<p>
</p>
<p>That was an allegation that it was a cameraman and I’ve not seen anything to indicate that the jury found that was the case. If it was and, she didn’t react, the jury would have been within its bounds to believe that the lack of any adverse reaction when part of the taping crew pulled the top down was implied consent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The jury could believe what they saw (no reaction.–implying consent) and not her testimony in support of a $5 million damage suit. That happens all the time in trials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No problem Pea. I posted the link to the video of the Fox News coverage because it had two sides and the most favorable side to the plaintiff was of the opinion that the plaintiff’s case was weak.</p>
<p>I wasn’t clear from watching and listening whether the clip was from the video segment or from the tape, but not used. </p>
<p>Unless and until the entire tape of the plaintiff makes its way on the Internet or more likely is released on CD/DVD for a price at a cost by Mantra due to the notoriety, it would be hard to make a call. </p>
<p>This really is a CC hot button case, isn’t it?</p>