Jump to content

Talk:Jamie Leigh Jones/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Roscelene reverting items without explanation or discussion

Roscelene here you've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts.

  • From this sentence: The prosecution[dubious – discuss] also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. You removed the dubious tag without comment or explanation. Why???? That part of the sentence is clearly a mistake. This is a civil trial and so there is no "prosecution" -- and the side that brought this out was clearly the defense. Could you please explain yourself?
  • And you completely deleted this sentence without any explination: The defense attacked Jones's credibility because she had signed a movie deal to promote the story of her lawsuit.[[1]] Why??
  • You also deleted several very short quotes (that were fully cited) with the insulting comment: "how hard is it to paraphrase or at least attribute?" Since it is so easy why didn't you work cooperatively with the other editors and paraphrase or attribute the quotes instead of just deleting them?
  • You also completely deleted all references to KBR filing a motion to be reimbursed by Jones for fees and costs for the civil suit she lost -- even though it was supported with a citation from The Wall Street Journal. [2] How can you support deleting all reference to this clearly relevant and Reliably Sourced piece of information? Please explain.


Please, I would like to work with you in a cooperative manner to improve the article -- but it would involve you stopping the insults and being willing to work cooperatively. Hoping To Help (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of that was accidental (I was working from an old version of the page and didn't catch all the changes), but some of what you're saying I did is just wrong. Try looking at the edits before you start waving your hands around and shouting about how someone isn't editing according to your liking. (The removal of the film deal bit was accidental, but fortuitous, since it is not supported by the cited source and, per BLP, needs to go immediately.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth are you falsely accusing me of fabricating a source? Here's the language from the source: One thing Jones has working in her favor is that her story seems so incredible, her pursuit of justice so sincere, that it's almost unimaginable that she would make it up. After all, why would anyone put themselves through that kind of torture? But KBR and Bortz also have a ready answer to that question. It's The Jamie Leigh Story: How my Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice, the working title of her book.
For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.
When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction. THF (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And does this support the claim that KBR's lawyers used the film deal to discredit Jones at the trial? No, it most certainly does not. They asked for the book manuscript and other documents and apparently did not get them. There is no evidence that this arose at the main trial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is your reading comprehension really that poor? It's an article about the evidence KBR used to win at trial. I'm dumbfounded. It's a BLP violation not to include it, because the omission incorrectly makes Jones's false allegations against a living person look more credible. I hope a third party weighs in against the POV-pushing that's going on here. THF (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure BLPN would find your claim that our failure to insert unsourced information about Jones is a BLP violation for another unnamed person very convincing. Unfortunately for you, neither of the new sources say that this came up at the trial; according to Legal Newsline, it's part of the motion for fees, and I've moved/rephrased it appropriately. KHOU just plain doesn't mention it - a possibly-metaphorical reference to a "manuscript" won't cut it, without any context to show that the lawyer was talking about a book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I have the strength to deal with this aggressive, inflammatory editing again. I've removed the material from the lead about motion for fees and the newly added sentence about vindication. I've removed the second sentence about what the motion says in the body as too much information for a motion like this. We don't need to express KBR's position. And god help me, those extended quotes in the cites.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In line with my comment about "strength", I've opened up a section on this article at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Public documents used as citations for assertions about living people

I had this policy recently pointed out to me by an editor that reverted all of my edits that I had supported with primary sources.

WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources states:


But there are currently other editors' (existing) edits that are solely sourced with primary documents -- so it would be useful to come to a meeting on the minds as to when these types of documents can be used.

Questions:

  • In the second paragraph of the policy, does the phrase "subject to the restrictions of this policy" -- mean the WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources policy or the WP: Primary policy
  • Does "primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source" -- mean the document itself was discussed or mentioned, or that something it contains was mentioned -- even though the secondary source might be using a *different* primary source?
  • And, if part of the document can be used, how do we determine how much of it? If some of the judges reasoning from his ruling is referenced in a secondary source does that open it up to use the entire document?

I would like us to determine which of these primary sources we are able to use:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

  1. ^ "Jones,et al. v. Halliburton Company et al". Justia. Retrieved 20011-07-15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Keith P. Ellison United States District Judge. "Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Company D/B/A Kbr Kellogg Brown & Root (Kbr)". UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
  3. ^ Hedges, Daniel. "The KBR defendants' application and motion for attorney's fees: Pursuant to Title VII and request for briefing schedule" (PDF). Retrieved 24 August 2011.
  4. ^ "Jury Charges and Verdict: Jamie Leigh Jones v. KBR" (PDF). United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston DIvision. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
  5. ^ Jamie Leigh Jones; Joseph Daigle v. Halliburton et al. (5th Cir September 15, 2009), Text.


Please weigh in. And show your work :-) i.e. explain your reasoning! Thanks :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the material currently cited to those either is already supported by other (secondary) sources, or could be - the first citation to the Jones et al. v. Halliburton et al. is also supported by an MSNBC article, and the second is just saying that she sued, which should be easy to support with something else. Although one could also argue that "Jones sued," cited to a document from the lawsuit, is a "straightforward, descriptive statement[...] that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify [is] supported by the source." As for the other things, we should be able to find secondary sources that support the material (for example! this source confirms the material that was just removed about the EEOC thing) - if nothing else, there's an UNDUE issue if we include material that secondary sources haven't picked up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Move article to new title

[Copied by User:Hoping to help from WP:BLPN:]

There seens to be broad consensus to re-name the article so that it's about the case(s) rather than one of the parties. Usual practice is to simply use a title like the court(s) gave, such as "Jones v. Halliburton and KBR". What we can't do is include something like "the gang rape case" in the title. Even if we inserted "alleged" that would still be problematic for rwo reasons: (1) the courts have rejected the allegation, and (2) per WP:Title, "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


My suggestion is to give the article a name that broadly refers to the sum of the ongoing disputes (between Jones and KBR/Haliburton), both in and out of court. Those disputes have been fought in and around:
  • The media (newspapers, magazines, 20/20 etc.)
  • Congress (testimony and eventual passage of legislation related to binding arbitration requirements in employment contracts)
  • Criminal Grand Jury
  • Appeals Court over whether Jones could sue in civil court instead of binding arbitration.
  • Civil Lawsuit
  • Motion for fees
So I would suggest something like:
And I'm also fine with the suggestions made above of something like:
But I have some concern about the word "proceedings" in that I've seen a lot of wikilawering go on over the article -- and I don't want to generate discussions of what does or does not qualify as a "proceeding". So maybe:
Hoping To Help (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


And I could accept [[User:Anythingyouwant] suggestion of Jones v. Halliburton and KBR.

What do others think?

Hoping To Help (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. Jones has testified in front of Congress and been the subject of a documentary. Her book and movie deal may fall through with her court loss, and she may disappear from the spotlight, but she's a public figure. THF (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The jury found that the sex was consensual and that no rape occurred.

  • "The jury was not convinced by her case." How about that? Did the jury make a statement saying they thought she was lying? Or did they simply not have enough evidence to convince them one way or the other? Dream Focus 05:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Dream Focus's comment is a perfect example of why we need this in the article and why we need to make the language very strong and clear.Dream Focus is an editor of the article, and I must assume that s/he has read the article -- and yet s/he still isn't sure what the jury ruled!
--> For the record: they didn't just rule that Jones failed to make her case. They came to an affirmative and explicit ruling that the sex was consensual. Hoping To Help (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That, then, I think, is the language to use - i.e. affirmative rather than transitive. SO instead of saying she lied etc. Note that the defence presented a case that the story was fabriacted. Then just note that the jury decided the sex was consensual. Factual and to the point. --Errant (chat!) 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Is that actually true? I took another look at the sources and I don't see it, and that is a massive BLP issue omg. If the sources do not say the jury decided it was consensual, we cannot infer that from their rejection of the rape charges. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verification, not truth ... and in this case we do have verification:

Jones got her day in court, and on Friday, a federal jury deciding her civil suit in Houston decided she was not raped, vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal.

A day after closing arguments in the four-week trial, the jury of eight men and three women found Ms. Jones wasn't raped, and that KBR had not committed fraud in its employment contract.

Remarkable what a quick Google news search can turn up. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
What exactly word for word did the judge or jury's foreman say at the closing of the trial? Dream Focus 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just use the language more commonly used in reportage when the jury decision goes for the defense, say: "The jury rejected Jones' allegations and found for the defense on all counts", etc. Ronnotel (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


The phrase the "jury rejected the allegations" is the phrase usually used in criminal cases where a case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what is confusing a some WP editors -- and so is also likely to confuse our readers.
That wording can remind them of criminal cases where the defendant wins the case -- but the jury may actually believe him to be guilty ... the prosecution just didn't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
While that is not what happened in this civil trial -- the jury explicitly determined (by a preponderance of the evidence) that no rape occurred because the jury determined that the sex was consensual. Hoping To Help (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally at a loss on this discussion. The article currently says: "On July 8, the jury found that the sex was consensual and also denied her fraud claim against KBR." What more do we need?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But the sources don't say that. We always have to be careful not to draw our own conclusions from what the sources say, but because this is a BLP, it's particularly important that we don't say "the jury ruled that the sex was consensual" if our sources do not say this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You're correct. The cited source for that sentence says: "KBR applauded the jury’s verdict, which in addition to rejecting Jones’ claims that she was raped also denied her fraud claim against the company." That's not the same thing as the assertion. We should reword the assertion to comply with that source and the other sources. Most of the sources I've seen say the same thing (rejecting rape). However, a short NYT piece says: "A former employee of the military contractor KBR Inc. who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her lawsuit against KBR on Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual." ([3]). It's the only one I've seen worded that way.
As to the the original point of this section, though, the "argument" sentence should still be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


I was clearly wrong for not including the correct citation right where it was needed Ooops!! My MISTAKE!! I shouldn't have believed the WP editors when they stated, with absolute certainty, that the existing citation didn't support that the jury believed that the sex was consensual.
Because, now I notice, that the first citation is by the Reliable Source The Houston Chronicle and it clearly states:
  • The firefighter “has insisted that he had consensual sex with Jones. The jury agreed.”
I’ll try not to be so gullible in the future! My bad. ;-) Hoping To Help (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Re: NYT, I think we're bound to treat it the same way as the Guardian source discussed above: while it's theoretically a reliable source, the wall-to-wall coverage this case has received means that if only one source says it, we should be wary. Let's rephrase the relevant sentences to comply with the other sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


My goodness, we do seem to be re-living the Inline Attribution/Guardian discussion -- in that the same people seem to be making many of the same mistakes and engaging in the same rush to judgement.
In the Guardian discussion people were overly eager to use the sentence from the Guardian as stating a fact, even though the paper most likely made a *mistake* by forgetting to insert "said Jones" -- as they had to do for almost every other sentence, because, for the most part, she was their only source. And so the paper was NOT even trying to state as a fact that evidence was lost -- they were just passing along Jones' accusation.
For them to have a scoop on whether some of the evidence went missing they would need a source -- which they would then refer to -- it isn't something a reporter could know/evaluate on their own.
But in this case -- it is easy for the reporter to evaluate this situation directly -- all they have to do is attend the trial or read the court documents. So this is a very different situation than the one with the Guardian. Hoping To Help(talk) 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources all say similar things (reject the rape and reject the fraud). The sentence should be reworded to reflect that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm ... again some people seem to have a hard time seeing/believing articles that protect the BLP interests of the firefighter. But with a little looking you can find that Slate.com, The New York Time, The Washington Post, MSNBC.com, The Houston Chronicle, and the Wall Street Journal, and many others all state explicitly that the jury found: either, that the sex was consensual or that she was not raped.
When both the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are both reporting it -- I don't see how it can be ignored. They are at the top of the pecking order when it comes to being a Reliable Source for National News. And both of these citations have previously been referenced in this very discussion (one of them by you). And I would argue (and I believe I'm confident I can prove) that these are the sources doing the more accurate reporting in this particular instance. Hoping To Help (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the quotes from these sources which state affirmatively that the jury found that the sex was consensual. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Ok ... be careful what you ask for ;-) here come the citations ...

But our discussion on the talk page clearly shows that a number of editors are inclined to dismiss the verifiability of that phrase even when given both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal as citations. So I propose that we add all of the citations below to the article -- just so the phrase isn’t removed in the future by editors who believe: "it can’t possible be true - the New York Times and Wall Street Journal must be wrong -- their reporters have no experience covering civil litigation!!" Hoping To Help (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations for: “the jury found the sex was consensual”

A former employee of the military contractor KBR Inc. who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her lawsuit against KBR on Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual.

But jurors in the case against the Houston, Texas-based company decided in the end that Jones's sexual encounter was consentual, rendering other charges moot.

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with [the firefighter], who said the sex was consensual.

[The defendant] has insisted that he had consensual sex with Jones. The jury agreed.

A federal jury in Houston has ruled Jamie Leigh Jones, whose case became a call-to-action for reform in arbitration clauses in contracts, was not raped.

Jones had sued former employer Kellogg, Brown and Root, alleging the company created a hostile sexual environment that led to her gang-rape while living at one of the company's camps in 2005. The company, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had argued a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract had prevented her from suing the company in open court.

An appeals court sided with Jones on that issue, but jurors ruled Friday that Jones and [the firefighter] had engaged in consensual sex.

A former KBR Inc. employee who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq lost her civil lawsuit against the military contractor Friday after a federal jury in Houston concluded that the sex was consensual.

After investigations failed to establish criminal charges, jurors not only rejected Jones’ allegations that she was raped, but also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with [the defendant], who said the sex was consensual, Fox News reports.

One of the firefighters she singled out in the suit said the sex was consensual, and the jury agreed. Jones had been seeking an estimated $114 million in the civil suit.

... Friday after a federal jury concluded that the sex was consensual. The jury of eight men and three women rejected Jamie Leigh Jones' claims a day after starting deliberations in a Houston federal courthouse. Jones, 26, said she was raped in 2005...

An appeals court sided with Jones on that issue, but jurors ruled Friday that Jones and [the firefighter] had engaged in consensual sex.

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with the [defendant], who said the sex was consensual.

[He] admitted to having sex with Jones but said their acts were consensual, and the jury agreed, the newspaper said.

So User:Roscelese, are 12 citations enough to get you to take back your assertion: "But the sources don't say that." -- or do I need to post more?

I'd love for you to join me in protecting the BLP interests of BOTH Jones and the firefighter. Are you up for that? Hoping To Help (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations to support the PHRASE: “the jury found that Jones was not raped”

A jury in federal court on Friday dispatched a high-profile lawsuit against KBR Inc. brought by a former employee, finding she wasn't sexually assaulted by a co-worker while working for the defense contractor in Iraq in 2005.

A day after closing arguments in the four-week trial, the jury of eight men and three women found Ms. Jones wasn't raped, and that KBR had not committed fraud in its employment contract. "We have known the truth for a long time now, and we are very relieved and gratified to get these facts out to ...

After a day and a half of deliberations, a federal jury in Houston answered "no" to the question of whether Jones was raped by former firefighter while working in Iraq in 2005. It also found that KBR did not engage in fraud in inducing Jones to sign her employment contract to go overseas.

Jones got her day in court, and on Friday, a federal jury deciding her civil suit in Houston decided she was not raped, vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal.


Jurors said that no rape was committed and that KBR did not commit fraud.

KBR and Halliburton suggested that Jones fabricated the story because she was embarrassed about sleeping with Boartz.

Jones later made conflicting statements about what happened that night. Her attorney blames that on after-effects of being drugged.

The defense contended Jones has a long history of depression and anxiety and that she suffers from narcissistic personality disorder often evidenced by fabricated or distorted statements.

A federal jury on Friday ruled that a woman who sued KBR over an alleged sexual assault in Iraq was not raped, and the company did not commit fraud. … Attorneys for Bortz and the company claimed that Jones made up the story about being drugged and raped out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.

"I know it might make a better manuscript ... to tell the story that Jamie was gang-raped and locked in a shipping container, but I am asking you to reject that fiction," defense attorney Joanne Vorpahl told jurors.

Bortz’s attorney, Andrew T. McKinney, added: "The beauty of having no memory is that you don’t have to explain what you did and why you did it."

A federal jury in Houston has ruled Jamie Leigh Jones, whose case became a call-to-action for reform in arbitration clauses in contracts, was not raped.

The jury found she was not raped, and KBR did not commit fraud.

Hoping To Help (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A "finding" is a legal finding, as in their ruling on what is actually in dispute in the case. As in "the jury finds in favor of one party or another". Consensual sex isn't a finding of the case. The findings of the case was that there was not sufficient evidence to prove to the extent required in a civil suit the claims made by the plaintiff. Saying the jury found not enough evidence to show rape or breach of contact is what appears in the articles. There was no "finding" on consensual sex. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

article is inaccurate and biased. Jones did have extensive injuries and the defense party's violent history not mentioned

Here are the reasons for the changes I tried to make in the article. First, the list of defendants as listed is an incomplete list. I included the defendants that were involved in the final court case, as are mentioned in the articles. All defendants should be listed or the wording should be changed. If a partial listing is stated, I think the defendants I included are the relevant parties. It is very misleading to say one of the employees were charged since several were.

As far as the first doctor finding that there was no damage to her chest, it was stated that Jones did not complain about chest pain and specifically that implant damage wasn't noticed, but not that there was a chest examination and no injury was found. Later doctors visits did discover chest damage. The doctor didn't find damage, but appears to not have looked (whether or not she looked for chest injury isn't actually stated). Searching for an injury and coming to the positive conclusion that there isn't one is different than stating that an injury wasn't a conclusion made. Perhaps a more thorough explanation of her injuries should be included (like the frissuring and bruising in apparently the vagina and anus, the fact that it was a pectoral capsule torn, not a torn muscle, and that there were some bruises found on her) but also may become too explicit. But there was no finding that she had "no injury to her chest" in the citations.

If one of the findings was consensual sex, it is not listed in the articles. What is stated is that two of the original claims were not upheld, which made the other claims moot. That is very clear. These can also be looked up in the original complaint filed to start the civil lawsuit. That was the legal conclusion made, determined by the jury. If consensual sex was part of the final findings of the jury, that isn't supported by the articles (other sources would be needed to confirm such a statement, as its mentions in the articles are in my opinion far too vague to be listed as one of the jury's findings).

Also, I made additions that I thought were relevant. The defendant's criminal record seems to be specifically what was referred to in the next paragraph, as "his" life not being on display. If the jury had known of his criminal record, the jury it's possible that they would have ruled the other way and I think it's important to mention that in the section about the civil case. If that quote is included, I think his criminal background of violence against women should be included as well. Otherwise, quotes from the two sides, in my opinion should be removed. 174.134.132.118 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here. I can't get to it right now, but I will try later to look at your changes more closely and then respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And nothing happened. It is strange how all the talk is about quotes, especially journalistic interpretations, but as user noted above there are inconsistencies. I for one after seeing the part in the movie hot coffee the first thing that struck me was the missing rape kit. Reading the article to clarify that confused me more. Why was that overlooked so easily, missing footage and notes did not strike anyone to put more emphasis on the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the later testifying doctor? The article just left the impression that all that has been written was a regurgitation of the media, a media that in these days is so easily bought of and in this case could have rewritten a verdict. If the trial failed for the victim it was more because of lack of evidence, easily misinterpreted, and the accusations transformed into fabrication. I'm from EU and it just amazes me that the whole point of the this case started because of private entities trying to limit the right to a justice system of everyone who accepts that arbitration clause. In the end, this article was more a puff piece not actually hitting the point of entrapment in arbitration of an employee by a private company, which engaging in this practice along with the mishandling of evidence paints a clear picture of the situation, unlike those many quotes listed above. I say that whoever reads the article, is or not native English speaker, but not the talks will be left with the impression that she's a liar, the justice system works and more importantly that waiving one's (US citizen) right to the justice system is alright and fair. Em27 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The War of Rape - Washington Monthly Nov/Dec 2013

Mencimer, Stephanie (Nov/Dec 2013). "The War of Rape". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 27 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep due to this new information this page needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.70 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Major issue with one key statement in article

The phrase "On July 8, the jury returned a verdict that rejected all of Jones's claims, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual[5][7] and therefore no rape had occurred,[8][9][10] and that KBR did not defraud her.[6][7][8]" is problematic. The problem with the current phrasing is that it seems to state that the jury findings can be considered the actually facts of what really happened. The problem is that I don't believe the jury was ever in a position to determine what really did happen (i.e. was the sex truly consensual or was it rape?) from a factual standpoint (i.e. meeting a scientific definition of a fact). The jury can only look at the evidence presented before them and draw conclusions based on that. Any missing evidence or faulty evidence could sway the jury to find that something did or didn't occur when in reality that opposite is true from a objective fact standpoint. It is a known fact that juries have at time ruled something to not have occurred or to have occurred that evidence discovered after the trial proved otherwise. This jury didn't have a gods eye view of the sexual encounter to determine if it was rape nor was their any video of the incident. It is altogether possible she was indeed raped but because of a lack of evidence she was unable to prove it to the jury. Thus we shouldn't be stating that "no rape occurred" since that is not a fact that was proven to the best of my knowledge and thus we don't know if any rape occurred. We need to make it clearer that this was the conclusion of the jury, not an objective fact. Wikipedia is not in a position to say whether she was or wasn't raped, only to report what the jury concluded. The jury's conclusion might very well be correct but based on the evidence presented at the trial I don't believe that their conclusion meets the scientific definition of a fact therefore we should not imply it is. It needs to be made clearer that the part that says "and therefore no rape had occurred," refers to the jury's conclusions not objective fact. --2601:644:400:8D:9D61:FD7E:E3E3:1077 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misreading what is meant by the sentence, but it's true that potential ambiguity could be avoided by the addition of a word: "that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual, and that therefore no rape had occurred". Would this address your concern? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I was simply stating how that sentence might be interpreted by some readers, regardless of whether that interpretation was intended or not by the writer, so yes, the addition of "that" would help clarify things. I will be bold and make the change myself. --2601:644:400:8D:7CEE:9C4E:A00E:33BC (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese: The sentence currently says: "The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee...". Any idea why "defendants" is plural and "employee" singular? It seems like something is missing. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The suit had a bunch of parties, including KBR - it wasn't a criminal trial of the employee. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

== EEOC Portion is NOT Accurate. This is the official Court Document == and also secondary sources to confirm

EEOC letter

This needs to be corrected. This is the EEOC COURT DOCUMENT- WSJ was inaccurate please see actual court document.

The EEOC's investigation credit Charging Party’s testimony that she was indeed sexually assaulted by one or more of Respondent employees and physical trauma was apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

References

  1. ^ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/joneshalliburtonorder.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.overlawyered.com/files/jones/eeoc_letter.pdf

Jamie Leigh Jones Has PTSD- Victor Scorano was NOT Jamie's Therapist.

Jones said the attack was so brutal that she required two reconstructive surgeries to her chest and more than 200 visits to psychiatrists to treat post traumatic stress disorder.

Jamie Leigh Jones Loses Case against former Halliburton Subsidiary KBR --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Victor Scorano was not Jamie's therapist and was only a witness at trial. She has the diagnosis of PTSD from 9 therapists. Being that he was never her tharipst or doctor this is highly biased. She went to the doctor for PTSD more than 200 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC) --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) --Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Leigh_Jones/Archive_3&oldid=1265021715"