Dismissing the sexual assault case against Dr. Calvin Day was an act of kindness bestowed on the woman who perpetrated the fabricated allegation against Dr. Day. A trial would have exposed her lies and would have resulted in their public humiliation to such a degree that she likely would have fled the state out of embarrassment.


Dr. Day’s primary accuser appears to have a history of behavior patterns consistent with a person who would fabricate a sexual assault charge for financial gain. Documentary evidence shows that the primary accuser had multiple phone calls to civil attorneys on dates and times that corresponded with events in the case, indicative of a financial gain motive. In addition she appears  to have a history of prior attempts to achieve financial gain through questionable means.

In the case of the primary accuser this evidence of pursuit of financial gain through questionable means includes the following:

  • An expressed concern by the account holder with supporting documentary evidence that the primary accuser may have forged multiple checks;
  • An allegation that the primary accuser received more than half a million dollars in checks and payments made on her behalf from a man in his 80’s who now feels that she took advantage of him;
  • Documentary evidence that appears to demonstrate an abnormally high number (i.e., approximately 20) of insurance claims filed by the accuser of which seven appear to be bodily injury claims.Documentary evidence indicating that she may have filed a false affidavit with a state agency that resulted in a financial gain;
    • The seven bodily injury claims include
      • three instances where she appears to have filed claims against three different restaurants claiming in each instance that she broke her tooth on a rock in the food,
      • three workers compensation claims of which two were slip, trip, or fall claims, and
      • A personal injury claim involving an auto accident where she appears to have been paid for lost wages when in in fact it appears that she was unemployed.
  • An allegation of an extraordinary financial gain as a direct result of a violation of real estate rules of ethics with supporting documentary evidence;
  • An allegation of causing an elderly man to file a false affidavit for her benefit
  • Private investigator reports that appear to indicate that she had personal relationships with multiple married professional men including physicians.
  • Documentary evidence indicating that she may have used her personal relationship with at least two physicians to obtain prescription medications. Both of these physicians are Board Certified in specialties whose physicians do not typically write prescriptions.
  • Documentary evidence that she appears to have succeeded in at least one prior attempt to obtain free Botox.

The aforementioned behavior pattern evidence shows that the primary accuser appears to be just the type of person who would fabricate a sexual assault charge for financial gain. Further proof of Dr. Day’s innocence includes but is not limited to the following:

  • This is a he said she said case based almost exclusively on hearsay without any physical evidence whatsoever wherein Dr. Day voluntarily took and easily passed a polygraph test.
  • The primary accuser waited 10 days to file a complaint. Her waiting 10 days to call the police is inconsistent with her prior behavior because documentary evidence shows that she appears to have called 911 seventeen (17) times in the five years preceding the date of the allegation on 8/22/1010. Based on her apparent prior behavior showing that she had hair trigger to call 911 and that had no fear of contacting police because she did it repeatedly with impunity, there is no doubt that she would have called police immediately if the assault had actually occurred.
  • All five personal communications between Dr. Day and the primary accuser prior to their meeting on Sunday morning of 8/22/2010 were initiated by the primary accuser (i.e., the gal was pursuing the guy).
  • The primary accuser alleged that she escaped by promising Dr. Day that she would return later to spend more time with him if he would let her go. It is readily apparent that this was a fabrication because the rest of Dr. Day’s morning and early afternoon was already booked – he had an appointment at 9 AM with an employee and her daughter and he was leaving at 10:30 AM to play golf (11 AM tee time).
  • New evidence indicates that the primary accuser at specific relevant dates and times was not where she said that she was.
  • There are over forty (40) inconsistencies in the primary accuser’s statements and testimonies.
  • There are multiple other lines of evidence that have been left off for the sake of brevity.