The Book

[Zootown Rox]

I can't believe the victim blaming in this thread. So she didn't win in court, so what, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make the accused innocent. They can both be right in their own minds, maybe she was confused, maybe there was some miscommunication, doesn't matter. She had every right to pursue it if she thought she was assaulted, doesn't make her a vengeful harpy or whatever other BS you want to toss at her, it also doesn't mean JJ assaulted her. If at any point you find yourself throwing shade at random victims you don't know just because they are victims then stop typing and hold down the backspace button.

 

[UMGriz75]

I can't believe the victim blaming in this thread. So she didn't win in court, so what, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make the accused innocent. They can both be right in their own minds, maybe she was confused, maybe there was some miscommunication, doesn't matter. She had every right to pursue it if she thought she was assaulted, doesn't make her a vengeful harpy or whatever other BS you want to toss at her, it also doesn't mean JJ assaulted her. If at any point you find yourself throwing shade at random victims you don't know just because they are victims then stop typing and hold down the backspace button.

She did untold damage to genuine victims and untold damage by creating real victims. The trial did untold damage to genuine victims who have been hurt and don't want to be stereotyped as selfish manipulators of the system using the system for revenge because of the appearances that she "didn't get to be the girlfriend." This victim was expressing far too much "glee" during the follow-up on this.

This entire episode is simply the pale replay, in time reverse, of the Rolling Stone debacle where a "victim" was seeking to advance an ulterior motive of obtaining the sympathy of a boy she wanted to date, and also in that case, attempting to justify her poor school grades, and who decided that a "rape" was a great way to explain her grades and garner sympathy.

I mean, good grief, a college age female actually thought that a false claim of "rape" could solve certain personal problems in her life; and a major University and a major publication bought into it!

How does society produce that way of thinking in young women?

It is not just extreme and outrageous, but the expressed desires of "society" to avoid assigning any moral agency whatsoever to women who do these things, excusing them in the name of protecting others, is itself extreme and outrageous.

In the case of the so-called "Gang Rape," the claim of "rape" was the attempt to evade the anger of an outraged boyfriend, unfortunately exposed by a video of the incident and her laughing, and aggressive, involvement. The false claim of "rape" was the effort there to solve another kind of personal problem.

This stuff happens, and it is not just egregious injustice to those falsely accused, the worst kind of injustice, it damages the real victims and prevents real measures to identify and punish real offenders (people who actually do rape tend to be serial and far more dangerous).

 

[getgrizzy]

You would want to show that she was this way before she made this claim. Not about the claim. Again people who feel they were wronged or even if they're making it up are going to act vengeful. How else would you act?

She showed up at the Forester's Ball the evening before, three sheets, unescorted, and headed straight for JJ and his girlfriend visiting from Oregon, where she announced, "Jordy, I'd do you anytime." She demanded a dance, then drug him publicly to the "Marriage Booth" line where he finally backed away and she was left "standing." In public. Rejected by the Star Quarterback. It was all quite public on her part, and "apparently" there was a motive.

Vengeful? Did you use the word "vengeful?"

You would act that way?

Honest question: Is she really stupid enough to have the scene you describe and then try to stage a rape? I don't know her, but you have some experience with her from seeing her at the trial. Did she come off as flakey and ditzy enough to think she could do that, then claim she was raped a night later?

 

[Zootown Rox]

The trial did untold damage to genuine victims who have been hurt and don't want to be stereotyped as selfish manipulators of the system using the system for revenge because of the appearances that she "didn't get to be the girlfriend." This victim was expressing far too much "glee" during the follow-up on this.

We don't know if this was about revenge and attacking her without proof is not helpful to future victims.

This entire episode is simply the pale replay, in time reverse, of the Rolling Stone debacle where a "victim" was seeking to advance an ulterior motive of obtaining the sympathy of a boy she wanted to date, and also in that case, attempting to justify her poor school grades, decided that a "rape" was a great way to explain her grades and garner sympathy.

Again we don't know this, conjecturing sinister or selfish motivations is victim blaming. It doesn't help anything.

I mean, good grief, a college age female actually thought that a false claim of "rape" could solve certain personal problems in her life; and a major University and a major publication bought into it!

Yea if that's what happened it's terrible, but again it can't be proven that's what happened at the UofM, but jumping to that conclusion looks like victim blaming.

In the case of the so-called "Gang Rape," the claim of "rape" was the attempt to evade the anger of an outraged boyfriend, unfortunately exposed by a video of the incident and her laughing, and aggressive, involvement.

Yea this is a verifiable example of false accusation that hurt others and lead to the fervor of this whole 'scandal'. This case should have had just as much media attention as the others, but it was swept under the rug. Instead the accusation is included in the reporting of the 'scandal' but the debunking and retraction is never mentioned. This is the case you can make hay over and not be victim blaming.

This stuff happens, and it is not just egregious injustice to those falsely accused, the worst kind of injustice, it damages the real victims and prevents real measures to identify and punish real offenders

Agreed

(people who actually do rape tend to be serial and far more dangerous).

Disagree, the vast majority of rapes are by acquaintances of the victim and are non-violent.

 

[UMGriz75]

Honest question: Is she really stupid enough to have the scene you describe and then try to stage a rape? I don't know her, but you have some experience with her from seeing her at the trial. Did she come off as flakey and ditzy enough to think she could do that, then claim she was raped a night later?

That's the whole point of the Rolling Stone expose'. In case after case, these allegations are made that are both flakey and ditzy. Brian Banks, Duke LaCrosse, Rolling Stone -- why is it that nearly every single big case seems to blow up when the accusers turn out to be "flakey and ditzy." The odds would seem to be strongly against it, and yet, case after case ....

Notably, Jane Doe, early on, didn't seem to connect her allegations with jail or punishment. It was all about "UM is not going to have its Star Quarterback next year." Seem odd that that's what was her primary desire? That she was "happy" that O'Day and Pflu went down. For somebody that was "raped," she was awfully wound up in the public relations and football side of this. She expressed no desire for legal punishment; she was after the "Quarterback" title and anybody that was associated with JJ on the sport side of this.

When everything got "serious" and the legal system started grinding away, then she had the "second thoughts." Her texting began a considerably different "take" on the matter, and she began expressing regrets about making the allegations -- "JJ didn't do anything wrong." "Maybe I did want a relationship to happen." "Maybe I lied."

In writing.

 

[grizindabox]

By the way...great thread guys...keep up the good work... :roll:

 

[EverettGriz]

Great post Zoo.

 

[UMGriz75]

(people who actually do rape tend to be serial and far more dangerous).

Disagree, the vast majority of rapes are by acquaintances of the victim and are non-violent.

http://www.wcsap.org/sites/www.wcsap.org/files/uploads/webinars/SV%20on%20Campus/Repeat%20Rape.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Troubling stories of sexual predators committing multiple assaults are actually not all that unusual. In fact, researchers say the overwhelming majority of rapes on college campuses are committed by repeat offenders.

Clinical psychologist David Lisak trains prosecutors and police about sex offenders. His pioneering research revealed a remarkable fact.

“The vast majority of sexual assaults on campuses, in fact over 90 percent, are being perpetrated by serial offenders,” Lisak said.

The only case of violent assault during the time period in question at UM was, in fact, by a serial rapist, from an avowedly misogynistic culture, who attacked multiple victims during one weekend.

All of this underscores just how unusual the UM situation was overall, a very few "acquaintance" encounters (9), of which four student athlete accused were falsely accused, and one of which was found by a jury to be not guilty. These suggest that these are untypical, and a high percentage happened to be false accusations, rather than representative of what Krakauer is attempting to peddle.

 

[getgrizzy]

Honest question: Is she really stupid enough to have the scene you describe and then try to stage a rape? I don't know her, but you have some experience with her from seeing her at the trial. Did she come off as flakey and ditzy enough to think she could do that, then claim she was raped a night later?

That's the whole point of the Rolling Stone expose'. In case after case, these allegations are made that are both flakey and ditzy. Brian Banks, Duke LaCrosse, Rolling Stone -- why is it that nearly every single big case seems to blow up when the accusers turn out to be "flakey and ditzy." The odds would seem to be strongly against it, and yet, case after case ....

Notably, Jane Doe, early on, didn't seem to connect her allegations with jail or punishment. It was all about "UM is not going to have its Star Quarterback next year." Seem odd that that's what was her primary desire? That she was "happy" that O'Day and Pflu went down. For somebody that was "raped," she was awfully wound up in the public relations and football side of this. She expressed no desire for legal punishment; she was after the "Quarterback" title.

When everything got "serious" and the legal system started grinding away, then she had the "second thoughts" and her texting took on a considerably different "take" on the matter, and she began expressing regrets about making the allegations -- "JJ didn't do anything wrong." "Maybe I did want a relationship to happen." "Maybe I lied."

In writing.

In what you saw and heard from her during the trial as you were sitting there observing her speak, her tone, her mannerisms, did she seem flakey or ditzy to you? Enough to make you think she would hatch a plan to accuse JJ of rape just night after being publicly humiliated? Is that how she came off in person?

 

[horribilisfan8184]

I can't believe the victim blaming in this thread. So she didn't win in court, so what, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make the accused innocent. They can both be right in their own minds, maybe she was confused, maybe there was some miscommunication, doesn't matter. She had every right to pursue it if she thought she was assaulted, doesn't make her a vengeful harpy or whatever other BS you want to toss at her, it also doesn't mean JJ assaulted her. If at any point you find yourself throwing shade at random victims you don't know just because they are victims then stop typing and hold down the backspace button.

The only reason I start typing is to respond to the misguided and ill informed who post here. You do know that studies of rape reports show a rate of false accusations of rape ranging from 8% by FBI statistics to 41% in a study by Kanin, which he found by contacting reporting victims, 41% of which recanted their stories as false (fabricated). It is these events, not forum posters, that do damage to legitimate rape victims. This accuser's testimony had the hallmarks of fabrication and the jury verdict supports that conclusion. Many jurisdictions are now dealing with the problem of false rape accusations by charging the false accuser with crimes. I'm not suggesting this happen here. This girl was swept along by the rape culture advocates, who had too much invested in the case going forward to let the prosecution drop. Moreover, if this accuser had deleted her texts before the cops got to her phone, many of her falsehoods would not have been available to the defense for cross examination. By not doing so, she preserved the evidence which doomed her story of what transpired that night.

Her own words created the basis for which she is now being criticized. Can't blame that on forum posters.

 

[UMGriz75]

In what you saw and heard from her during the trial as you were sitting there observing her speak, her tone, her mannerisms, did she seem flakey or ditzy to you? Enough to make you think she would hatch a plan to accuse JJ of rape just night after being publicly humiliated? Is that how she came off in person?

No. She did not seem flaky or ditzy in the slightest. Very focused and deliberate.

 

[UMGriz75]

horribilisfan8184 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:58 am You do know that studies of rape reports show a rate of false accusations of rape ranging from 8% by FBI statistics to 41% in a study by Kanin, which he found by contacting reporting victims,

In our UM classes on this topic, as part of the curriculum, I had taken the time to look up the range of studies on false accusations, and we discussed them.

In part, because as University students, it was an opportunity to expose the students to "studies," statistical treatments, study methodologies, and various "bias" components of such studies, such as phrasing questions in terms of "confirmation bias." Too, it was an opportunity to examine the entire concept of "studies," in a situation where "studies" ranged from 2% to 41% and the need to examine not just underlying methodologies, but underlying motivations -- who is doing the "study," and for what purpose.

In terms of methodology, the Kanin study was by far the most thorough, but that 41% figure is a lightning rod for advocates seeking to discredit that high number as it does nothing useful for the "Narrrative" that ... "Men are Pigs."

http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surprisingly, at UM, women tended to believe that the percentage of false rape claims was relatively high, and pluralities of students offered the opinion that they had known of women who had falsely claimed "rape" because of resentment, retaliation, revenge, regret, peer pressure, social pressure, or evasion of other responsibilities. These women are not necessarily representative of the University population of women, since they self-selected to attend these classes.

Interestingly, the recent brouhaha, offering some detail as to false, likely false, and true claims of rape, suggest that the percentage of false and likely false claims is very close to the percentage that Kanin found -- very high.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

I can't believe the victim blaming in this thread. So she didn't win in court, so what, that doesn't make her a liar and it doesn't make the accused innocent. They can both be right in their own minds, maybe she was confused, maybe there was some miscommunication, doesn't matter. She had every right to pursue it if she thought she was assaulted, doesn't make her a vengeful harpy or whatever other BS you want to toss at her, it also doesn't mean JJ assaulted her. If at any point you find yourself throwing shade at random victims you don't know just because they are victims then stop typing and hold down the backspace button.

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one? I understand the opposition to true victim-blaming (and think some of what is called that is not actually victim-blaming), but what about all the accuses that are made for accusers/victims? Everywhere you look it seems that someone is excusing the behavior, actions and even false statements of accusers. Do you think that is okay? That doesn't solve the problem; it compounds it. Why is it okay for the author to hammer Johnson in the book, after a jury unanimously and quickly found him innocent in a two and half week trial? Why aren't you protesting the unfair process used by the university, and their retroactive switching of their policies and standard of proof? Why isn't Johnson a victim of the author's desire to sell books? Why aren't you standing up for Johnson? I assume it's because you have an agenda, and addressing wrongs like those don't fit your agenda.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

I have read only part of the book, but, so far, it's a bit disjointed and hard to follow. It's relatively boring so far and disappointing. At this point, I think I just wasted about $30. Maybe it will pick up when the Johnson matter is covered.

 

[Zootown Rox]

(people who actually do rape tend to be serial and far more dangerous).

Disagree, the vast majority of rapes are by acquaintances of the victim and are non-violent.

http://www.wcsap.org/sites/www.wcsap.org/files/uploads/webinars/SV%20on%20Campus/Repeat%20Rape.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Troubling stories of sexual predators committing multiple assaults are actually not all that unusual. In fact, researchers say the overwhelming majority of rapes on college campuses are committed by repeat offenders.

Clinical psychologist David Lisak trains prosecutors and police about sex offenders. His pioneering research revealed a remarkable fact.

“The vast majority of sexual assaults on campuses, in fact over 90 percent, are being perpetrated by serial offenders,” Lisak said.

The only case of violent assault during the time period in question at UM was, in fact, by a serial rapist, from an avowedly misogynistic culture, who attacked multiple victims during one weekend.

All of this underscores just how unusual the UM situation was overall, a very few "acquaintance" encounters (9), of which four student athlete accused were falsely accused, and one of which was found by a jury to be not guilty. These suggest that these are untypical, and a high percentage happened to be false accusations, rather than representative of what Krakauer is attempting to peddle.

Good points.

 

[PlayerRep]

I saw the following Comments on the Boston Globe website. Note that this guy is writing a book on the "Deans" and the poor process of university sexual assault proceedings.

Professor McKeen's interesting review does not note that Jon Krakauer's dissection of campus rape in Montana devotes almost no discussion or analysis of the damage done by false allegations of sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, readers must assume (perhaps correctly) that the rape and abuse victims he interviewed were truthful, were not just seeking publicity and were not exaggerating their claims. Sexual abuse is indeed a serious matter, and those who have been abused -- only to be abused again by dismissive academic authorities -- deserve fundamental fairness untainted
by agenda and bias. However, those who have been falsely accused of sexual wrongdoing are also victims whose lives, careers and reputations may be eternally damaged from over-eager officials intent on proving that they are tough on harassment and rape.
As a long ago Boston University student, a sometime journalist and a falsely accused professor in the Montana University System, I have an even more thorough and informed background than Jon Krakauer regarding shortcomings not only in Montana but on campuses across the nation. Consequently, I have just completed an as yet unpublished book manuscript "SEND IN THE DEANS," detailing chapter and verse of administrative malpractice when investigators set forth on witch hunts performing kangaroo court procedures aimed at destroying a victim of false allegations. I wrote my book to show not only administrative overkill but also to suggest remedies so that all parties in these disputes can be more fully assured of fairness. Campus rape and harassment are scandals, but so are bizarrly-conducted investigations where parties are deliberately granted less than the due process they deserve. There's more to the Montana University System story. "Missoula" by Jon Krakauer is only the beginning.
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, Montana

Perhaps I should clarify my points. You're correct that Krakauer was not required to address cases of false allegations, but at book's end he chose to do so in a minimal, perhaps dismissive, manner. Based on experience and research, I know that campus sexual abuse is all too real, but in many cases it also may be difficult (or even impossible) to sort fact from exaggeration or fiction. Campus rape should not come as a surprise. As a long ago student, I knew women friends who had been raped, and reporting about sexual abuse (on campus, in the military, in society in general) is not a new phenomenon. Recently, however, reporting has increased (just as the numbers of students at our schools have increased). You certainly might want to kill men who raped your daughter. But it might be prudent to be certain that the men you want to kill were actually guilty. Krakauer and others who interview and write about rape victims -- including victims who are mistreated and/or ignored by academic officials, law enforcement and the courts -- do a valuable service. My primary interest in commenting and in writing about the issues is to point out the need for FAIRNESS when campus investigators and others purport to do their jobs -- fairness for ALL parties involved in a dispute. Krakauer exposes flaws in the Montana University System and elsewhere, but as I've noted, there are even more problems that need to be exposed and addressed. Those problems go from the lowest levels of administration on up through the highest ranks and on to flawed Guidlines at the Office for Civil Rights and the EEOC. It is essential -- if justice is worth seeking -- that serious improvements regarding fairness and the elimination of bias and rigged agendas be guaranteed to every extent possible. Investigative reporting and programs such as The Innocence Project prove that women and men are wrongfully convicted. Some are killed. In cases of campus sexual wrongdoing, lives/careers/reputations can also be destroyed through unfair investigations and false assertions of abuse. Krakauer's best-seller loudly rings alarm bells. I hope those bells don't cause administrators and other officials to rush to judgment by abandoning fairness, due process and common sense.

I appreciate your comments.

Doug Giebel

 

[statler & waldorf]

By the way...great thread guys...keep up the good work... :roll:

Someone holding a gun to your head, MAKING you read this thread?

 

[Grisly Fan]

...Krakauer's best-seller loudly rings alarm bells....

Is it really? Already?

 

[UMGriz75]

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/u-of-a-student-arrested-for-lying-about-sexual-ass/34640/B4ljg8bvUUKv4XhP4g680A#.VTVhRbW_87I.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4/20/2015. U of A Student Arrested for Lying About Sexual Assault

On March 11, Detective Josh Bowen interviewed Sweetin again at UAPD. Detective Bowen asked Sweetin if she was telling the truth about the incident, and Sweetin said no. When asked why she would lie, Sweetin said she did see a man that matched the description she gave on Dickson Street and he scared her, but that the man never followed her into the Harmon deck.

Sweetin told Detective Bowen she had texted her boyfriend about seeing a man that scared her, and that her boyfriend made a suggestion that something more might have happened, and then the boyfriend told Sweetin's brother. Police say Sweetin said the story just got worse from there and she "continued to go along with it because she did not know what else to do."

Someone "matching the description" did exist, and might have been arrested. His life would have been turned upside down, because of a suspicious boyfriend ...

Here is exactly how the "Gang Rape" allegation began.

It is troubling how often that "excuse" arises that, even in the absence of alcohol or social stupidity, women -- for whom society has taken 1,000 years, heck 100,000 years, to recognize as "equals" in terms of moral agency with men -- betray that moral agency with a willingness to quite casually sacrifice male strangers in order to placate an often temporary relationship with another male or to achieve other social goals or needs. It is the disturbingly uncomfortable fallout of the Rolling Stone article, and worse, no such motive at all could be plausibly ascertained in the Duke LaCrosse case which stained 57 lives, permanently tainted three, and did destroy one entirely -- although that victim, Nifong, richly deserved it.

On the other hand, note a key and vital part of what happened in the Arkansas case. The police "questioned" her story. That was nearly the entirety of the condemnation of the Missoula PD by the DOJ.

 

[UMGriz75]

Actually, she did lie or shade the truth multiple times, and a number of those lies/shades were proven in court. For example, she told the rape nurse that the accused put his whole hand in the vaginal cavity, and then admitted at trial that the accused had not done that. How is that not a lie, and a pretty big and bad one?

As most trial lawyers will advise their clients, tell the truth. You can't get "caught" in much by that method. Lies, on the other hand, are notorious tar pits for changing stories, making contradictory statements, and being "caught." It's easy to tell the truth. It's much harder to tell a lie. Jane Doe was simply caught in too many lies that she did not need to tell, if her overall story had been true.