Portland Police Re-Open Al Gore Masseuse Investigation

The Portland Police Bureau has announced:

The Portland Police Bureau has made the decision to re-open the case regarding the allegations brought forward against Mr. Al Gore. Consistent with our policy regarding open investigations, the Police Bureau will not be commenting on any additional specifics regarding this case at this time.

Earlier today, I predicted no one would want to hear more from the accuser, who has now come forward, identified herself and said she's willing to file a police report.

No reason has been given for the Portland police department's decision. It could just mean they will hear her out, and then make the same decision: No probable cause a crime was committed by Gore. Or, maybe they will let her make a statement and then charge her with false reporting. Or, maybe they will decide there is a prosecutable case. Seems doubtful to me. [More...]

Gore's spokesperson released this statement:

"Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore,'' said Kalee Kreider, the Gore family spokeswoman. "The Gores cannot comment on every defamatory, misleading, and inaccurate story generated by tabloids. Mr. Gore unequivocally and emphatically denied this accusation when he first learned of its existence three years ago. He stands by that denial.''

The Oregonian is finally publishing her name, acknowledging she has outed herself.

So, what's next? A DNA test for Al Gore? Wouldn't one expect DNA to get onto a piece of clothing when you're having a massage? How does it prove an unwanted sexual advance? Maybe Al will say she came on to him, he politely rejected her, and he thought all was fine when she left. I don't think the DNA changes the "he said"/"she said" nature of the matter.

Having listened to the audio of her last interview, and knowing she said she wasn't interested in money but asked the Enquirer for a big chunk of change, I'm on Team Gore on this one.

How ironic that the police, after releasing her one-sided accusation even though she refused to file a offense report, are now going to clam up while they conduct the investigation so we won't hear until the end, probably weeks or month, as to whether they decide her allegations have any basis. All the while, Gore will be slammed in certain media circles. Can they put the toothpaste back in the tube so as not to prejudice Gore? Of course not.

There should be a statute of limitations and a Son of Sam Law for accusers, preventing purported victims from coming forward after four years when they previously refused to press charges, and from profiting off their accusations by selling their story to the media unless and until a court has convicted the accused of a crime.

< Lead Detective in Tim Masters Case Indicted for Perjury | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    simple thinking (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:31:21 AM EST
    Well, speaking both hypothetically and in the case of Haggerty, suppose that a massage practitioner has a business of doing outcalls to give massage to the rich and famous.  And, then, she makes an allegation of sexual bad conduct against one of them and it becomes public knowledge, or even, knowledge to her friends and acquaintances in the hotel world.  What happens to her business?  Next week, how many of the rich and famous will consent to having Miss X, who just filed a report of sexual bad conduct against another of their number, come to see him/her for massage?  And how easy is it to arrange for a different massage practitioner than Miss x?

    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?

    How many of you would take that deal?  Would Jeralyn or anyone else who has gone to school and has a professional license and business of some type?  Short term gain, possible and iffy; damage to business, friends and reputation: certain and maybe total.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    Another scenario, is that Haggarty, who has a business that caters to the rich and famous, also has experience in dealing with clients who want sexual favors.  If it were my business, I would have alerted the client that the behavior was unacceptable, and that the client had once chance to correct the offensive behavior.  If the client persisted, I would leave the room, send someone to gather my stuff, and alert my colleagues to blacklist the famous client.

    end of story.


    Squeaky, you are a man (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    And it's easy to imagine how you would behave in such a situation.  

    I've been in these. I understand the confusing and ambiguous response. It's absolutely commonplace.

    As someone commented on another thread, the thing you want to avoid is triggering male rage. You jolly the guy along till you can get out.

    Pissing him off was likely to have a big effect on her job.  As someone else noted on an earlier thread (or maybe it was this one), even the rumor of trouble with a high-profile client among acquaintances and the hotel clients she works for was likely to have a really bad impact on her income.

    When paying your rent depends on pleasing people, you think twice.

    Again, I'm not arguing that it did or did not happen as she said -- I wasn't there. But I don't find this as baffling and inexplicable as many of you do.

    Sex is complicated.  Sexual harrassment is complicated. It results in complicated scenarios for many of us.  Did for me.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    I am presenting anther possible scenario. And we are not talking about the general public here, but a professional situation where someone would presumably have a set of rules and ways to deal with sexual advances on the job.

    I have had no small amount of massage experience with top notch therapeutic practitioners. I know that the women who worked on me would have not tolerated any sexual advances. I would assume that the much higher than average likelihood that massage could escalate into "male rage" and the potential for rape, than any ordinary social interaction, would be even more of a reason for a pro to have very clear hard and fast rules about controlling unwanted behavior.

    And to be clear, I am not even remotely suggesting that rape, or forced sexual abuse is ever a victims fault. What I am suggesting, from reading the story, is that if it were my business I would have a clear set of rules, be prepared, and ended the massage after one warning had the client engaged in unwanted behavior. Yes, I would do that knowing that the client may go into a fit of rage, but would be willing to risk it so that I could have a practice that I could live with.

    And given the situation, it being Al Gore, had he attempted to rape me, or force a sexual situation, I would have screamed bloody murder, gone to the police, and sued his a$$ off.  Sorry I do not buy her story. And I am not a defense attorney, and am extremely sympathetic to any victim of sexual abuse rape, or violence. Also, I have no particular stake in defending Gore, as much as I admire his efforts in educating the public about environmental concerns, I do not find him particularly appealing.


    You'd think (none / 0) (#51)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    You'd think, wouldn't you?

    Yes, one would expect a masseuse was used to handling this sort of thing. But it's not too hard (for me at least) to imagine one who wasn't. Especially not with famous men who could, if they wanted, break her career.

    It wasn't an equal power situation. And her life is about to get trashed because of that.  Whatever happened.  Whatever he did.  Whatever she did.

    (And, my usual proviso: No I don't know what happened in that room. I wasn't there. Glad I wasn't.)


    Male fear of humiliation and exposure is real too (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    Both parties had something to lose in this situation, and both parties had some powerful chips to play.

    I'm not buying your raging male libido theory, Upstart Crow. It seems like a one size fits all approach to very complex interactions.

    Whatever happened in that room depended more on the psychology of these too individuals as individuals -- not their gender.


    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    I disagree about the balance of power thing here. Had she left the room, alerted others in her profession never to work on Al Gore, I do not even remotely see how anything would happen to her career. That is assuming that she had peers in her profession who respected her opinion and trusted her.

    At most she would have lost some time and money, Gore would have had limited his options for future massage.


    Breathless (none / 0) (#54)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    This is so naive it takes my breath away

    Really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    Well please explain? What was Gore going to do, say that this masseuse did not give happy endings?  

    If someone, particularly a service person, builds up a clientele, has a good reputation because they are good at what they do, one celebrity is not going to ruin their business.

    Sorry, you are the one who appears to be thinking abstractly here.
    Not to mention that you are impugning the integrity of untold numbers of bodyworkers who have never provided sexual services, and are highly respected in their field.

    you are essentially categorizing this group of professionals as helpless victims.


    Sorry, squeaky (none / 0) (#56)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    You just don't know what you're talking about on this one. It's very obvious it never happened to you.

    You don't know, and you don't know that you don't know.


    I Can Say The Same (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:40:00 PM EST
    You do not know.

    Unless you are a therapeutic massage therapist, and have been abused by a rich and famous person.

    Your defense of Haggerty seems reflexive, imo.


    I'm a woman, and I see it the same as Squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    He did not have her under physical control, as in sneaking up on her, locking her someplace she could not call for help,, etc. She was fully clothed in a hotel suite and he was naked on a table,  or in a robe. Leaving was an option. She would not have lost enough business to make it worth being raped, if she was really afraid that was going to happen.

    Squeaky's a man? Are you sure? (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    Let's not discuss (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    Squeaky. Just as the rest of you, Squeaky is entitled to use a moniker when commenting and preserve his or her privacy, which includes personal information like gender. Please get back on topic.

    Another scenerio (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    Possibily her business was tanking in these tight economic times and she saw dollar signs? A million dollars is a lot of massaging. Then there's also the TV interviews to cash in on.

    Well oculus (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    I guess there was some semen on them thair britches.

    maybe he was (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    fantasizing about someone else during the massage and experienced a bit of discharge. Or had an involuntary discharge. Since she says there was no sex, I don't see what the DNA proves. That he got excited?

    If I'm ever in trouble Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:13:33 PM EST
    I am calling you!  And I'm not saying anything, even if they take away my Miranda rights.  They'll have to resort to torture to get a word  out of me :)  And that word will be OUCH

    I hope you never need me, but (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    thanks, I appreciate the confidence. :) And yes, make sure you keep silent, the jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the police would see it their way.

    J, shouldn't you be "on Team Gore" (none / 0) (#29)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:08:56 PM EST
    because the accused is presumed innocent -- rather than because the accuser contradicted herself and asked the Enquirer for money?

    The latter is a piquant detail which may eventually be used to undermine the accuser's credibility in a court of law. However, that detail ought to be wholly irrelevant vis a vis your starting position of being "on Team Gore".


    I don't think anybody official has (none / 0) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:08:56 PM EST
    said that the DNA in question is from semen. It could be, but we don't know yet. The spot could be sweat or snot or blood or any other bodily fluid. Also, we don't know if the DNA is Gore's.

    I doubt it's either been (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:11:48 PM EST
    tested yet or compared to a known Gore sample. the first is expensive, and the second requires a known sample from Gore.

    the stain (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:15:09 PM EST
    if there was a stain from Gore and if it is significant to the report of his bad behavior, it would be a stain of pre-ejaculate.

    Let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe the (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:24:26 PM EST
    Portland PD decided to contact and interview the person(s) the alleged victim claims she talked to immed. after the incident.  

    It seems pointless though (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:52:00 AM EST
    Unless she has him chasing her down the hall on the video camera or something.  After reading Jeralyn's summary, if it is his DNA and it is semen, none of this floats.  How many guys "respond" physically in that fashion when getting a massage?  Is she good at giving a massage?  He can't be the first guy to have something come up and have a reaction while getting a very thorough massage.  And fingerprints on a chocolate bar?

    Or (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:35:23 PM EST
    As Jeralyn said - maybe they will take another look at it and then eventually come out and say they have no case (or, that new evidence was found).  Think about what would happen if they didn't - the story that won't die (in an election year!) and the police would be accused of protecting a powerful person.  The police, PR wise, have no way to win in this one.

    I would expect Portland PD sex crimes (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    detectives to:  (1) interview the people Ms. Haggerty sd. she called immed. after the incident, (2) cehck to see if there is any video of Mr. Gore embracing Ms. Haggerty as she was leaving his hotel room with her gear, (3) submit her silk pants to the lab,(3) ask Mr. Gore to submit to law enforcement interview, and (4) submit the entire envestigation to DA's office, w/or w/o recommended charges.  

    Not Unless She Files Charges (none / 0) (#41)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    The police can't do anything of the sort unless she a) files charges and/or b) goes through follow up interviews to establish time, dates, places, witnesses and where to look for evidence; otherwise, they'd be wasting their tax funded time.  Such a case wouldn't get through what some folks call "the crank filter" i.e. the barrier between real evidence and the accusations and/or confessions from the disturbed and the mentally ill who want the attention, the fame, or the money that often swirls around  high profile cases.

    I have to say, the more I hear about this case, the more I place the accusations in the latter category than the former...


    Ms. Hagerty has no power to (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    "file charges."  She previously declined to prosecute.  DA's office could decide to prosecute w/o her consent.  Although I doubt that will happen here.

    Then She Could Press Charges (none / 0) (#52)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    If you want to be picky about wording.  However, she declined to do anything, even to help the police by doing follow up interviews or doing an exam, submitting evidence, etc. so it's hard to see how they could have done anything except close the case.  If it breaks down into a "he said/she said" case, then it's difficult to see how they could prosecute when there's no blood, no property damage, no collaborating witnesses, and the only accuser won't talk to the police.

    Yes, the police are in a tight spot (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    too.  This is beginning to line up in ways for me though that this woman is a scammer.  She at first chose to not make a case and work with the police after her attorney initially went through the motions and reported the event to the police.  The attorney said they would be handling this in a civil litigation manner?  And while she was fleeing for her safety she focused on keeping an unwrapped chocolate bar that had his finger prints on it (not that really proves anything other than she was around Al Gore)?

    I know the police have to be concerned about having an appearance of protecting elite Americans.  This thing does stink to high heaven to me in a few ways though.


    I'm confused (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    "Or, maybe they will let her make a statement and then charge her with false reporting."

    If they wanted to do that, why not charge her based on the original police statement of several years ago.

    because she refused to file a (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:00:54 PM EST
    police report after it happened. Her attorney called to report it and then they refused to follow through.  See the original detective's report on page 6 here. "This is case is exceptionally cleared as X refuses to cooperate with the investigation or even report a crime."

    Which is why I question your statement (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:22:38 PM EST
    there was no prosecution earlier due to a finding of no probable cause.  

    That comes from their own statement (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:41:50 PM EST

    bq. After interviewing the woman, the Police Bureau provided additional services per the victim
    advocate program. The case was not investigated any further because detectives concluded there
    was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.


    PD consulted with DA's office but (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:45:31 PM EST
    apparently did not submit reports w/recommendation.

    A special report
    was written and the case was exceptionally cleared--a standard procedure when the person
    involved declines to talk to police. The District Attorney's Office was consulted during this

    Are you purposely trying to (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:42:27 AM EST
    confuse things? Please read the police department releases. There are two different time periods.

    The first was when her lawyer reported it in 2006 but she refused to be interviewed or file a complaint. That's when the police say:

    "This is case is exceptionally cleared as X refuses to cooperate with the investigation or even report a crime."

    In 2009, after she returned to give gave her statement, the police say:

    After interviewing the woman, the Police Bureau provided additional services per the victim advocate program. The case was not investigated any further because detectives concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

    The police conduct the investigation, not the DA. If police don't find charges are warranted, usually they don't even notify the DA there was an investigation. It's over. Unless the case is high profile or a serious crime was committed.

    When police do think charges are appropriate, they forward things to the DA whose job it is to decide if they agree a crime was committed and if so, which statutes were violated. Then they draw up charges. I think it would be rare for the DA to second-guess the investigative findings of the police that no charges are warranted. I can't even think of a case where it's happened.

    If police don't believe a crime was committed, why would they contact the DA at all? They probably did so in this case only because Gore  is famous. So already, he's being treated differently than anyone else.

    In any event, the police did find twice, not just once, that the allegations didn't warrant further action. The first time in 2006 when she didn't cooperate or file a report, and the second time in 2009 after they reviewed her statement.

    I've provided the links, I'm not getting why you keep trying to refute that they said what they said.


    Sorry. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    Re why Portland PD would submit investigation to DA's office, they could do so w/o recommending charges be filed.  CYA.  

    Looks like that's what they are doing (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    Even though yesterday they said no more comments, now they are saying they are reopening because the 2009 investigation wasn't cleared with higher-ups or with the DA's office. Makes no sense to me, but that's what they are saying:

    Portland Police Chief Michael Reese said Thursday that "we have determined there were procedural issues with the 2009 investigation that merit reopening the case." Officers took the accuser's statement but didn't proceed further and didn't clear that decision with higher-ups. In addition, prosecutors were not made aware of the 2009 investigation until recently.

    If every report that police found unsubstantiated was turned in to the DA's office, the DA's would be overwhelmed and not have sufficient time to spend on the cases that did require their analysis and participation. Seems to me Gore is being treated differently due to his celebrity.


    Let's just say a law enforcement (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:33:57 PM EST
    investigation referred to DA's office w/o a recommendation won't get all that much attention there.

    perjury trap (none / 0) (#44)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    Of course, since Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby weren't convicted of primary crimes but of perjury/obstruction stuff, Gore must be scared of having to make sworn statements about this case himself, whether or not he is found guilty of any sexual assault.

    Bill Clinton was not... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    ...convicted of perjury, probably because he didn't commit perjury. At worst, Clinton lied under oath (which popular understanding notwithstanding is not the same thing as committing perjury.*)

    Clinton's law license was suspended. But there was no conviction for perjury.

    *In order for a lie or omission under oath to be perjury, the lie or omission must be material to the case at hand. Clinton's statements were not material to the Paula Jones case, and  some would argue that Clinton's answers were in fact technically accurate given the definitions that he had been supplied by the plaintiff's attorneys to work with. YMMV.

    (Just wanted to set the record straight in response to your comment.)


    Right you are, and (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    Clinton, being an attorney himself, and knowing full well Starr was out to nail him and not simply to "ascertain the truth" was also correct to point out that "it depends what the definition if "is" "is."

    Unfortunately the public, under the usual insane tutelage of the media, thought Clinton should be talking to them "in plain language" instead of the "doubletalk he used with the hired hit-thug Starr.

    The Big Dog learned his lesson years earlier when he answered a question by saying he "didn't inhale" which, after journalists investigated and found out it was a true statement, they did the honorable thing they're so wont to do. They buried the truth and left the lie out there to define Clinton for ever more.


    Clinton and Gore (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    If Clinton had known about the blue dress all along don't you think he would have handled the whole thing a bit differently?  Gore has a similar clue now.

    sho 'nuff (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:55:34 AM EST
    he would've fessed up earlier and saved himself, and us, a whole lot trouble.

    1st amendment here (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:02:57 PM EST
    >There should be a statute of limitations and a Son of Sam Law for accusers, preventing purported >victims from coming forward after four years when they previously refused to press charges, >and from profiting off their accusations by selling their story to the media unless and until >a court has convicted the accused of a crime.

    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?

    The standard of proof for criminal conduct is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you may recall that OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal courts, but found liable in civil court.  

    re the motives (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    Let me see if I have this right . . .
    a woman massage practitioner is called in to see Al Gore for massage.  She was originally expected to be there about 10:30, but things start at 11 or so, and she finishes at about 1:30 . . .

    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 . . .

    and also, by making statements to the police or the Enquirer, and now by having the matter considered a crime and investigated, she is opening herself up to all kinds of questions about her background, business practices, ethics, law-abiding or law-breaking behavior.  And, she has put her own business, income and reputation at risk, in order to put forward her fabricated story of Al Gore bad behavior?

    $1,000,000 (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:45:25 PM EST
    You forgot that part.

    Just as there are innocent explanations (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:10:02 AM EST
    for Al Gore's alleged DNA, there could also be explanations for the woman asking for a million dollars that do not mean she's lying.  She would hardly be the first woman who was assaulted by a rich and powerful man who backed down on the charges when it became apparent the system was set up to not believe her (and, in fact, to punish her for even making such charges).  Maybe it ate at her over time and she decided she should get some sort of recompense, even if it came from telling her story instead of prosecuting it.  Assault victims don't always act in the "right" way and the "right" way is very heavily defined in our society - you will report immediately, you will have some "evidence" like DNA or injuries to corroborate your story, you will tell everyone you know the minute it happens, you will not ask for a dime from anyone despite the fact that you may not have much money or resources and your life is about to become a living hell of publicity and pain, and you will have a wonderfully perfect background that makes you "respectable" in every way.  That's just the way it is in a rape culture - everyone looking for reasons why the woman is lying.

    And, hey, maybe she is lying.  I have no idea.  I wasn't there.  But hopefully there will be a thorough and fair investigation and the truth of the matter to the extent it can be discovered will be so that if Al Gore is innocent, his reputation is cleared, and if he isn't, he has to answer for his actions.  Whether there can ever be a fair investigation into these kinds of allegations is another matter, but hopefully the Portland police will do the best they can (since that's all any group of human beings can do).


    I would add (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:14:27 AM EST
    that lying about an assault is a crime and just as one should not jump to the conclusion that Al Gore is guilty just because he's been accused, the same is true for the alleged victim and the charge of lying to the police.  Innocent until proven guilty and all of that good stuff.

    Non Sequitur (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 06:19:36 AM EST
    My comment was directed to zaitzefftheunconvicted2 who was snarkily putting him or herself in the shoes of those who find Haggerty's case lacking credibility.

    I was pointing out a major missing fact, that he or she left out in order to make any case for challenging Haggarty's  credibility look foolish.


    In her statement/law enforcement (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:42:01 PM EST
    interview she mentions the effect of reporting Mr. Gore's conduct on her business as a licensed masseuse.

    as i noted in an earlier post, (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 12:50:09 AM EST
    on a different thread, giving a massage requires close, personal contact. the odds of exchanging DNA are, consequently, pretty high. unless (assuming the "stain" is, in fact, from that massage) it proves to be from semen, all it proves is that she got close enough to, um, get other body fluids on her pants.

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

    i'm guessing the portland pd is just cya'ing, given the (so far limited) media legs this story has had.

    I can't understand this whole deal (none / 0) (#25)
    by coast on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    with keeping the clothes.  Seems very odd.

    She seems to think she's Monica II. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    She washed and gave away the sheets he used during the massage supposedly because she couldn't stand the sight of them but kept the pants. Weird.

    I still don't understand why she could not (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    leave the room when she felt uncomfortable with the situation. Was he going to chase her down the hall naked, or in a robe?

    I guess I'll have to read the transcript, since judging from the part of the statement audio that I listened to, she is pretty careful to justify all of her own actions at length.

    Perhaps she should have left his suite before (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    even giving the massage, as she sd. he embraced her for an uncomfortably long period of time when she first came into his hotel suite.  Doesn't seem "usual" for male client who is a stranger to her to embrace her at all.  

    I'll Say! (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    If it is true, and if the chakra comment is true, it would appear that Gore knew some sort of code in the Massage world.

    Again, if true, I would have made my policies clear after that inappropriate hug, and left after any further infraction.


    He could have inquired: do you do (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Happy Ending?  Or vice versa.

    Yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    He may have asked that as well... don't think that we are ever going to know what was said or done.

    And had he done so... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be considered solicitation?

    Code (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    That is why it is in code, it only means something to those who know the secret handshakes. If the masseuse was a undercover cop, I do not think that Gore could get busted for asking if she did happy endings. If, on the other hand, if "happy ending", was an extremely well known code in prostitution, I doubt that Gore would have used it.

    oculus!!!! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:51:31 AM EST
    you know massage code?  What have you been up to :)?

    Trip to Vietnam. Our group of four (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    included one male--our reporter.

    Gee whiz (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    Besides a sprinkling of facts in the public record so far we know so little about this story that it's just really interesting, for me anyway, to see the exponentially growing number of  scenarios popping out from all our imaginations-on-steroids.

    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.

    BTW, when should we expect some sort of meaningful comment, or statement, from the Gore camp? I mean, beside the usual, pithy non comments issued so far?

    Meaningful Statements? (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    Are you kidding? I assume you mean something more about the allegations, not global warming, or politics.  

    What kind of meaningful statement were you thinking about. I can't imagine his camp saying any more than it already has.


    I meant (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    The Gore camp's response to the lady's accusations.

    Did I miss something?


    They issued an unequivocal denial (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    Said the reopening of the case will prove that he did nothing wrong.

    ahh (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:56:17 AM EST
    gotcha, thanks

    Denial (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    Gore has said through a spokeswoman that he "unequivocally and emphatically denies" the accusations and believes he will be fully exonerated once the investigation is complete.
    "Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore," said the spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider.

    He didn't answer chapter and verse to her story, if that's what you mean.


    No, my apologies (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:10 AM EST
    Question answered. Guess I should read more, but frankly, I just can't get into the minutia.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    Top of the page. Jeralyn included the Gore camp's response to the lady's accusations in this post:

    Gore's spokesperson released this statement:

    missed it (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:03:40 AM EST

    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.

    I just noted that in a comment above (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    since I opined the opposite last night and wanted to correct it. But it makes no sense to me why the DA's office would be notified when police investigate and find charges not warranted, unless it's just Gore's celebrity, which to me, means he's being treated differently than others.

    Had Gore been John Q. Public, and a masseuse made a claim they didn't find warranted charges, I can't imagine them notifying the DA. Maybe they do things differently in Portland.


    Hagerty's income and possible loss . . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    Since I believe that by filing a report and asking for investigation/prosecution, she would be placing her business at risk, it seems to me that we should consider her business/likely income . . .

    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.

    I have acquaintances whose income is in this range or somewhat higher, from what I believe . . .  So, a massage practitioner, practitioning as she did, and being in demand as an outcall practitioner to persons in hotels, seems to have had an income higher than local police or sheriffs, and higher than many other entry-level positions of those who have graduated with degrees.

    But do you believe that by (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:08:40 PM EST
    leaving the room she would have been putting her business at risk? The time to talk about going to the press would have been then. 'I'm leaving now, and if you want to make something of it I'll go right to the newspapers.' She claims she was thinking it all through at the time, so it was happening so fast that she was not examining her options. She chose the 'I'll try the calming massage for a while' technique instead of leaving. If I were a guy who tried to get a woman to touch my privates, and she continued to massage me instead of leaving, I might not get the idea that she was all that mad at me.

    One thing is for sure (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:17:52 PM EST
    I have been getting great deals on massages. $180 an hour? good lord.

    Indeed. Should include sea salt and (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    hot stone therapy.  

    Anita Hill and Hagerty (none / 0) (#74)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:38:43 PM EST
    It seems to me that a dozen years ago, there were the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and there was Anita Hill who worked in his office or for him--I forget the details.  And she testified to various forms of sexual behavior or innuendo--which he completely denied.  

    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. . .

    Are they that differnt?

    The difference is (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    Anita Hill did not accuse Thomas of a crime, or claim he tried to hurt her. That she put up with harassment in order to not make waves at work is entirely believable.

    That someone who was in actual fear of being raped would hang around and try to calm down the perpetrator, talk to him about his iPod and Bill and Hillary, is just not believable to me. Yes, stalling for time to get your stuff and get out is something you might do if you were the recipient of unwanted advances that you were brushing off, but not in actual fear. Her statement reads like a scene from a Peter Sellers movie or something.


    I Can Think Of A Million Reasons Why (none / 0) (#80)
    by Blue Jean on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 11:49:40 PM EST
    Anita Hill's testimony is likely true and Haggety's is likely false.

    And they all have dollars $igns.


    I never encountered a civil lawsuit (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:11:12 AM EST
    in which plaintiff's counsel did not say:  this isn't about money.  

    OK (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:19:16 AM EST
    Anita Hill was not suing anyone. Anita Hill was not trying to get the police to charge Thomas with a crime so that she could get automatic damages in a civil suit.

    And Anita Thomas was not trying to sell her story to a tabloid for any sum of money.

    Sorry oculus, any comparison between Antia Hill and Molly Haggarty is absurd.


    I did not compare Ms. Hagerty's situation (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    w/that of Anita Hill.

    OK (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:44:08 AM EST
    Sorry, I couldn't even read zaitzefftheunconvicted2 comment thoroughly, because his or her comparison appears to me to be over the top outrageous and flippant.

    If I recall correctly (none / 0) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:39:01 AM EST
    Anita Hill didn't come running to Washington, eagerly demanding to testify. I somehow remember she was sought out when the R's tactics to steamroll Thomas's nomination through appeared to be unstoppable and the D's panicked.

    I believe she was a rather reluctant witness.

    procedures not followed? (none / 0) (#92)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    Well, in my great ignorance of "police procedure,"
    it seems to me that in the case of an "allegation of a possible crime," that "proper procedure" would include having a personal conversation with the other possible witness or criminal, which would be Al Gore.

    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.

    Maybe they do things differently in Oregon?

    First Rule of Law & Journalism (none / 0) (#93)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    "Anyone can say anything about anybody.  The question is; can you prove it?"

    If I said I was mugged by Joe Blow down the street, and gave a credible account, showed that I was injured, did follow up interviews, etc. then yes, Joe Blow would be called upon to "aid the police in their inquiries"  because I have nothing to gain from lying to them about some anonymous guy.

    If I said I was mugged by Donald Trump, though, I doubt the police would call him up, particularly if I gave a long, erratic account of the alleged crime, wouldn't submit crucial evidence, wouldn't follow up, said I wasn't interested in money then demanded a million dollars, etc.  

    Let's face it; if you're famous and wealthy, then there are lots of people who have a great deal to gain by accusing you of a crime.  It could be money, it could be fame for themselves, it could be damaging your reputation, etc.  If the police interviewed every celebrity accused of a crime based on nothing more than someone's say so, then the police would be doing nothing but celebrity interviews 24/7, and so would the celebrities.


    libel & false reporting laws (none / 0) (#94)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    Well, there are laws against libel, and there are laws against making a false report to police and there are even laws against lying to police/fbi when they are investigating a crime and talking to you, and you aren't in the process of filing a report of a crime.  As I recall, Martha Stewart was convicted of some type of lie to authorities about an insider trading situation.

    And, from time to time, I read of people being charged with and convicted of filing false reports . . .

    It seems you are suggesting that when celebrities are accused of a crime in a police report of crime, that, they should be held to a different standard than ordinary people . . .  Police would be overworked if they had to be troubled with the inconvenience of interviewing and recording the interview of Al Gore?


    So She Should Be Held To A Lesser Standard? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    Because I'm saying that no one, famous or anonymous, rich or poor, gets interviewed just on one person's say so, especially if the accuser can't seem to make up her mind on whether she wants the police involved or not.  Especially if she's already contradicted herself on at least one important point.  Especially if she refuses to cooperate with the police.  Especially if she has plenty to gain even if the charges are totally false.

    The police standards for celebrities and anonymous people are the same, but the police know that celebrities are much, MUCH bigger targets for scammers than non-famous people.  There's a lot more chaff for the police to winnow when it comes to celebrity accusation, and they judge accordingly.  This accusation would be chaff if it was Joe Blow or Al Gore.


    happens all the time (none / 0) (#98)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    it happens all the time that police investigate or talk to someone, based on the "say so" of a single person . . .  If the allegation is sufficiently serious, they even investigate what amount to anonymous allegations.  I say this as someone who has watched the media/internet reports of certain "child pornography" investigations/convictions and it appears that in the last few years, there has been one federal case and two state cases that began with the flimsiest of allegations against a person or persons who had a racy website of a relative.  At least, that is if I remember the details right, and I won't guarantee it till I check the information.

    Also, what is it you think that Molly Hagerty has to gain, if her report is false?  The truth comes out, she loses: business, income and reputation.


    Actually, It Doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    You may think that cases start just by someone saying "X did Y to me." but police put much more work into it than that. The accusation is the tip of the iceberg; the real police work is 90% under the surface. They check phone records, interview possible collaborating witnesses, search for video recordings, collect DNA samples, etc. before they put much stock in an accusation.  It's a lot of time, money, and effort on their part, which is why they don't want to waste resources on anything that doesn't pass the "crank filter".

    Next time you talk to a cop, ask him/her about that filter.  You'll probably get at least an hour's worth of entertainment about folks who claimed to be the Lindbergh baby, or said they were the gunman on the grassy knoll, or accused the cast of "Twilight" of kidnapping babies to feed on their blood, etc.  The accusers might want a lot of money, they might want fame, they might just want someone to listen to them for a little while.  They deserve pity, but they don't deserve police time.

    Yes, Haggety may lose reputation, job, and money.  But she stands to gain much more.  After all, Paula Jones claimed "she just wanted her reputation back", but she got nearly a million dollars in settlement, millions more legal fees for free, her name in the history books, a free nose job, a stint on "Celebrity Boxing", a lucrative stint for "Penthouse", etc. so she gained a lot more than she lost.


    Ummm (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    She never filed a report. She was asked to come in to the police three times and was a no show each time.

    the transcript (none / 0) (#99)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    and the transcript I read, and which you claim to have read is a report of a 4th of July parade?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 11:04:39 AM EST
    Maybe you have lost track of what you just said, but you were suggesting that proper police procedure would be to call up Gore, investigate supporting witnesses etc.

    IOW you are claiming that the police blew it off because?

    Well do you think that when the police ask a complaintant, who has not yet filed a complaint, to come in three times, and the alleged victim of a crime fails to come in three times, finally saying that she was going to not to file a criminal complaint, but to file a civil suit instead, that the police should persist in their investigation?

    If so, you are really making an extremely weak argument, and your comments are starting to resemble what one would expect from a flibbertigibbet.  


    police procedure (none / 0) (#102)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    Police obviously spent a lot of time and money in 2009 to take a statement and Q&A from Hagerty.  And then they made a transcript of it . . .  It is this transcript or AV that some of us here seems to have read . . . and which some of you here seem not to have read (or heard) carefully given what you say about it . . .

    The next logical step (back in 09, after the fall statement and Q&A from complainant) would be to make a phone call to Gore (back in 09) and say, "Please forgive us for having to bring this matter to your attention . . .  It seems you saw a massage practitioner in October 2006, and somehow she has become upset--or she at last says she is--and she has gone to the point of filing a complaint with us.  Could we take the next 30 to 60 minutes and ask you some basic questions about that night, and record our conversation?  Thanks!"

    You think that this 60 minutes of police work would have been a burden to the citizens/taxpayers of Portland, so much, that police should have just skipped that idea?


    Facts (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    The alleged crime happened in 2006. She went to the police in 2007 and then, after three cancelled appearances to the PD, she said she was dropping the criminal complaint and pressing on in civil court.

    The Oregonian sums up their take:

    Along the way, we uncovered information that created significant questions in the minds of the four editors and the investigative reporter who were involved with this story. We still are not yet in a position to publish the information that helped dissuade us from the story.

    Also factoring into our decision were conditions the therapist attempted to set forth concerning how the story would be written. She attempted to make her cooperation contingent upon her having a degree of editorial control that we couldn't allow.

    In 2007, our choice was either to publish the existence of a third-hand accusation, with little corroborating evidence, or to hold publication until we had more evidence to support it. In 2008, after further reporting by Budnick, our choice was to either publish an ethically compromised story that omitted key facts or not to publish at all


    As for 2009 and all the police work done on the case, you have to be kidding:

    The Portland Police Department has put the audio of the Massuese's interview online. Part 1 is here and part 2 is here. Again, she's reading from a statement prepared by her lawyer which he sent her for editing, but she does ad-lib and there is some q and a during and afterwards.

    By claiming:

    Police obviously spent a lot of time and money in 2009 to take a statement and Q&A from Hagerty.
    You are presenting quite a gross mischaracterization of what the police did, imo. The 2009 meeting was initiated by Haggery, and would have happened in 2007 had she decided to make a statement to the police. Why she decided to come forward in 2009 is anyones guess. Based on "all the expensive work" that the police did regarding the case, this is what they determined:

    The detectives concluded there was insufficient evidence to launch an investigation.

    If she believes that the police failed to do their civic duty, well she can also sue the police. At this point it appears that the police are acting against protocol by reopening the case. That is most likely because there is a bias against celebrities, iow, celebrities generally get worse treatment in these matters than ordinary citizens.


    reopening the case (none / 0) (#104)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    I think the simple explanation, as to why they are "reopening the case," is that
    1. they don't have any good explanation as to why they didn't call Gore for a statement including q&a;
    2. Hagerty may have found additional evidence in her favor;
    3. the PDP will look like fools and already look like fools for not having interviewed Gore abou it;

    OK (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    Here are the facts issued in a statement by the Portland Police.

    My version of the facts above is slightly off. The accurate facts do not alter my opinion that the case was re-opened, only because Gore is a celebrity, ergo it is due to bias against celebrities.

    Had not GOre been a celebrity this would not be news, and the police would not be re-opening the case.


    talking to Gore (none / 0) (#108)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:25:37 PM EST
    you also believe that in 09 or now, there would be no point in the police having a conversation with AG, to hear his version of the events of that night?

    No Point To That (none / 0) (#106)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    He hasn't denied meeting her; he's flatly denied that the events she described happened and he said she left without incident.  So there's no reason to call him up and grill him for an hour on taxpayer time, unless you just want a longer version of the same denial.

    "Did you make her listen to Pink's song, Mr. Gore?"
    "No, I did not."
    "Did you make her drink Grand Mariner, Mr. Gore?"
    "No, I did not."
    "Did you give her a candy bar, Mr. Gore?"
    "No, I did not."

    Rinse and repeat.


    sure there is (none / 0) (#107)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    well, in interviewing Gore, you run the mild possibility that he will simply admit that she is telling the truth . . .
    and, next, even if he doesn't admit that, you as a policeman wish to know if he admits or denies that
    1. he kissed her;
    2. he touched/felt her private areas;
    3. he laid on her on the bed;
    4. he asked her to massage the inside of his thights and/or his very low stomach area;
    if he admits 1, 2 or 3, then, was it consensual
    and if 4, then, was it with sexual motivation?

    we would also ask if he embraced her while nearly nude (i.e., in a bathrobe only).

    we would also ask some basic questions about the time the massage began and ended, and why it was that she was paid for 3 hours, if there was only 1 hour of massage . . .  did Gore and she in fact spend time looking at his ipod or ipad or whatever, did they share drinks or chocolates or whatever . . .

    basically, the first thing to do, is to determine where are the areas of disagreement and of agreement between the two of them, and see if we find evidence in either of them, that would support or undermine their credibility.

    for some reason, you don't think those questions would be good to ask Gore?


    No, There Isn't (none / 0) (#109)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:58:21 PM EST
    Because I can already tell you what Gore would answer.

    "No, I did not kiss her."
    "No, I did not touch that area of her body."
    "No, I did not lay her on the bed."

    Because, as we have repeated time and agin, it's a "he said/she said" case.  He has nothing to gain from admitting it, and much to lose by doing so.  As the accused, it's up to her to prove he did do it, not for him to prove he didn't.  So unless she had a tape recorder hidden under the bed (or a couple of friends hiding in the closet and peering through the keyhole), then an interview is a waste of time.  End of story.


    Would Gore answer (none / 0) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    Would Gore answer at all or would he have his lawyer answer?  If his presence is requested and he agrees, his lawyer would probably allow him to state there was a massage and she left and bypass any other questions.  Seems a waste of time to me.

    interviewing Gore (none / 0) (#118)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    There is no problem with doing the interview with Gore over the phone . . .  Both Molly and Gore should know and probably do already know that lying to investigators is a crime . . .

    So, ask to interview Gore, and interview Gore, and see what questions he answers and what he refuses to answer, if any.

    Also to be included in the list of questions would be--

    1. In your travels and hotel stays from 2001 to the present, how often have you received massage, on an annual basis;
    2. Of those massage visits, how many, if any, included sexual conduct;
    3. Of those massages that included sexual conduct, in how many instances was the sexual conduct preceded by words or gestures on Gore's part to encourage that conduct?

    None of your business (none / 0) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    You look at this from a police perspective.  I look at it as to how I would personally respond.

    1. Absolutely nothing to do with the baseless accusations.
    2. Absolutely nothing to do with the baseless accusations.
    3. Abslolutely nothing to do with the baseless accusations.

    No attorney would allow their client to answer those questions.  It's absurd.  All of your questing are no more than accusations that he has committed some fictional act in front of some fictional women when you have one somewhat unreliable woman making an accusation.

    not investigating (none / 0) (#121)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    basically, you seem to be suggesting that it would be good for the PDP to not investigate the possible crime, and to not ask questions of Al Gore that would help establish if he has a pattern of behavior consistent with the allegations, even if, in other instances, no allegation of crime was made.

    are there any police and/or detectives who read or comment on this board/forum?  IF so, wouldn't it be a reasonable follow-up to interview Gore, and to ask the questions I have suggested?


    This isn't hard (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    Remember that pesky 'right to remain silent' thingamabob?  How is pointing out that you are ridiculously demanding someone set aside all 'reason' (and incrimimate themselves by inferring a pattern of behavior to fit your current accusations) suggesting the police not investigate.

    They can and will investigate without Gore.  Does she have enough evidence to provide the police that would result in any charges?  They decided once that she did not.  They are looking again.

    The fact that people respond to questioning through their lawyers or choose to remain silent might offend you personally, but it is the law.


    5th amendment (none / 0) (#128)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    If the police follow up and call Gore, and if he says, I deny everything and refuse to answer any  questions, then, you put that into the report, and you also conclude that he is probably hiding something either incriminating or embarassing.

     The things incriminating or embarassing might be directly implicative for this particular allegation, or they might be embarassing or incriminating for other reasons unrelated to this allegation.

    I am not sure why you think that they will "investigate without Gore."  I am not one of those city-slicker police detectives . . . but in the Kansas countryside, I think that allegations of sexual molestation (what this seems to amount to, though, applied to an adult), would include speaking with the accused!


    No 'I' wouldn't (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:47:42 PM EST
    I personally have no issues talking with police but would not reach the conclusion anyone is hiding something for not doing the same.  You obviously do, which is why the whole 'accusations as questions' you personally request of the police is unreasonable.  You don't believe his current dismissal and would be unable to believe any further dismissals.

    The police can request to speak with Gore but he is not required to talk to them.

    Investigations aren't difficult concepts.  How about this: a police investigation consists of evaluating available evidence and talking with any witnesses willing to talk to them.  If not enough evidence and no willing witnesses, then there are no charges.

    You are frustrated by a legal system. Oh well.


    The Truth is "I Don't Recall". (none / 0) (#134)
    by Blue Jean on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    Forget what you see on TV.  Human memory isn't a videotape library where you can program in any date you want and the tape will play back in completely perfect detail.  Memory is finite and data gets lost, taped over, and discarded all the time, particularly if you're doing something you like, something you've done many times before.  Can you name in exact detail how many times you've heard the national anthem, say, or eaten your favorite dessert? Where and when and how much?  It's nearly impossible.

    That's why the police prefer it if you report a crime as soon as it happens, not six weeks later, or three years later, or whenever you decide you'd like a million dollars.  The longer one waits, the more evidence is lost, and the more fuzzy memory gets.  Ask the accused what happened yesterday or last week, and "I don't recall." sounds like a lie.  Ask the accused what happened three or four years ago, and "I don't recall" is a perfectly plausible explanation.  Nobody ever went to jail because of "I can't recall." on a cold case (which can be considered "cold" if it isn't solved in two weeks, never mind three years.)


    You're really got it in for Al Gore. Sheesh. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 08:24:12 PM EST
    You won't even give him the courtesy of "innocent until proven guilty."  For some strange reason you seem to believe everything that this masseuse has said is true!  Al Gore has categorically denied that any assault or untoward action happened.  Why should he go before the police when they know he is going to again say that nothing happened?  The masseuse had three or four opportunities to speak with the police, to ask that charges be filed, etc., etc., yet she continued to delay delay delay.  She lost much of her credibility when she wouldn't speak to the police or ask them to file charges.  And the interview itself and the question and answer session makes her look like a wacko.  So, go ahead and grill me again about how much I know about massage, blah blah blah.....  Just please tell us why you hate Al Gore.  Okey-dokey?

    and, next (none / 0) (#111)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:04:54 PM EST
    And, after getting the contrasting statements from each party, I'd be inclined to ask each of them if they would mind giving their statements again while being polygraphed.  And, yes, I know that the polygraph can be fooled by some small fraction of people, and the polygraph results are probably not admissible, but they might clear some things up .  . .  Do I think that Gore or Hagerty are in the number of those who can successfully deceive the polygraph examiner?  Neither of them being spies or law enforcement, I'd then tend to believe the polygraph results.  

    As for believing Hagerty or not, at this point, the incentives for her were generally on the side of not reporting or pursuing . . .

    For what it matters, I saw my Rolfer this morning for a Rolfing visit and we discussed this and other things.  She's not been sexually propositioned in a session as a Rolfer in her office, but has received calls from people in hotels to see them late at night.  She was also when younger and before being a rolfer, assaulted in a mild way at work by an idiot boss, and she did not report him. . .

    Also, there is this to consider . . . from abyss2hope

    An item not mentioned by Kornacki is that those who accuse celebrities of sex crimes are often subjected to the presumption of their guilt and to the denial or minimization of the reality Kornacki only acknowledges in parentheses. Being a celebrity doesn't make someone incapable of committing a sex crime yet far too many people act as if it does just that. When a celebrity is accused the number of people who pose a threat to the accuser goes up substantially.

    Some who presume guilt of alleged sex crime victims can go so far as to enact physical violence against the person who made the allegation. A man named Patrick Graber  offered to murder Kobe Bryant's accuser for $3 million. While the prosecutors justified a plea deal which dismissed the original charges because they didn't believe he planned to commit the murder once he had what he believed to be the $1 million down payment they don't know for sure what this man would have done for an additional $2 million.


    The incidence (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    Of false readings by polygraphs are great enough as to make their use nonsensical. The common perception that modern polygraphs, in the hands of highly trained operators, are so accurate that false readings have been reduced to a very low number, somewhere in the single digit area, is, for want of a better word, bunk.

    Their only value is psychological where asking suspects to submit to them does give some insight into that person's feelings. But, as a truth determiner they are worthless.


    Polygraph? Are You Serious? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    ROTL!  That's the best joke I've heard all day--thanks!

    1. MH wouldn't even come in for follow up interviews with the police, even after they've requested three times that she do so.  What makes you think she'd submit to a polygraph?  

    2. Polygraphs aren't allowable evidence in many courts of law, precisely because they have a huge error rate.  A person might pass the polygraph one day, then flunk it the next, even if asked the same set of questions.  Very good liars (or stone cold sociopaths) can pass it fine. The most famous case is the Green River Killer, where an innocent suspect flunked the polygraph, while Gary Ridgeway (the real killer as proved by DNA) passed with flying colors.

    I'm sorry to hear about your friend the Rolfer, but you seem to be projecting her experience onto MH, casting Hagerty as your friend and Al Gore as the attacker who got away with it.  That's understandable, but in point of fact, they're two different people, and this is a different situation.  In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

    As for protection, I doubt anyone is going gunning for MH just because one loon did it for Kobe's sake.  Even if it did happen, the million dollars she's asking for would buy a lot of protection.


    You said this: (none / 0) (#112)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    "As for believing Hagerty or not, at this point, the incentives for her were generally on the side of not reporting or pursuing . . ."

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

    Please, tell us why you have it in for Al Gore.

    Gore side says no settlement broached (none / 0) (#114)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    the Gore side says that they were never approached for a settlement . . .  the NE says that Hagerty asked them for $1 million to publish and have details of her story, but that they didn't pay her.  Or whether it was that they didn't pay her at all, or only a small fraction of her asking price, is not yet clear to me.

    I don't particularly have it in for Gore . . .

    Hagerty's credibility is "flawed" due to reading a statement which had been prepared by someone else, and her having to stop at one point & say something to the effect of, This statement was written by someone else and I wouldn't have said it this way in the next paragraph or so . . . but that adds to her overall credibility


    So That's Your Defense? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Blue Jean on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    When people are telling the truth, they don't usually need a big sheaf of notes to keep their story straight.  Are you saying that she was too dense to know what her own story was?

    After all, they're pretty simple questions;

    1. Does Haggety want money or not want money?

    2. Were there Secret Service agents there or not? (first she says they weren't there, then suddenly she says she couldn't leave because she was afraid the Secret Service people would shoot or tase her.  Which was it?)

    To me, to paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, it suggests the elaborate machinations of a bad liar. YMMV.

    more re portland PD (none / 0) (#117)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    from oregonlive . . .

    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. . .

    We also encourage the city to revisit the 2007 audit,

    OK (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    Finally your bias is clearly stated:

    the case didn't appear to be a priority, despite the public figure involved. . .

    It is really wrong, unconstitutional even, to have various sets of civil rights depending on who you are.

    Perhaps, as a test, as a way for you to understand how reactionary and regressive your statement is, plug in blacks, women,  jews, muslims,  immigrant, laborer etc... for a public figure, and see what it sounds like.  

    Celebrities are generally treated unfairly, despite public opinion to the contrary.


    failure to follow up (none / 0) (#122)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    You think the failure of the PPD to follow up with a few basic interviews was justified?

    Police Interview? (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    When the police go to "interview" you here are some tips quoted by our host jeralyn in the AZ recent link:

    Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, you have the right to calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why. (My emphasis. I'll add, if after they tell you that you are free to leave, they ask permission to ask a few more questions, politely refuse. If you are free to leave, do so.)

    You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud.

    and this bit of valuable information oft repeated by Jeralyn;

    Repeat after me: The jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, the cops would see it their way. The 5th Amendment and Miranda rights are there for good reason. Use them or lose them.

    You appear to be living in a fantasy about how the police conduct their business..  hope that you are never in a position where the police want to "interview" you and hope that you have the wisdom never to accept the offer.


    I gathered TL's advice was as to (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    potential suspects.  Here, there are at least two civilian non-suspects to whom Ms. Hagerty states she spoke soon after leaving the hotel.  Apparently Portland PD did not contact them.  Not sure if Ms. Hagerty provided PD the names or if PD asked for this information.

    Maybe You Missed It (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    But this is what is on the table:

    interviewing Gore (none / 0) (#118)
    by zaitzefftheunconvicted2 on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    There is no problem with doing the interview with Gore over the phone . . .  Both Molly and Gore should know and probably do already know that lying to investigators is a crime . . .

    Ahh. No, Mr. Gore is well-advised to (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    refrain from talking to anyone about this incident.

    answer, if you wish (none / 0) (#129)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    You think the failure of the PPD to follow up with a few basic interviews was justified?

    Not Playing Games (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    Haggerty accused Gore of attempted rape. She got the police involved. Gore has made a public statement.

    If anyone is under suspicion of breaking any law, and approached by the police the only reasonable thing to do is to remain silent.

    Sorry that you do not get this, but as Jeralyn has said the jails are full of people who thought that the Police were nice helpful people who would understand their side of the story. That is not part of their job description.

    What ever else the police do or have done in their investigation is their business.


    They Already Tried To Do That (none / 0) (#132)
    by Blue Jean on Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    They scheduled Haggety for a follow up interview 3 times, and she cancelled all three times.  Then she said she wasn't going the criminal route; she was going to sue.  That was the last they heard from her until she started kvetching three years later.

    It's a bit unfair to blame the police.  First the accuser (and apparently, sole witness) says she doesn't want to talk to them, and doesn't want to file a complaint, doesn't want to turn over evidence, doesn't want to help them in any way, then she turns around and complains that they wouldn't do the work that she wouldn't help them do.