i read the article twice and fail to find where it says they knew they guy was stalking her...
Posted on 03/07/2016 3:27:31 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
A jury awarded $55 million to Fox Sports reporter Erin Andrews in her lawsuit against a Nashville Marriott hotel on Monday.
Andrews sued the hotel alleging it acted negligently when allowing a man who was stalking her to book the room next to hers and surreptitiously film nude videos of her in 2008 while she worked for ESPN. The stalker, Michael David Barrett, posted the videos online and pleaded guilty to stalking charges, for which he was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at si.com ...
Not sure but I think the perp was able to check in to the room next door and then drill holes in the wall for surveillance cameras or some such.
ESPN would have a rooming list and he’d have to provide credentials.
i read the article twice and fail to find where it says they knew they guy was stalking her...
I understand her privacy was violated, and I wouldn't want it to happen to me, but how did it damage her career ? It's not like she willingly made porn videos or something.
There is a link earlier in the thread that gives more details.
Apparently he learned (through observation of hotel employees who were up to no good) that one could take out the peephole on the door of the hotel room, and modify it so one can see directly in (remove the fish eye lens). How he was able to remove it while she was in the room, go modify it, then come back and replace it, and then get videos of her, still mystifies me.
But... that's like car thieves. There are people who can unlock a car, and somehow manipulate the ignition to start the car and escape with it. I guess it takes some real skill.
BTW, the scenes in movies where they lean under the dash, quickly pull a bunch of wires out about 1 or 2 feet, then suddenly there are two bare wires they touch together and.... the car starts are completely bogus.
I believe the focus of the argument is that:
(1) The 'staff' told an unidentified/unknown caller that she was there, and what room she was in.
(2) The 'staff' booked him a room right next to hers.
(3) The 'staff' had been modifying the peepholes for their own devious purposes, which is where he learned how to do it.
is that in the article someplace? or is that from some other source??? like i said, i read the article twice before posting and don't see what made them liable...
Try this.
Link provided by NASCARNATION in post 33.
I had a difficult time understanding why they should be held liable myself. I found it ‘iffy’ at first, but it seems the hotel staff was pretty ‘loose’ with info and some of the staff were up to no good themselves.
Let’s say, If I were on the jury, I would find it a difficult case to decide and probably have to fall back on the side of privacy. The staff should not have been willing to give out information about a guest and especially if the guest is a public figure. They could at least have notified her that this person had requested a room next to her. She could have ‘nipped it in the bud’ if they had. Maybe that is what won her the settlement.
dude... my post was #14!!! and i catch sh!t from people for later posts i never read? i was simply responding to what was written in the article, and it gave NO background as to why the hotel was liable
journalism 101, who what when where and WHY, guess the author skipped the day they taught that 8^)
from that article, i'd say they are on the hook
I was just answering your question. I wasn't intentionally being rude. I was only trying to help you get up to speed because I could see (by the post you replied to) that you were still up in the start of the thread, and the info you needed came after that.
i was simply responding to what was written in the article, and it gave NO background as to why the hotel was liable
I know. That's why I provided the link. I thought it would answer your questions.
journalism 101, who what when where and WHY, guess the author skipped the day they taught that 8^)
Yep.
yeah,and i appreciate that, my post #170 agrees with you that they ARE on the hook for it, i was catching sh!t upthread, didn't mean from you these idiots write articles like EVERYBODY must know what they think they are talking about and hang on their every word
damn
LOLOL!!!! just damn... thx for the first laugh of the day
There are many articles out there on him. He was obsessed. He ran background checks on her, etc.
As far as the hotel not knowing. It does not matter. You obviously do not travel often.
Here’s the skinny. A hotel is not allowed to give anyone your room number. If you come into a hotel and claim to be a family member of Snark, the absolute most they are allowed to do is call my room and tell me “Mr. So and So” is down stairs and wants to talk to me. I can give that person my room number. The hotel can not. This hotel did.
you obviously have a reading comprehension problem... the ARTICLE made NO MENTION of why the hotel is at fault!
i had NO IDEA who the guy was or what he was supposed to have done FROM THE ARTICLE!!!
the WHY part of who what when where and WHY is missing from the ARTICLE
the ARTICLE never said the hotel GAVE the guy her room number
i've been three quarters the way around the world and that doesn't give me a clue as to why the ARTICLE DID NOT mention HOW he got her room number...
is it really that hard to understand???
you could have simply explained to me WHY the hotel was at fault but you chose not to
we're done here
Holy Christ dude! Calm the hell down!!!!
I explained exactly what you asked and you went all Capitlization Screaming.
There is a thing called “Google”. Not all news is on FR, believe it or not. There is also a thing called, research. I tend to do it. You obviously do not.
Obviously, the stupid chick deserved to have nude videos all over the internet because she makes a lot of money. Her life should be ruined by some sick, twisted, pervert. Cause she worked her way up and makes money..... <s
You are right. We are done here. Have another bottle and calm down before you decide to kill a neighbor or something.
G’night....
Oh, and to clarify a bit more;
“ you obviously have a reading comprehension problem” and “you could have simply explained to me WHY the hotel was at fault but you chose not to”
My comment earlier to you was, “Here’s the skinny. A hotel is not allowed to give anyone your room number. If you come into a hotel and claim to be a family member of Snark, the absolute most they are allowed to do is call my room and tell me “Mr. So and So” is down stairs and wants to talk to me. I can give that person my room number. The hotel can not. This hotel did.”
I can not imagine how it could be explained much more clear than that. It is a STANDARD PRACTICE (decided to use all caps like you do.... Maybe that will work?)
OK, maybe I was a little scratchy so let me try again.
My original post was more bitching 90% than a question 10% about how poorly the article was written as there was no WHY in it telling a reader that has no idea who she is or any idea as to what the case was about, me, as to what happened
I never found out how it really happened till I read nascarnation’s post more than 24hours after my first post
Anyway, my bad I shoulda just let it go
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.