MovieChat Forums > Hot Coffee (2011) Discussion > The rape victim..

The rape victim..

posted 13 years ago by bishime
18 replies | jump to latest

recently went to court, and i was surprised when i looked it up:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trial began in the Southern District of Texas on June 14, 2011. Jones's attorney argued that KBR had known about widespread sexual harassment but had ignored it because the remedy was too expensive. The defense argued that Jones fabricated her story of being drugged and raped because she was embarrassed about the consensual sex and wanted to get out of her year-long contract with KBR three days after she arrived.

Jones's first attending physician testified that Jones had not suffered damage to her breast implants or chest during the alleged attack. KBR's lawyers also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder.

On July 8, the jury returned a verdict that rejected all of Jones's claims, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual and therefore no rape had occurred, and that KBR did not defraud her. Jones said, "I just thought that the physical evidence would help. I guess the fact that my entire life was on display and (his) wasn’t" made a difference. Bolen, a KBR spokeswoman, said, "The outcome of this jury trial as judged by her peers is the same result that the State Department got in 2005; that the Justice Department found in 2008. We are deeply gratified that the justice system has worked."

KBR later filed a motion to recover more than $2 million in attorney fees and court costs. In the motion KBR states that Jones' hostile work environment and rape claims were fabricated and frivolous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The supposed "tearing and ripping" she mentioned, was on her breast implants.. not her lower regions. She was suing $114 million in damages. (Greedy? I think so) Being a women myself, and if i was raped, i'd never in a million years ask for that much money. Thats just plain greed. Hearing all of the evidence certainly changes your opinions.

Before everyone goes all mean on me, i do agree there shouldn't be a cap on how much the victim gets. Let the jury decide if its a fake case or not. Let the jury decide how much money should be awarded.

What i dont agree with, is cases where they are asking for so much money *points above* and actually get awarded that much. The family with the disabled son was asking 4 million so that he'll be taken care of. This women had damages to her breast implant, and a rape. Do you think this women should get $114 million for that? (granted, she didn't win.. but other cases do win) While the kid with the disability only gets $1 million? There needs to be middle ground here. People need to be awarded the correct amount, depending on the severity of the damages caused. A cap does NOT help this. It helps the cases that are fake, but what about the others?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sgraf_x 12 years ago

I wasnt surprised. Her story was so outrageous and over the top that it had to be greatly embellished for legal effect. But I still support the peoples right to have their day in court and think companies should not be allowed to include MACs in any hiring documents.

There is No Gene for the Human Spirit.

[–] white_fire4 12 years ago

You guys make me ashamed to be human.

The "rape victim" is jamie leigh jones. People have names you know.

If any of you had half a brain, you would have realized that case was completely full slandering, propaganda, and questionable discrediting techniques by KBR and the entire court system there.

Basically what happened was they discredited enough stuff to make it appear as though, she was only raped/taken advantage of by ONE guy, as opposed to many, that things weren't quite as bad as she had said....and it actually *beep* worked!! *shakes my head*

It's *beep* like this that gives men the impression that they can just rape any woman they want and get away with it (and yes, I AM male) because hey, they might get in ~some~ trouble....but that bitch is going to really get it if she dares to say anything!

And this poor girl now has to pay that *beep* company, 145,000 dollars. Because they didn't care, they put her in a situation where she ended up being raped, and because they covered it up and slandered her name, due to the fact she was a typical teenager before she started working for them.

Just un *beep* believable, how much like sheep you people are, you just believe anything and everything that is fed to you by the media or anyone else, as opposed to actually using your *beep* brains for half a second.

[–] TerrorDementia 11 years ago

You obviously haven't looked at the evidence. She was not raped. She had consensual sex with one man.

Here's an article written after the trial by a reporter that was on Jones' side, until she learned the truth from evidence presented at trial: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2013/featu res/the_war_of_rape047355.php?page=all

[–] Paynebyname 9 years ago

Thank you for taking the time to post the link to the article relating to the Jones case.

A real eye opener and as is becoming increasingly regular nowadays puts the information reported in the documentary in a different light.

I still think the documentary has merit but the Jones case is troubling. How frustrating it is becoming with the likes of this case that further research reveals worrying inconsistencies and flat out fabrication.

It only seems like a few months ago that further research into Chris Kyle revealed similar inconsistencies and fabrication.

"Small moves Ellie, small moves"

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

Read the investigative piece that Stephanie Mencimer did on this case.

Hate to tell you, white_fire4, but yeah, Jamie Leigh Jones lied.

I didn't have any clue until I did some research on it. You're free to do the same. You *should* do the same. That's one of the points this documentary makes at the very end. Look stuff up on your own.

[–] Curt1030 12 years ago

The OP is MISSING THE POINT.

Jamie Leigh Jones's claims were not the issue that the filmmakers raised. At issue was whether claims of this sort could ever be subject to binding arbitration, whether Ms. Jones's seventh amendment rights were violated by the employment contract.

In this portion of the film, the key moment was when the ADL (alternative dispute resolution) lobbyist testified before the Senate that "she had her day in court," when in fact, she had not, and her lack of a "day in court" was the whole point of Sen. Franken's amendment.

Some will quickly say, "Well, she signed the contract." Illegal contracts, ie: contracts that violate the Bill of Rights, are void, so that point doesn't hold.

I'm politically conservative and it is disappointing to hear so many on the Right knee-jerk against the centuries old principle of tort victims having a right to be made whole again. A "conservative" wishes to conserve the past, to protect cherished liberties. The Right ought not cede civil liberties matters to the Left.

[–] DBLasdon 12 years ago

She did have her day in court. The Fifth Circuit decided that her claims were not subject to the arbitration clause. She was able to sue for damages. Which she did. Long before Al Franken claimed that she was unable to sue due to her contract.

http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/jones-v-halliburton-fifth-circuit-rules-on-arbitration-of-tort-claims-by-an-employee/

An arbitration clause isn't illegal. It doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. Arbitrators must be agreed on by both parties, contrary to what the film says, in order to be enforceable. Putting a one-sided arbitration clause in a contract renders it null and void.

It's true that plaintiffs usually win less cases through arbitration, mostly because the cost of a trial is so expensive that defendants will settle regardless of their culpability. Of course the film gives the impression that there are no frivolous lawsuits. So I guess the idea of people suing to get a settlement is just fiction.

The rape kit was given to KBR/Halliburton security forces, and three hours later gave the kit, intact, to the U.S. government. All chain of custody procedures were followed. Keep in mind that in Iraq there isn't a local American police station. KBR does many of the functions of the police. So they're handling and turning over of the evidence was normal. If evidence was lost, it was lost by the U.S. government.

The EEOC report said that Jones was not locked in a trailer by KBR but placed in a secure location. It'd be prudent to do so rather than send her on her way with a possible rapist out there.

She wasn't barred from receiving criminal justice. A federal grand jury investigated her claims but issued no indictments. Her issue should be with the criminal justice system that didn't find enough evidence to try the case.

Of course KBR put on a rigorous defense of their actions. In the U.S. civil system a plaintiffs allegations aren't accepted as fact. Yes, KBR put on an expensive defense that put the alleged victim on trial. You can't sue a corporation because they have a lot of money and then complain when they spend a lot of money defending themselves. If she wanted to sue someone who couldn't put on such a defense, she should've sued her attackers.

Civil lawsuits are a worthy subject to do a documentary about. If you want a film that presents only one side of the argument, this film is for you. If you want a more complete film, then you'll have to wait for someone else to make it.

[–] mmmSkittles 11 years ago

"....Arbitrators must be agreed on by both parties, contrary to what the film says, in order to be enforceable. Putting a one-sided arbitration clause in a contract renders it null and void. "
-------

You're missing the obvious problem. If Halliburton has an influence on the arbitrator, say from a pool of candidates that work with major corporations regularly, it's already problematic. Giving her a choice to select from arbitrator A,B,C, or D, all of whom depend on remaining in good standing with companies to avoid being blacklisted, it's not much of a choice. If there was a specific court of arbitration run by an independent 3rd party, that would be a different story.

I find it highly improbable that only 87 cases out of more than 18,500 would have been ruled in favour of the consumer had the arbitrator not been influenced. That's less than a .05% success rate. This seems highly unlikely for a "neutral" dispute resolution mechanism.

Also, is it really appropriate to allow mandatory arbitration clauses in cases of rape, assault, etc? That's a dispute resolution mechanism that is simply not suited for those types of complaints. Especially if it is one that is unduly influenced. An arbitrator need only decide which party prevails and what actions are to occur. They do not have the expertise, the time, or the resources to conduct an investigation and recommend procedural or policy changes for the firm.

[–] bluekrush 11 years ago

Do you really think it was appropriate to lock her up? How about just putting her in another residential situation. That's ridiculous that you think that's okay.

[–] TerrorDementia 11 years ago

People live in those "trailers" that she was brought to. It's a war zone, not a lush, tropical, gated community in the hills above Los Angeles.

A couple of unarmed guards were stationed outside because, if she was potentially at risk, she would be safer.

She wasn't prisoner.

Read up on the evidence presented at trial, read up on her conflicting stories, read up on her lies.

It was all fabricated.

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

Do some research. She wasn't "locked up."

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

Good post.

However, I do take issue with one thing: "Of course the film gives the impression that there are no frivolous lawsuits."

No. What the film takes issue with is the claim, "There are all these frivolous lawsuits clogging the court system." That's simply a ridiculous claim to make.

The film did a very good job in refuting many of the claims made by those who want to keep victims out of the courts.

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

You're exactly right. The whole point of Jones' story was being forced to sign away her rights to a trial by jury (ie give her up 7th amendment rights). It's despicable that companies essentially force individuals to do that.

However, it's very unfortunate that Jamie Leigh Jones was the spokesperson for this point. She has since been proven to have been untruthful about the events surrounding her case.

Ideally, I'd have liked the filmmakers to have picked a different case to make this point.

However, even without Jones' story, this is still a very powerful message. It's incredible what goes on to protect big business.

And for those who say, "Doctors aren't big business. Why should they be sued for millions upon millions of dollars for malpractice?"

Well, with the medical profession, that's more about their malpractice insurance providers. It's the insurance companies who are being protected, not the doctors.

[–] DisturbedPixie 11 years ago

"two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder."

1. if she had been raped twice before and that was on record... where were the rape kits? Obviously if she was unable to get them than I don't see how that is used to discredit. Many women never get a rape kit but still tell their rape stories, and it is her right to do so if that is the case... it's not a reason to allege she is a liar.

and why was the rape kit that she mentioned lost some of it's contents? Shouldn't a company that loses a rape kit be held liable for doing so? How can there be justice if evidence is destroyed? And why haven't we heard of what happened to the men she was either raped by or engaged in sex with?
Are they permitted to engage in sex in a war zone like this? Obviously, someone should be at fault here, and she should never have been housed with males. And males should not be permitted in her private room. And if she was merely drunk, than there is an issue of date rape anyways, because a drunk person is incapable of making these decisions. There is some give and take on this, but a company shouldn't stand by and allow it's crew to get overtly intoxicated and engage in sexual activity knowingly in such circumstances. I'm surprised that sort of thing wouldn't be against contract. I would imagine banning sex between coworkers would help protect them as well.

2. I am deeply disappointed and offended that her mental condition is seen as a reason to discredit her. If one is on medication for a mental disorder, they are doing everything within their power to be at full mental health. And anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder are common mental health problems that I'm sure most people know of people that suffer from them. Though considering the stigma that goes with having a mental health disorder, I'm sure those that have them are likley to hide such conditions from most people they encounter on a daily basis, people who would use such information to slander them, as the case is here. I could tell ya right now I am the same disorders she has, and of course someone will discredit me.

These mental health disorders are not the same as being a pathological liar or sociopath, or even similar to histrionic/narcissistic personality disorder or any other disorder that causes unethical or selfish behavior. These conditions however would increase the chronic trauma caused by a gang/statutory rape.

____________________

"Jones's first attending physician testified that Jones had not suffered damage to her breast implants or chest during the alleged attack. "

3. She is not all of the sudden un credible just for having breast implants. Women don't suddenly become whores unworthy of justice just because they have had plastic surgery.

"Jones' lawyer, takes responsibility for creating some confusion over anatomy. He says Jones suffered from a torn pectoral capsule, which held the implant, and that witnesses in the trial have indeed testified that she had such an injury and that it was caused by trauma."

so she did have damage, it just was portrayed that she didn't or that it was severe, when it was something in between. It was wrong for the first physician to claim she didn't have any damage when evidence later said she did. That's malpractice.

But what can you expect by the attending physician when American women are constantly being raped in military duty, and they rarely get any sort of justice. Of course they will continue to discredit women, whether they are women in service or hired contractors doing the work our military should be doing. defense contractors over seas is a terrible injustice as they can get away with crimes against humanity. Private companies should not have such control over war zones. And our military personnel should get benefits and peace of mind so that more people can be part of it and be there instead of Halliburton employees. It is far too dangerous to let private companies play war games, and they don't have the humanitarian standards even our military has... which are far too low anyways.

This is dangerous road we face, having private companies gaining more control everyday. By definition private companies have to be psychopaths in order to benefit their share holders, and they are legally people... so they are the most dangerous people in the world. People who don't go to jail. People who don't face the death penalty when they do evil things. People who can steal just because they are so ginormous and important to our economy. This needs to stop.

[–] miaangel345 11 years ago

You didn't supply a link to any of these claims...

All you need is love!

Come follow me: http://twitter.com/miaisawesome

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JRichardSingleton 10 years ago

I'm not criticizing you for bringing up these points. She felt she was being held hostage, which is a problem. And how does one damage a breast implant.

But she shouldn't have been forced to live with men. KBR should've also kept beter track of the evidence.

And, hey, women who are sexually assaulted should be allowed to sue. Duh.

jrichardsingleton.blogspot.com