SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

MrsWalloped I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intent. What I was trying to point out was the one thing that you would remember is who it was that assaulted you. I believe you were assaulted and of course I believe it was your cousin … how could you get wrong that fact? I assume that every time you saw your cousin after that incident you remembered what happened and that reinforced the memory. I expect that the woman's recollection of the identity of her assailant was reinforced every time she saw, heard or thought about him.

What I have difficulty with is your expectations regarding:

1.The date unless it was a notable date such as her birthday, the 4th of July, or Christmas. I don’t know if you recall the actual date your cousin assaulted you but I certainly wouldn’t expect you to.

2.The location of the party unless it was a site she frequented or there something distinctly unusual about it. Unless she frequently had gone to parties at that house or the house was along her regular route of travel I don’t know why the location would fix in her memory. The house or its location didn’t contribute to her assault.

3.Her exact age at the time of the assault unless there was something notable about the year. I would only expect an age range for an event that far back. You said you developed early so I would think that helped you in remembering your age of 13.

4.No other person remembering the party or even ever being at a party she attended. Why would they remember? Nothing happened to them. Unless something about her or the party itself was unusual what would cause them to remember? If she ran half dressed through the party screaming rape I would expect them all to remember. If she told someone at the party that she barely escaped being raped I might expect them to remember. The fact that she remembers many of the people at the party may stem from having recognized people, whether they were close friends or not, caused her to have felt safe at the party…when in fact she wasn’t.

If she recorded the entire event with all details in her diary or filed a police report she might have met your higher standard. That she didn’t does not surprise me nor cause me to doubt that she is telling the truth. I would think the only way she could be mistaken as to her assailant’s identity would be if she herself had been almost black out drunk. She clearly wasn’t as she was able to escape from him.

If she had run screaming from the room and immediately called the police I expect he may have been arrested. If she reported the incident the next day, back then, I’m not at all convinced the charges would have stuck. He didn’t rip her clothes off and there weren’t physical signs of the attack so it would be her word against his. If this had happened to you, are you sure you would have acted differently? You didn’t make a scene when you were in effect subtly molested on the bus. Today I would like to think that, in part thanks to the “me too movement”, you would be the one to turn and tell him to back the F off!!

I’m also suggesting that the “me too movement” might not have happened if that higher standard was required.

Again, I apologize for offending you. I was simply disturbed by your questioning her ability to recall the identity of her assailant.

[This message edited by 40YOSL at 1:15 AM, October 1st (Monday)]

This is going to be my last post on this thread because I’m tired of being raked over the coals for an opinion which is entirely reasonable. I believe she was assaulted. She went through something traumatic. I also believe him. And I don’t care about the politics of the whole thing.

Everry point you made is possible. But there is a really big difference between believing someone that said they went through something horrible and taking action against another person without anything else that to support it. I think #metoo is wonderful. But at the same time you shouldn’t destroy a person’s life without anything but someone’s say so. Is that fair? Is that justice? No, but it’s the right thing.

I’m reminded of the poem by Martin Niemoller “First They Came For The Socialists.” What happens when it’s your husband, father, brother or sons and they vehemently deny that it occurred and there is nothing to support the accusation? Are you not going believe your own child or parent just because someone else said so? You’re not going to entertain the possibility that there might be an innocent mistake and they got the wrong person? You’re going to be in favor of your husband or child losing their job and their reputation based solely on someone’s say so? Are we seriously giving people that much power over others? Again, if he did it he should rot in Hell for all eternity. I’m just not that equipped to say for certain he did and I’m shocked everyone else is. This is an infidelity site. I’m a WW. I’ve read so many stories where people have lied, misremembered or simply got things wrong innocently. It’s prevalent. If your WW claims a DV charge is she now automatically to be believed? Of course not. And I am NOT saying Dr. Ford made this up. But lynch mob mentality has no place in our society. God help us all if it’s come to this.

And, apology accepted. Thank you.

You’re not going to entertain the possibility that there might be an innocent mistake and they got the wrong person? You’re going to be in favor of your husband or child losing their job and their reputation based solely on someone’s say so?

But lynch mob mentality has no place in our society.

I don't think we're as knee-jerk as that. It's not like we saw what was going on and automatically decided three seconds after the accusation who was guilty and who wasn't. But finding out more and more information and watching how it goes down and their demeanors and a whole host of other things... It's hard not to form an opinion. Just because some of us think he's guilty doesn't mean we have a lynchmob mentality. We might see a whole host of signs that lend themselves to our opinions.

If it were my husband or son, I'd want to know more information. Would I automatically assume their innocence? Would I automatically assume their guilt? Neither - until I had more information (ETA: if that sounds cold towards my husband or son, I will add that I know them both well. I know their good points. And I also know that they have boundaries issues and issues with respecting other people's "no". I'm working with my son on that as much as I can, and he's doing much better ).

I used to be someone who liked to think "innocent until proven guilty". But I have seen (and experienced) time and time again that mentality "innocent until proven guilty" turned into something else when sexual assault is involved. Not by you, MrsWalloped, but by a lot of other people. The mentality of "he's innocent until proven guilty" often translates to "she's a liar until proven truthful." I have serious issues with that.

After all, no one wanted to believe that my grandfather or my godmother had been sexually inappropriate with me. Why would they want to believe that? Until some other folks saw other sides to them that before only I'd seen. Then they began to believe me more (though the majority of people still don't. I'm guessing it's too uncomfortable for them to even consider). But others' doubts were so loud that I doubted my own memories or interpretations. It increased my shame. I blamed myself. This is all too common.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 6:22 PM, September 30th (Sunday)]

“The mentality of "he's innocent until proven guilty" often translates to "she's a liar until proven truthful." I have serious issues with that.”

This. And if three people were telling me similar stories about my husband, you bet I’d sit up and listen

Are we seriously giving people that much power over others?

Obviously not, since she's telling and it will have NO effect on his getting a job promotion.

MW.I don’t feel like I have “lynch mob” mentality nor am I looking to destroy this man’s life. I’ve in fact stated that I don’t feel that the incident described by the woman, if proven, should automatically disqualify him from the job he is applying for. Unless there were later episodes I am willing to believe he has changed and it was a young drunken one time thing. This stance has not been popular with my wife who, like you, feels that he should rot in Hell for eternity if he is guilty.

.

Also I never suggested that any action be taken against him without any proof. In fact I stated that in his shoes I would welcome an investigation as an opportunity to clear my name. I was willing to believe they were both telling the truth about the incident and the reason he didn’t remember was that he was blackout drunk. His subsequent testimony seems to rule that out as it almost portrays him as a non drinker. It appears someone is not telling the truth. She had passed a polygraph and was asking for a FBI investigation. He on the other hand did neither. By itself, that doesn’t prove him guilty but it causes me to suspect he is the one not telling the truth.

If an investigation shows that he was a heavy drinker and witnesses testify to seeing him quite drunk then I believe he is guilty of false or misleading testimony and should not be employed at all in that profession.

I still don’t believe that it warrants him rotting in Hell for eternity.

God help us all if we get to the point a woman is prohibited from telling what she knows is the truth.

[This message edited by 40YOSL at 11:52 PM, September 30th (Sunday)]

But there is a really big difference between believing someone that said they went through something horrible and taking action against another person without anything else that to support it. I think #metoo is wonderful. But at the same time you shouldn’t destroy a person’s life without anything but someone’s say so. Is that fair? Is that justice? No, but it’s the right thing.

Telling is a form of self defense against our attacker. Our life was already destroyed in some form. Now we should not be able to use that tool of self defense because our attacker's life might be 'destroyed'? IDGAF, and it's NOT the 'right thing'.

Any report of an attack can go way beyond 'he said/she said - carry out an INVESTIGATION. How many 'she saids' does it take to cancel out one 'he said'? Even ONE 'she said' deserves an investigation into the allegations.

And yeah, authorities worrying more about someone's reputation than investigating, prosecuting and punishing them is one reason that more attacks are not reported.

If I got shot by my acquaintance 'Joe' but no one could prove it because he got rid of the gun and got some friends to lie about where he was, would the police not take a report because it might 'destroy' Joe's life? No, I expect it would be much more likely that they would work very hard to try to find the truth so that they could arrest him. Why can we not expect the same level of professionalism when we have been subjected to a sexual trauma?

Some of the posts on this thread are very depressing. It almost makes me think that the name should be changed to 'why bother telling in the first place, if you were even brave enough to have told in the first place'.

40YOSL...

Just to clarify… Do I understand correctly that you say that you do not necessarily believe that if he is found guilty of the charges presented by Dr. Ford, that it should necessarily prevent him from having the position of supreme court justice?

And then later, you said that if it turns out that he was a drunken young man who missed represented this fact to the committee, that he should not be qualified to be a supreme court justice?

So, to be clear, if I understand correctly – you believe that lie should preclude him from being a Supreme Court justice, whereas a perpetrator of a sexual assault should not???

Please help me understand this.

Plus another reason why people might be scared to tell: if they don't have enough evidence, or if the police decide early on that they don't believe they're telling the truth, or any other number of things that can go wrong with an investigation, they could be falsely charged with lying.

Just look at what happened with Marc O'Leary. One of his victims was accused of lying and pressured until she said she was lying. They charged her - fined her and put her on a year long probation, ordered her to attend counseling.

Guess what? When they finally caught O'Leary, they discovered evidence that she hadn't been lying. He had really raped her.

And I know hers isn't the only story.

Folks think it's only falsely accused men whose lives get ruined. Not so. Sometimes, it's assault survivors who can't prove the truth whose lives get ruined too.

I read on a thread here a few months back someone saying that the victims ought to tell, or else they're allowing their abusers to go on to abuse others. But then when we tell, we're treated as liars, and if we're unable to prove we're telling the truth, it's our lives that get ruined even further. We lose everything too. And the abuser gets to keep going and going. No punishment.

Anyone seen "The Hunting Ground"? Particularly the shitshow that was the investigation into the charges against James Winston? The nurses were seeing the bruises materialize on his victim, and it took HOW many months for the investigators to bother taking a DNA sample of Winston?! His career hasn't been affected any.

Asking BW's, doesn't his behavior on stand match any of your WH's on DD?? It sure sounds like deflect, get mad when they are lying,crying for sympathy and every other deer in the headlights "damn I've been caught what do I do now" moments? Just asking for my own enlightenment.

Thank You

To me he looks like a little boy of priviledge, who, if I was to confront him, would yell and cry like a pussy, and pout and turn and walk away like the pussy coward he is.

But I'm basically really pissed tonight about other things as well, and I'm guessing my response is over the top.

I'm sorry.

Your response and impression not over the top at all, WR. Seems to be the most common response given what I've been reading. But an interesting question Candyman's, if his behavior matched any of our betrayer's on DD. Funny how some can claim victimhood as an instrument of power; how self-pity can be used to silence justice.

WhatsRight

Other than him confessing or his friend testifying that he saw him actually attempt to rape her I don't know how he can be found guilty of attempted rape. There would be no trial in any case because I'm fairly sure the statute of limitations would have run.

The charge of perjury is a separate matter. If the investigation shows portions of his testimony are false then he should be screwed both as to his job and by his new cellmate "Big Bubba."

[This message edited by 40YOSL at 12:56 AM, October 1st (Monday)]

Some of the posts on this thread are very depressing. It almost makes me think that the name should be changed to 'why bother telling in the first place, if you were even brave enough to have told in the first place'.

To be fair, I think many people's opinions on a SPECIFIC CASE that I will not mention... is due to their political views, which is why there is a hard rule against discussing politics at SI.

Other than him confessing or his friend testifying that he saw him actually attempt to rape her I don't know how he can be found guilty of attempted rape.

I agree with this but that doesn't mean that I think that it is right. The US legal system requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction. I can't imagine 12 people claiming this based on the evidence that is publicly available.

Beyond that, as stated above by me (and much to the frustration of most women and many men, everywhere), this problem of establishing proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is implicit to virtually all sexual assaults because almost all of them occur in private and the physical evidence is usually very thin (and how do you discern "consent" from "no consent" with physical evidence?)

Simply put, in the court of public opinion, we need to stop relying on the court of laws as being definitive. Someone else above said that the false accusation rate is somewhere along the lines of 5% in sexual assault cases. I would guess that the conviction rate might be somewhere in the range of 5% too.

Ergo, 90% of sexual assaults go without convictions.

This is a bug of our legal system. I don't have any clue as to how to fix it, but I acknowledge it.

I believe the above is true.

conviction of a criminal act and being fit for a job are two very different things.

This is going to be my last post on this thread because I’m tired of being raked over the coals for an opinion which is entirely reasonable.

But lynch mob mentality has no place in our society

Still shocking that people think accusations without proof is acceptable to condemn someone, especially with the number of people on here who had false DV charges leveled against them.

As far is this man's fitness to serve on the highest court in the land for all of his natural life, I have been focusing just on the drinking thing recently.

Let's say for a moment that no proof is offered for the accusations of sexual assault. Just for the sake of argument.

But what if the evidence that has already been presented is very significant regarding his drinking. And let's say that that evidence is in direct conflict with what the man has testified to under oath.

Anybody want a supreme court justice to have his nomination passed when he's been proven to have lied under oath?

Still shocking that people think accusations without proof is acceptable to condemn someone, especially with the number of people on here who had false DV charges leveled against them.

WornDown, no one is saying that false charges do not occur - they do. According to the FBI, the rate is low and is about the same as for other crimes.

But it should be the job of the police to investigate allegations and not just sweep them under the rug, as has been done in the many stories related here. And it should be their job to protect victims who report too, not just throw them back to the wolves. This seems to have been done more in the DV arena than for sexual assault, stranger or otherwise.

For the members who are reporting their assaults here, are you believing our stories? Do we not deserve to be treated with dignity and respect? Do our experiences merit less than your full compassion for the victims and anger at the system that makes it so difficult to disclose?

If you are so interested in whether the allegations are false, I assume that you are in favor of a full and complete investigation of any and all allegations related to the situation.

He lies about little things. Just like he's lying about the big things. Like 'he busted his butt to get into Yale" and not mentioning his Grandfather was a Yale man. When asked if he'd watched her testimony that morning, you could SEE the lie on his face when he said no. Come on! I'm an attorney and I would have made sure my client watched every minute so he/she could be ready with a response.

If he's 'rewarded' with a job, there isn't hope for us. No woman is safe. Ever.

And with that statement, I leave this thread. God help us all to get through this week.