Woman Appeals Sexual Assault Case

Another golddigger! If the judge said he didnt do it then he didnt do it. The girl should be in jail and her lawyer!

"He said, she said" cases are always difficult to decide and more than one woman has decided it was rape the morning after, or after a subsequent disagrement. BUT,something about this case smells like rotten fish. Does anybody know of another case where a plaintiff has had to pay the defendants fees like this?

This is a true case of the media putting a “spin� on cases and not reporting facts in cases. Without knowing more about this case, I certainly would have been outraged that this women’s voice was not heard. For those who have followed this case, we all know that this was just a simple case of blackmail in which Mr. Day did not surrender. If you read the facts, there was absolutely no evidence what so ever.
For example, "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court."
- Lacerations do not prove rape when there is a 0.5mm cut near you anus in which the plaintiff herself said in all probability came from shaving. Also, virgins are not the only ones who are allowed to bring sexual battery cases to civil court. For civil cases, the plaintiff does have to testify about her past sexual history which hurt Miss Ross in several ways. First, she had an extensive past sexual history and secondly, Mr. Day and Miss Ross had recently broken up after being in a relationship for several months. The judge ordering payment of attorney fees, further to the defendant just proves the frivolous nature of this case.
Frivolous cases such as these truly hurt those women who were sexually assaulted.

This is a true case of the media putting a “spin” on cases and not reporting facts in cases. Without knowing more about this case, I certainly would have been outraged that this women’s voice was not heard. For those who have followed this case, we all know that this was just a simple case of blackmail in which Mr. Day did not surrender. If you read the facts, there was absolutely no evidence what so ever.
For example, "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court."
- Lacerations do not prove rape when there is a 0.5mm cut near you anus in which the plaintiff herself said in all probability came from shaving. Also, virgins are not the only ones who are allowed to bring sexual battery cases to civil court. For civil cases, the plaintiff does have to testify about her past sexual history which hurt Miss Ross in several ways. First, she had an extensive past sexual history and secondly, Mr. Day and Miss Ross had recently broken up after being in a relationship for several months. The judge ordering payment of attorney fees, further to the defendant just proves the frivolous nature of this case.
Frivolous cases such as these truly hurt those women who were sexually assaulted.

This is funny. I'm the guy they're talking about and they didn't bother contacting me. Well, let me clear a few things up that Ms. Farahany failed to mention. First of all, Melanie was my girlfriend. Second, Melanie is the same girl who thought that Jimmy Carter was an actor. With the immature stuff out of the way, let me give you the full story about what has happened the past three years with this case. First of all, women involved in CIVIL lawsuits DO have to disclose their sexual histories. That's the law. The only people protected are those involved in CRIMINAL cases. Think about it. Imagine a girl with numerous sexual partners sleeping with an exboyfriend, getting mad at him for not calling her back, and then files a lawsuit a year and a half later for sexual assault. Should she disclose her sexual relationships? Absolutely. Another point I'd like to make (that Ms. Farahany also forgot to mention) is that she has lost every single battle in this case. She expected me to settle out of court, but panicked when she realized that my family sticks together and wont be bullied by professional extortionists. She was constantly late filing documents and constantly failed to show up to court. The only reason you are hearing about this story is because Ms. Farahany and Melanie Ross are desperate to have the attorney fee ruling overturned. While this story makes me out to be the bad guy, please understand that I have yet to have my voice heard and you are only being shown one side to this story. Let's face it, the only reason this is news is because Amanda Farahany made it news. She put an angle on the story to make her and Ms. Ross look like victims. Believe me, it's the other way around. When this story first hit papers in January of 2005, I couldn't walk to class without having a panic attack. Because of an exgirlfriend's accusation, people thought of me as the guy who sexually assaulted a girl. In the fall of that year, fraternities on campus made photocopies of the AJC article and handed them out to freshmen, solely so they could have a bigger pledge class.

Please, give me a chance to tell my side of the story. If the media is supposed to be fair and balanced, then this is their shot to prove it.

This is a true case of the media putting a “spin” on cases and not reporting hard facts. Without knowing more about this case, I certainly would have been outraged that this women’s voice was not heard. For those who have followed this case, it is clear that this was just a simple case of blackmail in which Mr. Day did not surrender. If you read the facts, there was absolutely no evidence what so ever.
For example, "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court."
- Lacerations do not prove rape when there is a 0.5mm cut near you anus in which the plaintiff herself said in all probability came from shaving. Also, virgins are not the only ones who are allowed to bring sexual battery cases to civil court. For civil cases, the plaintiff does have to testify about her past sexual history which hurt Miss Ross in several ways. First, she had an extensive past sexual history and secondly, Mr. Day and Miss Ross had recently broken up after being in a relationship for several months. The judge ordering payment of attorney fees, further to the defendant just proves the frivolous nature of this case.
Frivolous cases such as these truly hurt those women who were sexually assaulted.

Daniel Day wrote:

This is funny. I'm the guy they're talking about and they didn't bother contacting me. Well, let me clear a few things up that Ms. Farahany failed to mention. First of all, Melanie was my girlfriend. Second, Melanie is the same girl who thought that Jimmy Carter was an actor. With the immature stuff out of the way, let me give you the full story about what has happened the past three years with this case. First of all, women involved in CIVIL lawsuits DO have to disclose their sexual histories. That's the law. The only people protected are those involved in CRIMINAL cases. Think about it. Imagine a girl with numerous sexual partners sleeping with an exboyfriend, getting mad at him for not calling her back, and then files a lawsuit a year and a half later for sexual assault. Should she disclose her sexual relationships? Absolutely. Another point I'd like to make (that Ms. Farahany also forgot to mention) is that she has lost every single battle in this case. She expected me to settle out of court, but panicked when she realized that my family sticks together and wont be bullied by professional extortionists. She was constantly late filing documents and constantly failed to show up to court. The only reason you are hearing about this story is because Ms. Farahany and Melanie Ross are desperate to have the attorney fee ruling overturned. While this story makes me out to be the bad guy, please understand that I have yet to have my voice heard and you are only being shown one side to this story. Let's face it, the only reason this is news is because Amanda Farahany made it news. She put an angle on the story to make her and Ms. Ross look like victims. Believe me, it's the other way around. When this story first hit papers in January of 2005, I couldn't walk to class without having a panic attack. Because of an exgirlfriend's accusation, people thought of me as the guy who sexually assaulted a girl. In the fall of that year, fraternities on campus made photocopies of the AJC article and handed them out to freshmen, solely so they could have a bigger pledge class.
Please, give me a chance to tell my side of the story. If the media is supposed to be fair and balanced, then this is their shot to prove it.

well said and good for you, thank goodness for a balanced legal system, for the news however, they only are interested in making headlines, had your name been less famous would it have made the news at all?

These are always tough cases. It gets down to He says vs She says.

But, this lady's past sexual experiences should have no bearing on what happened that night.

It is because of cases like this that women keep sexual assault to themselves and do not tell anyone. Because this predator is from a wealthy family who has an ancestral history of accomplishment, he is revered as someone great. Miss Ross would not be exposing her life history to gain meaningless money. This is about right and wrong and violation of a young lady's being. Just goes to show you how money is more important than people in this day and time. What a travesty of justice.

Suzy Cato wrote:

It is because of cases like this that women keep sexual assault to themselves and do not tell anyone. Because this predator is from a wealthy family who has an ancestral history of accomplishment, he is revered as someone great. Miss Ross would not be exposing her life history to gain meaningless money. This is about right and wrong and violation of a young lady's being. Just goes to show you how money is more important than people in this day and time. What a travesty of justice.

I believe you are exactly right.

Just because she said she was raped, does't mean it happened. Haven't we heard of cases where the woman said she was raped and in fact she was not? Of course she has a right to be heard, however if it is proven in court that she was not raped then why should the man have to pay attorney fees for something he did not do? I do agree however that her past sexual encounters have nothing do do with this case. Only the two of them really know what happened. Pray the truth comes out. "Rednecks"??? You actually made that comment?

The "victim" was the "attacker's" girlfriend. The "sexual assault" took place at Daniel's fraternity house according to the story. What was she doing there if she did not want to be around him? She "admitted" the laceration near her anus was probably from shaving. Who shaves their anus except for sexual purposes??? Even though I did not follow this story from start to finish, I think her story was shaky from the beginning and I have a hard time giving her much credibility. I am not unsympathetic because I assaulted by a stranger (who turned out to be on parole) in 1984. To this woman I would say don't cry wolf just because you have a axe to bury. The true travesty of justice is that you dare to muddy the waters for those victims who have a real voice to be heard.

God intended for sex to between a MAN and a WOMAN who are MARRIED. There is never any other time when it is OK.

Look at some of the consequences: rape, STD's, unplanned pregnancy, etc...

God's a lot smarter than we are. Why don't we listen to Him?

Jim in North GA wrote:

"He said, she said" cases are always difficult to decide and more than one woman has decided it was rape the morning after, or after a subsequent disagrement. BUT,something about this case smells like rotten fish. Does anybody know of another case where a plaintiff has had to pay the defendants fees like this?

No but I think it is a good thing because it will stop crazy civil litigation that is meritless.

Suzy Cato wrote:

It is because of cases like this that women keep sexual assault to themselves and do not tell anyone. Because this predator is from a wealthy family who has an ancestral history of accomplishment, he is revered as someone great. Miss Ross would not be exposing her life history to gain meaningless money. This is about right and wrong and violation of a young lady's being. Just goes to show you how money is more important than people in this day and time. What a travesty of justice.

You sound like another gold digger spurned yourself.

Good for her! Regardless of what a woman's past history may be, that doesn't give any man the right to "rape" her.

LBAtl wrote:

Good for her! Regardless of what a woman's past history may be, that doesn't give any man the right to "rape" her.

So I suppose you have seen all the evidence that a grand jury did not feel was adequate to charge this man for rape but have come to a different conclusion? You hatred and bias against men is very apparent. Not every woman who say she is raped was raped and some of these women may see dollar signs especially when they see their possible marriage to a rich man going down the drain. It is too easy to ruin a person with these type of allegation. I would have hoped a lesson would have been learned from the alleged "Duke Rape Case". That was the same issue and those guys were put through hell because of a lie just like this one.
If you hate men so much then stay away from them.... no problem.

LBAtl wrote:

Good for her! Regardless of what a woman's past history may be, that doesn't give any man the right to "rape" her.

You're exactly right! But who said she was raped? If I have my facts correct, the court ruled against her, so much, in fact, that the judge thought the case to be so frivolous as to make her pay for her accusations--up to $150,000! Maybe you should get your facts straight before giving your opinion.

Ms. Farahany, the young lady's attourney has a long history of these types of suits. She has failed in numerous instances to extort money not just from young men, but also their respective fraterities and universities. This can be verified via public records. This type of money hungry attourney should be disbarred forever. Ironically, she attempted to sue Mercer University, a school she was kicked out of for possesing LSD!!!! Wow. Good Luck Mr. Day, I will keep you in my prayers and hope you are vindicated in all of this.