Wake rape allegations

[JasonEvans]

In light of what happened at Duke when athletes were accused of sexual assault, I would urge all of us to remain level-headed and wait for the facts to come out before we start pouncing on Wake Forest in the next couple days.

I am certain that one of the first questions to be raised will be, "why did the woman wait 2 years before reporting this alleged crime?" Many will want to dismiss her claims because of that fact. I would just caution that it is not at all uncommon for a victim of sexual assault to take a while to come to grips with the crime and be able to face the public questions and accusations that come with being a rape victim. Especially in the case of a woman accusing someone "famous" of committing the rape, there is often a reluctance to come forward because of the public perception that so many women are willing to throw themselves at famous men.

Anyway, I am not sure any of us were going to discuss this, but I figured I would try to head off a round of finger pointing one way or another by cautioning everyone to wait and see what comes out.

That said, seeing as it has been a couple years, it is going to be nearly impossible to prove what happened here. It will likely be a "he-said, she-said" situation where we never know the truth.

-Jason "as if Wake needed anything else bad to happen -- that program is in a massive tailspin right now" Evans

[Scorp4me]

I would just caution that it is not at all uncommon for a victim of sexual assault to take a while to come to grips with the crime and be able to face the public questions and accusations that come with being a rape victim.

I agree with your post and certainly the quoted part is true. But if this really happened is announcing it on the Today Show really the place to do it? Seems more like something you would see on the Maury Povich show and we all know the stuff on there is crap. This is something that is obviously disturbing to everyone and should be taken to the proper authorities, taken to the police, handled delicately...not paraded on the morning show circuits like some scarlet letter. Obviously we don't know the whole story. Perhaps she tried all that and it was covered up so she felt this was her only way to get results. I'll be interested to get all the facts, but I think it smells bad upon first whif.

[sagegrouse]

I agree with your post and certainly the quoted part is true. But if this really happened is announcing it on the Today Show really the place to do it? Seems more like something you would see on the Maury Povich show and we all know the stuff on there is crap. This is something that is obviously disturbing to everyone and should be taken to the proper authorities, taken to the police, handled delicately...not paraded on the morning show circuits like some scarlet letter. Obviously we don't know the whole story. Perhaps she tried all that and it was covered up so she felt this was her only way to get results. I'll be interested to get all the facts, but I think it smells bad upon first whif.

I think the fact that she is appearing on The Today Show makes it especially scary for Wake Forest. We'll see what she says, but Today is a news show inclined to chack and double-check sources and facts.

Of course, I well remember the disgraced Mike Nifong on Today doing some totally made up renactment.

sagegrouse

[moonpie23]

true, or not, it's a very sad situation...


hope this avoids the circus show that the duke disaster became......

ugh..

[hurleyfor3]

We'll see what she says, but Today is a news show inclined to chack and double-check sources and facts.


Primarily because Dan Rather doesn't work there, I guess.

Years ago Wake kids made a bunch of cheers and signs relating to Shelden Williams. "No Means No," that kind of thing, regarding accusations about Shelden's high school years that were eventually dropped. It's hard for me to have much sympathy for the Wake fanbase here.

[roywhite]

Without getting into these allegations, I recall what a strange dip Wake took in the second half of their 2008-09 season. As noted elsewhere, this was a team with a ton of future NBA talent that was ranked #1 in the country at one point and won their first 16 games.

They ended up losing in the 1st round of the ACC Tournament, and losing badly to Cleveland State in the 1st round of the NCAA Tournament, a game in which they appeared totally ineffective and lethargic. Athletic director Wellman had to be thinking of that late season collapse (and similar inconsistency the following year) when he bounced Dino Gaudio.

There was certainly bad chemistry somewhere along the line; that doesn't mean there was criminal behavior, but it was a strange late season swoon.

[devildeac]

Have nancy (dis)grace and jesse jackson responded to these allegations yet? :rolleyes:

[MCFinARL]

true, or not, it's a very sad situation...


hope this avoids the circus show that the duke disaster became......

ugh..

Well, it can't be good publicity for Wake in any case. But there may be some reasons it won't turn out like the Duke situation.

For starters, school is probably out right now--no students around on campus to make a ruckus or for media vultures to harass. And the alleged perpetrators, who have been described as "former" players, presumably don't go to school there any more.

More cynically, I suspect Wake Forest basketball players will be much less appealing villains for the schadenfreude crowd than "privileged," "entitled" Duke lacrosse players.

[-jk]

Folks,

Please don't use this thread to revisit the LAX hoax. That one's long since been beaten into dust.

thanks,

-jk

[Devil07]

Well at the least, it does appear that this segment will in fact air. Wake's president sent out an email alerting the Wake community about it, although he doesn't actually make reference to the fact that the allegations are against basketball players (http://www.bloggersodear.com/2011/5/17/2175527/wake-forest-president-hatch-responds-to-wake-sexual-assault#storyjump). He more or less just says that there will be an interview on TV and that he can't discuss it.

I'm not quite sure what to think of this situation. Until we hear what the former student has to say, it is hard to really get a feel for what's going on here. My guess is that this won't become a particularly large ongoing story but you never really know when these things will take on a life of their own. While I'm going to just wait and see about the underlying allegations, it certainly seems as though this will only increase pressure on Ron Wellman. He seems by all accounts to be a good AD (I know many here wanted him to replace Alleva a few years back), but things are not exactly trending in the right directions with basketball and football seems to have regressed a bit. Since Bzdelik clearly had no part in any of this, I wonder if any heat from this incident will filter up to Wellman. If I recall, I do believe that they gave Dino an extension not long after the 2009 season ended, although who knows if the school even was aware of the allegations at the time. Regardless, judging from my Wake friends, it seems as though Wellman already used up a decent amount of his goodwill when he hired Bzdelik (which was perceived by most of my Wake friends at least as hiring a friend instead of the best available coach). Depending on when Wake knew of these allegations and how they were handled, Wellman could be facing some serious pressure.

[killerleft]

If the blurbs coming from the Today Show are any indication, objectivity is not going to be a large part of the proceedings. Just as in the false allegations made against Duke students, the Today Show is going to assume that the young lady is telling the truth. Dangerous ground, especially if there is no evidence to back up the story.

[Jim3k]

I'm betting she doesn't name names. The place to do that is to the police/DA. Doing so on national television without a charge pending suggests she is more interested in promoting the anti-violence group and its aims rather than prosecuting anyone. Naming anyone on TV will risk a defamation suit and I don't think the network will permit that.

[Kimist]

#1 - Timing is somewhat interesting

#2 - Statute of limitations issues for alleged event?

[Bluedog]

Who says she even wants to file charges? Maybe she just wants her story told to reach out to other alleged victims and offer them support. I doubt there's much evidence one way or the other this much later so it'd be a he said, she said type case. This obviously doesn't help Wake's image temporarily, but I don't think it's going to have much of an effect or be a huge story. But who knows...

By the way, there is no statute of limitations for felony rape in North Carolina. Sexual misconduct misdemeanors have a 2-year limit.

Edit: Now that I see JG Nothing's post, I guess she did file a police report back then....

[JG Nothing]

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/may/17/two-former-wfu-players-accused-of-sexual-assault-i-ar-1040890/

"A former Wake Forest student will appear on The Today Show Thursday to talk about an incident she says happened in March 2009 in Miami after the team played Cleveland State in the first round of the NCAA tournament, WGHP/Fox 8, the Winston-Salem Journal's news partner, reported.

"Kathy Redmond, a spokeswoman for the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes, told WGHP/Fox 8 that the former student told school officials about the alleged incident once she returned to campus. School officials told her they would take care of it, Redmond said.

"Months passed, and the student never heard back from school officials, Redmond said. She flew back to Miami and filed a police report. The student later withdrew from the school and lives in another state, Redmond said."

[CameronBornAndBred]

National Coalition Against Violent Athletes
Seriously? There's enough to warrant a national coalition? I wonder how many athletes are violent compared to every other sector in america? Is there a coalition against violent postal workers? Or against violent students? Sigh.

[Duvall]

Seriously? There's enough to warrant a national coalition? I wonder how many athletes are violent compared to every other sector in america? Is there a coalition against violent postal workers? Or against violent students? Sigh.

For Kathy Redmond, one was enough (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Peter).

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

For Kathy Redmond, one was enough (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Peter).
Read the summary of his arrests and convictions. He was more familiar with the court system than many undergraduates.

[cf-62]

By the way, there is no statute of limitations for felony rape in North Carolina. Sexual misconduct misdemeanors have a 2-year limit.

Edit: Now that I see JG Nothing's post, I guess she did file a police report back then....

And the alleged crime occurred in Miami, so NC laws don't apply.

[Bluedog]

And the alleged crime occurred in Miami, so NC laws don't apply.

Oops, my mistake. Apologies...

For Florida:


(1) For prosecutions for a capital felony, a life felony, or a felony that resulted in a death, no limitation
(2) (a) For a felony of the first degree, within four years after commission of the offense
(2) (b) For any other felony, within three years after commission of the offense
..
(13) (a) If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of § 794.011, and the
offense is reported within 72 hours after its commission, the prosecution for such
offense may be commenced at any time
...
(14) No limit if the victim was 18 or older at the time of commission of the offense and the offense was reported to a law enforcement agency within 72 hours after its
commission

http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Statutes/09FloridaStatutes.pdf

I'm not a lawyer. ;)

[DevilWearsPrada]

http://www.bloggersodear.com/2011/5/17/2175796/anonymous-letter-sheds-light-on-wake-forest-basketball-sexual-assault


In a letter from the girls mother, she states one of the boys was Team Captain his Senior Year, and the other boy plays in the NBA.

[CameronBornAndBred]

http://www.bloggersodear.com/2011/5/17/2175796/anonymous-letter-sheds-light-on-wake-forest-basketball-sexual-assault


In a letter from the girls mother, she states one of the boys was Team Captain his Senior Year, and the other boy plays in the NBA.
Wow...if her allegations hold true..and if indeed the players confessed, then Wake is about to face a very ugly investigation. Of course, without being there, it's all hearsay, but that's a pretty damning letter.

[Matches]

Wow...if her allegations hold true..and if indeed the players confessed, then Wake is about to face a very ugly investigation. Of course, without being there, it's all hearsay, but that's a pretty damning letter.

That's the part that doesn't quite hold together. Confessed? To what? Are we talking about players admitting they had relations with this girl, or admitting that said relations were non-consensual?

It would absolutely boggle the mind to learn that a respected academic institution exonerated student-athletes who admitted that they sexually assaulted ANYONE, much less a student. Something like that arguably would be criminal conduct on the part of the university and/or its employees.

Obviously we all have to wait and see, and not rush to judgment. Those are some GIGANTIC allegations.

[roywhite]

Wow...if her allegations hold true..and if indeed the players confessed, then Wake is about to face a very ugly investigation. Of course, without being there, it's all hearsay, but that's a pretty damning letter.

Now I am wondering if this had something to do with Gaudio's departure. I don't know, maybe that's not fair to say.

Not much good to say about a situation like this, other than we hope the truth comes out.

[DevilWearsPrada]

I copied and pasted it from the Wake Forest athletic website.

[roywhite]

I copied and pasted it from the Wake Forest athletic website.

If an alleged crime involved 2 players, then posting the whole roster gets into an issue of "guilt by association" or invites speculation involving some who had no involvement.

And then you get the wrong year's roster. :(

[CameronBornAndBred]

"We have been advised by a producer of the Today Show that the story will include an interview with a former Wake Forest student involving an incident that occurred several years ago," Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch wrote in a letter to the university Tuesday.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/colleges/story/9607441/

He has an interesting definition of the word "several". As noted on the front page of DBR, this sounds like an admission that this even did indeed take place, or at least parts of it.

[Duvall]

Update (http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/may/17/former-wake-forest-student-accused-former-basketba-ar-1041338/).

[sagegrouse]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/colleges/story/9607441/

He has an interesting definition of the word "several". As noted on the front page of DBR, this sounds like an admission that this even did indeed take place, or at least parts of it.

Far be it from me to suggest that a University President should stray more than ten feet away from his lawyer :p, but I think the absence of the word "alleged" is due to the fact that there are no criminal charges in the "incident," and the term, "the incident," can mean literally anything and carries no implication of wrongdoing.

But, of course, maybe President Hatch did stray more than ten feet from his lawyer, which would set a good precedent.

sagegrouse

[Matches]

There's no real reason to use the word "alleged" given that the players involved admit the encounter. They disputed the characterization of the events as non-consensual, but apparently everyone acknowledges it occurred.

This is going to be really nasty.

[oldnavy]

Seriously? There's enough to warrant a national coalition? I wonder how many athletes are violent compared to every other sector in america? Is there a coalition against violent postal workers? Or against violent students? Sigh.

I agree, does it make any difference if a violent act is committed by an athlete or math major or plummer???

[Wander]

That's definitely the 2009-2010 roster, not the 2008-09 roster.

Jeff Teague did not play at Wake in 2010. The poster got the roster right.

EDIT: Maybe not, I don't see James Johnson on there (who did play in 2009). The roster appears to be neither the 08-09 nor 09-10 seasons. Odd.

[roywhite]

I agree, does it make any difference if a violent act is committed by an athlete or math major or plummer???

It's a reasonable topic for discussion. The theory is that athletes represent a protected class and that their transgressions are often covered up by school officials. And, for what it's worth, athletes are often very strong and difficult for a victim to fight.

[pfrduke]

Jeff Teague did not play at Wake in 2010. The poster got the roster right.

EDIT: Maybe not, I don't see James Johnson on there (who did play in 2009). The roster appears to be neither the 08-09 nor 09-10 seasons. Odd.

Good catch on Teague. But everyone is listed with their 2010 class year (including Teague, who left after his sophomore season), and the roster includes freshmen Ari Stewart and CJ Harris who did not play for Wake in 2009.

In any event, it's a moot point now that names have been named.

[Rudy]

Today is a news show inclined to chack and double-check sources and facts.
I still watch it but "Today" has not been a news show primarily for a few years. They may try to check facts, but they'll likely let this woman say whatever she wants. Then they'll say they gave the two men the opportunity to respond and they declined to do so.

The account given on this site's front page is quite different than has been hinted at with these teasers to tomorrow's show. I plan on recording it so I can fast forward through all the junk of the show. You can count on it being teased for at least an hour before they run the segment.

The mother's letter says the men "confessed" but confessed to what I wonder? Did they confess to sex but claim it was consensual? I'll be interested to see, and surprised if, the Today show interviewer (please don't let it be Meredith Viera) asks any hard questions.

The issue is topical because of the federal government's recent guidelines issued to colleges for internal investigations into sexual assault complaints of students, including using a "preponderance of evidence" standard for finding responsibility and assessing discipline instead of "clear and convincing" or the criminal standard "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[oldnavy]

It's a reasonable topic for discussion. The theory is that athletes represent a protected class and that their transgressions are often covered up by school officials. And, for what it's worth, athletes are often very strong and difficult for a victim to fight.

Well maybe... it seems to me that more often than not athletes seem to be presumed quilty rather than innocent once the press gets on it.

[killerleft]

There's no real reason to use the word "alleged" given that the players involved admit the encounter. They disputed the characterization of the events as non-consensual, but apparently everyone acknowledges it occurred.

This is going to be really nasty.

???? What does the word "alleged" have to do with anything? Either the sex was consensual or it was not. If there was no coercion (and the mother's own letter certainly leaves that open to one very big debate) then there was no assault. So far the only thing we know for sure is that the Today Show will have a large audience on Thursday morning. Which is important to the Today Show.

[gus]

DBR:

"...what is significant is what President Nathan Hatch did not say: alleged"

President Hatch, in the story DBR linked:

"I can assure you the University takes these issues seriously, has a well-established Code of Conduct and has procedures for hearing alleged violations of that Code of Conduct." (emphasis added)

There is no doubt an incident occured, the question is whether a violation of some type occured.

[OldPhiKap]

???? What does the word "alleged" have to do with anything? Either the sex was consensual or it was not. If there was no coercion (and the mother's own letter certainly leaves that open to one very big debate) then there was no assault. So far the only thing we know for sure is that the Today Show will have a large audience on Thursday morning. Which is important to the Today Show.

Scandal, with few facts but many lurid details?

Must be Sweeps Week.

[Newton_14]

On the Adam Gold show this afternoon, Adam reported that the players acknowledged the sex happened, but stated it was consensual. Also, only Clark had sex with the young lady. Teague allegedly "stood outside and guarded the door".

I am shocked the parents did not immediately report the incident to the Miami police. If that is my daughter, I call the local police immediately and let Wake Forest worry about their own rear ends. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by "letting the school handle it".

Whether a rape occurred or not, calling the local police immediately would have allowed an investigation to start right then and there, and the Miami Police would have been able to do their jobs from the start.

Putting justice in the hands of the school is just a bad move.

[burns15]

On the Adam Gold show this afternoon, Adam reported that the players acknowledged the sex happened, but stated it was consensual. Also, only Clark had sex with the young lady. Teague allegedly "stood outside and guarded the door".

I am shocked the parents did not immediately report the incident to the Miami police. If that is my daughter, I call the local police immediately and let Wake Forest worry about their own rear ends. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by "letting the school handle it".

Whether a rape occurred or not, calling the local police immediately would have allowed an investigation to start right then and there, and the Miami Police would have been able to do their jobs from the start.

Putting justice in the hands of the school is just a bad move.

I don't quite understand what this girl is trying to accomplish by telling this story on the Today show. I have no idea why she does not just go to the police and press charges. This issue has already been brought before the judicial council at Wake Forest and all players involved were found not guilty. It was determined that a sexual act did occur but that it was consensual. This girl is being quite obnoxious IMO.

[Kimist]

From the cited W-S Journal article:

They talked and Clark joined them, the report said. Clark and Teague asked her questions about performing oral sex, and she told Teague that she liked him, the report said.

Teague asked her if she wanted to go to his hotel room with them, and they did, the report said. Clark and the student went into the bathroom, and Teague closed the door and stayed outside, the report said.

The student said that Clark dropped his pants and asked her to touch his penis. She refused, then Clark asked her to perform oral sex on him, the report said. The student told investigators that she did perform oral sex on Clark because she felt she had no choice, according to the report.

I think I can envision why there was no prosecution by the State of Florida......

[tommy]

I am shocked the parents did not immediately report the incident to the Miami police. If that is my daughter, I call the local police immediately and let Wake Forest worry about their own rear ends. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose by "letting the school handle it".

Whether a rape occurred or not, calling the local police immediately would have allowed an investigation to start right then and there, and the Miami Police would have been able to do their jobs from the start.

I don't know what happened here, and neither does anyone else on this board. But with respect, your comments above suggest that you have little understanding of the impact upon, and psychology of, a victim of sexual assault. Especially in the immediate or semi-immediate aftermath of the crime. Many, many times -- not always, but quite often -- the police and one's parents are the absolute last people the victim would want to talk to about it. I keep hoping our society is going to finally understand that simple reality, but I guess it still hasn't happened.

[oldnavy]

I don't know what happened here, and neither does anyone else on this board. But with respect, your comments above suggest that you have little understanding of the impact upon, and psychology of, a victim of sexual assault. Especially in the immediate or semi-immediate aftermath of the crime. Many, many times -- not always, but quite often -- the police and one's parents are the absolute last people the victim would want to talk to about it. I keep hoping our society is going to finally understand that simple reality, but I guess it still hasn't happened.

According to the report she notified the WFU police and then the Miami police later. Unless there is more to the story than what has been reported I can see no positives coming from reporting this now on national TV. According to the girls report, she met the two in the hall or lobby, told one of them she liked him, discussed the topic of oral sex with them, then went to their room with them.... the players say it was consensual... hard to argue that it wasn't given this report. That is why the prosecutor did not press charges. Maybe there is more, then again maybe there is not. I still do not see what is to be gained at this point by making it a national news story. Perhaps this group against violent athletes is pressuring her in order to advance their agenda, but this seems like the wrong type of case for that.

[JG Nothing]

I don't know what happened here, and neither does anyone else on this board. But with respect, your comments above suggest that you have little understanding of the impact upon, and psychology of, a victim of sexual assault. Especially in the immediate or semi-immediate aftermath of the crime. Many, many times -- not always, but quite often -- the police and one's parents are the absolute last people the victim would want to talk to about it. I keep hoping our society is going to finally understand that simple reality, but I guess it still hasn't happened.

No one knows the alleged victim, her current situation, or what really happened to her. Yet, in this thread, only the alleged victim's actions (or lack thereof), motivations, and integrity are being challenged. Unfortunately, that reaction is not unusual. And people wonder why many women are hesitant to report sexual assaults.

[killerleft]

No one knows the alleged victim, her current situation, or what really happened to her. Yet, in this thread, only the alleged victim's actions (or lack thereof), motivations, and integrity are being challenged. Unfortunately, that reaction is not unusual. And people wonder why many women are hesitant to report sexual assaults.

That's because the police and WF did not choose to pursue the issue, not because we're all a bunch of insensitive chauvanist pigs. Also, from the accounts that I (we) have heard, there seems to be very good reason to doubt that an assault took place. In addition, there is that sticky Innocent Until Proven Guilty nonsense. Too, there is a group with a very strange name advocating this Today Show visit by the young lady. They may have an agenda.

There may be some news tomorrow morning. There may not. But I, for one, am not jumping on anybody's lynch mob bandwagon until there is some - any - reason to do so. There was a lesson that many of us learned a few years ago - at least wait for the other shoe to drop before boo-hooing about the piggies.

[aimo]

as a FEMALE Wake Forest grad.

She talks with them about oral sex, she voluntarily goes to the hotel room with them, she voluntarily goes into the bathroom with one of them, then claims she only did what she did b/c she felt she had no choice. She had several choices leading up to that moment, and she made the wrong ones each time. No, a guy should NEVER force himself on anyone, but I am SO TIRED of hearing about women knowingly putting themselves in these situations. This, to me, sounds more like the Shelden Williams situation - consensual, then either regret or an attempt to get something out of it. I'll probably get ripped for saying it, but . . .

As for Wake Forest's reaction, they do have a history of protecting their athletes. Not a sexual assault accusation, but my senior year, a star football player and a couple of female basketball players were all busted for cheating on an exam. Nothing was done, no missed games, nothing. I only knew about it b/c of a friend who tutored athletes knew about it. If I had done what they did, after signing the honor code at the end of the exam, I would have been suspended or expelled.

[JG Nothing]

That's because the police and WF did not choose to pursue the issue, not because we're all a bunch of insensitive chauvanist pigs. Also, from the accounts that I (we) have heard, there seems to be very good reason to doubt that an assault took place. In addition, there is that sticky Innocent Until Proven Guilty nonsense. Too, there is a group with a very strange name advocating this Today Show visit by the young lady. They may have an agenda.

There may be some news tomorrow morning. There may not. But I, for one, am not jumping on anybody's lynch mob bandwagon until there is some - any - reason to do so. There was a lesson that many of us learned a few years ago - at least wait for the other shoe to drop before boo-hooing about the piggies.

1. Just because the police and WF chose not to pursue the issue does not mean the woman is lying.
2. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "lying until proven honest" for the accuser.
3. Just because you find a name strange does not make an organization suspect.
4. Yes, the organization does have an agenda, oppose violence by athletes (sounds like a bunch of communists to me).

Actually it is you jumping on a bandwagon to lynch someone, the alleged victim. I am saying let the facts come out before making judgments about the accuser (unlike you). I did not say, suggest, or imply that the men were guilty.

How ironic that you implicitly bring up the lacrosse hoax. Immediately following the accusation, the district attorney claimed in no uncertain terms that the accuser had been raped, the hospital reported trauma consistent with rape, and a neighbor reported that there was a nasty confrontation between the women and lacrosse players. Wow, sounds like a rape occurred...until we later found out the truth.

You say "let's wait for the other shoe to drop before boo-hooing about the piggies [whatever that means]." Apparently you think that only applies to men who are accused and not women who do the accusing.

[Bluedog]

According to the report she notified the WFU police and then the Miami police later. Unless there is more to the story than what has been reported I can see no positives coming from reporting this now on national TV.

My guess is that the TODAY segment is meant to highlight sexual assault issues on campuses nationwide from a general standpoint and they simply wanted a guest to share her story to put a human element on things. I HIGHLY doubt she's actually going to name names or talk about vivid details, but more broadly about the culture of the issue and how she felt in the aftermath/subsequent years. I have no idea if she was sexual assaulted or not and I'm not pretending to, but my guess is that her purpose of going on the show isn't to start the prosecution against her alleged perpetrators, but rather provide a perspective from an alleged victim of sexual abuse on a college campus to give a more personal example/human touch to a story that will probably start with facts and figures about how sexual assault is a problem in today's college campuses. Again, we have too little information and can't jump to any conclusions.

[killerleft]

1. Just because the police and WF chose not to pursue the issue does not mean the woman is lying.
2. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "lying until proven honest" for the accuser.
3. Just because you find a name strange does not make an organization suspect.
4. Yes, the organization does have an agenda, oppose violence by athletes (sounds like a bunch of communists to me).

Actually it is you jumping on a bandwagon to lynch someone, the alleged victim. I am saying let the facts come out before making judgments about the accuser (unlike you). I did not say, suggest, or imply that the men were guilty.

How ironic that you implicitly bring up the lacrosse hoax. Immediately following the accusation, the district attorney claimed in no uncertain terms that the accuser had been raped, the hospital reported trauma consistent with rape, and a neighbor reported that there was a nasty confrontation between the women and lacrosse players. Wow, sounds like a rape occurred...until we later found out the truth.

You say "let's wait for the other shoe to drop before boo-hooing about the piggies [whatever that means]." Apparently you think that only applies to men who are accused and not women who do the accusing.

No to all of the above. In the climate that I've observed, NO evidence is required for someone to be charged with sexual violence. Once charged, that person's life is negatively affected for life whether they are innocent or guilty.

The lax case certainly has affected my opinion regarding media accusations pertaining to sexual assault. I have no trouble with any correct body of law enforcement investigating such charges, and indeed would have no trouble executing some of the sickos that end up being guilty.

It seems that you are protesting a climate of "sweeping under the rug" any allegations of sexual assault. Me, too. But that situation (especially at institutions of higher learning) is much more balanced than it was fifty years ago. You and I could show examples supporting our respective points-of-view from here to eternity. In general, though, law enforcement is highly attuned to sexual assault charges today, and will officially charge anyone accused of such crimes whether there is any evidence or not.

The lax case only showed what can happen when the scales of justice have been compromised beyond recognition by several forces, including the media, the police, and a general bloodthirst demanded by the masses who just love to see "justice" served up to stereotypical "hooligans". That I would object to a group that touts itself only as a savior to the masses from some heinous collection of sportsmen/sportswomen seems quite rational when you think about it.

Just to clear the air, sir, I am not some pervert with an agenda against women. I am certainly not trying to karma-tize myself just in case I myself am charged with a sexual assault some day. Both women and men commit sexual assault, and the stigma attached to reporting such assaults certainly prevents many more men than women from reporting them. What I am against is foolish and/or arrogant knee-jerk reactions by people who have agendas that have nothing to do with whether whatever cause they are championing applies to a certain situation.

[Matches]

No to all of the above. In the climate that I've observed, NO evidence is required for someone to be charged with sexual violence. Once charged, that person's life is negatively affected for life whether they are innocent or guilty.



I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but to clarify - the accuser claiming that she was assaulted is evidence that there was an assault. Prosecutions aren't begun based on "no" evidence - there may be no physical or corroborating evidence, but an eyewitness account by the victim is evidence, and frankly pretty important evidence.

Of course in some cases that eyewitness account turns out to be unreliable or fabricated - thus the delicate balancing act involved with finding the appropriate weight to be given the accuser's report.

[Bluedog]

The lax case only showed what can happen when the scales of justice have been compromised beyond recognition by several forces, including the media, the police, and a general bloodthirst demanded by the masses who just love to see "justice" served up to stereotypical "hooligans".

I'm not arguing with the rest of your points, but the lacrosse case and this one aren't even close to equivalent. I guess you could say you learned to not jump to conclusions which is valid (maybe that's all you're saying), but anybody equating them is missing serious facts. In the lacrosse case, the players indisputably said that no sexual acts occurred (which was later corroborated by evidence and alibis). It's not a he said/she said situation.

In this case, it seems that all parties have stated that sexual acts DID indeed occur. It's just a matter of if they were consensual or not, which is more of a he said/she said situation. Again, I have no idea if the claims hold veracity or not (and I'd imagine they'd be very difficult to prove), and am not jumping to conclusions either way. But the consensual relationship/encounter that turns to non-consensual sexual acts is more prevalent on college campuses than an alleged gang rape like the lacrosse players were accused of (and ultimately shown to be innocent). In the lacrosse case, you'd expect evidence if something indeed did occur since the descriptions of the encounter were so wildly different (violent sexual act vs. nothing), while in this case, it's hard to really get physical evidence one way or the other since a sex act did occur and the only discrepancy is if it was forced/manipulated or not.

[killerleft]

No to all of the above. In the climate that I've observed, NO evidence is required for someone to be charged with sexual violence. Once charged, that person's life is negatively affected for life whether they are innocent or guilty.

The lax case certainly has affected my opinion regarding media accusations pertaining to sexual assault. I have no trouble with any correct body of law enforcement investigating such charges, and indeed would have no trouble executing some of the sickos that end up being guilty.

It seems that you are protesting a climate of "sweeping under the rug" any allegations of sexual assault. Me, too. But that situation (especially at institutions of higher learning) is much more balanced than it was fifty years ago. You and I could show examples supporting our respective points-of-view from here to eternity. In general, though, law enforcement is highly attuned to sexual assault charges today, and will officially charge anyone accused of such crimes whether there is any evidence or not.

The lax case only showed what can happen when the scales of justice have been compromised beyond recognition by several forces, including the media, the police, and a general bloodthirst demanded by the masses who just love to see "justice" served up to stereotypical "hooligans". That I would object to a group that touts itself only as a savior to the masses from some heinous collection of sportsmen/sportswomen seems quite rational when you think about it.

Just to clear the air, sir, I am not some pervert with an agenda against women. I am certainly not trying to karma-tize myself just in case I myself am charged with a sexual assault some day. Both women and men commit sexual assault, and the stigma attached to reporting such assaults certainly prevents many more men than women from reporting them. What I am against is foolish and/or arrogant knee-jerk reactions by people who have agendas that have nothing to do with whether whatever cause they are championing applies to a certain situation.

"What I am against is foolish and/or arrogant knee-jerk reactions by people who have agendas that have nothing to do with whether whatever cause they are championing applies to a certain situation.

Uh, who wrote that:rolleyes:, me? I meant that people have agendas and will use any vehicle to further said agendas. Meaning that this young woman, if she was indeed abused, is being abused again.

[johnb]

From the skeletal facts that have emerged thus far, I'd say she was psychologically traumatized by an event that isn't defined as rape.

I'd also say that famous people and unfamous people are cruising for a psychological/legal bruising if they pursue sex with strangers, especially if that person already has strong/asymmetrical feelings and is relatively young (though the latter variables are probably flexible). Infamous people, on the other hand, can probably only enhance their reputations. I'd be shocked if the Duke players aren't specifically and regularly warned to avoid exactly the situations that are being highlighted by the Wake Forest situation and by our powerpoint embarrassment from last year (and while the Duke lacrosse thing IS different since there is no He Said/She Said, their dumb decisions did expose them to risk).

I was out with two former Duke basketball players a few years ago. The 2 guys had already graduated and we were in NYC and they didn't play in the NBA, but their faces and height made them fairly recognizable to any fan. Within an hour, 2 different young, attractive women had come up to the more recognizable of the 2 guys and within a minute made very specific references to going somewhere alone. He shrugged each of them off; when I asked if this happened very often, he said it happened every week or two but probably not as much as when he was on tv every week. He didn't, however, mention whether his decisions had evolved as he'd grown in the decade since he'd been 17.

Anyway, for those who want to read more about nonathlete "date rape" from a perspective that aroused a lot of vitriol at the time, try http://www.amazon.com/Morning-After-Sex-Fear-Feminism/dp/0316754323

[killerleft]

From the skeletal facts that have emerged thus far, I'd say she was psychologically traumatized by an event that isn't defined as rape.

I'd also say that famous people and unfamous people are cruising for a psychological/legal bruising if they pursue sex with strangers, especially if that person already has strong/asymmetrical feelings and is relatively young (though the latter variables are probably flexible). Infamous people, on the other hand, can probably only enhance their reputations. I'd be shocked if the Duke players aren't specifically and regularly warned to avoid exactly the situations that are being highlighted by the Wake Forest situation and by our powerpoint embarrassment from last year (and while the Duke lacrosse thing IS different since there is no He Said/She Said, their dumb decisions did expose them to risk).

I was out with two former Duke basketball players a few years ago. The 2 guys had already graduated and we were in NYC and they didn't play in the NBA, but their faces and height made them fairly recognizable to any fan. Within an hour, 2 different young, attractive women had come up to the more recognizable of the 2 guys and within a minute made very specific references to going somewhere alone. He shrugged each of them off; when I asked if this happened very often, he said it happened every week or two but probably not as much as when he was on tv every week. He didn't, however, mention whether his decisions had evolved as he'd grown in the decade since he'd been 17.

Anyway, for those who want to read more about nonathlete "date rape" from a perspective that aroused a lot of vitriol at the time, try http://www.amazon.com/Morning-After-Sex-Fear-Feminism/dp/0316754323

The saddest thing about poiticizing any serious and genuine issue is the misinformation that results. In order to protect myself against the rampant crap that becomes part of "urban legend" after constant repitition, I never ignore the little warning bells that go off in my head when something defies common sense or just doesn't seem quite right. Too bad our national media are too lazy/don't care/or just aren't intelligent enough to question some of these idiotic chestnuts. Anyone who accepts without question the truth of such statements as "I've never seen a false accusation of rape", or "one in every four undergraduate woman is raped during her college years" deserves whatever ridicule they accrue.

[burns15]

The saddest thing about poiticizing any serious and genuine issue is the misinformation that results. In order to protect myself against the rampant crap that becomes part of "urban legend" after constant repitition, I never ignore the little warning bells that go off in my head when something defies common sense or just doesn't seem quite right. Too bad our national media are too lazy/don't care/or just aren't intelligent enough to question some of these idiotic chestnuts. Anyone who accepts without question the truth of such statements as "I've never seen a false accusation of rape", or "one in every four undergraduate woman is raped during her college years" deserves whatever ridicule they accrue.

I really hope that she does not mention names and put a mark on those guys for the rest of their athletic careers and lives. If the incident was decided to not be worthy of an investigation by Wake Forest campus police (and as a student at Wake I can tell you that they take the issue of rape/sexual assault extremely seriously), then I highly doubt they did anything wrong. Adding her account of the story to that fact makes me positive that any of the players under suspicion did anything wrong. It would be terrible for these accusations, which are clearly false, to follow the mentioned players and define a good portion of their time in the public light.

[JG Nothing]

No to all of the above. In the climate that I've observed, NO evidence is required for someone to be charged with sexual violence. Once charged, that person's life is negatively affected for life whether they are innocent or guilty.

The lax case certainly has affected my opinion regarding media accusations pertaining to sexual assault. I have no trouble with any correct body of law enforcement investigating such charges, and indeed would have no trouble executing some of the sickos that end up being guilty.

It seems that you are protesting a climate of "sweeping under the rug" any allegations of sexual assault. Me, too. But that situation (especially at institutions of higher learning) is much more balanced than it was fifty years ago. You and I could show examples supporting our respective points-of-view from here to eternity. In general, though, law enforcement is highly attuned to sexual assault charges today, and will officially charge anyone accused of such crimes whether there is any evidence or not.

The lax case only showed what can happen when the scales of justice have been compromised beyond recognition by several forces, including the media, the police, and a general bloodthirst demanded by the masses who just love to see "justice" served up to stereotypical "hooligans". That I would object to a group that touts itself only as a savior to the masses from some heinous collection of sportsmen/sportswomen seems quite rational when you think about it.

Just to clear the air, sir, I am not some pervert with an agenda against women. I am certainly not trying to karma-tize myself just in case I myself am charged with a sexual assault some day. Both women and men commit sexual assault, and the stigma attached to reporting such assaults certainly prevents many more men than women from reporting them. What I am against is foolish and/or arrogant knee-jerk reactions by people who have agendas that have nothing to do with whether whatever cause they are championing applies to a certain situation.

This is the point I am trying to make: Just as people on this board have not challenged the actions and motivations of the two basketball players, they should also avoid challenging the accuser's actions and motivations until they have more information.

It seems to me that the lacrosse incident has made everyone on this board sensitive to not speculating or jumping to conclusions about the accused men (that is a good thing), but they do not apply that same standard to the alleged victim (that is a bad thing).

In an earlier post you said "from the accounts that I (we) have heard, there seems to be very good reason to doubt that an assault took place." Well, for the sake of caution (as the lacrosse scandal supposedly taught us), why not wait for more evidence or information before explicitly or implicitly attacking the woman and her account? Is that too much to ask? The woman has not even made a public statement yet.

Finally, to your original statement, I agree it is a tragedy that some men have been falsely accused of sexual assault. I also think it is tragic when the public puts victims of sexual assault on trial. Don't you agree?

[ThePublisher]

From what I've read, this seems like a girl who went along with things and now wants to get her fifteen minutes of fame. Esp since Teague was just in the playoffs.
Sucks Wake has to deal with even more negative PR.

[killerleft]

This is the point I am trying to make: Just as people on this board have not challenged the actions and motivations of the two basketball players, they should also avoid challenging the accuser's actions and motivations until they have more information.

It seems to me that the lacrosse incident has made everyone on this board sensitive to not speculating or jumping to conclusions about the accused men (that is a good thing), but they do not apply that same standard to the alleged victim (that is a bad thing).

In an earlier post you said "from the accounts that I (we) have heard, there seems to be very good reason to doubt that an assault took place." Well, for the sake of caution (as the lacrosse scandal supposedly taught us), why not wait for more evidence or information before explicitly or implicitly attacking the woman and her account? Is that too much to ask? The woman has not even made a public statement yet.

Finally, to your original statement, I agree it is a tragedy that some men have been falsely accused of sexual assault. I also think it is tragic when the public puts victims of sexual assault on trial. Don't you agree?

I agree wholeheartedly. Is she a "victim" the way C. Mangum was a victim? Or a victim just because you are pre-programmed to believe all charges against athletes? The police couldn't find that she was a victim. Wake Forest couldn't find that she was a victim. YOU have decided she is a victim! I have made no decision either way.

Tomorrow morning, perhaps egged on by the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes* (their website has a big red "V" in the logo with a jagged chasm separating the lettter), this "victim" of yours will speak. Since we already know the WF players' names, she doesn't have to say them. The Today Show should be very careful about what she says and how she says it, and even then it will be too late to reverse the damage done to players who, at this point, are "victims" just as plausibly as the young lady.

It is my stand that a young woman who has been rebuffed by both the Miami Police Department and Wake Forest University should not be allowed to start (what could be) a media firestorm without ANY evidence that her story is true.

* NCAVA, for those who don't remember, "broke" the story on Facebook.

[killerleft]

"One in three college sexual assaults are committed by athletes." (Benedict/Crossett Study)

Just one of the statistics cited supporting (I suppose) a reason for NCAVA to rescue us from college athletes.

http://www.ncava.org/

This statement may actually be true once one factors in what percentage of the student body considers themselves athletes. In fact, it may turn out that one in three may make college athletes less likely to commit sexual assaults than the public at large!

[tendev]

From the cited W-S Journal article:

They talked and Clark joined them, the report said. Clark and Teague asked her questions about performing oral sex, and she told Teague that she liked him, the report said.

Teague asked her if she wanted to go to his hotel room with them, and they did, the report said. Clark and the student went into the bathroom, and Teague closed the door and stayed outside, the report said.

The student said that Clark dropped his pants and asked her to touch his penis. She refused, then Clark asked her to perform oral sex on him, the report said. The student told investigators that she did perform oral sex on Clark because she felt she had no choice, according to the report.

I think I can envision why there was no prosecution by the State of Florida......

Those were the salient facts that struck me which the newspaper reported. I would hestitate to accept anything from a newspaper account as being the complete truth about what the report said.

That said, whether the woman should get on national TV and talk about it or not remains an open question. I guess it depends on what she says. Will she repeat that was forced to perform oral sex for instance or will she say she felt pressured or that she put herself in a bad situation by going into a bathroom with Clark but she told Clark no but relented. Who knows. Perhaps she will add value to a public discussion. Perhaps not.

[oldnavy]

as a FEMALE Wake Forest grad.

She talks with them about oral sex, she voluntarily goes to the hotel room with them, she voluntarily goes into the bathroom with one of them, then claims she only did what she did b/c she felt she had no choice. She had several choices leading up to that moment, and she made the wrong ones each time. No, a guy should NEVER force himself on anyone, but I am SO TIRED of hearing about women knowingly putting themselves in these situations. This, to me, sounds more like the Shelden Williams situation - consensual, then either regret or an attempt to get something out of it. I'll probably get ripped for saying it, but . . .

As for Wake Forest's reaction, they do have a history of protecting their athletes. Not a sexual assault accusation, but my senior year, a star football player and a couple of female basketball players were all busted for cheating on an exam. Nothing was done, no missed games, nothing. I only knew about it b/c of a friend who tutored athletes knew about it. If I had done what they did, after signing the honor code at the end of the exam, I would have been suspended or expelled.

I agree. I have discussed this with several women and they all say the same thing... from what has been reported she is a victim... of her own poor decisions. IMO I think she is making another poor decision by going on National TV to discuss this. I am afraid she is not going to get the reaction she may be hoping for.

[oldnavy]

Those were the salient facts that struck me which the newspaper reported. I would hestitate to accept anything from a newspaper account as being the complete truth about what the report said.

That said, whether the woman should get on national TV and talk about it or not remains an open question. I guess it depends on what she says. Will she repeat that was forced to perform oral sex for instance or will she say she felt pressured or that she put herself in a bad situation by going into a bathroom with Clark but she told Clark no but relented. Who knows. Perhaps she will add value to a public discussion. Perhaps not.

This is what I do not get. What is the discussion? That young women who do not want to have sex should not willfully go into hotel rooms with men after discussing having oral sex with them? I would think that 95% of women would know this already and the 5% that don't will probably not be helped by an episode of the Today Show...

[CameronBornAndBred]

"One in three college sexual assaults are committed by athletes." (Benedict/Crossett Study)

Just one of the statistics cited supporting (I suppose) a reason for NCAVA to rescue us from college athletes.

http://www.ncava.org/

This statement may actually be true once one factors in what percentage of the student body considers themselves athletes. In fact, it may turn out that one in three may make college athletes less likely to commit sexual assaults than the public at large!
OK..I had to go dig that up. This study took place in the 90's and concluded this...


One study of sexual assault cases found that while male student athletes make up 3.3 percent of the college population, they committed 19 percent of the sexual assaults. The Benedict-Crosset Study of sexual assaults at 30 major Division I universities over a three-year period in the 1990s concludes that "male college student athletes, compared to the rest of the male population, are responsible for a significantly higher percentage of sexual assaults reported to judicial affairs on the campuses of Division I institutions."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1857059&page=1 (PS..Duke LAX is the catalyst for the quoted article)

I suck at math, but I don't see where the "one in three" statement comes from. I see "19 percent". The difference does not surprise me, plenty of statements are released with twisted numbers to support an organization's agenda. Happens in political races all the time, too.

[CameronBornAndBred]

For those who have a whole lot of time to kill (I don't), you can read this paper which uses the "Benedict-Crossett study" to assist in some of its results. And it appears the "one third" statistic actually comes from a different study. Here is the heart of the findings.



The majority of research to date has focused on sexual assault among athletes
compared to college students in general. Male athletes have been found to be six times
more likely to be reported for sexual assault on college campuses compared to nonathlete
male students (Crossett, Benedict, & McDonald, 1995). Similarly, athletes have
been found to be 5.5 times more likely to commit date rape compared to the general
population of college students (Wieberg, 1991). In a three-year survey study, athletes
were found to be involved in one-third of the sexual assaults reported on college
campuses (Eskenazi, 1990).


http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/Burns_okstate_0664D_10723.pdf

[Newton_14]

I don't know what happened here, and neither does anyone else on this board. But with respect, your comments above suggest that you have little understanding of the impact upon, and psychology of, a victim of sexual assault. Especially in the immediate or semi-immediate aftermath of the crime. Many, many times -- not always, but quite often -- the police and one's parents are the absolute last people the victim would want to talk to about it. I keep hoping our society is going to finally understand that simple reality, but I guess it still hasn't happened.

I would like to defend myself here. I posted my thoughts last night after reading the article that contained a letter the parents wrote. In the letter, the parents noted that they reported the incident to Wake Forest right away. My only point was I felt the parents should have contacted the police right away rather than putting their faith in the school.

I am very sensitive to the fact that rape victims often are traumatized to the point that they delay reporting the rape and often never report it. Which is sad.

I was not blaming the victim and certainly was not siding with the players. If they pressured her into the act, that was wrong.

I would have to see far more details than what has come out thus far to comment further on this particular case.

[OldPhiKap]

I would like to defend myself here. I posted my thoughts last night after reading the article that contained a letter the parents wrote. In the letter, the parents noted that they reported the incident to Wake Forest right away. My only point was I felt the parents should have contacted the police right away rather than putting their faith in the school.

I am very sensitive to the fact that rape victims often are traumatized to the point that they delay reporting the rape and often never report it. Which is sad.

I was not blaming the victim and certainly was not siding with the players. If they pressured her into the act, that was wrong.

I would have to see far more details than what has come out thus far to comment further on this particular case.

Don't feel bad, I got a nasty-gram last night from someone who either mis-read my post or its intent.

Fact is, there is no good way to discuss this. Only three people know what really happened, and everything else is conjecture.

Any man who would commit that crime should go to jail for a long, long, long time.

People need to be careful to not put themselves into the position of being a victim -- of any crime -- to the extent it is within their power to do so.

It is unfortunate that the motives of both the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged victim, come under scrutiny. But that's part of human nature.

Where the line falls here -- we have scant detail to determine at this point.

[JasonEvans]

This is what I do not get. What is the discussion? That young women who do not want to have sex should not willfully go into hotel rooms with men after discussing having oral sex with them? I would think that 95% of women would know this already and the 5% that don't will probably not be helped by an episode of the Today Show...

It is worth noting at this point that even if she did something some may consider foolish and put herself "in the line of fire" for a sexual assault, that does not remove her ability to change her mind and simply say "No! Stop!" At that moment, she should have every expectation that the sexual advances will, in fact, STOP! If they do not, it is rape/sexual assault and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So, while she may have made some very poor choices to put herself in that bathroom with an athlete who had his pants down expecting a BJ, she still has the expectation that she can say NO and nothing else happens.

-Jason "one wonders, why was Teague guarding the door? Who was he guarding it from?" Evans

[jkidd31]

Maybe they also need to bring on the girl that followed Roethlisberger around all night doing shots with him then claims she was sexually assaulted.

Athletes no matter what level they are at need to be more cognizant of their decisions...because if something goes on involving them its magnified. To prove my point, the guy who killed Annie Le (the Yale doctoral student) plead guilty two months ago to her murder in September 2009. I saw very little in the news about this. Yet every time there is something that happens in the Yeardly Love case...something appears on ESPN. They even did this a couple weeks ago:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6470558

[jkidd31]

It is worth noting at this point that even if she did something some may consider foolish and put herself "in the line of fire" for a sexual assault, that does not remove her ability to change her mind and simply say "No! Stop!" At that moment, she should have every expectation that the sexual advances will, in fact, STOP! If they do not, it is rape/sexual assault and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So, while she may have made some very poor choices to put herself in that bathroom with an athlete who had his pants down expecting a BJ, she still has the expectation that she can say NO and nothing else happens.

-Jason "one wonders, why was Teague guarding the door? Who was he guarding it from?" Evans

It says that he stayed outside...doesn't say he guarded the door. If they were in the players room...he could have gone laid on the bed at watched TV. You don't know what he was doing if the door was closed.

[BD80]

This is the point I am trying to make: Just as people on this board have not challenged the actions and motivations of the two basketball players, they should also avoid challenging the accuser's actions and motivations until they have more information.

It seems to me that the lacrosse incident has made everyone on this board sensitive to not speculating or jumping to conclusions about the accused men (that is a good thing), but they do not apply that same standard to the alleged victim (that is a bad thing).

In an earlier post you said "from the accounts that I (we) have heard, there seems to be very good reason to doubt that an assault took place." Well, for the sake of caution (as the lacrosse scandal supposedly taught us), why not wait for more evidence or information before explicitly or implicitly attacking the woman and her account? Is that too much to ask? The woman has not even made a public statement yet.

Finally, to your original statement, I agree it is a tragedy that some men have been falsely accused of sexual assault. I also think it is tragic when the public puts victims of sexual assault on trial. Don't you agree?

By making this public, the accuser is making the accused the "victim." They have no benefit of a trial (except the police finding that there was not even enough evidence to take the case to trial AND the university finding that there was not a preponderance of evidence of wrongdoing). All we have is her word, which is directly contradicted by the one player, indirectly contradicted by the second player AND inconsistent with her admitted actions of discussing oral sex with the players, THEN going to the players room and performing oral sex on one of the players.

How exactly are the players to respond?

The accuser was not being judged until SHE dredged the issue back up and went public. I wonder if she is getting an appearance fee for participating in this "news" feature.

[devildeac]

After the LAX hoax and now this, perhaps I need to change my screen name.


http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/facepalm1.gif

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/bag.gif

[OldPhiKap]

After the LAX hoax and now this, perhaps I need to change my screen name.

/?
http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/facepalm1.gif

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/bag.gif

Out of all the D-1 schools in the country, I would find it hard to believe that you could find two better examples of solid institutions than Duke and Wake.

I mean, if you changed your name to TarHeelHurricane or ClemsonSeminole (sorry, Clem) would you feel any better?

[devildeac]

After the LAX hoax and now this, perhaps I need to change my screen name.


http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/facepalm1.gif

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/bag.gif


Out of all the D-1 schools in the country, I would find it hard to believe that you could find two better examples of solid institutions than Duke and Wake.

I mean, if you changed your name to TarHeelHurricane or ClemsonSeminole (sorry, Clem) would you feel any better?

Nah, you are correct. I really said it mostly TIC but still a bit ruefully:(.

[OldPhiKap]

Nah, you are correct. I really said it mostly TIC but still a bit ruefully:(.

I'm changing my name to either BuckeyeTrojan or (for us old schoolers) MustangRunningRebel. Can't decide.

[BD80]

... I mean, if you changed your name to TarHeelHurricane or ClemsonSeminole (sorry, Clem) would you feel any better?

Heelicane or Cleminole

[Acymetric]

OK..I had to go dig that up. This study took place in the 90's and concluded this...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1857059&page=1 (PS..Duke LAX is the catalyst for the quoted article)

I suck at math, but I don't see where the "one in three" statement comes from. I see "19 percent". The difference does not surprise me, plenty of statements are released with twisted numbers to support an organization's agenda. Happens in political races all the time, too.

What percentage of assaults came from where doesn't really tell all that much anyway. What I would want to see is what percentage of sexual encounters are non-consensual for athletes v. non-athletes. This is a very different statistic from the one mentioned and I think it would be a great deal more meaningful in this conversation.

[Richard Berg]

What percentage of assaults came from where doesn't really tell all that much anyway. What I would want to see is what percentage of sexual encounters are non-consensual for athletes v. non-athletes. This is a very different statistic from the one mentioned and I think it would be a great deal more meaningful in this conversation.
Why?

[oldnavy]

It is worth noting at this point that even if she did something some may consider foolish and put herself "in the line of fire" for a sexual assault, that does not remove her ability to change her mind and simply say "No! Stop!" At that moment, she should have every expectation that the sexual advances will, in fact, STOP! If they do not, it is rape/sexual assault and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So, while she may have made some very poor choices to put herself in that bathroom with an athlete who had his pants down expecting a BJ, she still has the expectation that she can say NO and nothing else happens.

-Jason "one wonders, why was Teague guarding the door? Who was he guarding it from?" Evans

Jason you are absolutely correct, IF she said no. But from what has been reported she did not say she was forced or refused only that she felt 'pressured'. I get "pressured" everyday by drug seekers wanting narcotics. How well do you think my defense would work if I met two dudes on the street, we talked about a drug deal, then I took them to my pharmacy and then gave them drugs because they asked? "Sorry officer, but I was pressured into giving them Oxycontin even though I knew I shouldn't"..... Officer; "Did they force you to by using physical force or a weapon"? "Well no, they just looked scary and asked me like they really wanted it, I was pressured"....

I am not cold hearted, and if anyone forces themselves on someone without consent they should be prosecuted to the fullest. But at some point you have to take responsibility for your bad choices and the situations you put yourself in.

I think this is a sad situation on a lot of fronts. I feel bad for both the girl and the guys involved even if it was consensual. I think that it is sad that our society is so sexual and that young people today are forced to grow up being exposed to sex through every type of media outlet there is. I hate that our society has been pronified (if that is a word) to the point where it would be considered appropriate to discuss sexual acts with people you hardly know as casually as you would discuss the weather. What these “kids” are finding out the hard way is that they is no such thing as ‘casual sex’. It takes a toll emotionally and often physically, and it is a shame that this message is lost.

[JG Nothing]

By making this public, the accuser is making the accused the "victim." They have no benefit of a trial (except the police finding that there was not even enough evidence to take the case to trial AND the university finding that there was not a preponderance of evidence of wrongdoing). All we have is her word, which is directly contradicted by the one player, indirectly contradicted by the second player AND inconsistent with her admitted actions of discussing oral sex with the players, THEN going to the players room and performing oral sex on one of the players.

How exactly are the players to respond?

The accuser was not being judged until SHE dredged the issue back up and went public. I wonder if she is getting an appearance fee for participating in this "news" feature.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said. No one on this board is one of the players or his formal representative. Let the players or their representatives respond how they think appropriate. Why should others be the one judging the alleged victim when they have not even heard a statement from anyone involved? Why are people on this board so ready to pounce on the woman? Once again, the lacrosse lesson seems to only apply to accused not the accuser.

Here's a question for you. What if the woman was sexually assaulted and the legal system was not able to do anything about it? How exactly should she respond?

I hope you will reconsider your last paragraph. It perfectly illustrates the attitudes women face when they report being sexually assaulted.

One last thing, I'm not saying the woman is telling the truth or lying. I'm just saying, we should not judge her until there is more information.

[sdotbarbee]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said. No one on this board is one of the players or his formal representative. Let the players or their representatives respond how they think appropriate. Why should others be the one judging the alleged victim when they have not even heard a statement from anyone involved? Why are people on this board so ready to pounce on the woman? Once again, the lacrosse lesson seems to only apply to accused not the accuser.

Here's a question for you. What if the woman was sexually assaulted and the legal system was not able to do anything about it? How exactly should she respond?

I hope you will reconsider your last paragraph. It perfectly illustrates the attitudes women face when they report being sexually assaulted.

One last thing, I'm not saying the woman is telling the truth or lying. I'm just saying, we should not judge her until there is more information.

This is spot on and a very scary reality especially for us fathers with daughters. If she went up there and went into the bathroom and said "no" but was forced into oral sex without any witnesses how does she prove it was sexual assault? It is her word against his. I have read some about the incident and I also watched the Today Show and I am not sure that she ever said "no" she said she felt threatened and like she had to do it. Does anyone know if she actually said "no" or "stop"? If not how does the other person know that you are feeling "threatened" and you don't want to engage in the activity if you don't tell them? This seems like a really big mess and it's bad for everybody involved.

[JG Nothing]

I agree wholeheartedly. Is she a "victim" the way C. Mangum was a victim? Or a victim just because you are pre-programmed to believe all charges against athletes? The police couldn't find that she was a victim. Wake Forest couldn't find that she was a victim. YOU have decided she is a victim! I have made no decision either way.

Tomorrow morning, perhaps egged on by the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes* (their website has a big red "V" in the logo with a jagged chasm separating the lettter), this "victim" of yours will speak. Since we already know the WF players' names, she doesn't have to say them. The Today Show should be very careful about what she says and how she says it, and even then it will be too late to reverse the damage done to players who, at this point, are "victims" just as plausibly as the young lady.

It is my stand that a young woman who has been rebuffed by both the Miami Police Department and Wake Forest University should not be allowed to start (what could be) a media firestorm without ANY evidence that her story is true.

* NCAVA, for those who don't remember, "broke" the story on Facebook.

Show me one place where I explicitly stated or even implied she was a "victim." In every case, I have called her the "alleged victim." I have tried very hard to be careful with my language so as not to assume guilt or innocence.

As for your last paragraph, the Miami DA did not say there was no rape; she declined to prosecute because of a lack of physical evidence. That is a huge difference. Forgive me if I am agnostic about a university disciplinary board's conclusion, which I have not read. (Funny you should place so much trust in a university's judgment after Duke's handling of the lacrosse incident.)

[BD80]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said. No one on this board is one of the players or his formal representative. Let the players or their representatives respond how they think appropriate. Why should others be the one judging the alleged victim when they have not even heard a statement from anyone involved? Why are people on this board so ready to pounce on the woman? Once again, the lacrosse lesson seems to only apply to accused not the accuser.
Here's a question for you. What if the woman was sexually assaulted and the legal system was not able to do anything about it? How exactly should she respond?

I hope you will reconsider your last paragraph. It perfectly illustrates the attitudes women face when they report being sexually assaulted.

One last thing, I'm not saying the woman is telling the truth or lying. I'm just saying, we should not judge her until there is more information.

Here the accuser is bringing this back into the light - it is her choice. Whether or not the players are guilty, they are being punished with the publication of the accusation. There is NO response they can make to avoid that harm.

IF she was assaulted, and IF the legal system was "not able to do anything about it," what more would you expect to happen? If you are concerned about the "victim's" well-being, there are many forms of counseling available. If you and she are concerned about the safety of other women, she could do what she is doing without the details accusing the players (but then she probably wouldn't have been paid for her story). If you are concerned about punishing the players, it SHOULDN'T be done outside the legal system.

Here is the Today feature:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43091112#43091112

Her version now is that she was invited to a "Party" and was surprised to find the room dark, she was pushed into the room, Clark "took her" into the bathroom, and she felt threatened by Clark's "big, strong hand" on the back of her next and that he would hurt her if she did not do want he wanted. No mention of the earler discussion of oral sex.

Not a very persuasive feature about colleges failing to deal with accusations of sexual assault.

[MCFinARL]

Here the accuser is bringing this back into the light - it is her choice. Whether or not the players are guilty, they are being punished with the publication of the accusation. There is NO response they can make to avoid that harm.

IF she was assaulted, and IF the legal system was "not able to do anything about it," what more would you expect to happen? If you are concerned about the "victim's" well-being, there are many forms of counseling available. If you and she are concerned about the safety of other women, she could do what she is doing without the details accusing the players (but then she probably wouldn't have been paid for her story). If you are concerned about punishing the players, it SHOULDN'T be done outside the legal system.


Here is the Today feature:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43091112#43091112

Her version now is that she was invited to a "Party" and was surprised to find the room dark, she was pushed into the room, Clark "took her" into the bathroom, and she felt threatened by Clark's "big, strong hand" on the back of her next and that he would hurt her if she did not do want he wanted. No mention of the earler discussion of oral sex.

Not a very persuasive feature about colleges failing to deal with accusations of sexual assault.

Do you know she was paid for her story? Has this been reported somewhere? Whatever you think about her actions I'd hate to see people assume she is looking to get paid without any evidence that that is the case.

[cbnaylor]

After watching the segment today, I can't help to feel disgusted in the actions of Teague and Clark or any other basketball player that feels they can do whatever they want. If they wanted some action, they should have called up Miss Hawaii! (aka) Booty Call!

[oldnavy]

After watching the segment, my first impression is typical news hack job pushing their agenda in a sensationalistic way. Short on facts and long on accusations.

HOWEVER, the story the girl from Wake told is quite different from what was reported earlier. If she was taken to the room under false pretense and shoved in, that is TOTALLY different than discussing sex prior to voluntarily going to the room. It is hard to know what actually happened without all the evidence.

I will say again, that this is a sad situation no matter if it was consensual or not. Our society is all about sex and the kids today are being told via media (movies, songs, television shows, you name it) that it is cool and perfectly acceptable to engage freely in sexual activity. Never are they told (unless in the home) that there is a world of trouble waiting if they engage in casual and promiscuous sexual activity. IF they are lucky enough to avoid STD’s or pregnancy, there is still the emotional baggage and scarring that is unavoidable.

There is an old saying that if you play with fire you are going to get burned. I just wish that this was being taught to the kids so they would know to avoid putting themselves in these bad situations (both boys and girls).

[tendev]

Here the accuser is bringing this back into the light - it is her choice. Whether or not the players are guilty, they are being punished with the publication of the accusation. There is NO response they can make to avoid that harm.

IF she was assaulted, and IF the legal system was "not able to do anything about it," what more would you expect to happen? If you are concerned about the "victim's" well-being, there are many forms of counseling available. If you and she are concerned about the safety of other women, she could do what she is doing without the details accusing the players (but then she probably wouldn't have been paid for her story). If you are concerned about punishing the players, it SHOULDN'T be done outside the legal system.
Here is the Today feature:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43091112#43091112

Her version now is that she was invited to a "Party" and was surprised to find the room dark, she was pushed into the room, Clark "took her" into the bathroom, and she felt threatened by Clark's "big, strong hand" on the back of her next and that he would hurt her if she did not do want he wanted. No mention of the earler discussion of oral sex.

Not a very persuasive feature about colleges failing to deal with accusations of sexual assault.

Why should it not be aired outside the legal system? If the woman feels she was sexually assualted what moral or ethical obligation does she have to "keep it in the legal system". And if she brings it to the legal system and gets no redress, which she obviously feels was the case here, then what is the problem with going on National TV to air her case?

For those of you who want to argue the facts, I am not taking sides. As someone stated earlier, only the three involved know what happened and I am sure that even their memories are not perfectly accurate. What I am saying is that this woman is not obligated to keep silent if the legal system did not pursue her case or she did not want to pursue it in the legal system.

If the players feel that she is defaming them, then they can either speak up in response or file a defamation claim.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I haven't seen the segment and only know the news that has gone viral right now. I don't even want to comment about victims, alleged victims, guilty, innocent, etc. etc. The facts aren't there, we haven't heard from dozens of parties potentially involved / affected, and in doing so we do what so many columnists, universities, politicians, and other parties who feel like they have to say something (here's to looking at you, Common) did with the Duke Lacrosse Scandal.

But I will say something. One negative consequence of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal is that when a woman cries rape, especially (if not primarily) in situations regarding athletes or celebrities, she no longer gets 100% support from the public as the public now assumes that the woman may not be telling the truth. Pre-Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the alleged perpetrator was viewed as guilty. Woman have sadly lied about sexual assault and rape this in the past, but the Duke Lacrosse Scandal was such a high-publicity story that now affects all sexual assault cases regarding athletes. I remember reading about Ben Roethisberger and counted how many times the Duke Lacrosse Scandal was referenced there. Whether she is telling the truth or not is a subject of debate, but one thing for certain is that she is not getting the support that she wants (and possibly needs).

[Scorp4me]

Pre-Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the alleged perpetrator was viewed as guilty.

I've already posted once and glad I didn't say anything wrong because this is such a sensitive issue. But aren't people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? I'm just not sure if what you quoted was a good or bad thing.

[DevilWearsPrada]

Here is the Today feature:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/43091112#43091112

Her version now is that she was invited to a "Party" and was surprised to find the room dark, she was pushed into the room, Clark "took her" into the bathroom, and she felt threatened by Clark's "big, strong hand" on the back of her next and that he would hurt her if she did not do want he wanted. No mention of the earler discussion of oral sex.

Not a very persuasive feature about colleges failing to deal with accusations of sexual assault.

I watched the segment this morning, and again on the link. The Wake Forest Student, Maggie was a member of the WF Band, and in Miami to cheer on her fellow peers.

Did the basketball players call her a "Groupie" ? Or was that just the Reporters? Maggie was a WF student and Band member. And when the teams travel, I would assume they are on the same airplanes, and / or buses. Or at least, thats the way, Duke Travels. Hardly a Groupie, because the Band and the Cheerleaders and Mascot are an extension of the Team!

Where does the Story go from here?

I hope this brings more AWARENESS to all of us, and especially young folks who are at parties, either in high school, and college where alcholic beverages are available, and Make Good Choices.

[BD80]

Why should it not be aired outside the legal system? If the woman feels she was sexually assaulted what moral or ethical obligation does she have to "keep it in the legal system". And if she brings it to the legal system and gets no redress, which she obviously feels was the case here, then what is the problem with going on National TV to air her case?

For those of you who want to argue the facts, I am not taking sides. As someone stated earlier, only the three involved know what happened and I am sure that even their memories are not perfectly accurate. What I am saying is that this woman is not obligated to keep silent if the legal system did not pursue her case or she did not want to pursue it in the legal system.

If the players feel that she is defaming them, then they can either speak up in response or file a defamation claim.

So you condone her publicizing accusations that she was sexually assaulted by a specific Wake player until there is a judicial determination of defamation - SHE is innocent of defamation until proven guilty? But you refuse to accord the players the same right? Her story portrays Clark guilty of sex assault despite two determinations (Miami DA and Wake Disciplinary Board) that he SHOULDN'T be considered guilty?

She could promote her cause without implicating the specific person accused. But anonymity is not salacious enough to sell advertising on "Today."

As to whether she was paid for the Today interview, there is being paid and then there is being paid. NBC has repeatedly had to deny that they pay for interviews:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/02/today-exclusive.html

But it is an ill kept secret that there is a financial incentive provided to obtain interviews.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I haven't seen the segment and only know the news that has gone viral right now.
For those that haven't seen it, this is her account.

Maggie Hurt, a former band member at Wake Forest, said Gary Clark and Jeff Teague invited her to a party back at their Miami hotel room after the Demon Deacons were eliminated from the 2009 NCAA tournament. Hurt said that when she arrived, the room was empty. She said she was forced into a bathroom and made to perform oral sex on Clark.

“They opened the door, it was complete dark, and I was physically shoved from behind into the room,” Hurt told NBC. “I was scared. He had big hands. He could palm a basketball and it was on the back of my neck. I felt like if I didn’t do what he asked, he would hurt me.”
Hurt alleged that Teague guarded the bathroom door while the assault took place.
http://www.foxsportscarolinas.com/msn/05/19/11/Wake-Forest-accuser-comes-forward/landing_acc.html?blockID=525383&feedID=3736

[DevilWearsPrada]

After the LAX hoax and now this, perhaps I need to change my screen name.


http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/facepalm1.gif

http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/bag.gif


Your name is just perfect! You represent 2 wonderful universities! Put some sunglasses on :cool:!

[Mike Corey]

Re: the specific situation, it strikes me as inappropriate for the alleged victim to have come forward with the identities of the accused. That is the Today Show's fault, as well: it makes for more interest when high-profile individuals are accused than regular ol' students.

This kind of scenario--woman accuses college classmate of rape; college holds hearing; woman is accused of being promiscuous; he said/she said and lack of evidence results in dismissal of accusation at hearing--happens all the time at colleges across the country, including Duke.

Women that have the courage to come forward know that is a likely result. And that is why many women never, ever come forward, even hesitating to tell the closest of friends or family because of the fear that they will be either disbelieved or dismissed as having asked for it.

The high-profile cases in the past several years have been those where accusations have been patently false. Indeed, before the Duke lacrosse imbroglio, Duke had to deal with a four-year ordeal with one student and her false tales of sexual assault. That accuser never accused anyone in particular.

Most women that come forward with accusations are not fabricating their tales, however.

I am far less interested in the specifics of this situation than I am the broader implications: campus hearings are an ineffective means to fight the prevalence of sexual assault and date rape on campus. Public hearings are just as ineffective, and indeed, are unfair to both parties.

[killerleft]

I haven't seen the segment and only know the news that has gone viral right now. I don't even want to comment about victims, alleged victims, guilty, innocent, etc. etc. The facts aren't there, we haven't heard from dozens of parties potentially involved / affected, and in doing so we do what so many columnists, universities, politicians, and other parties who feel like they have to say something (here's to looking at you, Common) did with the Duke Lacrosse Scandal.

But I will say something. One negative consequence of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal is that when a woman cries rape, especially (if not primarily) in situations regarding athletes or celebrities, she no longer gets 100% support from the public as the public now assumes that the woman may not be telling the truth. Pre-Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the alleged perpetrator was viewed as guilty. Woman have sadly lied about sexual assault and rape this in the past, but the Duke Lacrosse Scandal was such a high-publicity story that now affects all sexual assault cases regarding athletes. I remember reading about Ben Roethisberger and counted how many times the Duke Lacrosse Scandal was referenced there. Whether she is telling the truth or not is a subject of debate, but one thing for certain is that she is not getting the support that she wants (and possibly needs).

I saw the segment on the Today Show. Both ladies featured came across as intelligent, believeable, disillusioned, and wanting what they perceived as justice to be served. Is it sad to say that I came away from the segment no closer to forming an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the WF players? Probably, but that's just the way it is.

I fancy that I would make a very good juror in a criminal case - that I would be able to weigh evidence and assign guilt or innocence based purely on the facts. But perception is the wild card. The young lady certainly feels that she was assaulted. Even on TV, with millions watching, she cannot produce the words that would give me a chance to either believe or disbelieve that she was sexually assaulted. I heard no definitive evidence that the WF player forced her to do anything. Saying that his hand was large and rested behind her head sounds intimidating, but strangely absent are the protests that would have left no doubt as to whether she was a willing participant or not.

I believe that she was not a willing participant. It seems that she didn't make that very plain.

The young lady has experienced a tragedy. But, exactly what could or should the Miami Police or the Wake Forest administration have done differently? We may never know. What is most perplexing to me is that an articulate woman who is capable of going on a national TV show and coherently making her feelings known was not better at that when it counted most. Unless some vital words or actions have been inexcuseably left out somehow.

[cato]

So you condone her publicizing accusations that she was sexually assaulted by a specific Wake player until there is a judicial determination of defamation - SHE is innocent of defamation until proven guilty? But you refuse to accord the players the same right? Her story portrays Clark guilty of sex assault despite two determinations (Miami DA and Wake Disciplinary Board) that he SHOULDN'T be considered guilty?


I'm not following you. What exactly are you proposing? That it should be a crime for someone to make certain types of allegations unless and until there is a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?

If so, should everyone who has called OJ a murderer be locked up?

[BD80]

I'm not following you. What exactly are you proposing? That it should be a crime for someone to make certain types of allegations unless and until there is a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?

If so, should everyone who has called OJ a murderer be locked up?

There was a judicial finding that OJ wrongfully took Nicole's life.

I understand the legal system, and accept it for what it is. I am criticizing the accuser for publicizing the names of the accused and for making the whole thing a public spectacle. I find it morally wrong, and I question her motivation. It has been suggested we reserve judgment until the facts are known, but why should the players have to defend themselves in a public forum when two tribunals have already found insufficient cause to find them "responsible."

FWIW, I deplore any instance of a man taking advantage of a woman in any respect, particularly by force or (as in the IU case featured on Today) through alcohol inebriation.

[Matches]

What is most perplexing to me is that an articulate woman who is capable of going on a national TV show and coherently making her feelings known was not better at that when it counted most. Unless some vital words or actions have been inexcuseably left out somehow.

Pure speculation on my part - but we're discussing events that occurred 2 years ago. 2 years can make a world of difference in the maturity level of someone around that age. She may not have been anywhere near as articulate in 2009 as she is in 2011.

[bundabergdevil]

I suppose I would agree with the notion that she shouldn't have made public the names of the basketball players if I had complete assurance that the results of the two tribunals were indeed fully accurate and reflected the truth of the situation. If though, as she states in her interview she fully believes she was wronged through the determination of those tribunals, then I fully support her every public action. There are examples too numerous to list of the justice system not actually meting out justice. In those cases, dissent outside the normal channels provided by our institutions(which may be humanly flawed for any number of reasons) becomes, in my view, a moral imperative.

In a case like this, as has been mentioned a number of times on this thread, the "rightness" or "wrongness" of her decision to appear on the Today show depends entirely on what actually happened and whether the tribunals were in fact fair, as the basketball players say, or were flawed and potentially biased, as she says. We just don't know.

[johnb]

If there was explicit sexual banter, an expectation that they were going "to party" and not "to a party," AND she didn't physically or verbally complain/resist at the time, then there just wasn't a rape. But it's certainly reasonable that she would be traumatized and they would have made serious mistakes; I just don't think it qualifies as rape.

To my mind, it gets more difficult if she entered the room under any circumstances (flirtation or not, expectation of being in a group or not, expectation that there would potentially be some sort of sexual activity or not) and she then got scared by being shoved into a dark room. I've worked with people who had much the same experience and then froze while a man had sex with them while they didn't move. While the 2 WF players would be considered "smalls" on a basketball court, they are still 6'2" and 6'4" and very athletic. If the situation were threatening and dark, it seems reasonable/possible that she felt coerced and didn't feel safe to complain or refuse. I don't know if that is what happened or whether it's legally actionable, but it definitely paints a scary picture for young women in the world, and from watching her interview on tv, I felt really bad for her. And that is where the Duke lacrosse situation was not a hoax; the 3 indicted players were clearly thrown under the bus, and I don't begrudge them the multiple millions of dollars they've each apparently netted already from their legal complaints, but they were still part of a subculture that 1) clearly hired stripper hookers and 2)by all accounts were disproportionally involved in hook-ups with women who were attracted to them through a combination of alcohol and campus celebrity, a combination that is a recipe for regret.

[oldnavy]

Maybe every freshman should be required to attend a seminar on sexual harassment and assault. Provide these young men and women with what is considered assault and harassment and also provide them with strategies to avoid being put into situations where these things happen.

Sat through about a dozen of these during my 20+ years in the Navy…

[MCFinARL]

As to whether she was paid for the Today interview, there is being paid and then there is being paid. NBC has repeatedly had to deny that they pay for interviews:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/02/today-exclusive.html

But it is an ill kept secret that there is a financial incentive provided to obtain interviews.

Well, it's an ill kept secret that there is a financial incentive [beyond the legitimate scholarships] provided to obtain college athletes, also--but that doesn't mean every college athlete is receiving such financial incentives--as we Duke fans are frequently proud to point out. I'm not sure linking a story in which NBC denied paying money to the "Octomom" provides any support for a claim that money changed hands in this situation.

[BD80]

... whether the tribunals were in fact fair, as the basketball players say, or were flawed and potentially biased, as she says. We just don't know.


... but [the Duke LAX platers] were still part of a subculture that 1) clearly hired stripper hookers and 2)by all accounts were disproportionally involved in hook-ups with women who were attracted to them through a combination of alcohol and campus celebrity, a combination that is a recipe for regret.

This is the interesting and difficult issue. Can/should colleges have different standards of conduct or burdens of proof? Should colleges have fully trained judiciary and investigative staffs? Sure, the school has the additional "punishment" available of suspension or expulsion and can apply any reasonable standard, but there must still be due process.

The "hooking up" culture has exacerbated the problem. As much as the Today feature was an indictment of the college disciplinary system (which simply should NOT be a substitute for criminal proceedings), it SHOULD have been a tale of caution to young women. One went to a hotel room with two men she didn't know, another had consumed alcohol to the point where she couldn't even say "NO."

[MCFinARL]

Maybe every freshman should be required to attend a seminar on sexual harassment and assault. Provide these young men and women with what is considered assault and harassment and also provide them with strategies to avoid being put into situations where these things happen.

Sat through about a dozen of these during my 20+ years in the Navy…

I actually think many of them are--I'm pretty sure my daughter went to some such presentation during her freshman orientation at Duke a few years back. But I don't know how many of them really "get it"--they are still in their "invulnerable" years, where they are sure bad things won't happen to them. Or perhaps they are all texting and looking at Facebook as they do in their regular classes.

[DevilWearsPrada]

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/may/19/16/former-wake-forest-student-tells-today-sexual-assa-ar-1046746/

WF president says "Misrepresented" in the Today Show.

[oldnavy]

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/may/19/16/former-wake-forest-student-tells-today-sexual-assa-ar-1046746/

wf president says "misrepresented" in the today show.

i'm shocked!!!

[killerleft]

Maybe every freshman should be required to attend a seminar on sexual harassment and assault. Provide these young men and women with what is considered assault and harassment and also provide them with strategies to avoid being put into situations where these things happen.

Sat through about a dozen of these during my 20+ years in the Navy…

I can't remember if it was implemented or what it was called, but the last Duke inititive along these lines more or less made any accusation a conviction unless one could prove his/her innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt, and only then would they flip a coin to see if the accused could be found innocent of a sexual assault charge. And then they would find the son of a gun guilty no matter how the coin toss determined things.:D:D:D - I kid, I kid, but it did seem like one of those unbelieveable Monty Python skits. Well, except for the accused, of course.

[Des Esseintes]

I can't remember if it was implemented or what it was called, but the last Duke inititive along these lines more or less made any accusation a conviction unless one could prove his/her innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt, and only then would they flip a coin to see if the accused could be found innocent of a sexual assault charge. And then they would find the son of a gun guilty no matter how the coin toss determined things.:D:D:D - I kid, I kid, but it did seem like one of those unbelieveable Monty Python skits. Well, except for the accused, of course.

The number of rape complaints determined to be false is between 2% and 8%, with the more persuasive assessments nearing the lower end of that range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#False_reporting

So, yes, false accusations happen. Maybe 1 in 25 times. That doesn't mean the possibility should be ignored, but we sure talk an awfully lot about that 1 in 25...

[BD80]

Gary Parrish weighs in:

http://gary-parrish.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/29419851

He doesn't believe Clark should have been charged without witnesses and physical evidence.

Even though he says it doesn't prove anything, GPG can't help passing on this scrumptious morsel: Clark's attorney says the accuser had sex with a male cheerleader in a hotel bathroom just hours before the alleged assault. Legally, it can't be offered as evidence that she was more likely to have consented to the sexual acts, but it makes it seem to me less likely that she said no.

[snowdenscold]

The number of rape complaints determined to be false is between 2% and 8%, with the more persuasive assessments nearing the lower end of that range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#False_reporting

So, yes, false accusations happen. Maybe 1 in 25 times. That doesn't mean the possibility should be ignored, but we sure talk an awfully lot about that 1 in 25...

That just gets you back to the classic lawyer dilemna of how much weight you assign to punishing the guilty vs. freeing the innocent, e.g. "I'd rather have 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail" type of statements. What's your comfortability point? Is the ratio, 100:1, 1:1, 100000:1 ?

[BD80]

The number of rape complaints determined to be false is between 2% and 8%, with the more persuasive assessments nearing the lower end of that range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#False_reporting

So, yes, false accusations happen. Maybe 1 in 25 times. That doesn't mean the possibility should be ignored, but we sure talk an awfully lot about that 1 in 25...

Read the article, there is little useful data there. The data you cite is 8%, which is FOUR times greater than the national crime index of unfounded reports. The article notes there are great disagreements about the various studies, including one that was limited to a police department that vigorously investigated to closure every rape charge, which included a serious offer to polygraph the complainant and the suspects. There, 45% of the allegations proved false.

Can there be a point of genuine disagreement? The accuser believes she did not consent but the accused believes it was consensual?

[Des Esseintes]

That just gets you back to the classic lawyer dilemna of how much weight you assign to punishing the guilty vs. freeing the innocent, e.g. "I'd rather have 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail" type of statements. What's your comfortability point? Is the ratio, 100:1, 1:1, 100000:1 ?

But that's not my point. I have no wish to abrogate justice and throw everyone in jail. That's not justice, after all. But when we talk about rape, I would prefer it if everyone remembered that instances of false accusation are rare. They happen--a Duke board knows that better than anyone--but they are rare.

And when killerleft whines that a university justice system seems weighted toward finding the accused guilty, maybe he should consider that the system is not in fact weighted, but that most of the accused are found guilty because most of the accused committed a rape.

As for BD80, yes, there is one highly criticized study that shows elevated rates of false reportage. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes against that paper, but if it aligns with what you would prefer to believe, fine. This is not to say I think the Wake student was raped. I'm merely stating that if she wasn't--and she very well may not have been--she will be in a small minority, and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

[cato]

There was a judicial finding that OJ wrongfully took Nicole's life.

Only after he was found not guilt in a criminal proceeding. Should the family members of the murdered individuals have been barred from accusing OJ of anything until he was found liable in a civil proceeding (thanks to the lower burden of proof)?




I understand the legal system, and accept it for what it is. I am criticizing the accuser for publicizing the names of the accused and for making the whole thing a public spectacle. I find it morally wrong, and I question her motivation. It has been suggested we reserve judgment until the facts are known, but why should the players have to defend themselves in a public forum when two tribunals have already found insufficient cause to find them "responsible."

FWIW, I deplore any instance of a man taking advantage of a woman in any respect, particularly by force or (as in the IU case featured on Today) through alcohol inebriation.

I'm still not sure what you are proposing. A bar on certain types of allegations absent criminal or civil finding of wrongdoing?

[MCFinARL]

Gary Parrish weighs in:

http://gary-parrish.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/29419851

He doesn't believe Clark should have been charged without witnesses and physical evidence.

Even though he says it doesn't prove anything, GPG can't help passing on this scrumptious morsel: Clark's attorney says the accuser had sex with a male cheerleader in a hotel bathroom just hours before the alleged assault. Legally, it can't be offered as evidence that she was more likely to have consented to the sexual acts, but it makes it seem to me less likely that she said no.

Why? Even assuming this claim is true, there is a reason why this can't be offered as evidence that she was more likely to consent (and I don't see an distinction between that and "less likely to say no" that is important for this particular purpose). Arguably, having just had sex with someone else might make it more likely for someone to say no, because their immediate desire for sex had been satisfied. And that's leaving aside the question of whether there might have been some sort of actual relationship with the person in the first alleged encounter. [Even marital sex can happen in a bathroom, so I'm not thinking the location is key here.]

[-jk]

This one has moved completely into a policy discussion. I think it's time to get back to hoops.

-jk