Late yesterday (2/12/2016) the second (“copycat”) allegation of sexual assault against Dr. Calvin Day was dismissed. This came as no surprise to those who knew the details of the case because an abundance of evidence appears to indicate that the copycat accuser committed perjury and had a financial motive for making the allegations. Those who have seen the evidence, read the copycat’s testimony, and examined the private investigators’ reports are astonished that Dr. Day was indicted for the copycat’s allegations.
In view of Judge Ron Rangel’s ruling that there was prosecution misconduct in the primary accuser’s case, one questions whether there was malfeasance on the part of the prosecutors in withholding information from the grand jury in the copycat case in order to secure an indictment for purposes of bolstering the primary accuser case.
In preparation for Dr. Day’s anticipated Texas Medical Board Hearing, both the primary accuser and the copycat accuser are the subjects of a continuing investigation for multiple alleged criminal acts. In a recent development the primary accuser is alleged to have fraudulently charged almost $30,000 on the credit card of the wife of her married boyfriend. She is soon to be deposed and apparently will take the 5th on all questions relating to this allegation. Other alleged criminal acts by the primary accuser can be found at http://bit.ly/1mFH4FK .
The copycat accuser is also the subject of a continuing investigation into multiple allegations of criminal acts made by multiple eye witnesses as well as documentary evidence indicating that she appears to have engaged in criminal activities that include the following:
- Allegations by multiple eyewitnesses have that Copycat accuser on multiple occasions, possessed and continues to possess, and used and continues to use controlled substances.
- Allegations in regard to her alleged supplier of controlled substance(s) that a family member was one of her suppliers.
- An allegation that after being convicted of a DWI, that she violated the terms of her probation by driving herself to places prohibited by her occupational driver’s permit.
- An allegation that after being convicted of a DWI, that she violated the terms of her probation by taking medicines to favorably alter a required drug test.
- Multiple allegations that she committed fraudulent actions against a business owner for financial gain.
- The apparent filing of false molestation charges against Dr. Calvin Day in an apparent “money play”. Here is a partial list of the compelling evidence accumulated thus far against Copycat accuser that indicates that Copycat accuser appears to have committed perjury:
- There was an eyewitness medical assistant who testified that she was in the exam room the entire time with Copycat accuser on the date of the alleged molestation and that the alleged molestation did not occur.
- Copycat accuser admitted that she returned to see Dr. Day for an office visit after the alleged molestation. Returning for a doctor visit after the alleged molestation is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Copycat accuser made up this story.
- The copycat accuser testified that Dr. Day called her personal cell phone 3 to four times within 4 weeks after the alleged molestation, yet no such calls were found in the phone records.
- The copycat accuser did not file her complaint against Dr. Day at or near the time that she alleged it occurred. Instead, she filed her claim a year and a half after the alleged event. Copycat accuser’s complaint came in classic “copycat” fashion, on the heels of a carefully choreographed negative media event wherein Dr. Day was made to appear guilty as he was paraded in handcuffs in front of 900,000 television viewers accompanied by solicitations from police spokespersons that there were “other women” when in fact there were no other allegations at the time that these solicitations were made. Copycat accuser appears to have tailored her complaint to attempt to match the primary accuser’s complaint.
- In addition to the all of the aforementioned evidence, copycat accuser appeared to be untruthful in two prior public hearings on the matter because cross examination revealed multiple inconsistencies that included but are not limited to the following:
- Initially telling police that the molestation occurred at the beginning of the office visit with her staying for her treatment, but in subsequent statements and testimonies moving the allegation to the end of the office visit, apparently, after being advised that staying in the room for treatment afterwards made her fabrication less believable.
- changing what she wore from a “skirt” to a “skort” after Dr. Day’s employees testified that Copycat accuser had expressed an interest in dating Dr. Day and on a subsequent visit sat in manner that exposed her panty area and refused a blanket that was offered to cover herself,
- first giving a specific alleged date of the molestation and then repeatedly saying that she could not remember the date (surely someone who was truly molested would remember not only the date but the time down to minute and second that it happened),
- first giving police a specific telephone number that she alleged Dr. Day called, then when there were no calls found to the first number, giving them a second number, then when there were no calls found to the second cell number, stating that she had multiple cell phones and could not remember all of the numbers,
- In addition to the above referenced allegations that that she engaged in fraudulent activities for financial gain, that she has a criminal record, and multiple eye witness allegations and documentary evidence indicating that she appears to have engaged in multiple types of criminal activities, there is also evidence of a financial motive in her apparent fabrication of allegations against Dr. Day.
- In preparation for Dr. Day’s anticipated Texas Medical Board Hearing there is also an ongoing investigation into other facets of the copycat accuser’s life that question her credibility including multiple credible allegations that she attempted to conceal the fact that she fathered a child by someone other than her husband.