1) The technical problem - I think it's a cache issue. You may have to clear your cache - tools>browsing history-delete (you'll see the options.) That's my guess.
2) Regarding the case itself - I am sure all the legal vultures descended for the opportunity to try to wrangle some money out of Bally's - a deep pocket (my apologies to my friends here who are PI attorneys whom I know read these posts! LOL) Regarding whether Bally's should be liable for hiring a convicted felon, I don't know the important details and there can't be a law that would just make it impermissible by "strict liability" in doing so. The point of punishment is to say that a person can be rehabilitated, they paid their debt to society and have learned and move on. So on this point, cbg is 100% correct - there is no strict liability law of which I'm aware that makes an employer liable for damages on that fact alone.
Here's a thought - should a convicted felon be ostracized from society for the rest of his/her life because of that conviction alone? What do you know about it? I had a friend who had that brand for his short unfortunate life, having been the victim of being bipolar. In one short moment when he was a teenager when he was off his medication (which apparently was exhausting at times), he charged up $3000 of items on his aunt's credit card. The aunt decided to punish her own flesh and blood and press criminal charges and brand him a leper forever. He's never had any other issue, felony or misdemeanor or otherwise and you'd never know it from his conduct.
Putting that aside, Hornet's opinion is that even if there isn't a law, there still is enough smoke for you to investigate a claim. Apparently you have, but even if there is a possible issue of comparative liability that Bally's created an unsafe environment, the lawyers are trying to assess whether or not it's worth potentially going to trial if you're not going to make much money. It costs money to go to trial. We still don't know the important facts and I'm guessing the problem is that Bally's was just the medium which introduced the victim to this bad person but perhaps not close enough in proximity to say that they had any reason for blame as to what eventually happened, e.g. he offered to give her a free, off campus personal massage. Unless Bally's knew or should have known that he presented a significant danger to clientele, there is going to be a small amount, if any, of comparative negligence found.
Let me ask you this - what if you introduced a guy to a girlfriend whom you knew occasionally from hanging out in a bar after work. Seemed like a nice enough guy. He then proceeds to make unauthorized charges to your friend's credit card after taking down the number when she left for the ladies room after leaving the card to pay for dinner. Turns out that he was convicted of stealing money 20 years ago when he was a teen. Should you be guilty of making the introduction and pay her for the eventual loss she suffered? Could you have known? Should you have known? Should that have made much difference? While there may be feelings of remorse and guilt, there isn't and shouldn't be liability for being the innocent matchmaker. While it's not exactly the same, I'm just trying to raise the point to help you understand why while this horrible thing happened, you can't just say that the matchmaker should bear liability for everything. We just don't have the important details. In America, we have this unfortunate perception that when anyone suffers injury, SOMEONE has to pay for your damages, whether or not they are really to blame or should be held to blame for damages. Especially in this economy, this practice will likely slow.
I wish your friend the best of luck and am so sorry to hear about what happened. I really do feel the pain and understand why you feel an animosity towards the person/company that made the introduction. We simply don't know enough facts about the case to make comment on whether there was negligenc involved. Chances are if you've shopped around several law firms and getting the same answers that they haven't missed anything and the facts just are what they are.
