By filing this report, or even beginning the process, Haggerty almost assures that a large portion, perhaps all, of her then-current business income is going to cease to exist.  She also faces the risk/certainty at this point, that a certain number of her friends and colleagues will ostracize her, because they are pro-Gore and don't wish to hear about Gore's bad conduct, whether true or merely alleged.

This sounds like a great idea doesn't it?  Begin a process that might lead to half a million or a milion in a settlement or story--or it might not, when exposed as false--and also destroy your business and have your friends shun and ostracize you?

For a liberal, left-leaning writer, and a lawyer, does it occur to you that there might be 1st amendment implications/problems with your proposal?  Sure the SC might say it is constitutional to have a law preventing a person from profiting by telling the story of his crime . . .  but
you are suggesting that victims or self-alleged victims can't tell their story in a book or article and be compensated for it (or receive royalties?) unless the criminal has in fact been convicted?

and then, even though the massage goes copasetic (sp?), within a short time of a few days or a few weeks, she decides that a convenient solution to her money concerns is to fabricate an account of very bad and very rude behavior of Gore, including, at one point, he landing or laying on top of her and injuring her knee for which she receives medical treatment in subsequent weeks . . . or she alleges that she does . . .
and, however, the medical records of knee treatment are subject to subpoena/verification . . .

and, she also knows that when such an account is made public, that that will certainly end her being called to hotels for massage by the hotel or concierge, and there is no way around the fact that it is likely to significantly reduce her business . . .

And, then, although she is out for money, and the Gore camp doesn't come up with any, she lies low for a while.  On one hand, she doesn't ask that police investigate seriously, and on the other, she doesn't seem to shop her story to either the mainstream or tabloid media . . .

this also assumes the "stain" in question is not so degraded, that a useable DNA sample can actually be extracted from it.

Having lived a pretty, uh, interesting life I especially find it amusing how so many know what he, she (mainly) "should have done." There are 300 million citizens in America, and they comprise about 300 billion personalities. To speak with such certitude about this lady based on our experience and our personality is just, well, silly.

Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with discussing, even gossiping, about this story; It is about a public figure, and that makes it fair game.  I'm just talking about the detailed deductions, or convictions,  about this lady's veracity, or lack thereof based on the length of time involved, or what we would have done.
 O.k. enough sermonizing, I apologize.

Police explain reasons for reopening Gore case

FILE - In this Nov. 11, 2009 file photo, former Vice President Al Gore speaks during the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo in Phoenix. Oregon authorities are reopening an investigation into a massage therapist's allegations that former Vice President Al Gore groped her at a hotel four years ago.TERRENCE PETTY
From Associated Press
July 01, 2010 7:12 PM EDT
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Police explained Thursday why they reopened a sexual assault investigation into Al Gore, saying an extra review was needed because detectives looking into the matter last year failed to notify high-ranking officials of their decision to drop the case.

She seems to have been paid $540 for 3 hours of her time, or $180/hour.  At one point, she refers to herself as a parking meter, getting paid no matter what has been happening, even if she is just waiting.  The 3 hours includes time that she was just waiting to see him (she had been told to be there earlier than he was ready), and it includes the massage time, and it includes all the additional time in which, if we believe her, she was eating chocolates, or looking at an ipod with the client or wrapping up or having Gore lay on her or whatever.

She is making a little under what some new lawyers make in my state, which I think to be about $200/hour.  Of course in Southern Cal, instead, lawyers would commonly make twice that or more, but I am speaking of a less wealthy state for now . . . and that probably I think incomes are slightly lower in Oregon than here.

Most of her massage visits would not be for 3 hours, but probably all of them are for an hour (at least, as a minimum) and some are for 1.5 or 2 hours.  A common situation for her would be to hope to see 2 clients a day, I am guessing, and that would put her income at about $500/day that she works, or about $3000/week or, about $150,000 a year.  (Of course, there are others who struggle to find a clientele, and then, go on to do something else with their lives . . .)

My massage practitioner friends don't have gambling addictions . . . I know one who lost some saved-up money in real estate in the last 3 years, but otherwise, their income is generally good, if they are good practitioners and in demand.

And, there was some conversative columnist who decided to write a book about her exposing her as a fraud and liar, which he did, and then, a few years later, he repented and decided that he now believed her--Or, am I forgetting details?  Was it Steven Brock or something?  The Real Anita Hill?

And at the time, wasn't one of the complaints against her that 1) she could have left the office; 2) why didn't she leave the environment;
3) why didn't she complain earlier, etc.

And I don't even remember her answer, but it seems to me that leaving a legal office and alleging sexual harrassment or abuse will make it harder to find work elsewhere subsequently.  No?

I think that most of us here believe Anita Hill was telling the truth; at least, I do.  A man in power did some bad and idiot behavior and a woman in the vicinity felt badly but put up with it for some reason, for some time.  Then, her allegations were dismissed by some on the grounds she wanted to derail the nomination of a conservative AA man; now, Hagerty's allegations are dismissed on the grounds that she is seeking money. . .

Hagerty first contacted police in some way in 06, but did not follow up, but then there was a recontact in 09, which included the statement and q&a.  Given the facts of the case, the statute of limitations has not run out . . .

She alleged what amounts to a crime or quite bad behavior.  "Proper police procedure" might include a phone call to Al Gore, together with gaining his consent for a tape-recorded interview.

Well, I can think of a million incentives for her to make an accusation.  That's the amount she's asking for.  

In 2007, a scathing report from the city auditor described poor investigative work, sloppy documentation and failure to work effectively with victims. The report also found that Portland ranked near the bottom among peer cities for arresting suspects in sexual assault cases. The bureau took immediate steps to improve itself, but the basic challenge of resolving these difficult cases remains. . .

As for the Police Bureau's side of the story, Portland police receive hundreds of reports of sexual assault every year, and they've got a finite number of detectives to manage those cases. . .

the police didn't follow up. Detectives didn't go to the hotel, obtain potential evidence or interview possible witnesses. The case didn't appear to be a priority, despite the public figure involved. . .