Rachel's parents.....

Date: Apr 30, 2004

Rachel's parents.....

Date: Apr 30, 2004

Elliot

It has been widely spread in the press and yet, Thames wins the day.

Hanbury is promoted, as you noted in another string.

Letters, media, pressure will not sway this IHL, hell bent on Thamesization of this university to put Jackson State at the number three slot in Mississippi.

The "plan" is ahead of schedule about two years I would think. Klumb and Nicholson and Scott and Whitten are very pleased.

Date: Apr 30, 2004

Reality, you are right. But, it has not been widely spread by the "distraught, unsettled, Mr. and Mrs. Quinlivan," on television and elsewhere. I know Americana, and such a campaign will win the hearts and minds of alot of people around like other sorts of strategies can't.

Date: Apr 30, 2004

I was actually wondering if Rachel had a case for slander or defamation of character. I'm no lawyer and don't know such things, but she certainly had her privacy invaded when Thames disparaged her name in public by reading from her email to Glamser.

Date: May 1, 2004

bump

Date: May 1, 2004

Elliot

What I said has nothing to do, really, with Rachel's parents going public.

They SHOULD. I would.

Many in the community from all walks of life and religions would be turned off by this.

It seems that went way over, so yes.

The hearing testimony seemed to be a false "interpretation" by SFT which could perhaps be slander. It seemed to be his own personal view of "what he thought she meant" or "how he felt about it."

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never in my life seen such subjective "feelings" presented as "evidence" at a court hearing.

Given that she is a student it is more powerful perhaps.

Date: May 1, 2004

if you are accurate that ST presented it as his opinion (i didn't listen to the hearings) it pretty well protects him against slander.

Date: May 1, 2004

Iddad

Could be.

But it sure was NOT any semblence of facts.

It was later refuted in the defense round and explained again and refuted by Rachel herself in the newspapers.

Also, Iddad, hard evidence presented Wed afternoon showed that SFT did not tell the truth about "when" Rachel's article referred to in the intercepted email actually came out. ST said it was before but the evidence showed that acutually it was after.

He made quite of few false statements, and I was surprised Keith didn't do a better job.

His "facts" would have fallen apart totally after the defense crossed and presented their witnesses.

SFT was "saved."

Date: May 1, 2004

i'm not disputing anything you say. as i said, i didn't have much opportunity to listen to the hearings. all i'm saying is that saying something is your opinion can pretty well protect you against a claim of slander. i did listen to Stringer's attorney when they got to present their side, and part of what he was doing, in my opinion, was trying to protect Stringer against a defamation claim. Part of what Stringer's attorney did was ask him things like "so in your opinion . . . " that's smart and pretty critical, given it was under oath.

Date: May 1, 2004

The meaning of my original post and the one after that is captured in webster's new "e-mail perverts" entry. This is precisely what Mr. and Mrs. Quinlan have to be upset about.

Date: May 1, 2004

i have a child at USM currently and sending one next year. I understand your point. i'll be working to innoculate them against some issues here.