She began collecting money for the Wounded Warrior non-profit organization.
After claims that the receipt was a hoax and she had a history of lying, she was let go from her job. Source: Huffington Post
In every one of these situations, where a server claims to have received some scurrilous remark in addition to, or in place of, their gratuity, there are three possible causes.
- The customer in question did in fact write the offending note.
- The server lied about the offending note, either to garner attention for him/herself or to draw attention to an ongoing issue prevalent in that establishment.
- Someone else in the establishment (usually another staff member) wrote the notice, as a means of bullying or harassing the server in question.
Obviously, the customer ALWAYS says they didn't do it.
The first point of proof that they presented was a customer copy of the receipt that showed a tip. Obviously, no note (because you wouldn't write it again to yourself). This alone only proves that they were the customer in question, as the dates, times, and initial amounts match. I've tried to find the clearest image for you to compare the two.
Another copy of just the full customer receipt
POINT: Just because you write one thing on one copy, it doesn't mean you wrote the same thing on the other copy.
Next they presented what they say is a printout or copy of their credit card statement. I couldn't find a very good copy. The highlighting seems to have been added in through Photoshop by NBC News4 for clarity because the picture quality is so bad.
QUESTIONS I HAVE:
- The merchant copy I see in the picture doesn't appear to be doctored (as in, with whiteout, etc.) Which means that either it's an original or a reprint. Now, I know that when you reprint a customer copy, it says "reprint" at the bottom. Is this true for merchant copies as well? I need to find this out. Please chime in if you know the answer and PLEASE provide pictures of similar receipts.
- The merchant copy that she presented to her boss during her shift would have been the one that was charged, whatever that was. So even had she faked the receipt, as claimed, that fake receipt should STILL have been the charge that showed up on the credit card statement. The fact that it didn't is bizarre to me. The only thing I can think of for this not to be the case is if somehow the first merchant copy was the one that went in with the other receipts from her shift, and then this online copy was a reprint. But why would a person print a second copy and not do anything to hide the first copy? None of that makes any sense.
- The customer reports "They said they thought the hostess who sat the family told them their server would be “Dan,” and when Morales showed up at their table, the wife exclaimed “whoa, you’re not Dan.” 1Was this proof that Dayna was mad and falsified the receipt? Or proof that other staff didn't like her and did petty things to her to bully her (such as telling a customer "Dan will be your server" in a snide way)? Or just a misunderstanding?
- How did the customers know it was their receipt? Who recognizes their RECEIPT!? I mean, okay, so they see this waitress online or on television making some kind of complaint, do they then go and check the order? It didn't have any identifying information, so even if it WAS your receipt, why would you bother to try and defame some waitress and possibly put yourself under scrutiny that you may, in fact, be homophobic?
POINT: I can fake that credit card statement using nothing but Microsoft Word and a scanner/photocopier.
POINT: The owner initially said that Morales was one of his best workers2 and that he compensated her tip BY DEDUCTING AN ENTREE FROM THE ORIGINAL CHECK.3 Which again seems to support the idea that, whether or not the merchant copy shown was a hoax, it was most likely the check that was put in...unless the owner did this informally, or maybe compensated her after the news story came out? This still makes no sense!
Her "Dishonorable Discharge"
I've compiled what I believe to be a fairly accurate history of her reserve service.
"Major Shawn Haney, a spokesman for the U.S. Marines, said in an email that Morales had served in the Marine Corps Reserve from July 13, 2009, to May 21, 2013 at the rank of Lance Corporal as an administrative specialist. She was assigned to the Marine Air Group 49, 4th Marine Air Wing out of Newburgh, New York, and deployed to Romania for three months in 2012." 1
"NBC 4 New York learned Wednesday from a Pentagon source that Morales was dismissed from the Marine Reserve Corps in May because she wasn't attending drills. It wasn't immediately clear how often those drills were held, and Morales did not respond to a request for comment.
Morales was formally discharged, or released from the Marines, under conditions that were other than honorable, according to the source." 2
She was actually given an "other than honorable" ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE. It is the most severe of the administrative discharges, however it is NOT a dishonorable discharge. That's just what they put in the headlines, because journalists don't have a good understanding of the difference between an OTH administrative discharge and an actual dishonorable discharge, for which you would have to have a court-martial hearing. She was NOT court-martialed; she was dismissed from service for failing to attend drills.
POINT: Because of the Privacy Act we don't have any information on administrative actions while in service, meaning if she had any infractions during her service we can't know about them.
POINT: If she had been drummed out of the service for writing bad checks, indecent swearing, not maintaining proper funds to pay debts or not paying debts, perjury, making false statements, knowingly signing any false reports, and/or basically anything which includes lying she would have been giving that dishonorable discharge, or more likely a bad-conduct discharge (which is the light version of same). Both are punitive and require a court martial hearing, and both often come with time to serve.
The Pathological Liar Scenario
I'd like to state that, for the record, I've had firsthand dealings with a pathological liar of the type that Dayna Morales has been accused of being. It's a true mental illness. Even if she is, as claimed, a compulsive liar, people with this condition have severe low self-esteem and need counseling in the worst way. Would we vilify a schizophrenic if the voices told them to do it? Most of us would shake our heads and go "poor bastard." If she is a pathological liar, then she is desperately crying out for attention and compassion and help. For more information, check out Münchausen by Internet.
Most of her accusers are not savvy enough to have pulled their Facebook accounts (or even made them private) and I was able to scan some information pertinent to the case. Now, that information may have been planted on purpose. I can't imagine anyone who would have kept their stuff public even now after all this time, unless they meant for folks to see it. But it allowed me to see connections that I don't think they considered might count against them.
WHAT I HAVE DEDUCED SO FAR:
Teresa Rivera is Dayna's ex-fiance.1 I take it things did not go well. Kiersten Bremer is Teresa's best friend....of the following quotes:
Kiersten Bremer told The Daily Caller Morales claimed to have been made pregnant by her father. She then explained the lack of any baby by saying that she had cervical cancer which spread to the baby, killing it.
Another allegation is that she said Superstorm Sandy casued [sic] a boat to rip through the walls into her living room at Stony Point, N.Y. No boat was found.2
She also stated in the DailyMail (tabloid) article that Dayna may have been cheating on Teresa with a man.1 Which certainly doesn't make Ms. Morales look like woman of the year, but also provides Teresa's good buddies with a pretty good motive to slander her. And in a case of 4 against 1, they can pretty much do so with impunity.
Kiersten Bremer and friend Kristina Calamusa (who is also one of Teresa's BFFs), go to the press together.
Kristina Calamusa quoted this:
“Dayna took me to the side to tell me about her terminal cancer,” Calamusa told TheDCNF in a Facebook interview. “Immediately I cried. I couldn’t believe the news. About a month later we found out it was all a LIE.”3
Kiersten Bremer is also friends with Julie Howat, and Julie Howat is friends with Karolee Larkin. I believe they worked at the daycare together.
Julie Howat is quoted with saying:
"Every story she comes up with has a lie."
“Any tragedy that happened, she had to be a part of it,” Howat said. “She needed sympathy and empathy.”
“It’s like she’s taking it to a whole other level,” Howat said. “Now you’re lying to people to get their money. It’s not even for sympathy now.”4
and Karolee Larkee is quoted as saying:
“You can’t believe much of what she says,” Larkin said.5
With the exception of Jacqie Fitzpatrick, who worked with her at the Cheesecake Factory, ALL OF THE OTHER GIRLS ARE GOOD FRIENDS WITH HER EX-FIANCE. Which is not to say she isn't a pathological liar, maybe that's why they broke up. But this is why I'm searching so hard for more information about Ms. Fitzpatrick, to make sure she is in no way connected with the other girls.
VID/ARTICLE: Parts of Interview with Jacqie Fitzpatrick.
At this time, I have been unable to deduce really solid information about the supposed account of the Cheesecake Factory "cancer affair" nor Ms. Fitzpatrick's relationship nor lack of relationship to any of the other above mentioned persons.
Of course, in light of all this controversy, it makes sense for her not to work at this restaurant anymore. This is the statement that the restaurant published.
Only the restaurant knows for certain what they charged the customer. Only they can tell us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they charged the customer the "merchant copy" amount or the "customer copy" amount.
If they charged the amount shown on the customer copy, then obviously the merchant copy is a reprint. In which case, either Dayna Morales or one of her co-workers is lying. If they charged the merchant copy amount, then the customer is lying. At least then we would know which side to be looking on. But, for liability issues, they probably aren't allowed to tell us either way.
We, as the patrons of the internet, cannot deduce from the information at hand what actually occurred regarding the incident in question.