Jerry Jones sued for sexual assault (alleg. in 2009) by ex stripper (1 Viewer)

[Hipple II]

Might belong in the FFA. But with Irsay suspension and the 'conduct detrimental to the league stuff... maybe not

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones sexually assaulted stripper: lawsuit - NY Daily News

Oklahoma woman Jana Weckerly, 27, claims the 71-year-old made her watch another woman give him oral sex, forcibly groped her genitals and then made her sign papers promising to stay quiet. Weckerly claims the assault happened in 2009, and she took pictures that night of Jones in compromising positions with two other women.

 

[OU#1]

Can't wait for TMZ to show these pics so the nation can be shocked with JJ's junk and the NFL can ban him indefinately.

 

[spider321]

If he was in "compromising positions" with 2 other women, good for him.

Other than that, it's her word against his.

 

[Ebaker5]

Statute of limitations are up as well.. nothing more than a cry for attention...

 

[Jerry Curl]

Not to mention she signed a paper saying she wouldn't talk, so throw breech on contract in the mix. If this isn't a money grab, I don't know what is. Not trying to be insensitive, but if your occupation is a stripper and you claim sexual assault for being forced to watch a sex act, I'm calling BS. She takes pictures of those same offensive sex acts then stays quiet for years? While I do not have all the facts and reserve the right to change my opinion, this is a nothing story based of the simple facts. When the more complicated facts come out, that might change.

I know some people have to make a living as a stripper and feel they deserve respect because they are still human beings, however being in that industry, I have to take how offended you are by sex acts with a grain of salt. Not saying that if he groped her he was OK in doing so, no person shall ever be touched inappropriately, but I will not just ever take a strippers word for it 5 years after the fact based on of my own experiences with them.

Saw this last line in the story and wanted to bold it. "A traumatized Weckerly is reportedly in counseling and taking medication after the incident, her lawyer said."

 

[Texican]

She seems like a good wholesome girl.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/08/08/sports/jana-weckerly-nude-photos-jenna-jayde-oklahoma/

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I thought there was a legal privilege here like that between Priest/Penitente, and Husband/Wife. You know the well recognized Stripper/Customer privilege. I thought they could not testify against you unless you waived the privilege.

 

[Sinn Fein]

They should force him to sell the team imo.

Terrible message to send for an owner to treat women like this.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

dats y u gotta knock dem #####es out!

 

[Bruce Hammond]

I hope the defense Jerry puts together off the field is better than the one he put together on the field.

 

[Rubi]

I hope the defense Jerry puts together off the field is better than the one he put together on the field.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If you combine how this will be ignored with how they handled Irsay, it really sets a bad example of a double standard.

 

[Milkman]

I love how Cowboy fans are coming in here and demanding the NFL makes Jerry sell the team. They see a decade of darkness coming with Jerry running the show.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Righhhttt, because Jerry is the only old man with wrinkly, dangling berries that she's ever seen walk into her strip club...

 

[steveski]

Jerry (not quite Sandusky) Jones

 

[chinawildman]

ew

 

[Godsbrother]

She seems like a good wholesome girl.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/08/08/sports/jana-weckerly-nude-photos-jenna-jayde-oklahoma/

She was sweet and innocent until she saw Jerry's junk.

 

[B-Deep]

I think selling the team is the only option at this point

 

[oswizzle]

Big Jerry bought Michael Sam over to deter this media heat....

Boom goes the Dynamite

 

[fatness]

I hope the defense Jerry puts together off the field is better than the one he put together on the field.

Pretty sure this is his defense.

 

[sho nuff]

I predict a bunch of over the top responses having to do with Goodell and his handling of things like Ray Rice.

 

[Adam Harstad]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

 

[FlapJacks]

"money grab"

 

[Dr. Octopus]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

Well their "relationship" likely arises out of the fact that she was a stripper,

 

[Warpig]

Yuck. Surely his money can find better "talent" than that. He must have been out of his mind on prescription meds and alcohol to throw money at her. Or is that Jim Irsay?

 

[Adam Harstad]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

Well their "relationship" likely arises out of the fact that she was a stripper,

And if she had been a CPA, their "relationship" likely would have arisen out of the fact that she was an accountant. And news outlets still wouldn't be putting her profession in the title or lede paragraphs. They'd report it in the body paragraphs, along with all of the other relevant details to the assault itself.

That's actually a pretty good test. Replace the words "stripper", "prostitute", or "porn star" with "CPA" in any article. If you're asking yourself "why are they telling me she's a CPA right now? What does that have to do with anything?", then her profession is irrelevant to the story at that point. "Jerry Jones hired Weckerly as a stripper" works fine. "Weckerly, a stripper, alleges Jerry Jones assaulted her" does not.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

 

[FlapJacks]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

Well their "relationship" likely arises out of the fact that she was a stripper,

And if she had been a CPA, their "relationship" likely would have arisen out of the fact that she was an accountant. And news outlets still wouldn't be putting her profession in the title or lede paragraphs. They'd report it in the body paragraphs, along with all of the other relevant details to the assault itself.

That's actually a pretty good test. Replace the words "stripper", "prostitute", or "porn star" with "CPA" in any article. If you're asking yourself "why are they telling me she's a CPA right now? What does that have to do with anything?", then her profession is irrelevant to the story at that point. "Jerry Jones hired Weckerly as a stripper" works fine. "Weckerly, a stripper, alleges Jerry Jones assaulted her" does not.

If they had worked as his former accountant instead, I'm guessing that it would be in the headline...

 

[TheFanatic]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

Well their "relationship" likely arises out of the fact that she was a stripper,

And if she had been a CPA, their "relationship" likely would have arisen out of the fact that she was an accountant. And news outlets still wouldn't be putting her profession in the title or lede paragraphs. They'd report it in the body paragraphs, along with all of the other relevant details to the assault itself.

That's actually a pretty good test. Replace the words "stripper", "prostitute", or "porn star" with "CPA" in any article. If you're asking yourself "why are they telling me she's a CPA right now? What does that have to do with anything?", then her profession is irrelevant to the story at that point. "Jerry Jones hired Weckerly as a stripper" works fine. "Weckerly, a stripper, alleges Jerry Jones assaulted her" does not.

Actually, I think if she was his CPA and that's how this arose, then I can see them listing that. But I get your point. If she was a VP of IT that met Jerry at a social affair, her profession would probably not be mentioned.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There was another thread on this, maybe in FFA, when the pics came out.

I think what is outrageous here is that it's the Cowboys' GM who is out carousing, having a good time, nailing the strippers, when he should be working to make his football team better. Let JJ the owner do whatever the he11 he damn well pleases with the tail, but if I was a Cowboys fan (actually, hate them) I'd be pretty pissed my GM was out getting tanked and showing up for draft day like some loaded FF owner with his magazine and cheat sheets reaching for guards and QB's by pulling names out his butt.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

 

[Modog814]

For once, I would love to see some report of a crime against a sex worker that doesn't make double-extra-super-sure to include the early caveat that, no worries, she was just a sex worker.

Just some examples:

Former exotic dancer files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault; his attorney calls allegations ‘completely false’

Would you ever see that headline read "Former bus driver files suit accusing Jerry Jones of sexual assault"? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the headline and there's no reason for it to be included.

USA Today gets the headline right, but in the second paragraph writes: "Jana Weckerly, a former stripper, said Jones assaulted her in May or June 2009 and conspired with the Cowboys to cover up the alleged incident, according to the lawsuit filed late Monday night in Dallas County, Texas." Do you think they ever would have written the sentence "Jana Weckerly, a former CPA, said Jones assaulted her..."? No? Then her employment history is 100% irrelevant to the story here and there's no reason for it to be included.

I'm not saying you can't mention that she's a former stripper. If the assault occurred in a situation that arose from her occupation, then it is a relevant detail to the story and should be reported at that time. If Jerry Jones had assaulted a hairdresser while she was cutting his hair, then her occupation is relevant and I would expect it to be included at the same time as all the other relevant background details of the time of the assault. But Weckerly's former occupation is being included in the title and lede paragraphs of every one of these articles, removed from all the other details of the night (and, in some cases, in articles that don't present any other details of the night). That's not okay. The purpose of it is to reassure the reader that, sure, Jerry Jones is accused of doing this really awful thing... but it was only against a sex worker. It's not like it was against someone who mattered and/or didn't deserve it.

Well their "relationship" likely arises out of the fact that she was a stripper,

And if she had been a CPA, their "relationship" likely would have arisen out of the fact that she was an accountant. And news outlets still wouldn't be putting her profession in the title or lede paragraphs. They'd report it in the body paragraphs, along with all of the other relevant details to the assault itself.

That's actually a pretty good test. Replace the words "stripper", "prostitute", or "porn star" with "CPA" in any article. If you're asking yourself "why are they telling me she's a CPA right now? What does that have to do with anything?", then her profession is irrelevant to the story at that point. "Jerry Jones hired Weckerly as a stripper" works fine. "Weckerly, a stripper, alleges Jerry Jones assaulted her" does not.

News outlets are in the business of selling papers, getting ratings or clicks. Sex sells...period. By adding "former stripper" to the title gets one more paper sold than its worth it to them. Not saying it's okay, just the way it is.

 

[spider321]

I hope the defense Jerry puts together off the field is better than the one he put together on the field.

Pretty sure this is his defense.

Watched the whole thing....best video EVAR!!!

 

[TheFanatic]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

Alleged my friend. Neither of the other two women are coming forward. So far this is the word of someone who has said nothing since 2009. No matter what her former profession, this is shaky at best. Neither of those two women in the photographs looked like they were too upset about Jerry groping one and the other having her face in his crotch, so to take this on someone's word alone who is seeking damages is pretty naive. Maybe, let this play out a little and see where the facts fall before getting all worked up.

Again, this has nothing to do with her profession. It has to do with waiting 5 years and in the pictures I see, nobody is being forced to do anything.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

You're wildly trivializing his denial. Why are you saying "when" he violated an exotic dancer? You were there? You know it happened like she said?

She's not even sure what month it occurred. She claims she was "bullied" into signing a confidentiality agreement. Did she get money for that? Did she spend that money? Did she come back and ask for more before going public? How did he "force" her to watch someone give him oral sex? Why is she coming forward half a decade later?

I appreciate that you don't want her dismissed because she was a stripper. But you're going too far on the other side, assuming he's guilty. And yes, it's appropriate to mention she was a stripper. It's likely how they met, and how they came to be in a situation where sexual events were occurring and money was exchanged. If Jerry Jones was guilty of fudging the Cowboys numbers on a balance sheet, I'd expect every story involving the woman would mention she was a CPA.

I'm not saying she's lying, but I'm not assuming he is.

 

[G-King]

Hey as a fan of the Cowboys I feel her pain. JJ has been forcibly sexually assaulting all of us since the day he fired Jimmy. Where's my money?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations ....

Yes. Of course I am. I'm not alleging that either incident actually occurred, counselor. It's a hypothetical to see where you stand with your argument. You didn't answer my question.

 

[Spike]

She seems like a good wholesome girl.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/08/08/sports/jana-weckerly-nude-photos-jenna-jayde-oklahoma/

Since she is trying to extort him and disgrace his name while disclosing info under the stripper/customer confidentiality agreement, is this grounds where you can punch her... if its not caught on tape?

You went there? Really?

 

[Adam Harstad]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

Alleged my friend. Neither of the other two women are coming forward. So far this is the word of someone who has said nothing since 2009. No matter what her former profession, this is shaky at best. Neither of those two women in the photographs looked like they were too upset about Jerry groping one and the other having her face in his crotch, so to take this on someone's word alone who is seeking damages is pretty naive. Maybe, let this play out a little and see where the facts fall before getting all worked up.

Again, this has nothing to do with her profession. It has to do with waiting 5 years and in the pictures I see, nobody is being forced to do anything.

Yes, alleged. I don't get the call-out. I said alleged in my post. Twice, in fact. You were good enough to bold one of them. I also called them "accusations". At this time, the allegations leveled against Jerry Jones are precisely that- allegations.

I'm not litigating the truth of the allegations here, I am saying that the woman's profession is irrelevant to them. They do not boil down to getting a little handsy in the champagne room. They boil down to very serious sexual assault. And yes, very serious sexual assault is just as bad when perpetuated against a stripper as it is when perpetuated against an accountant.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

You're wildly trivializing his denial. Why are you saying "when" he violated an exotic dancer? You were there? You know it happened like she said?

She's not even sure what month it occurred. She claims she was "bullied" into signing a confidentiality agreement. Did she get money for that? Did she spend that money? Did she come back and ask for more before going public? How did he "force" her to watch someone give him oral sex? Why is she coming forward half a decade later?

I appreciate that you don't want her dismissed because she was a stripper. But you're going too far on the other side, assuming he's guilty. And yes, it's appropriate to mention she was a stripper. It's likely how they met, and how they came to be in a situation where sexual events were occurring and money was exchanged. If Jerry Jones was guilty of fudging the Cowboys numbers on a balance sheet, I'd expect every story involving the woman would mention she was a CPA.

I'm not saying she's lying, but I'm not assuming he is.

Again, I said "allegedly" twice and clearly labeled them as accusations. The post was plastered with clarifications and disclaimers. I'm not trivializing Jones' denial or bulldozing over it. The legal system exists to get to the bottom of cases like this, and I have no desire to supercede it. I'm merely calling out the horrible, biased, unfair, and dismissive manner in which this is being reported by the media. Although for the sake of absolute accuracy, the word "that" in the final sentence of my post should probably be "if", instead, to make it clear that I'm posing a hypothetical (meant to juxtapose against the hypothetical of whether Ray Rice was drinking- honestly, I don't know one way or another if he was, I merely meant to illustrate that the hypothetical presence of alcohol would hardly be exculpatory in one case, and it shouldn't be in the other, either).

The problem, as I say, isn't that the stories mention that the woman used to be a stripper. That is a relevant detail, to be sure. It's how they mention it that is inappropriate- in a context where it doesn't belong, as a tool to sensationalize the story or trivialize the allegations. Again, replace "stripper" with "CPA" in all of these stories and it becomes clear that they're shoehorning it in where it does not belong.

 

[TheFanatic]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

Alleged my friend. Neither of the other two women are coming forward. So far this is the word of someone who has said nothing since 2009. No matter what her former profession, this is shaky at best. Neither of those two women in the photographs looked like they were too upset about Jerry groping one and the other having her face in his crotch, so to take this on someone's word alone who is seeking damages is pretty naive. Maybe, let this play out a little and see where the facts fall before getting all worked up.

Again, this has nothing to do with her profession. It has to do with waiting 5 years and in the pictures I see, nobody is being forced to do anything.

Yes, alleged. I don't get the call-out. I said alleged in my post. Twice, in fact. You were good enough to bold one of them. I also called them "accusations". At this time, the allegations leveled against Jerry Jones are precisely that- allegations.

I'm not litigating the truth of the allegations here, I am saying that the woman's profession is irrelevant to them. They do not boil down to getting a little handsy in the champagne room. They boil down to very serious sexual assault. And yes, very serious sexual assault is just as bad when perpetuated against a stripper as it is when perpetuated against an accountant.

Let's back the truck up here. Our victim here that you are so ardently defending, was not sexually assaulted. She claims to have been "forced to watch someone else service Jerry Jones." Last I checked, that's really hard to do. Because if she doesn't want to watch something, she merely has to close her eyes.

You don't like the fact that the media is muck raking here and adding more sizzle to the story because she's an ex stripper. But didn't she start it by throwing these BS accusations out there? She claims she's still traumatized and taking medication 5 years later for something she was "forced to watch?" Close your eyes, honey.

The only person that has been victimized here is Jerry Jones' wife. She was victimized when Jerry paid for some oral and again when this chick who saw it happen and took some pics that night decided to try to dip her hand in the Cowboys till.

I sort of get it. I would be traumatized too to see Jerry Jones getting serviced, but then again, I'm not an ex stripper who probably saw that stuff nightly.

Sorry, couldn't resist that last one. I kid, I kid...

 

[Adam Harstad]

Let's back the truck up here. Our victim here that you are so ardently defending, was not sexually assaulted. She claims to have been "forced to watch someone else service Jerry Jones." Last I checked, that's really hard to do. Because if she doesn't want to watch something, she merely has to close her eyes.

You don't like the fact that the media is muck raking here and adding more sizzle to the story because she's an ex stripper. But didn't she start it by throwing these BS accusations out there? She claims she's still traumatized and taking medication 5 years later for something she was "forced to watch?" Close your eyes, honey.

She *WAS* sexually assaulted, according to her allegations.

"Jana Weckerly, 27, from Ardmore, Okla., said Jones fondled her genitals, forced her to touch or rub his penis, and required her to watch as the then 66-year-old received oral sex from another woman."

You are saying that one of those allegations does not rise to the level of sexual assault. That's something we could debate (and I would be genuinely glad to discuss it further via PM, if you are interested). Fortunately, the debate is not necessary because there are two other accusations there. Surely we can agree that the other two allegations, at the very least, rise to the level of "sexual assault". Fondling a woman's genitals without her permission and forcing her to touch or rub your own genitals against her will are 100% black-and-white, plain-as-day sexual assault. Right?

Secondly, you seemed quite upset when you thought that I was believing the woman's side of the story and completely ignoring Jerry's, yet you see to be quite happy believing Jerry's side of the story and completely disregarding the woman's. The legal system is in place to get to the bottom of he-said, she-said situations like this. It's possible Jana Weckerly is lying in search of fame and fortune. It's possible she's telling the truth. Both possibilities are irrelevant to my serious concerns with the way the story is being covered in the media.

 

[rockaction]

Not to mention she signed a paper saying she wouldn't talk, so throw breech on contract in the mix. If this isn't a money grab, I don't know what is. Not trying to be insensitive, but if your occupation is a stripper and you claim sexual assault for being forced to watch a sex act, I'm calling BS. She takes pictures of those same offensive sex acts then stays quiet for years? While I do not have all the facts and reserve the right to change my opinion, this is a nothing story based of the simple facts. When the more complicated facts come out, that might change.

I know some people have to make a living as a stripper and feel they deserve respect because they are still human beings, however being in that industry, I have to take how offended you are by sex acts with a grain of salt. Not saying that if he groped her he was OK in doing so, no person shall ever be touched inappropriately, but I will not just ever take a strippers word for it 5 years after the fact based on of my own experiences with them.

Saw this last line in the story and wanted to bold it. "A traumatized Weckerly is reportedly in counseling and taking medication after the incident, her lawyer said."

If a stripper says "Look up!" look down. I've spent my time with them, and they are, generally speaking, thieves.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Video or it didn't happen. [/Reddit /NFL]

 

[TheFanatic]

Let's back the truck up here. Our victim here that you are so ardently defending, was not sexually assaulted. She claims to have been "forced to watch someone else service Jerry Jones." Last I checked, that's really hard to do. Because if she doesn't want to watch something, she merely has to close her eyes.

You don't like the fact that the media is muck raking here and adding more sizzle to the story because she's an ex stripper. But didn't she start it by throwing these BS accusations out there? She claims she's still traumatized and taking medication 5 years later for something she was "forced to watch?" Close your eyes, honey.

She *WAS* sexually assaulted, according to her allegations.

"Jana Weckerly, 27, from Ardmore, Okla., said Jones fondled her genitals, forced her to touch or rub his penis, and required her to watch as the then 66-year-old received oral sex from another woman."

You are saying that one of those allegations does not rise to the level of sexual assault. That's something we could debate (and I would be genuinely glad to discuss it further via PM, if you are interested). Fortunately, the debate is not necessary because there are two other accusations there. Surely we can agree that the other two allegations, at the very least, rise to the level of "sexual assault". Fondling a woman's genitals without her permission and forcing her to touch or rub your own genitals against her will are 100% black-and-white, plain-as-day sexual assault. Right?

Secondly, you seemed quite upset when you thought that I was believing the woman's side of the story and completely ignoring Jerry's, yet you see to be quite happy believing Jerry's side of the story and completely disregarding the woman's. The legal system is in place to get to the bottom of he-said, she-said situations like this. It's possible Jana Weckerly is lying in search of fame and fortune. It's possible she's telling the truth. Both possibilities are irrelevant to my serious concerns with the way the story is being covered in the media.

Yeah, you are correct. I forgot about the other two allegations made. Yes, those are definitely sexual assaults if unwarranted. But the forced to watch thing is just a lawyer piling it on to try to make it look like more than it is. Unless someone held her head in place and pinned her eye lids open, I'm not buying that there is any trauma from that. There's no debate there. There's an agreement to disagree.

I'm guessing this chick threatened Jerry to release the pictures for some cash. He said no and so the charges came about. And I wouldn't care if she was a kindergarten teacher. The timing of this is what makes me wonder of the validity.

 

[Gargoylez]

Anyone have Bon Jovi's number? I am sure he would be willing to buy the team... then move them to Toronto.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey as a fan of the Cowboys I feel her pain. JJ has been forcibly sexually assaulting all of us since the day he fired Jimmy. Where's my money?

You're due a refund at least.

 

[cstu]

So SSOG, in your eyes these are the same level of transgression?

1. Old man goes into an office for an audit and in the middle of the meeting he reaches for a handful of CPA vaj

2. Drunk Old man is getting dryhumped by a drunk whooah in the VIP room of a strip club, and he gropes her.

Of course context matters. It almost always does.

Neither is what is alleged to happen and you're wildly trivializing the accusations. This isn't a case where Jerry Jones' hands just strayed two inches past the line for a few seconds. Jones is alleged to have forced the woman to participate in actual, honest-to-goodness sex acts with him. Agreeing to take your clothes off is not the same as agreeing to give a handjob, and forcing a woman to rub your genitals isn't suddenly cool just because she's a stripper. "No, stop" doesn't suddenly mean "you know, I'd really rather not, but whatever" just because someone has taken her clothes off. Strippers have every bit as much right to not be sexually assaulted as CPAs, and alcohol is not partially exculpatory. Nobody cares whether Rice was drinking when he cold-cocked his wife. Nobody should care that Jones was drunk when he violated an exotic dancer.

Jerry is a billionaire, he doesn't have to 'force' a stripper to commit a sex act.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Jerry is a billionaire, he doesn't have to 'force' a stripper to commit a sex act.

The question of whether he "has to" and whether he "did" are two dramatically different things. Darren Sharper is a millionaire who had a Hall-of-Fame-caliber career and a gig on national television. He didn't "have to" use drugs and rape to have sex with women. Which is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether he did drug and rape women.

This woman alleges that Jerry Jones sexually assaulted her. Whether Jerry Jones is rich enough that he could have gotten it on with different women without resorting to sexual assault is irrelevant to the allegations. More broadly, the idea that rich people or famous people are incapable of committing sexual assault against a stripper is pernicious and untrue.