Good points and, whatever the eventual outcome may be, I'm sure that the Gawker family of blogs will cover it breathlessly, failing to do the most basic research (this article originally called Sam Lutfi a doctor instead of a celebrity manager), and in exchange for advertising dollars.

I don't think it's the case that once you have an apparently diminished ability to make decisions, you get to avoid liability for any of the acts you take during that time. Here's the statute that talks about falsely reporting a crime (http://www.shouselaw.com/false-report-c…) and it applies to people reporting crimes…

If judicial resources are, in fact, required, then it's pretty clear that someone feels that she has the mental capacity to make allegations like that.

If the police do become involved, and judicial resources are then wasted pursuing claims which are found to have no merit whatsoever, she should be prosecuted.

Which part did you find to be more coherent? Was it the part about having a microchip implanted in her brain or was it the part about her dad ordering "them" to implant the chip?

There appears to be some confusion, but my link is to the jezebel post that, in turn, linked to the pictures. My link isn't to the pictures themselves.

Except if you had bothered to look at the actual link, you'd have noticed that the pictures were eventually taken down ...

This picture was literally up on wikipedia for about 20 minutes. No one would have known or cared about it. I doubt that I'll read about it in any other "news source" and, just like when Jezebel posted a link to the initial dump of pictures (http://tinyurl.com/pdlp9xd), this seems to be a cynical attempt for more…

It's hard to take the "side eyes" all too seriously when, after the NYT, the Daily Mail is the second most cited source that Jezebel chooses to paraphrase. Rearranging the words of a Daily Mail story is basically part of your business model.

"Additionally, she specifically addresses the legality of sites like Reddit, etc. that allowed the photos to be posted in the first place."

There seems to be confusion on this blog as to the difference between "blaming the victim" and, oh, let's call it "the practical realities of life." I feel sorry that these pictures have been posted and certainly don't blame these women for having their pictures leaked. The practical realities of life are, however,…

Max, the editor, knows something about how Gawker is run: "To be clear, ...Gawker is not, and never has been, 'classy' or 'professional.'" And this: "Running rumors based on tips and anonymous sources is a long-established Gawker practice that fits well within our mission and motto. We won't be apologizing. Thank you…

Boy, this is a lot of outrage coming from someone who linked to the Imgur album of photos during the first time around. (http://tinyurl.com/pdlp9xd)

Are you going to update this story?

In a way, it's an awkward situation. It's the job of the criminal justice system to punish people who've beaten women unconscious in elevators, but yet all criminal charges against Rice appear to have been dropped. I'm assuming the charges weren't pursued because Palmer wouldn't testify although I don't know that to…

Yeah, if this is the case, the phrase "independent investigation" is complete nonsense. Basically, it sounds more like what they're doing is an "internal investigation" and companies do this all the time. I agree that the way it's set up right now is a joke.

In essence, you're paying for an expert, someone who renowned in the field. A retired guy wouldn't have the same legitimacy, nor would someone who's trying to make a name. Think of it like IBM. This guy Mueller appears to have a substantial background and if he exonerates Goodell, it's like saying that IBM or whatever…

I was unaware that you had said this for either a first time or a middle time for that matter. Even without getting into a substantive discussion of why it matters, if Goodell did see it, that shows that he's a liar (because he said he hadn't seen it) and people tend to dislike liars.

Yeah, I agree ... the "oversight" of someone who investigates for a living seems excessive.

So, who do you propose conduct the investigation? Deadspin isn't going to pay for one. Keith Olbermann isn't going to pay for one. TMZ isn't going to pay for one. The government should get involved because this story "went viral" on the internet? Sure, maybe saying it's "independent" is a stretch, but thinking that…