E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA to test against sample from her dress

[laylalex 7,252]

Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll's lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample March 2 in Washington for "analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress."

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four contributors, at least one of them male.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/e-jean-carroll-who-says-trump-raped-her-seeks-his-n1126796

[TBoneTX 43,247]

Who keeps dresses or anything like that for 25 years?

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Who keeps dresses or anything like that for 25 years?

Victims of rape?

[Boiler 43,592]

#BelieveWomen

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,319]

40 minutes ago, Boiler said:

#BelieveWomen

i mean only 4 people had spilled their DNA on her dress.

[cyclone27 710]

4 people? 😃

[Boiler 43,592]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

i mean only 4 people had spilled their DNA on her dress.

Pays to be careful, can get everywhere.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   I'm not sure I'm getting all this. It seems as it pertains to the  lawsuit, finding Trump's DNA on her dress would allow make his assertion that he never met her false. However she would still have to prove that his claim was a lie and not that he just forgot meeting her. Then she would have to prove that sexual assault occurred. If she does that, Trump still can't be charged with sexual assault because the statute of limitations has expired. Carroll would then have to prove that she suffered some for of harm because of what trump said. 

 

  So if all those things occur, the most she is hoping for is to win a defamation lawsuit?

[Boiler 43,592]

I think she wants to be crowned a Progressive Princess.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,319]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I think she wants to be crowned a Progressive Princess.

Just another round of 

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I'm not sure I'm getting all this. It seems as it pertains to the  lawsuit, finding Trump's DNA on her dress would allow make his assertion that he never met her false. However she would still have to prove that his claim was a lie and not that he just forgot meeting her. Then she would have to prove that sexual assault occurred. If she does that, Trump still can't be charged with sexual assault because the statute of limitations has expired. Carroll would then have to prove that she suffered some for of harm because of what trump said. 

 

  So if all those things occur, the most she is hoping for is to win a defamation lawsuit?

The action is for defamation, not sexual assault. (Yes, TBone, that would make Trump the tortfeasor. (Infinite eyerolls.)) Trump said not only that he never met her, but that she was "not his type" and she was only making up the story to sell her book. Carroll alleges that Trump's denial as expressed has caused harm to her reputation and to her career. She's an advice columnist, and her reputation for truth-telling would be harmed if indeed what Trump said was untrue. She claims that the number of letters she receives to respond to in her column has dropped by one half after Trump called her a liar.

 

So she has pleaded her claim with sufficient specificity for an action in defamation -- generally, an action for defamation lies where the defendant makes an untrue statement of and concerning the plaintiff, which is published to a third party, and that statement causes harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. She alleges that what Trump said was false, it was about (of and concerning) Carroll, published to a third party (reported on widely in the press), and she alleges that the statement has caused people to think she's a liar (harm to her reputation). The next part of course is for her to actually prove all these elements. Also, since the defendant is a public figure, she must meet the heightened requirements under NY Times v. Sullivan-- she must prove he said the statement with actual malice, meaning that he said it knowing that it was untrue or he was reckless as to the truth of it; that the statement was actually false; and the burden of proof increases from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. A tough hill to climb.

 

Yes, there are multiple DNA profiles on the dress, but it is important to note that DNA is shed not only through semen, but also through other excreta of the body, as I'm sure you know, Steeleballz. The question is: if Trump did not meet her, but his DNA is on her dress, under what circumstances could that happen? Or, if he did meet her, is there a more innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA on her dress? That's the point of this case progressing to discovery. Sampling as mooted by Carroll's team is non-invasive -- it involves testing saliva. No blood or semen sample required. He can be eliminated, or not. 

 

And as for keeping items of clothing unwashed after an assault, I have a beautiful violet cardigan tucked away in storage that was handed back to me by the LAPD when the DA declined to move my case forward. I will never wear it again, and never wish to look at it again, but it is part of something that happened to me. Throwing it away seems wrong -- I think some part of me knows he might do it again to some other woman, and if he does, I have something to show: this happened to me, too. Not every person who has been assaulted will think the same way, but I understand why she might have done what she did.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

The action is for defamation, not sexual assault. (Yes, TBone, that would make Trump the tortfeasor. (Infinite eyerolls.)) Trump said not only that he never met her, but that she was "not his type" and she was only making up the story to sell her book. Carroll alleges that Trump's denial as expressed has caused harm to her reputation and to her career. She's an advice columnist, and her reputation for truth-telling would be harmed if indeed what Trump said was untrue. She claims that the number of letters she receives to respond to in her column has dropped by one half after Trump called her a liar.

 

So she has pleaded her claim with sufficient specificity for an action in defamation -- generally, an action for defamation lies where the defendant makes an untrue statement of and concerning the plaintiff, which is published to a third party, and that statement causes harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. She alleges that what Trump said was false, it was about (of and concerning) Carroll, published to a third party (reported on widely in the press), and she alleges that the statement has caused people to think she's a liar (harm to her reputation). The next part of course is for her to actually prove all these elements. Also, since the defendant is a public figure, she must meet the heightened requirements under NY Times v. Sullivan-- she must prove he said the statement with actual malice, meaning that he said it knowing that it was untrue or he was reckless as to the truth of it; that the statement was actually false; and the burden of proof increases from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. A tough hill to climb.

 

Yes, there are multiple DNA profiles on the dress, but it is important to note that DNA is shed not only through semen, but also through other excreta of the body, as I'm sure you know, Steeleballz. The question is: if Trump did not meet her, but his DNA is on her dress, under what circumstances could that happen? Or, if he did meet her, is there a more innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA on her dress? That's the point of this case progressing to discovery. Sampling as mooted by Carroll's team is non-invasive -- it involves testing saliva. No blood or semen sample required. He can be eliminated, or not. 

 

And as for keeping items of clothing unwashed after an assault, I have a beautiful violet cardigan tucked away in storage that was handed back to me by the LAPD when the DA declined to move my case forward. I will never wear it again, and never wish to look at it again, but it is part of something that happened to me. Throwing it away seems wrong -- I think some part of me knows he might do it again to some other woman, and if he does, I have something to show: this happened to me, too. Not every person who has been assaulted will think the same way, but I understand why she might have done what she did.

 

   Thanks! Great timing. I was hoping you would stop by. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

20 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Who keeps dresses or anything like that for 25 years?

Monica and this chick, evidently.    

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

The action is for defamation, not sexual assault. (Yes, TBone, that would make Trump the tortfeasor. (Infinite eyerolls.)) Trump said not only that he never met her, but that she was "not his type" and she was only making up the story to sell her book. Carroll alleges that Trump's denial as expressed has caused harm to her reputation and to her career. She's an advice columnist, and her reputation for truth-telling would be harmed if indeed what Trump said was untrue. She claims that the number of letters she receives to respond to in her column has dropped by one half after Trump called her a liar.

 

So she has pleaded her claim with sufficient specificity for an action in defamation -- generally, an action for defamation lies where the defendant makes an untrue statement of and concerning the plaintiff, which is published to a third party, and that statement causes harm to the reputation of the plaintiff. She alleges that what Trump said was false, it was about (of and concerning) Carroll, published to a third party (reported on widely in the press), and she alleges that the statement has caused people to think she's a liar (harm to her reputation). The next part of course is for her to actually prove all these elements. Also, since the defendant is a public figure, she must meet the heightened requirements under NY Times v. Sullivan-- she must prove he said the statement with actual malice, meaning that he said it knowing that it was untrue or he was reckless as to the truth of it; that the statement was actually false; and the burden of proof increases from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. A tough hill to climb.

 

Yes, there are multiple DNA profiles on the dress, but it is important to note that DNA is shed not only through semen, but also through other excreta of the body, as I'm sure you know, Steeleballz. The question is: if Trump did not meet her, but his DNA is on her dress, under what circumstances could that happen? Or, if he did meet her, is there a more innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA on her dress? That's the point of this case progressing to discovery. Sampling as mooted by Carroll's team is non-invasive -- it involves testing saliva. No blood or semen sample required. He can be eliminated, or not. 

 

And as for keeping items of clothing unwashed after an assault, I have a beautiful violet cardigan tucked away in storage that was handed back to me by the LAPD when the DA declined to move my case forward. I will never wear it again, and never wish to look at it again, but it is part of something that happened to me. Throwing it away seems wrong -- I think some part of me knows he might do it again to some other woman, and if he does, I have something to show: this happened to me, too. Not every person who has been assaulted will think the same way, but I understand why she might have done what she did.

If anyone touched her clothing, their DNA is on said clothing.  Maybe yours is.  Maybe mine?  Who's to say...

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Who keeps dresses or anything like that for 25 years?

 

   I have a red dress shirt and acid washed jean jacket from 30 years back. I never wear them, but I try them on every few years when I'm sorting through my closet for stuff to donate.