Clearly this girl put herself in a bad situation when she “partook” and passed out at someone’s house. People say funny things when they are on the verge of passed out. Their judgement is impaired and memory affected.

That being said, if someone rapes my baby girl I cut his F*&king B$$ls off and feed them to him. Lying Bastard.

@stanklepoot — possibly, but that sounds more like a matter for the police. The point of this case is to recover damages to the victim that directly resulted from the rape. What you described sounds like conduct that might have harmed the prosecution, but did not directly harm her. Of course every crime victim wants to see the perpetrator go to jail, but I don’t believe there is any cognizable civil claim for the victim against someone who interferes with that such that it causes an acquittal.
_________________________________
Perhaps not, but I never said it would be a successful argument. Sometimes you throw everything you have at the wall and see what sticks. It’s amazing some of the arguments that shouldn’t work but do. All depends on what the judge will allow and what the jury will believe. Additionally, if the judge did allow such an argument and the jury believed that the defendant’s behavior was completely out of line, they could use it as a justification for a finding against the defendant no matter how much of a stretch it might be legally. Let’s face it, sometimes a jury is just looking for an excuse to punish someone they don’t like. Legal theory isn’t always the deciding factor…unless, of course, the judge uses it to forbid a specific argument or claim.

I’m sorry….. but are you seriously trying to sell us that he was passed out drunk and she somehow managed to get him “aroused” in his passed out state and rode a “Wild Bronco” on him….really?!?!?!…… I can’t stop laughing right now!

__________________________________

At least you got the joke. That was precisely the reaction I was looking for. Thank you for your support.

I see PFT and Florio have came to the conclusion that Cox in fact did do this, considering there erasing my comments which is my right, i did not have to agree to terms for this account, so keep taking my right to speak away pft and florio re-post my comments or you will have a lawsuit for taking my amendments away and i could do this for the simple fact i did not agree to any terms you losers florio and pft
___________________________________
Wow. You’re complete and utter lack of comprehension is stunning. Yes, you have a right to free speech. This, however, is a privately owned blog. That means that the person(s) who run it have the right to publish/post anything they want on it (assuming it doesn’t fall into the “defamation of character” area). They don’t have to post anything you say. Why? Because that right falls under both their freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. You want to be heard? Start your own blog and wait to see if anyone cares to read it. If your blog posts were as uninformed as this rant, then I’m guessing the answer would be an unequivocal no. Either way, you have no right to have your comments published on a private blog or any other website. If you tried to sue over this, I’m not sure if the judge would laugh in your face or hit you with contempt of court for wasting their time and the state’s money.

Re: how Thomas got into this mess.

Could mostly be for strategic reasons.

1) Include him as a defendant to put pressure on him to point the finger at Cox. Thomas wants to be found not liable, he testifies it was all Cox, makes it easier for her to prove her case to the jury that Cox sexually assaulted her.

2) He’s another deep pocket, and a more successful player with more money. It’s useless to have a judgment against Cox if he doesn’t have the funds to pay it. But if the jury believes they both had some role, they could be jointly liable for the whole amount.

As for the theory of wrongdoing, the gist is probably that he was negligent leaving her alone with Cox in her passed out state because Cox had indicated his intentions to have sex with her. Probably a stretch, but not frivolous.
________________________________
I think you’re leaving out one more important possibility:

She might be including Thomas because she feels that he either helped Cox try to cover up the incident or misrepresented the facts during the investigation and/or in court.

You keep running those two points out there as if they prove rape. All it proves is that he lied to the cops. Not good, but not rape.

She will have the exact same problem winning in civil court that the prosecution did in criminal court.

This is a woman who was openly known to be available to these players and had sex with at least two of them on numerous occasions. The ONLY thing she can prove is that she had sex with him sometime around that night, resulting in the pregnancy.

Everything else is hearsay, and let’s just say she doesn’t exactly make the most reliable witness, seeing as how she has no recollection of what happened that night.

Not the strongest set of facts for a conviction.
______________________________
While I applaud your attempt to focus on the legal aspects of such a case, you made some really important errors. Hearsay refers to someone trying to report what another person said. I think what you meant to imply is that this would be a he said/she said case, and that you view her as a not too credible witness. On the other hand, Cox was already caught in a lie when he said that he never had intercourse with her. I don’t know too much about the guy’s personal life. If he’s married or is in a very serious relationship, he could claim he lied about having been with her solely to keep his significant other from finding out. If not, that lie seriously damages the credibility of anything he says. While that might not be enough in a criminal case, it can be devastating in a civil case. So, no, she won’t have the same problems in a civil case. The burden of proof is much lower. Finally, there are no convictions is a civil case. There is simply a finding of liability. If the defendant is found liable, then they have to pay. If found not liable, they don’t…and sometimes they can counter-sue for the legal costs.

I’m sorry….. but are you seriously trying to sell us that he was passed out drunk and she somehow managed to get him “aroused” in his passed out state and rode a “Wild Bronco” on him….really?!?!?!…… I can’t stop laughing right now!

She will have the exact same problem winning in civil court that the prosecution did in criminal court.

This is a woman who was openly known to be available to these players and had sex with at least two of them on numerous occasions. The ONLY thing she can prove is that she had sex with him sometime around that night, resulting in the pregnancy.

Everything else is hearsay, and let’s just say she doesn’t exactly make the most reliable witness, seeing as how she has no recollection of what happened that night.

Not the strongest set of facts for a conviction.

Dude….civil cases and criminal cases are extremely different. You can get acquitted of a criminal case and still win your civil case….look at the OJ/Goldman case. She has the baby and his denial of touching her…this is a slam dunk case for her.

And for those of you calling this woman name….shame on you….I do believe she was trying to gold dig Thomas, but the woman was still taken advantage of while drunk by a total sleeze bag. This is too serious of a situation to say that she got her just deserts.

Cox is a bad guy. On the other hand, Thomas, while many could suggest he was morally obligated to look out for this woman, did nothing legally wrong. He left. Further, she was of marginal character…which may be part of the reason he did leave.

The woman probably is fishing for money, but it does appear she was raped—character issues aside—that, she did not deserve. Cox should have to pay.

ps-Gold Bond powder is great for those bothersome rashes you may get from sitting in front of computer screen all day.

===========

Whatever the case may be, those orange and stripes will be making people black and blue..they finally got their QB, a receiver and some help on defense. They will be Detroit Lions of the AFC North and will advance in the playoffs.

Could mostly be for strategic reasons.

1) Include him as a defendant to put pressure on him to point the finger at Cox. Thomas wants to be found not liable, he testifies it was all Cox, makes it easier for her to prove her case to the jury that Cox sexually assaulted her.

2) He’s another deep pocket, and a more successful player with more money. It’s useless to have a judgment against Cox if he doesn’t have the funds to pay it. But if the jury believes they both had some role, they could be jointly liable for the whole amount.

As for the theory of wrongdoing, the gist is probably that he was negligent leaving her alone with Cox in her passed out state because Cox had indicated his intentions to have sex with her. Probably a stretch, but not frivolous.