find a problem? What? Isn’t that the point? And the reason they are stopping the investigation is because they might get sued if they find something? Again, what? If they don’t find the problem they can’t be held accountable? What?

  • August 29, 2007 at 1:56 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The police might find evidence of a crime in a Democrat adminstration. Therefore, “Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.”

    I used to think that police were hired to investigate crime, even potential crimes. Whaddya know.

  • August 29, 2007 at 1:56 am
    Saints Fan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Either way, it was wrong in the first place for the players to hire a black stripper. Shows what type of character these future leaders are made of. Shameful. I fault the stripper for the false accusation but what does her employment as a stripper tell about race relations on that campus?

  • August 29, 2007 at 1:57 am
    clm mgr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Right on, Scott. Maybe halting the investigation is a privilege under governmental immunity, but as an insurance claims person, I don’t think i would get away with putting that kind of instruction in a claim file without being held to “bad faith”. Stop the investigation because we might turn up something that our adversaries could use to bolster their case against us while at the same time damaging our defenses? I would not want to be the person on the witness stand who masterminded such a tactic. The jury would be infuriated. The award would be inflated merely by this sort of action, whether there were any advers facts or circumstances to be discovered or not, and in this case it appears there are plenty. This tactic has, in my mind, created a real problem for the defense of any civil actions the accused boys may choose to pursue, and has actually increased the likely jury award.

  • August 29, 2007 at 2:11 am
    Doctor J says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is total bad faith. Look for a collateral lawsuit over this.

    So much for compensating the wrongfully accused.

  • August 29, 2007 at 2:12 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like Barney Fife has teamed up with Senator Craig. This story will not end well.

  • August 29, 2007 at 2:12 am
    WoW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Okay “Saint” while you’re intitled to your opinion…what an idiodic statement…And you don’t think she wouldn’t have a real case against them for discrimination because they refused to hire her because of her race?

    What… are you – a racist? Just because the color of her skin was different doesnt mean that she didn’t have the same right as a white stripper to earn a living – Hellloooo – what century do you live in?

    Right or wrong – people do what they think they need to in order to make a living – And for the record – I don’t agree with her “preferred vocation” – However, I’m sure McDonalds would have been happy to hire her at 5.75 an hour

    The difference between the Imus case and the Lacrosse is that those kids were in every newspaper – in every city – in every state and their names and reputations were plastered in every media form possible – I would have to look up – whats-her-name on the Rutgers sports website and figure out who she even was…

    She probably wants the $$ because she isn’t good enough to move into the WNBA and wants to retire early…



Add a Comment

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

*