Alleged rape victims merit day in court
The day that Lisa Simpson and her co-plaintiff have their day in court will be a great day for justice (“CU football rape case revived,” Sept. 7). The Colorado Court of Appeals has done the right thing in reinstating their case against the University of Colorado and making a trial possible. The plaintiffs in this case deserve it.
What the plaintiffs did not deserve was the abandonment and hostility they received from their own university. From Day One, the University of Colorado, the administration and its Board of Regents refused to take any responsibility. They turned a blind eye to the actions and attitudes in the CU Athletic Department that fostered an environment where the abuse of women, including staff and students, was tolerated.
And worse, CU intentionally heaped one abuse upon another on the women, their own students, who were simply seeking justice for an outrageous wrong. The university used every dirty trick in the book and a few that frankly were quite off the charts. How can we ever forget President Betsy Hoffman’s outlandish defense of the use of the C-word? And coach Gary Barnett’s verbal attack on Katie Hnida?
We are looking forward to a trial where the brave young women who have persevered through unimaginable abuse will get the justice they so deserve.
Regina Cowles
Boulder National Organization
for Women
GOLD-DIGGING at its very worst, their Title IX attack on CU is pathetic. If there were any rapes, then why have no felony charges ever been filed as is required by law? The DA has no choice here. So who committed the "rapes?" Surely the criminals have names. America is waiting to hear, and getting tired of waiting.
And wasn't it the party girls who really needed supervisioin and not the football players? Were these adults not accountable and responsible for their own behavior.? Or are they just professionnal "victims" looking for a big payday?
Bottom line: keep on digging until you find the gold!
Posted by Hank on September 17, 2007 07:12 AMIt is impossible to have your "day in court" if the alleged perps are not also having their day in court! Perhaps the reason charges were not filed by the female prosecutor is because they might have led to a clear understanding that it truly was the men who were the victims in this case? A truism of rape cases is that the designation of which is the "victim" and which is the "perp" is often not clear until ALL the facts are revealed. The fact is that these bogus cases, much like the bogus Duke case, negatively impact true victims like this woman:
http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_6900274
What more do these women want, the president, chancellor, athletic director, and football coaches were all replaced, a complete overhaul of the recruiting process was done and the entire university was shamed nationally due to this scandal. The only thing left form them to get from CU is cash, which is what it seems like they've been after all along.
Posted by John on September 17, 2007 08:01 AMThe responders evidently don't understand the legal system. Prior similar cases have been thrown out as being "non-actionable" under Title IX. This is the first time that a court has recognized such an actionable claim. Whether these Plaintiff's get a dime is NOT the end result (in fact, I think a settlement that will be undisclosed will finally be reached). The big issue in this case is that educational institutions can no longer look the other way when it comes to sexual assault with athletes. Read the other incidents nationwide (if you have a daughter that has gone through what others have experienced as the Plaintiffs have, you would not be complaining). Has nothing to do with disliking or hating men. It has to do with an assault.
Posted by cheryl on September 17, 2007 08:42 AM"Prior similar cases have been thrown out as being "non-actionable" under Title IX. This is the first time that a court has recognized such an actionable claim. "
Yes, and that's a huge step that sets a dangerous precedent. If successful, this suit will result in any public schools that receive federal funds being held financially liable if a female student alleges she was raped. That will not help rape victims and will bankrupt the schools.
"Whether these Plaintiff's get a dime is NOT the end result "
And yet they keep pushing for the money...
"The big issue in this case is that educational institutions can no longer look the other way when it comes to sexual assault with athletes."
KInda like Mike NIfong and the Duke faculty, right?
"Has nothing to do with disliking or hating men."
No, it has to do with assuming men (and CU officials) are guilty until proven innocent.
"It has to do with an assault."
What assault? The evidence has been examined by the Boulder DA and the Colorado AG. Both found there was insufficient evidence of an assault to go to trial. Find a man guilty of rape in a fair trial and and I have no problem. But this case is not about the crime of rape, it's about the politics of rape.
Posted by Black Adder on September 17, 2007 09:20 AMcheryl said;--
"in fact, I think a settlement that will be undisclosed will finally be reached)."
That's what this whole case boils down to - money!
There are still serious questions as to rape was involved or consensual sex. There are a slew of new procedures and rules in place to deter this type of "partying" from taking place in the future.
This all comes down to money for the girls and their attorneys.
Posted by CA on September 17, 2007 09:41 AMWhat I would like to have explained is: Just how can one rape a whore? Or is going to court for more money a new "trick" in the trade?
Posted by on September 17, 2007 09:54 AMBIMBOS GONE WILD...no charges, no names, no felonies, no evidence.
So why should we believe a bunch of irresponsible party girls and gold diggers yet another time? Like OJ, this sorry crowd gold diggers needs to go away.
Posted by Hank on September 17, 2007 10:51 AMSpeaking of OJ...maybe NOW he will go away for a long time!!!!
Posted by A on September 17, 2007 10:57 AMUnbelievable.
These are young women, someone else's daughters you're talking about.
I'll bet good money that most of these vile comments against Lisa Simpson are coming from people who identify themselves as republicans or conservatives -the so called "family values" folks.
And one only needs to read this story to understand why the appellate court revived the case.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=66397
It's the statements of one football player who admits that he lied in his initial statements to police about whether he or his teammate had any contact with the victim, Monique Gillespie, on the night of the alleged incident.
And let's not forget Katie Hnida, the daughter of Dr. Dave Hnida, who entered CU with a solid scholastic background and a passion for football, having been the varsity kicker for Chatfield High in her senior year.
She was harrassed, molested, and raped by someone she considered a friend and when she went public with just some of it, she was attacked personally by Coach Gary Barnett.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2006/dec/03/no-headline-03xhni/
The point is ..there was definitely a culture in which these young men believed they could get away with using, abusing and even raping women.
Yes, the University has made changes to change that culture, but it was too little, too late for these women.
They deserve to have their cases heard.
If not for their own peace of mind, to protect other young women from going through what they went through.
Thomas said: If not for their own peace of mind, to protect other young women from going through what they went through.
First of all it's time to build a bridge and get over it. If these young women would like to protect other young women they need to tell them to avoid hosting parties where drinking is out of hand and getting so drunk you can't even remember what happened. This has been visited to many times.
Thomas -- you contradict yourself, typical of a bleeding heart.
"Yes, the University has made changes to change that culture,....if not for their own peace of mind, to protect other young women from going through what they went through."
You admit in one sentence changes are in place to prevent this situation in the future; then claim part of the reason to go to trial is to prevent it from happening again.
Face it, these young girls thought it cool to party with the nationally ranked football team - be part of the in crowd.
It's all about the money that you want to see them get. They played fast and loose with their own morals and now want to benefit it.
Posted by CA on September 17, 2007 12:33 PMThomas:=
"These are young women, someone else's daughters you're talking about"
They should have though about how they were raised and what their parents would think about them having wild drinking and sex parties with the football team.
I feel for their parents ad what they went through; but face it, it was the girls you made the decision to party hearty.
Posted by on September 17, 2007 12:44 PMWomen should just shut up and be like Laura Bush.
Stay home and bake cookies for your man.
Posted by rick on September 17, 2007 01:16 PMAlways blame the girls. Right?
Never, ever blame the men who just let their penises wander around.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 01:18 PMHave they checked into Milhouse? He has always had a thing for Lisa Simpson
Posted by RAlph Wiggums on September 17, 2007 01:27 PMI think they should be heard in court. A judge won't be the arbiter here though. If we are lucky the jury will determine the validity of the charges. If these women prevail, the result will be the destruction of college sports as any accusation will hold an institution hostage to the charges. This case deserves to be resolved as was the Duke case. Unfortunately there will be no punishment for irresponsible behavior for the perpetrators here. That is why they will demand a jury. A judge would rule on the law and would again throw out the case as baseless. A jury might be persuaded to think with their hearts about the "poor victims" instead of the facts and the rule of law. Katie was described as a poor athlete by the coach. Were she a man there would be a great deal of ridicule for her lack of ability to take criticism. The problems addressed here are similar to those at the Air Force Academy. NOW lost there and is just trying to make a PR statement. Facts don't matter to them and they are hoping they won't matter in court.
Posted by momma y on September 17, 2007 01:35 PMSharon:=
"Always blame the girls. Right?"
Not always; but in this case, yes. They chose the lifestyle and either couldn't live with it or saw big bucks at the end of the rainbow, or both.
In this case, no (in fact I admire this gal):
http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_6900274
This is taking the pile manure shoveled on her and planting a rose garden for the benefit of many. The perp got off light in my mind.
Posted by CA on September 17, 2007 02:02 PMBoy, when something like this comes up, the amateur psychologists and mind readers come out of the woodwork. It's easy to see why the university might gang up on Lisa Simpson. Hopefully, there will be a trial at which the facts can come out.
Hysterical histrionics by momma y: "If these women prevail, the result will be the destruction of college sports as any accusation will hold an institution hostage to the charges." Ye gods. If a female proves a football player raped her, no more college sports? Is there nothing that woman won't say to get attention?
Posted by Truth on September 17, 2007 02:56 PMSharon B - I'm not saying it's all the girls fault but you have to admit, they carry a large part of the blame here.
To me there's a large difference between forced rape and drunk sex. Here we have some girls who drink heavily with a bunch of guys, get footloose and shake their partially clad thing, and then wake up with some seamen between their legs and say they were raped.
Thomas - I wouldn't be so quick judge the guy you say lied in the initial investigation. His first reaction was most likely brought on by fear.
After the Duke case, I for one would be extremely scared if confronted by the police after a college party where sex was involved.
Posted by KW on September 17, 2007 03:05 PMUn Truth,
"Is there nothing that woman won't say to get attention?"
She usually has a constructive contribution; unlike you.
Posted by on September 17, 2007 04:30 PM
4 men believed to have beaten up homeless people in park
COLORADO SPRINGS - A group of homeless people were attacked early Monday morning by four young males. More...
Let me guess, according to most of you, it is the homeless men's fault for being beaten up because they were homeless and could have made different choices.
You guys are pathetic..and OJ (like other professional and college athletes) think that they can do whatever they want without repercussion....(one girl who was raped by an athlete at an Oklahoma institution of learning committed suicide because of the backlash in reporting).
Let's see, Iraqi girls who are being used to raise money for their families are also to blame...right
Let's proceed to trial...get the facts out on the table and let a jury decide.
Posted by cheryl on September 17, 2007 04:39 PMCA, I read that story and hope she prevails. She is a "pure victim" in that she was at home, in bed, alone when attacked.
But in past days men would say, "well, what do you expect, women leaving their homes and living away from the protection of their parents." They chose that life style of independence, now let them pay.
Heard it all a million times.
It is the fault of the men who rape, date rape, sorta rape when she in unconscious, or however anyone choose to define them.
If she says no, but more so if she can`t say now.
None of you were there, you don`t know how she acted, but we know that there was sex. To some men consensual means she had a pulse.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 04:46 PMCheryl - Only if the story read...
"A group of homeless men, throwing bottles and acting like asses, where beaten up by 4 men who reacted to this outragous behavior.
The homeless men couldn't understand why it enraged the other 4 guys.
Then I would say it was the homeless mens fault.
These girls exactly standing around, minding their own business you know.
so, the young lady wore a seductive dress...she got what she asked for.
Again, I will wait for the jury...no one is going to change anyone's mind here.
But I will leave you with a story of my sister in her dorm room when the dorm was not supposed to have visitors. Two burly University of Nebraska players went to her room and knocked...she opened the door and she was raped by one while the other watched. One went on to play pro sports (not for too long, though) The other went on to teach children. You have probably seen my sister on many news stations. One of our own local tv personalities was groped by the same guy. Please don't tell me it was her fault for opening a secured dorm room door after security was to have locked the main doors.
Also, what are good mannered Christian men of higher education hiring strippers for parties anyway...oh, it's just a guy thing, isn't it.
Posted by cheryl on September 17, 2007 05:04 PMPS.
These guys were "asking for it" legally because, as I teach my son, no matter what a girl is trying to get you to do, keep your pants on because you may have trouble later..unwanted pregnancy, STD's and possible assault allegations. Seems like these guys weren't thinking either...so don't try to blame one side of the equation. Guys, keep them pants on. Same logic as you folks are attributing to the girls.
Posted by cheryl on September 17, 2007 05:36 PMThe destruction of college sports is a fact because of it the area of filing. Title IX is specifically related to sports. The charges were not considered prosecutable by a liberal, elected DA in an admittedly liberal community.
The situation has been investigated and dismissed by law enforcement. Rape is a horrible crime. It is not wise to dilute that truth with accusations like this which have been found lacking.
Don't worry Truth. I expect to be here long enough to actually agree with you on something, someday.
Posted by momma y on September 17, 2007 05:56 PMThis trial will not decide guilt of any person, it is a civil lawsuit against the university of Colorado; even if it were to go trial and a jury finds for one side or the other it still does not mean that any person is guilty of rape. Even if you assume that a rape had taken place I believe it is a stretch to say that the university is responsible for the Simpson party (which no person has been charged). It is not the homeless men's fault it is the park's caretaker fault for "looking the other way"
Posted by brain on September 17, 2007 06:51 PMI just can't believe some of the comments I'm reading here.
Too many of you seem to think that these girls deserved whatever happened to them because they were "partying".
What's disturbing is how little most of you even know about the background of these cases.
Lisa Simpson has always maintained that she was drinking with friends and roommates in her own apartment when one of her roommates invited some football player friends to the party. Several of those football players were drunk when they arrived. Simpson went to bed in her own room...alone... and awoke to find two football players removing her clothes. She was then sexually assaulted by several players and recruits.
Katie Hnida wasn't "partying" when she was assaulted. She was trying to earn a spot on the football team. For simply trying to earn that spot she was harrassed, groped, assaulted and later raped by someone she had considered a friend.
Monique Gillespie may have been having consensual sex with one man, but when friends of his came over, he invited another man to "take a turn", against her will. One of those men later admitted that he had lied to the police about the incidents he witnessed that night.
These girls didn't do anything to "deserve" what happened to them. Geez, didn't everyone come down (and rightfully so) on Ward Churchill for implying that all the people who died on 9/11 had "deserved" what happened to them because of their actions?
Having a few drinks or even having consensual sex with someone does not, in any way, equate to permission to do anything else without that person's permission.
Wow. There are still some serious knuckle dragging apes out there who obviously still believe that "boys and will be boys" and any girl who crosses their path when they're being boys is fair game.
I hope you all remember this when YOU are sitting in jail for the crimes you're likely to commit since you don't believe that men should be able to control themselves and you're getting cornholed by your cellmates.
Remember..you deserve it.
Lets see...
Simpson and her girlfriends invite a bunch of underage high school jocks to their place , illegally provide them alcohol, lay out a bowl of rubbers, and they all get plowed and engage in wild sex.
Sounds to me like they had an agenda.
And how exactly is the University responsible?
Maybe like a lot of people, Simpson should take personal responsibility for her actions and not blame others for her own remorse.
Posted by Get Real on September 17, 2007 08:58 PMThomas, Get Real, both stories can`t be true. I vote for Thomas as having the picture closer to the truth.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 10:45 PMAny doubt as to whether Hank was just a worthless pile of dogshit has certainly been removed.
Posted by on September 17, 2007 10:55 PMWhy will men always rule the world ?
because when someone breaks into the house , WHO is going to have to get up and deal with it ? A MAN!
all of you gold diggin hoes, need to get in the kitchen and start cooking and cleaning and shut your hole until called upon
Posted by MAN RULER on September 18, 2007 03:10 AMProbably too late to address the legal ramifications of Title IX. Mama Y, yes it does pertain to gender equality in sports (as if sports for the female side will ever equal the massive dollars of football!). But, it is also similar to the work related civil rights provisions. In legal theory, the state can do no wrong...try to sue the state...it is very difficult...one must show deliberate indifference by the state. The state has quite a bit of immunity. The state includes state institutions of higher learning. So, apply the current scenario to a private workplace. A company sanctioned party wherein certain male employees assault a female employee. I can guess that if the company tried to cover it up, it could be held liable for a sexual harassment claim. Prior to this court's ruling, a person could not sue a University for looking the other way when others where violated. The educational institutions were protected by immunity. This ruling changes this train of thought...this is also what Title IX stood for...not just balancing the equation for sports money between genders. As I said, there will be continuing inequality in that area because of big money football.
Posted by cheryl on September 18, 2007 06:34 AMI'm slightly confused here. Perhaps one of the experts, who so handily present the "case" - or "cause" - at issue can clarify a bit.
As the stories go: One lady is, supposedly, asleep in her bedroom - maybe drunk, maybe not, but at least, so she says anyway, in her own apartment - when some guests invited by one or another of her room-mates supposedly come in and rape her. She claims these offenders are University of Colorado football players.
Another lady was, by her own admission, having sex with a boyfriend, who then invited someone else to "take a turn" - which she then goes on to call rape. Again, there is the implication that the offender, or offenders, are students - and athletes - at the University.
The Authorities investigate these stories. This investigation is exhaustive. In the course of the investigation, there are changes in the narratives, both on the part of the ladies in question and on the part of at least one of the men. BUT! After this thorough investigation, into a matter that could have resulted in serious criminal charges being brought against those alleged to be guilty of the crime of rape, THERE ARE NO CHARGES FILED! NONE! Indeed, the District Attorney declines to file even a token misdemeanor charge in the whole matter. There was no evidence presented that minors were involved - no possible cause for a "statutory rape" case - and the proper Authorities, both investigative and prosecutorial agreed that there was insufficient grounds for going to Court with a criminal action.
NOW, we learn that there is to be a civil suit against the University of Colorado.
DUH!
Incidents happening in the private apartment(s) of two ladies have now become, somehow, the "responsibility" of the UNIVERSITY? And the University is to be held liable for damages, for alledged personal wrongs done by students, because these students are football players?
NOTHING is said about personal action against any of the individual men themselves. No mention is made of Civil Action for tort, personally and/or as a group, against the football players alleged committing the "rape(s)". BUT! The suit is filed against the University.
Of course, there's no personal, or group, action. The young men have little or no money, individually or among them. And, even if a judgment against them - singly or individually - were to issue, it would be years before the cash would flow sufficiently to cover the lawyer fees alone, much less compensate the plaintiffs.
BUT! We are told that it is "NOT ABOUT MONEY"! This, in spite of the fact that the only real money around would be that which might be extorted from the coffers of the University, of course - as pointed out, in passing, by someone mentioning a "settlement" to be expected, as with other nuisance claims.
However, I still can't even begin to understand how something that happened in the homes - apartments - of the plaintiffs, at least a major part of it consenusously - has become the University's responsibility to pay for. "Nuisance value" aside, that is. But then again, I'm not - Praise God! - a lawyer.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 18, 2007 07:13 AMJohn: "What more do these women want, the president, chancellor, athletic director, and football coaches were all replaced, a complete overhaul of the recruiting process was done and the entire university was shamed nationally due to this scandal."
While John is practicing the art of hyperbole, why would the the university get rid of the director and coaches and revamp the recruiting process, and why would it be shamed nationally, unless these people had been doing something really bad?
Yes, victims often seek money. Just ask Ron Goldman. If lawyers tell people they stand to come into a lot of money if they file suit, most people will tend to listen. I'm sure that would include many of the nice, clean-cut posters here.
But there is also the matter of wanting to have someone held responsible, wanting in some way to be vindicated for a terrible wrong having been perpetrated on her. Simpson apparently tried to get the people she says raped her held criminally responsible, but rape cases are notoriously hard to prove, particularly if you have one females word against several males. How do you think a person who was raped would feel if she couldn't get justice against her attackers? Outraged is probably too mild a term. It is quite natural that she would seek other ways of vindicating herself.
Does she have a legitimate lawsuit? Perhaps and perhaps not. But it is for the courts rather than the posters on this forum to decide. It is good sport for laypeople to judge cases that haven't been tried, but fortunately that is not the way our legal system works.
"On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the decision. The appeals court found that the university had an official policy of showing football recruits a "good time" and that it showed a "deliberate indifference" to the dangers faced by women as a result.t it is for the courts rather than the posters on this forum to decide."
That statement, as are so many media statements, is quite misleading because the appeals courts was viewing the matter, as it must do, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs so that it was hardly a finding of fact. Nonetheless, if you don't like what the 10th Circuit did, don't blame Lisa Simpson for what the 10th Circuit did.
What is alarming to me is the rage that many posters voice toward Lisa Simpson and the gross lack of sympathy for the possibility that she may have been raped. Yes, "blame the victim" is alive and well, particularly in forums like this. No one considered the impact on a woman as a result of rape. It can ruin a person's day, as the poster stickers said about a nuclear bomb. It can ravage the rest of her life. What a cavalier attitude most of the posters have toward such a heinous crime. I hope that Lisa can prove her case. I hope she gets lots of money. I hope that the license sometimes given to our football heroes will be somewhat abated as a result.
And many of the posters really need to get over their fear of our legal system. It may not be perfect, but I'd prefer it to the judgments of the posters on this forum.
Posted by Truth on September 18, 2007 08:15 AMdid any of you stop to think you do not know the entire story? So far only what has been presented in the initial court proceedings and now the succesful appeal.
Have any of you read the court tapes?
I doubt it, but you all seem to "know" what happened and who is to blame if anybody for anything.
Wait and see what the jury says when and if it ever gets there before disposing of your opinions.
I always find it interesting when the original letter writer is posted with a passionate expression of his, or her, opinion; and then, when there is questioning, or critical, response, someone always insists that opinions here are premature, or out of place.
This is, after all, a reader response forum. And the responses are just as "valid" as the letter writer's original presentation, insofar as the whole matter of opinion be concerned.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 18, 2007 10:54 AMAre opinions about the guilt or innocence of a person premature if made before all the facts come out? If there is a trial, Simpson will have to prove she was raped. No one, except Cheryl, seems to consider the possibility that the woman was raped. Some, who don't know her from Adam, and who don't have the benefit of all the facts, prefer to judge her to be a whore or to have invited her rape. Like I said, "blame the victim" is alive and well on the forum. Premature? You're damn right they are premature. And ignorant and vicious.
Criticism of the letter writer and of Simpson is rampant. But is OG saying that those opinions are somehow exempt from criticism? Now, why would that be?
Posted by Truth on September 18, 2007 12:00 PMTruth - What I'm basing my opinion on stems from the news stories and the fact that, after a thorough investigation, no charges are being brought.
Do I know for a fact that this was drunken sex vs. rape? Of course not. But with the evidence given to us thus far we don't really have much of a reason to believe otherwise.
Posted by KW on September 18, 2007 01:51 PMKW...very few athletes are criminally charged with rape. Rape kits have actually been "lost" by police departments wherein college football remains big money. This is why victims pursue their case in the civil courtroom. Just because there is no criminal charge does not mean there is no assault.
Posted by cheryl on September 18, 2007 04:18 PMOf course, the victim, or alleged victim if you prefer, says it was rape, not drunken sex. And, of course, the alleged perpetrators and their friends say it was drunken sex, not rape. How unusual is that? That is the typical scenario in most rape cases. If we always believe the perpetrators and their friends and not the alleged victim, we give often give the rapists a free ride (sorry about that).
I have no problem with the right of people to make judgments without knowing all the facts since that is one of the great American pastimes, but I want the right to point out that this is what they are doing. Hey, you gotta problem with that?
I don't know about how often females are willing to take on the publicity of making a false rape accusation, especially when it is their word against the word of a number of football heroes. It is clearly difficult to criminally prosecute a "she said, they said" rape case so that they are often not prosecuted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sometimes a female will bring a false accusation to seek revenge for some wrong other than the alleged rape. I don't know if that kind of thing is present here because, like all the other posters, I don't know all the facts. The difference is that I recognize that.
I may be wrong, but my impression is that none of the investigations concluded that there had been no rape. I understand that what they concluded was that if there were a rape CU bore no responsiblity.
"A separate probe, backed by the CU Board of Regents, concluded that drugs, alcohol and sex were used to entice blue chip recruits to the Boulder campus but said none of the activity was knowingly sanctioned by university officials."
"The school responded by overhauling oversight of the athletics department and putting some of the most stringent policies in place for any football recruiting program. The fallout included the pending resignation of Hoffman and the departure of Athletics Director Dick Tharp, even as football coach Gary Barnett stayed on to guide his team to a bowl game victory last season."
Does that sound like CU thought that there had been no wrongdoing?
Females are quite often not willing to take on the abuse they often receive if they bring rape charges.
"The grand jury investigated claims that nine women since 1997 had been assaulted by football players or recruits, but declined to file charges in part because of the reluctance of any of the women to come forward."
"As the case wound its way through hearing after hearing, other allegations against the football team surfaced, including former CU kicker Katie Hnida's claim that a teammate raped her in 2000."
"In her lawsuit, Simpson, who agreed to let her name be published, said she was sexually assaulted by football players or recruits during the party at her apartment. A similar lawsuit filed by another woman, who asked her name not be published, was combined with Simpson's."
"The reason why victims don't come forward is the loss of privacy, fear of being blamed and fear of not being believed."
Now, surely that is not true, is it? And what about the fear of the kind of vile and mindless attacks contained in this thread?
I've not heard anyone comment on the football players. But of course they are football players and Simpson isn't. I really feel sorry for them that so many females think that were raped by them. It's particularly disappointing for this to happen if they have a good season.
Posted by Truth on September 18, 2007 04:30 PMTruth,
You are mis-reading me. As OPINION, they belong on the forum, just as much as the passionate OPINION of the lady from N.O.W. I was replying to the letter writer who wanted everyone to be stopped from posting, because the OPINIONS either didn't agree with what he/she believed, or were "premature".
Criticise - indeed, be outspoken about "premature", since their has been no trial. Fine. That's what open forums are all about. Advocate suppressing, or prohibiting, OPINIONS - "premature" or not - and I'll reply against that kind of censorship.
I would have thought that, by now anyway, you would know what I have to say on the point of open forums, and what I meant by "validity" in the context.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 19, 2007 08:27 AMIf Mary Lacey was the D.A. when the allegations were brought to law enforcements attention,no wonder no charges weren't brought against the perps.
I'm not sure who was the D.A. when the original charges were brought but Boulder has a weird sense of justice.The D.A.'s office is only concerned with Jon Benet Ramsey.
It took Bill O'Reilly to bring up the fact that two rich parents brought their 10 week old baby to the emergency room and the little boy died. After an autopsy the baby had suffered 48 broken bones and a fractured skull and no charges were filed.A year went by and when O'Reilly started asking questions as to why no charges were filed and his producer was sent to confront Mary Lacey as to why no charges were filed,then she called for a Grand Jury .
The Grand Jury charged the parents with 2nd degree murder and they walked out on bond.
The charges do not fit the crime. A little baby was brutally murdered and the parents are walking around free and then complained when the judge put a restriction on them , that they coundn't be around children of a certain age. Their lawyers complained that was a hardship because they had alot of nieces and nephews. BOO HOO!
This is the justice system in Boulder. Is it any wonder that these women would not see justice for the crimes that were committed against them?Should they at least have their day in court?Not in Boulder they won't.
Another case out of the Boulder Justice system.
A black student was out walking minding his own business,when a car pulled up and started calling him racial slurs. He tried to ignore the men in the car. The men jumped out and started to beat the hell out of him all the while calling him racial slurs. they broke his jaw and he had other injuries.
The D.A. decided that this was not a hate crime and prosecuted the men . They got off with probation.
If you have a daughter that goes to CU or works or lives in Boulder,I hope the parents teach her to stay away from any situation that could get them raped and even if someone breaks into her apartment and rapes her,don't bother reporting it to Boulder Police because nothing will be done.Unless you look like and have the name Jon Benet Ramsey. That is the only case Boulder authorities care about.
Oh and don't forget the former head of CU thinks it's okay to call your daughters a *unt.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 19, 2007 09:26 AM"Some, who don't know her from Adam, and who don't have the benefit of all the facts, prefer to judge her to be a whore or to have invited her rape. Like I said, "blame the victim" is alive and well on the forum."
No, here's the problem:
LIsa Simpson apparently got very drunk, invited underage football recruits into her home, gave them liquor, and passed out condoms. She alleges that at some point in the evening she was raped.
What she and the feminists at NOW ask us to believe is that none of Simpson's actions contributed to whatever happened that night.
What we're asked to believe is the only reason this rape occurred is because CU officials, who did not even know about the party, failed to take sufficient action to prevent the rape.
In fact, the rape would have occurred anyway, because of CU's policy of showing recruits a "good time." We are asked to believe that Gary Barnett et al. intended that to mean the recruits had permission to rape and abuse any female students they came across. After all, Barnett criticized Hnida's athletic ability and Hoffman made an off-base comment about the C word. This proves they are completely responsible for whatever happened to Simpson.
In the end, Simpson asks us to believe her actions contributed nothing to whatever happened and that CU officials are completely to blame. That is taking the policy of "don't blame the victim" to an absurd extreme.
Posted by on September 19, 2007 10:30 AMOG - Well put indeed!
Posted by KW on September 19, 2007 11:40 AM"LIsa Simpson apparently got very drunk, invited underage football recruits into her home, gave them liquor, and passed out condoms."
The poster "overlooks" the fact that it was a football player who said Simpson passed out condoms. Simpson denies that. I don't know if she passed out condoms or not. Neither does 10:30AM. But 10:30AM lacks credibility and integrity when he/she states that as a fact.
"What she and the feminists at NOW ask us to believe is that none of Simpson's actions contributed to whatever happened that night."
Is 10:30AM going to show us where anyone said that "none of Simpson's actions contributed to whatever happened"? I don't think anyone said that. I think that 10:30AM is making up "facts". And I don't expect her/him to rebut that.
But the more important question is: What "contributions", as you call them, are sufficient to make forced sex legal? I don't know of any, and neither do you, 10:30AM. If Simpson was not forced to have sex, she was not raped. If she was forced to have sex, she was raped. All this crap about "contributions" is the meaning of "blame the victim".
"What we're asked to believe is the only reason this rape occurred is because CU officials, who did not even know about the party, failed to take sufficient action to prevent the rape"
Good God, "the only reason". Is 10:30AM one of the football players or closely associated with one? What a nonsensical statement. 10:30AM could really use a course in logic and common sense.
Assume there was a rape, rather than, as 10:30AM appears to do, assume there was not a rape. Simpson tried to hold the rapist accountable but the DA did not think he could prove the case. That doesn't even come close to meaning that the DA concluded there was no rape. He may have thought that, or he may have thought there was but that he couldn't prove it. Not a rare situation in "she said, they said" situations.
Simpson was raving angry at being raped. That is understandable. She wanted revenge. That is understandable. So, it appears that having failed to get the DA to bring charges against the rapist, she sought other avenues and that her attorney suggested this lawsuit. I don't blame her for taking this course if indeed she was raped.
"We are asked to believe that Gary Barnett et al. intended that to mean the recruits had permission to rape and abuse any female students they came across."
What an asinine statement!!!! 10:30AM talks like a raving maniac.
Simpson may not be able to prove she was raped. Hopefully, that will be decided by people who have the ability to be objective, something 10;30AM lacks in spades.
Even if she were to prove she was raped, she would still have to prove that CU followed a pattern which encouraged rape. While, according to the Board of Regents inquiry, someone at CU promoted the use of "drugs, alcohol and sex *** to entice blue chip recruits to the Boulder campus". She may or may not be able to prove her case about that.
But the 10th Circuit thinks she should have the opportunity. I agree.
If anyone doubted that "blame the victim" is alive and well, they need only read the post by 10:30AM.
My apologies, Old Grouch. It's my ego again; I always think people are talking about me. Indeed, my misinterpretation hardly fits your M.O.
Posted by Truth on September 19, 2007 12:23 PMTruth - Look at it like this.
If you run thru Harlem yelling the n word and get shot, who's fault is it?
This doesn't negate the shooters violation of the law, he is still guilty of assault or mudrer, but whos fault is it for inviting the trouble in the first place?
Posted by KW on September 19, 2007 12:54 PMIs 10:30AM going to show us where anyone said that "none of Simpson's actions contributed to whatever happened"? I don't think anyone said that. I think that 10:30AM is making up "facts". And I don't expect her/him to rebut that.
Point to anything in the NOW letter or Simpson's lawsuit that indicates Simpson is responsible for anything that happened that night. She invited an underage recruit into her home and gave him liquor--she admitted to that in court. Instead of admitting this was a really bad (and illegal) act on her part, she, in effect, claims the devil (CU) made her do it.
But the more important question is: What "contributions", as you call them, are sufficient to make forced sex legal? I don't know of any, and neither do you, 10:30AM. If Simpson was not forced to have sex, she was not raped.
Untrue. Under current law, force does not need to be proven in rape. Only "lack of consent."
"If she was forced to have sex, she was raped. All this crap about "contributions" is the meaning of "blame the victim"."
Here's my point: Simpson invited an underage man into her room, gave him liquor, and, according to several witnesses, gave him condoms. If she had not done those things, she would not have been raped. That's common sense. It's her claim that CU caused this all to happen--and her own actions contributed nothing--that I have trouble with.
Please show me exactly how CU caused this rape to happen.
Even if we assume (as you do) that she was raped, she chooses not to hold the man accountable--she chooses to hold CU accountable. This is akin to Ron Goldman suing the NFL instead of OJ.
Good God, "the only reason". Is 10:30AM one of the football players or closely associated with one? What a nonsensical statement. 10:30AM could really use a course in logic and common sense.
I agree. The Simpson case is nonsense and lacks both logic and common sense.
Simpson is also CU student. Do you think we should hold CU accountable for her providing liquor to an underage man?
"Simpson tried to hold the rapist accountable but the DA did not think he could prove the case. That doesn't even come close to meaning that the DA concluded there was no rape."
The DA in this case was a woman by the name of Mary Keenan. Mary Keenan was highly motivated to find a CU player guilty of rape. If even she wouldn't file charges, the case was very weak. And if charges can't be filed, Simpson could have sued the alleged rapist in court, as the Goldmans sued OJ. Instead, she sued CU. In effect, she let the alleged rapist off the hook and went after someone with deeper pockets.
"Simpson was raving angry at being raped."
If she was raped. Or, she may have decided there was big money in suing CU.
"We are asked to believe that Gary Barnett et al. intended that to mean the recruits had permission to rape and abuse any female students they came across."
"What an asinine statement!!!! 10:30AM talks like a raving maniac."
Again, I agree. It's asinine to assume Gary Barnett in any way condoned rape by telling his players to show the recruits a good time.
"Even if she were to prove she was raped, she would still have to prove that CU followed a pattern which encouraged rape."
She has to prove she was raped and that CU somehow encouraged or failed to prevent her rape at a private party about which CU had no knowledge. That's a tall order.
"If anyone doubted that "blame the victim" is alive and well, they need only read the post by 10:30AM."
So who is the victim here? Simpson? The black high school kid Simpson accused of raping her? Or CU? The problem with rape cases is we don't know who the victim is until we establish what happened. If Simpson is lying about the rape, she's not the victim--she's the villain.
Posted by 10:30AM on September 19, 2007 02:19 PMKW
That's not how the law works, though. We all have a responsibility to curb our own behaviors. In your scenario, the law would support the shooter in being charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, no matter what the person was saying...c'mon, we are talking how the law operates...does not look at fault of the speaker in your scenario.
Posted by cheryl on September 19, 2007 02:29 PM"Untrue. Under current law, force does not need to be proven in rape. Only "lack of consent."
I agree. That is a easier standard to meet than if the law required force. Consequently, even if force were not used, a rape would have occurred if Simpson did not give her consent.
Posted by Truth on September 19, 2007 04:23 PM"The problem with rape cases is we don't know who the victim is until we establish what happened. If Simpson is lying about the rape, she's not the victim--she's the villain."
Right on both counts. I presume your point is that we are not in a position to judge, as many posters have done, until the trial brings in all the facts. I whole-heartedly agree.
By the way, is there any indication that Simpson would have sued CU if her complaint against the alleged rapist had been accepted by the DA? I don't think so.
Posted by Truth on September 19, 2007 04:30 PMCheryl - I think I addressed that point in my post. Yes, the shooter would be guilty of a crime, not Truth.
But your missing the point of the analagy, why would you run thru Harlem yelling the n word in the first place?
Stupid behavior will net undesired results.
Posted by KW on September 19, 2007 04:30 PMKW, it is you who is missing the point. The question here is not whether Simpson acted prudently because she obviously did not. The question is whether she should be allowed to try to prove she was raped. The question is whether such imprudent behavior should enable a person to rape her with impunity. I say "no".
The problem with this thread is that all but one or two posters are either assuming that Simpson was not raped, or that, if she was, the rapist was entitled to rape her because of her imprudence. There is no indication that any of those posters find any fault with the football players. If that's not extreme bias, I don't know what is.
Posted by Truth on September 19, 2007 04:45 PM
"There is no indication that any of those posters find any fault with the football players."
Including Simpson herself. Simpson had the option of suing the football players, but instead chose to sue CU.
I do not believe anyone is arguing a player was entitled to rape her because of her imprudence. I do believe there's evidence to suggest she consented to sex. If she consented, it's not rape.
Further, her imprudence does not entitle a football player to rape her, but neither does it entitle her to blame CU for what happened.
It's quite fair to sue an auto maker if your brakes fail due to a manufacturing defect. It's unfair to sue simply because you drove your car off a cliff.
Posted by Black Adder on September 19, 2007 08:06 PMHow old were the boys and how old is she?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 19, 2007 08:36 PM"If she consented, it's not rape".
All I have to say is, duh.
"I do believe there's evidence to suggest she consented to sex."
There is evidence both ways. That's what makes a lawsuit.
As for blaming CU, Adder will have to take that up with the Tenth Circuit. It says she is entitled to try to make a case against CU.
Adder says she could have filed a civil suit against the players. But to what end? It would cost her a great deal of money to do that, money which she may or may not have. If she didn't have the money, then is wrong, she could not have sued the player. And the chances of her recovering anything besides a judgment if she prevailed are very small. Her lawyers surely told her that she should sue CU rather than waste her money, if she had the money, suing the player. I expect the lawyers are on a contingent fee but do not know that.
"It's quite fair to sue an auto maker if your brakes fail due to a manufacturing defect. It's unfair to sue simply because you drove your car off a cliff."
Is that supposed to be an analogy? It isn't.
Posted by Truth on September 19, 2007 08:45 PM