Jump to content
laylalex

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

57 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Scotland
Timeline



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

Who keeps dresses or anything like that for 25 years?


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline

#BelieveWomen


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Boiler said:

#BelieveWomen

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Vietnam
Timeline

4 people? 😃


ROC Timeline

Service Center: Vermont

90 Day Window Opened....08/08/17

I-751 Packet Sent..............08/14/17

NO1 Dated.........................

NO1 Received....................

Check Cashed....................

Biometrics Received..........

Biometrics Appointment.....

Approved...........................

 

IR-1/CR-1 Visa

I-130 NOA1: 22 Dec 2014
I-130 NOA2: 25 Jan 2015
NVC Received: 06 Feb 2015
Pay AOS Bill: 07 Mar 2015
Pay IV Bill : 20 Mar 2015
Send IV/AOS Package: 23 Mar 2015
Submit DS-261: 26 Mar 2015
Case Completed at NVC: 24 Apr 2015
Interview Date: 22 Sep 2015
Visa Approved: 22 Sep 2015
Visa Received: 03 Oct 2015 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
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.


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

   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?


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline

I think she wants to be crowned a Progressive Princess.


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I think she wants to be crowned a Progressive Princess.

Just another round of 

Image result for charlie brown football"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...