GUILTY OH - Steubenville Rape Case, 11 Aug 2012 #1

[believe09]

A little color regarding Dr Phil:

McGraw attended Shawnee Mission North High Schoolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawnee_Mission_North_High_School in Overland Park Kansashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park,_Kansas. In 1968, he was awarded a football scholarship to the University of Tulsa, where he played middle linebacker under Coach Glenn Dobbs. On November 23 of that year McGraw's team lost to the University of Houston 100–6, which is one of the most lopsided games in college football history.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw#cite_note-UT-5 Coach Dobbs retired after that season, and McGraw transferred to Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls TX.

If you cant beat 'em, join 'em. To be clear I am commenting on his college transfer.

 

[SyraKelly]

They smeared her everywhere. A few highlights from the trial and the link I supplied:

>>Haidl brought in a veteran Los Angeles star to testify that Doe was faking unconsciousness in the video while playing the role of a corpse. Not satisfied, he also paid a New York doctor to claim with all seriousness that Doe didn't need to give oral consent to the gangbang because her rectum had done so when it accepted the insertion of foreign objects<<

The defense team was really special.

:what:this is just mind blowing!!!!

 

[AbbeyR]

"Friends don't let friends date drunk"

@ Dr Phil -- I think you spelled rape wrong.


I don't normally watch Dr. Phil, so I have nothing to compare this show to. But if anyone had any expectations that this show would put the spotlight on Rape Culture, it does... just not in the way you might expect.

It seemed like Dr. Phil was so worried about the legal implications of talking about juveniles that have not yet been convicted that every second word was 'reportedly' and 'allegedly' when it came to the accused, but when it came to the victim, there were not the same efforts to give her the benefit of the doubt. Instead, the show probably contributed to assumptions that the girl was drunk and things just went too far -- or as Dr. Phil said "bad decisions" were made. As far as I know, that is not at all the victim's version of what happened.

On the other hand, it's not like the people from Steubenville made their football team, the case or their town look good. It was just more crazy wailing about 'protecting the chillldrennn' -- except when it comes to the only real crime against a child that has happened here, the rape and the rape victim.

Ah well, hopefully this will just give a few more people the rage needed to stand up for the victim.

 

[hollyjokers]

He appeared to have a grasp on the actual facts of the case, not wild speculation. He seemed to understand the concept of people attending 1st party did not necessarily attend 2nd party, and even more bizarre, people at 2nd party did not all go to 3rd party. Jill, I grant you, had to be reminded she wasn't on Springer. I thought she was going to tell Jeno, "HOLD MY EARRINGS!!!"

 

[vibert]

A second steubenville rape of a 14 year old girl is under investigation also. Idk if they are related yet

 

[AbbeyR]

Actually, when the blonde lady started yelling about how the little children are hiding under their desks at school, barfing and peeing their pants, I thought of you, Hollyjokers I remember your post about this as well.

 

[hollyjokers]

I'm not Jill, LOL

 

[hollyjokers]

And that wasn't my friend who talked about that happening either.

 

[AbbeyR]

No, I just thought it was interesting. It's obvious that there's a kind of counter-narrative coming from Steubenville. It argues on behalf of 'the facts' but from the outside it almost seems more emotionally, ragey and speculative than the stories that are circulating about the rape. Those actually came from the words of the accused themselves. The beliefs about the evils of anonymous and the threats against children seem to come mostly from people's fears about the 'outsiders with masks' and the certainty of the 'facts' seems to be based on the accounts of the accused and their friends in this case and protecting reputations. JMO

(See also: powered by evil http://www.hsconnect.com/page/content.detail/id/582063/Standing-up-for-Steubenville.html?nav=5010)

Of course, that narrative is coming from the other extreme. I'm sure there's a lot of people in Steubenville who wouldn't feel that they were best represented by this person on the Dr. Phil Show and who wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about the victim.

 

[hollyjokers]

I thought it was interesting that tomorrow's episode is about "-shaming" which applies to this case as well. My son & I laughed at Phil for saying "if you watch just one hour of television with your teenagers this year, this show should be it!"

 

[LinTX]

Dr Phil. My expectations are low.

I thought mine were until I watched it.

Jill did the town no favors, especially contrasted with Dr. Phil's description of the wonderful, nice people of Steubenville and what a lovely place it must be to live.

hollyjokers, I'm curious about your comment re: the transcripts. Are you saying you think there was not rape, or that if the girl was drunk she is to blame for being raped? I think a lot of the public's outrage is not about the charges for the two, but for the lack of charges for the other boys who distributed pics, failed to notify police, and for the parents who looked the other way while this was happening. And while three did get immunity, I don't happen to believe they are being completely honest either.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

A little color regarding Dr Phil:


If you cant beat 'em, join 'em. To be clear I am commenting on his college transfer.

Come to think about it.. Maybe Dr. Phil wasn't the most objective venue to hold this conversation....:waitasec:

 

[believe09]

I have heard enough to become frustrated at the need to point out what kind of a "girl" this victim was prior to being raped.

Apparently these were some partying kids. Because they knew how to get their hands on a boat load of booze. Certainly enough so that at least she and MN were wrecked. I have to believe the defendants might have been under the influence-they were sexually assaulting a drunk unconscious girl in front of a crowd.

It doesnt matter who or what she was before she was raped. it really doesnt. She couldnt consent. Dr Phil's are made of brass if he actually in good conscience can bring that up. It is an antiquated asinine comment. Clearly he wasnt reading his cue cards correctly.

 

[hollyjokers]

I thought mine were until I watched it.

Jill did the town no favors, especially contrasted with Dr. Phil's description of the wonderful, nice people of Steubenville and what a lovely place it must be to live.

hollyjokers, I'm curious about your comment re: the transcripts. Are you saying you think there was not rape, or that if the girl was drunk she is to blame for being raped? I think a lot of the public's outrage is not about the charges for the two, but for the lack of charges for the other boys who distributed pics, failed to notify police, and for the parents who looked the other way while this was happening. And while three did get immunity, I don't happen to believe they are being completely honest either.

I believe I have addressed this previously, probably more than once. I believe the girl was drunk, not drugged. I do not believe she was capable of consenting when the first sexual assault occurred in MC's car en route to MC's house, or at any point after that. So yes, the evidence supports the rape charges for the two individuals being held IMO, and 3 additional people were actual witnesses to that (not all 3 witnessed at same time). That's the case. There was no carrying her like a hog on a spit from party to party, no gang-rape in full view of dozens of people at every party, there was no peeing or defecating on anyone. She did not wake up when they were asked to leave the 2nd party so they picked her up, the picture was taken & they carried her outside. She was awake by then & set down where she vomited in the street a few times & walked with help to the Jetta.

None of them should have been drinking since they were all underage, but I do not feel she should be held to a higher level of accountability than the others, just as being drunk does not excuse their actions.

I see no evidence of a cover up or special treatment b/c some were football players.

 

[Cajun Girl]

After reading your comments about the show, am glad I missed it. Went to the DP site and read some of the viewer comments. It doesn't take long to understand that the Good Old Boy network is a way of life in too many parts of our country.

When people continue to blame the victim it drags us back into centuries long ago and third world countries. To assume because a young woman is in the company of her peers without adult supervision is 'simply asking for it' is beyond disgraceful and archaic.

My brother played football and was quite a sensation. My Dad said since he was such a good athlete mowing the lawn should be great exercise as well as washing the family car. My brother grew into quite a wonderful man, because my father didn't care about how many awards he won, he cared about his soul.

How anyone could turn their back on this young woman is beyond me. How DP could give the young man who made that disgusting video a pass because he was drunk and being stupid is beyond me. Really, Doctor? If either of my brothers had recorded that video my Dad would have drug them to a priest and had them confess at mass to everyone. My Dad believed if you were so proud of what you did, you should own it.

Where is the ownership? Where are these proud young men and their proud parents?

 

[JBean]

I have heard enough to become frustrated at the need to point out what kind of a "girl" this victim was prior to being raped.

Apparently these were some partying kids. Because they knew how to get their hands on a boat load of booze. Certainly enough so that at least she and MN were wrecked. I have to believe the defendants might have been under the influence-they were sexually assaulting a drunk unconscious girl in front of a crowd.

It doesnt matter who or what she was before she was raped. it really doesnt. She couldnt consent. Dr Phil's are made of brass if he actually in good conscience can bring that up. It is an antiquated asinine comment. Clearly he wasnt reading his cue cards correctly.

What we learned about CA law at the haidl trial was even if she walked in there stood on a table and said yes I want to have sex with everyone here- and THEN became incapacitated and/or incoherent- her previous permission it is no longer valid and it is not consensual. She has got to be able to give permission at the time.
If you think about it is is really just common sense.

 

[Tugela]

The question of just how incapcitated she was becomes relevant because the people having sex with her were probably severely drunk themselves.

You can't take the position that the girl was raped because she was drunk, while the boy cannot use being drunk as a defence simply because they are male and female.

If both were intoxicated but still able to communicate, and actual consent was give, then either both should be charged or both not charged. It is not right to make a judgement simply on the basis of their sex.

It is different if one is physically unconcious at the time and the other not. Then intoxication is not a defence.

 

[Tugela]

I'm watching Dr. Phil and he's :censored: me off. He keeps referring to the girl as being drunk. She was most likely roofied. :banghead:

That would be because she was drunk (fact) and might have been drugged (speculation).

If you are presenting an argument, then fact should allways take precedent over speculation, otherwise it becomes rhetoric.

 

[erik28]

That would be because she was drunk (fact) and might have been drugged (speculation).

If you are presenting an argument, then fact should allways take precedent over speculation, otherwise it becomes rhetoric.

I'm confused about how what you are citing as a fact, that Jane Doe was drunk, has been established as a fact. Is there any evidence aside from witness testimony that she was drunk? It seems like given an evidence-based standard, there are very few facts in this case, aside from Twitter comments and youTube video. I'm unaware that Jane Doe has made any legal statements admitting to being drunk. Please correct me if I have missed them.

It seems like it is a fact that at least one witness testified at the probable cause hearing that Jane Doe was staggering and appeared intoxicated, but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to become a fact that she was drunk.

I apologize in advance if I am really missing the boat on this one.

 

[AbbeyR]

There was no carrying her like a hog on a spit from party to party, no gang-rape in full view of dozens of people at every party, there was no peeing or defecating on anyone. She did not wake up when they were asked to leave the 2nd party so they picked her up, the picture was taken & they carried her outside. She was awake by then & set down where she vomited in the street a few times & walked with help to the Jetta.

I've asked this before, but I don't think you really answered. (Apologies if you did and I missed it) What source are you taking the 'facts' from?

Because we've seen the picture of her being carried like this, and heard reports about her being totally out of it to fully unconscious from many witnesses, and also in the court transcripts. Several of the boys at the party tweeted about her being urinated on, and they talk about it in the video. They recount it in the first person.

So are the facts that this didn't happen because they changed their story? Because this wasn't mentioned in their court testimony? Are there other witnesses who can refute this?

One of the confusing things about this case is that it's not even "he said, she said", it's "he said, he said (later)". I hope that the truth comes out in court, but I've got to say, I'm inclined to believe the stories the witnesses and accused told before they knew anyone was watching or that there would be consequences to their actions. I don't see any clear cut factual account of the evening from any one source. The best we can do is piece together the evidence that is out there (for now).