(August 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 3, 2010 at 10:12 am)Minimalist Wrote:I don't see that. I see a person who now has responsibilities embarrassed by illegal imagery of her existing in the public domain.Quote:Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband's reported that she was in one of the videos.
So she was embarrassed that this came out and tried to cash in on the deal. For whatever reason, the jury did not buy her story.
Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."