Columbia student carrying mattress until school expels her rapist

[Berkut]

If the youn g lady in question is 100% correct about the facts of the case (ignoring for the moment her actions in response to those facts around stuff like not being able to be bothered to go to the cops initially, or pursuing it afterwards" then to some degree her actions are very defensible.

*She* at least knows the truth of what happened, and she can be pretty damn certain she was assaulted, if not raped. Finding out that similar things had happened to others exacerbates her position, and justifies even more her actions.

However, that doesn't change the fact that her actions are basically extra-legal. She went through the legal process, and did not get the outcome she wanted, so she is basically trying to get the outcome she wants outside the legal system. That can be, in some cases, pretty supportable. Hell, I read "A Time to Kill".

But for those of us who are NOT her, we have a very different standard to judge all this - for her efforts to be considered supportable, there is a ridiculously high bar she has to cross, since in fact she DID have access to legal remedy, and those remedies had an outcome, and she is basically asking us to set aside that outcome and join her in her vigilantism. That is a far, FAR cry from asking us to support the victims of sexual assault and rape, and that is where, I think, me and Jacob part ways.

Given that she is asking for some very extraordinary support, she provides very poor justification. I cannot see a travesty of justice here, I cannot see a system that I look at and think "Yeah, the system itself is grossly unjust, so we should in fact support her efforts outside that system". She was the alleged victim of a crime. Do all alleged victims of crimes have the right to publicly shame those they accuse and ask for MY support in hounding that person out of school?

I mean, sure, they can ask, but most of the time my answer is going to be "No, I won't support that, and don't think anyone should support that".

[merithyn]

I understood him to be saying that, according to many on Languish, because the University panel didn't believe the girl had been raped, no one else is allowed to believe otherwise, including the girl. It seems that several on Languish believe that the panel has created a fact by giving their opinion.

That's my interpretation of what he was saying, anyway. Does that help?

Thanks.  Do you believe that to be an accurate characterization of some posters' positions?

No.

[merithyn]

If the youn g lady in question is 100% correct about the facts of the case (ignoring for the moment her actions in response to those facts around stuff like not being able to be bothered to go to the cops initially, or pursuing it afterwards" then to some degree her actions are very defensible.

*She* at least knows the truth of what happened, and she can be pretty damn certain she was assaulted, if not raped. Finding out that similar things had happened to others exacerbates her position, and justifies even more her actions.

However, that doesn't change the fact that her actions are basically extra-legal. She went through the legal process, and did not get the outcome she wanted, so she is basically trying to get the outcome she wants outside the legal system. That can be, in some cases, pretty supportable. Hell, I read "A Time to Kill".

But for those of us who are NOT her, we have a very different standard to judge all this - for her efforts to be considered supportable, there is a ridiculously high bar she has to cross, since in fact she DID have access to legal remedy, and those remedies had an outcome, and she is basically asking us to set aside that outcome and join her in her vigilantism. That is a far, FAR cry from asking us to support the victims of sexual assault and rape, and that is where, I think, me and Jacob part ways.

Given that she is asking for some very extraordinary support, she provides very poor justification. I cannot see a travesty of justice here, I cannot see a system that I look at and think "Yeah, the system itself is grossly unjust, so we should in fact support her efforts outside that system". She was the alleged victim of a crime. Do all alleged victims of crimes have the right to publicly shame those they accuse and ask for MY support in hounding that person out of school?

I mean, sure, they can ask, but most of the time my answer is going to be "No, I won't support that, and don't think anyone should support that".

You had me until the last bit. Otherwise, I agree with your take on this.

[Jacob]

But for those of us who are NOT her, we have a very different standard to judge all this - for her efforts to be considered supportable, there is a ridiculously high bar she has to cross, since in fact she DID have access to legal remedy, and those remedies had an outcome, and she is basically asking us to set aside that outcome and join her in her vigilantism. That is a far, FAR cry from asking us to support the victims of sexual assault and rape, and that is where, I think, me and Jacob part ways.

A good summary, Berkut. Though I'm not sure there's much need to part ways. I don't believe I've said that we should follow the course of action she advocates. All I've said is that I strongly lean towards believing her when she says she was raped.

[grumbler]

If the youn g lady in question is 100% correct about the facts of the case (ignoring for the moment her actions in response to those facts around stuff like not being able to be bothered to go to the cops initially, or pursuing it afterwards" then to some degree her actions are very defensible.

*She* at least knows the truth of what happened, and she can be pretty damn certain she was assaulted, if not raped. Finding out that similar things had happened to others exacerbates her position, and justifies even more her actions.

This goes to the core of the problem, IMO; she does not know what happened.  She thinks that she knows what happened, but neither her memory nor her understanding of the rules is perfect.  In virtually any case whatever involving participants and witnesses, there are disagreements about the specifics; people absolutely know that they are 100% correct about the facts of the case, and yet it is obvious that not everyone can be because the details they are so sure of are mutually exclusive.  Humans are fallible that way. 

Now, in this case, we have a participant in an event who claims to be absolutely sure about the details of the case and the rules of the school, and is not going to be persuaded by mere officials responsible for the administration of those rules that they are right and she is not.  Hence (well, that, plus the fact that she is getting course credit for it) the mattress deal.

I feel for her a little bit, but not much; I recognize that she thinks her "truth" trumps every other truth out there, but I see her "truth" as a subjective thing, like most 'truths."  She is too arrogant to see that her truth is subjective, though, so my sympathies for her are limited.

Campus sexual assault is another matter entirely, the discussion of which isn't well-served by discussion of this case, IMO.

[merithyn]

Campus sexual assault is another matter entirely, the discussion of which isn't well-served by discussion of this case, IMO.

Agreed.

[Berkut]

If the youn g lady in question is 100% correct about the facts of the case (ignoring for the moment her actions in response to those facts around stuff like not being able to be bothered to go to the cops initially, or pursuing it afterwards" then to some degree her actions are very defensible.

*She* at least knows the truth of what happened, and she can be pretty damn certain she was assaulted, if not raped. Finding out that similar things had happened to others exacerbates her position, and justifies even more her actions.

However, that doesn't change the fact that her actions are basically extra-legal. She went through the legal process, and did not get the outcome she wanted, so she is basically trying to get the outcome she wants outside the legal system. That can be, in some cases, pretty supportable. Hell, I read "A Time to Kill".

But for those of us who are NOT her, we have a very different standard to judge all this - for her efforts to be considered supportable, there is a ridiculously high bar she has to cross, since in fact she DID have access to legal remedy, and those remedies had an outcome, and she is basically asking us to set aside that outcome and join her in her vigilantism. That is a far, FAR cry from asking us to support the victims of sexual assault and rape, and that is where, I think, me and Jacob part ways.

Given that she is asking for some very extraordinary support, she provides very poor justification. I cannot see a travesty of justice here, I cannot see a system that I look at and think "Yeah, the system itself is grossly unjust, so we should in fact support her efforts outside that system". She was the alleged victim of a crime. Do all alleged victims of crimes have the right to publicly shame those they accuse and ask for MY support in hounding that person out of school?

I mean, sure, they can ask, but most of the time my answer is going to be "No, I won't support that, and don't think anyone should support that".

You had me until the last bit. Otherwise, I agree with your take on this.

I am basically saying that IMO nobody should support vigilantism unless there is a clear and obvious travesty of justice. And regardless of the facts of what happened to her, it is pretty reasonably clear to me that her case does not at all come even close to justifying vigilantism.

[merithyn]

I am basically saying that IMO nobody should support vigilantism unless there is a clear and obvious travesty of justice. And regardless of the facts of what happened to her, it is pretty reasonably clear to me that her case does not at all come even close to justifying vigilantism.

That's fair.

[crazy canuck]

All I've said is that I strongly lean towards believing her when she says she was raped.

Your logic seems to be that given the assumption that most reports of rape are legitimate you will strongly believe all reports of rape unless you are satisfied to the contrary.  As a matter of principle that seems a dangerous road.  But good at getting at a biased result.  The very thing you seem to be accusing others doing.  I dont know how anyone can make an informed judgment about the truth of her claim since the only version of events we have are hers both as to the account of what occurred that night and of what occured at the university hearing.

[Jacob]

All I've said is that I strongly lean towards believing her when she says she was raped.

Your logic seems to be that given the assumption that most reports of rape are legitimate you will strongly believe all reports of rape unless you are satisfied to the contrary.  As a matter of principle that seems a dangerous road.  But good at getting at a biased result.  The very thing you seem to be accusing others doing.  I dont know how anyone can make an informed judgment about the truth of her claim since the only version of events we have are hers both as to the account of what occurred that night and of what occured at the university hearing.

I agree that it's difficult for anyone of us to make an informed judgment about the truth of her claim. I'm certainly not claiming to have any special insight into the matter, and I certainly wouldn't want to be put in a position to render any kind of judgement that carried any kind of consequences with the information that I - that we - have.

All I'm saying is that I tend to believe that she's telling the truth. It's a belief, and it should not be construed as a verdict on the factual matters of the situation, because as you say and I agree, we don't really know enough.

But yes, I do tend to believe that absent other information, a claim of having been raped is more likely to be true than not, and that's what I'm applying in this case.

The things that inform that belief, for those who are interested, are the following:

What do we know? Not much. Media reports tend to garble things a fair bit, and I've often been told that attempting to draw conclusions from journalists reporting on legal is a pretty fraught business. Besides, as you point out, we only have one side of the story - hers, as rendered by the press. So the facts of the situation, as I see them, are the following:

1. The woman in question claims that she was raped, in particular that a sexual partner inflicted specific sexual acts on her when she clearly objected. That sexual partner has a different version of events, in which she consented to those acts.

2. Furthermore, at different times the alleged rape was dealt with by the university authorities (which concluded that a rape had not happened or that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it had happened, I'm not clear) and the police (where the woman abandoned pursuing the process).

3. Finally, the woman, being dissatisfied with both the processes and outcomes of 2. decides to create a spectacle. This is successful, and she draws a bunch of attention.

That's about it, in terms of facts. So why am I inclined to believe her?

Personally - and this is anecdotal obviously - I know of a number of sexual assaults and rapes that have gone unreported for a number of reasons. I also believe that broadly speaking there are fairly strong incentives for women not to report rape and sexual assault given the nature of the process and likely outcomes of doing so. Conversely, it is not my impression that false rape accusations are that frequent; in my personal life and extended circle, for example, I have heard of none such. In several of the cases of sexual assault and rape I'm familiar with, the "she's making it up for reasons" argument was made and gained currency. It's not that I think that false accusations never happen, but given what I believe the ratio of reported rapes to unreported rapes to false accusations of rape to be, absent more information I tend to assume that when a woman says she was raped that it is true rather than false.

So yeah, my base premise is that if she says it happened, I believe her as a starting point.

Moving on to point 2., the official processes. We basically know nothing of what went in to them. Who handled it on the university side? How? What degree of rigour was involved? What evidence was considered? I don't know. It may well be that the process is great and appropriate, it may be that it is faulty; whether the process itself is good or bad, it may have gotten this specific case right or wrong.

Similarly with the police part of the process; maybe they were dealing with it just right, maybe they were a bunch of assholes who drove her off on purpose, maybe they had the effect of driving her off though it was not intentional given the combination of circumstances and personalities. Each of these scenarios are possible, but there is not enough information to determine which one it is. Again, from where I sit there have been enough cases of compromised and faulty processes on this sort of stuff that I'm not ready to default to "the verdict is correct", with no further information; conversely, I'm perfectly willing to accept that "the verdict may be correct", but I don't have any information to indicate that it is.

As for her timing in terms of waiting or not, I don't think victims of crimes, young people, or indeed people in general, are prone to picking their time tables to create the best PR optics for their cause unless guided by experienced people. The timing is, IMO, perfectly consistent with her having been raped, trying to do something about it, getting discouraged, giving up, then later deciding "no, I'm going to take a stand"; it is also consistent with other scenarios.

In short, there's not enough information on the process (police and university) for me to conclude whether it produced the right or the wrong result given the facts at hand, so it doesn't really affect whether I believe the initial claim or not.

Finally, the spectacle making - to me it is a perfectly reasonable response to the situation if her claim is true (which I start out defaulting to) and the process failed her (which I'm neutral on). It is also consistent with a different set of facts (that she's making it all up because she loves attention, for example) but the fact that she's making a spectacle does not, to me, indicate anything about the likelihood of the original claim being true or false.

So this leaves me believing that she's probably telling the truth, until I see further evidence.

[crazy canuck]

Personally - and this is anecdotal obviously - I know of a number of sexual assaults and rapes that have gone unreported for a number of reasons. I also believe that broadly speaking there are fairly strong incentives for women not to report rape and sexual assault given the nature of the process and likely outcomes of doing so. Conversely, it is not my impression that false rape accusations are that frequent; in my personal life and extended circle, for example, I have heard of none such. In several of the cases of sexual assault and rape I'm familiar with, the "she's making it up for reasons" argument was made and gained currency. It's not that I think that false accusations never happen, but given what I believe the ratio of reported rapes to unreported rapes to false accusations of rape to be, absent more information I tend to assume that when a woman says she was raped that it is true rather than false.

My anecdotal experience is similar in one respect.  I have been involved in a number of cases where a female employee has been sexuall assualted but for a variety of reasons she didnt want to report the assault.  However, our experience does differ in that I have also seen a number of cases where sexual harrassment/assualt has been alleged but when investigated is found not to be credible but in the meantime, while the investigation is ongoing, the accused's life falls apart.    That is why I think prejudging credibility simply based on the odds a claim might be true is dangerous.

[Jacob]

My anecdotal experience is similar in one respect.  I have been involved in a number of cases where a female employee has been sexuall assualted but for a variety of reasons she didnt want to report the assault.  However, our experience does differ in that I have also seen a number of cases where sexual harrassment/assualt has been alleged but when investigated is found not to be credible but in the meantime, while the investigation is ongoing, the accused's life falls apart.    That is why I think prejudging credibility simply based on the odds a claim might be true is dangerous.

Fair enough.

Were I in an official judgment making position, I'd definitely apply more stringent criteria than anecdotally derived odds. Hopefully I'd also have the opportunity to examine evidence (or even compel testimony) more credible than NY Daily Mag articles.

[CountDeMoney]

Interesting piece on a current missing persons investigation Virginia, tied to an individual that ran into issues at two other colleges, and what they did or did not share--

What colleges shared about U-Va. suspect, then accused of sexual assault, is murky
By Mary Pat Flaherty October 11 at 5:09 PM
Washington Post

Two Virginia universities are pressing each other to unearth the information they exchanged after an on-campus rape allegation against Jesse L. "LJ" Matthew Jr. more than a decade ago, when the football player was transferring from Liberty University to Christopher Newport University shortly after a woman accused him of sexual assault.

Matthew, 32, has been charged with abduction in connection with last month's disappearance of University of Virginia sophomore Hannah Graham, an alleged kidnapping that police say was for the purposes of sexually assaulting the 18-year-old from Fairfax County. The search continues for Graham, who went missing after witnesses saw her with Matthew in the early hours of Sept. 13 on Charlottesville's Downtown Mall.

The allegations against Matthew from the early 2000s are receiving renewed law enforcement scrutiny amid a widening investigation spurred by the Graham case. Liberty and CNU officials said they are cooperating in that investigation, which has expanded beyond Graham to encompass two more unsolved attacks on women, including a violent sexual assault in Fairfax City in 2005 and the case of a young woman who went missing from Charlottesville in 2009 and later was found dead. Two people familiar with the Graham investigation said that the link is Matthew's DNA.

The previous accusations against Matthew — one at Liberty and another less than a year later at CNU — were investigated by police at the time, but neither resulted in a criminal charge. Internal university actions are shielded from public view by privacy protections for student records.

The most unrestricted opportunity for sizing up a security threat comes during student transfers, when schools are free to share educational records and ask — and answer — a much wider range of questions about a student that otherwise would be prohibited.

Yet even now, in the wake of the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings and amid heightened concerns about sexual assaults, many schools do not flag disciplinary sanctions on transcripts even if they are prepared to answer another school's potential questions, according to several experts on student records and federal privacy rules.

"Given what we know about the predatory nature of perpetrators of campus sexual assaults, it would be ideal if more colleges and universities had a more robust policy and process for tracking disciplinary actions when students transfer," said S. Daniel Carter, director of the 32 National Campus Safety Initiative, which was created after the Virginia Tech rampage. "As a practical matter, there is not an exhaustive review and not typically a request to send everything over."

Matthew left Liberty, in Lynchburg, Va., on the day that he was accused of rape in October 2002, and he enrolled at CNU, in Newport News, Va., the following January. A few weeks into the next football season — in September 2003 — Matthew was accused of sexually assaulting a CNU student on campus. A defensive lineman, Matthew formally left the football team and, after that, the university in October 2003.

CNU said Matthew's accuser sought an internal university disciplinary review, but school officials would not disclose the outcome of that process, citing privacy rules. Liberty would not say whether the university conducted an internal investigation that included the alleged victim in its case, citing privacy protections for student records. Such internal disciplinary outcomes are almost always kept secret.

Matthew's attorney, James L. Camblos III, declined to comment on the allegations at Liberty and CNU. "I am not aware of the particular details of either event. Therefore, I cannot comment on them," he said.

Limited details about the allegations against Matthew were released under federal and state laws that permit disclosure of crime reports.

At the time he was transferring, even more information could have been shared between Liberty and CNU, but that window to fully look into his history closed once the transfer was complete.

"The law does not prevent a school from disclosing an allegation of assault or criminal activity when a student is transferring. There is no legal barrier," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former prosecutor who has proposed legislation that would expand disclosures and investigations into campus threats and crimes.

But just as there is no ban, there is no requirement to share disciplinary information, Blumenthal said.

"That's one of the major failings we are trying to correct," he said. "A lot of the current criticism is well justified" about schools being lax in responding to on-campus problems. "It's not just second-guessing and applying hindsight."

Deciding how much information to share can be thorny for a school, particularly when a claim was unsubstantiated or involved a minor infraction that could haunt students for their academic careers, several experts on student privacy said.

Descriptions by Liberty and CNU of the processes in place during the period when Matthew was transferring show how disciplinary information and an assault allegation could fail to draw attention and then virtually disappear.

The rape allegation at Liberty and any disciplinary action against Matthew would not have appeared on a transcript sent to CNU, according to the standard procedures Liberty described.

Liberty's official transcripts show "on their face" that "they are the transcript of academic record," and that document "does not show if the student is not in good standing from a student disciplinary or conduct perspective," Liberty officials said in e-mails to The Washington Post.

To get a student's disciplinary history during a transfer, a school would have to request it specifically, ask what was alleged and request the results of any investigations, which Liberty's Student Conduct Office would provide, according to Liberty officials.

If Liberty administrators had involuntarily withdrawn a student during 2002, the student's record would show "official withdrawal" — a term that covers expulsions and suspensions for discipline but also would be used for a student who chose to withdraw for a medical reason or bereavement.

"Other than death or a student in a coma, though, Administrative Withdrawal is generally used for disciplinary separations," Liberty officials wrote. They said that they cannot say under what terms Matthew left the school.

When CNU dismisses students for academic or disciplinary reasons, "that is always placed prominently on the student's transcript," CNU President Paul S. Trible Jr. said. "Tragically, we have recently learned that is not done by many schools."

But there was a second avenue for delving into Matthew's history on campus.

As a transferring football player, Matthew faced a review of his eligibility to play under NCAA rules. The two universities appear at odds over what was presented about Matthew in "tracer forms" for athletes.

Trible said that before CNU accepts a transferring athlete, it requires signed statements from the athlete and from the athletics department he is leaving that say the player is in good standing with regard to academics and disciplinary matters.

"They would not be in uniform here otherwise," said Trible, who has led CNU for 18 years. "We follow that in every instance, and that has been the process in place since I've been here."

Liberty said it does not keep athletic transfer forms for longer than a decade and could not say what questions or follow-ups CNU might have asked in Matthew's situation.

But after hearing CNU's account to The Post, Liberty officials asked CNU for a copy of the tracer forms sent during the 2002-2003 period and said they were told that CNU no longer had the records. A CNU spokeswoman said the school could not provide additional documents or further information on that point.

Those behind-the-scene exchanges point to the heightened and renewed interest in Matthew's past.

With Matthew's arrest in Graham's case, Virginia State Police said they have a "forensic link" between Matthew and the disappearance of 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, who was found dead outside Charlottesville after she vanished in October 2009.

Should Graham's disappearance be directly related to Harrington's, it would suggest the work of a serial offender that also includes a violent sexual assault in Fairfax City in 2005. The FBI has said that Virginia authorities submitted forensic evidence in the Fairfax City case to the FBI's national DNA database, and that a search matched DNA from the Harrington investigation.

Matthew's alleged victim at Liberty declined to press charges, and no independent witnesses could be found to corroborate her account, so charges were not filed, said Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney Michael R. Doucette.

Liberty officials said they cooperated with the Lynchburg police investigation. A heavily redacted police report released to The Post in response to a public information request shows the alleged rape occurred the evening of Oct. 16, 2002, in "field/woods" and was reported in the early hours of Oct. 17. Liberty has said that incident occurred behind the Vines Center, a basketball arena and special-events facility.

Trible, the CNU president, said the school's police force investigated the allegation that Matthew committed a sexual assault on its campus. The alleged victim did not want to pursue a criminal case but did take part in a disciplinary investigation on campus, Trible said. Trible and other CNU officials declined to share the outcome.

Howard E. Gwynn, commonwealth's attorney for Newport News, said it is not possible for him to know whether an allegation from 2003 was brought to his office for review.

"As tempting as it is to throw caution to the wind and share everything Liberty University knows related to Jesse Matthew, we must respect federal law and try to not prejudice any ongoing criminal investigation," Liberty said in an e-mail. "We understand this may not be satisfactory to a public hungry for more details on this case, but we are satisfied that everything that needs to come out concerning Jesse Matthew and Liberty University will come out in due course and through legally permitted channels." [/quote]

[LaCroix]

allegations alone mean nothing. i don't think it's good public policy to force schools to disclose mere accusations. actual disciplinary actions is another matter, but i think schools disclose those.

[derspiess]

So Mattress Girl carried her mattress through her graduation ceremony.  Wonder if she'll take it to job interviews now.