Wake rape allegations

[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/261848...91112#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/261848...91112#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/261848...91112#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/261848...91112#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/show...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/ms...mp;feedID=3736

[DevilWearsPrada]

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

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

[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.