We’ve had some fun with those freaky deaky Taiwanese animations of the Goracle’s supposed escapade so I want to make sure you see the case for the defense too. Note well: The paper has no actual proof that she failed a polygraph or that the alleged DNA evidence on her slacks doesn’t exist, but that’s what she told them back in 2008 and, er, why would she lie about it when she was trying to get them to cover it? Assuming what she said is correct, I don’t know how the D.A. could possibly build a case against Gore at this point. Although for what it’s worth, there are elements of her story that seem credible:

Five months after first calling the Tribune, Hagerty finally revealed the full extent of her evidence and allegations. In August 2008, she and a female friend came to the Tribune offices to meet with Budnick [the reporter] and the Tribune’s then-managing editor, myself. For the first time, she gave her full account of what happened in the hotel room that night — reading from a lengthy document she had written. The statement was very similar to the written statement she would read to Portland police five months later — in January 2009 — when she told them she wanted to give them the statement she never provided in 2006…

Hagerty said she said nothing to the hotel staff about the alleged assault as she left the hotel that night, but did call a friend in Texas, Greg Boatman, shortly after she got home at 2 a.m. to tell him what had happened. (She later produced cell phone records that indicated she made a call to Texas that night.) She also said she had called the sexual assault hotline with the Portland Women’s Crisis Line within 72 hours of that night. Her cell phone records verified a 13-minute call on Oct. 28, 2006. She provided a document she obtained from the crisis line summarizing their conversation. It does not name Gore, but it does state: “She does not want to involve the police. She says that they won’t do anything because of who he is.”

So her statements were consistent over time. And, as we only recently learned from the Enquirer, Boatman does indeed claim to have received a call from Hagerty after the incident describing what happened. That’s consistent too. As for the polygraph:

After ending her association with Vogt, Hagerty tried to get three other Portland lawyers interested in taking her case — all of whom declined.

Before declining, one of them gave her a polygraph test, which she failed, she said. That fact alone would not have dissuaded the Tribune from publishing the story; polygraph machines detect physiological changes, not lies. Their findings are inadmissible in most courts. And, according to three polygraphers the Tribune contacted, the machines are least reliable when administered to sexual assault victims.

So why didn’t they publish her story? You can watch the video summary below but you’re better off spending five minutes on the Tribune’s article, which lays it out in detail. Not only were they worried about the lie-detector test and lack of physical evidence, but when they called around to people who knew her, some “raised questions about the accuracy of her perceptions.” Then, allegedly, she started trying to limit the paper’s access to them and ended up accusing the reporter, one of her lawyers, and even the polygrapher of variously screaming at her or “bullying” her. She supposedly ended up insisting to the paper that they’d made promises to her about what would be in the story, which, they claim, they never made. That’s when they pulled the plug. Exit question: Between this and the news this morning about the first half of 2010 being the hottest on record, is today total vindication for the Goracle? Click the image to watch.

Tags: Texas