http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/06/12/brock-turner-trial-put-expert-defense-witness-in-spotlight/
From the Stanford Daily. Still, the jury convicted him.
@greenwitch, judging the rape victim is why I remained silent for so many years. My apologies for repeating if I shared this before, but my own mother believed that rape victims “asked for it” if they dressed certain ways or went certain places or associated with certain people. She maintained that POV until a very elderly relative was raped in her nursing home and suddenly she became afraid that the same might happen to her. Had I told her about my assault and rape, she would have beaten me bloody and called me a slut (which she’d already done after someone told her a story about me kissing a boy.)
Another relative told his own early-teens daughter that she “asked for it” when her mother’s live-in boyfriend molested her because she had gone with them on vacation trips and “let him” buy her birthday and Christmas gifts. I couldn’t come up with enough words to tell him how despicable I thought he was for that. Too much of that thinking still exists.
We homeschooled our kids, not for religious reasons although we did join some faith-based groups in several different states. The first area where we homeschooled, everyone was pretty laid back and accepting of different beliefs. After our next moves, we encountered way too many people who were extremely strict. Suddenly, our daughter was hearing that she should not wear pants because they are too provocative and shorts were out of the question. Some said girls should only swim with other girls and not even with their own brothers. I quickly cut ties with those folks, but that didn’t stop some from trying to “save” us. I hate to think how those families would respond to a child being raped.
I am convinced this guy would have done similar things in high school. I am surprised no investigative journalist has come up with any stories yet.
@Silpat - I’m so sorry. You must have had to carry a lot of pain.
@texaspg I totally agree - my thought is that no girl would be willing to come forward because who would believe her if she said something like that about the golden boy of his small town, a future Olympian? It would take an incredibly strong high schooler to report anything like that.
This daily update from The Onion was in my “in” box yesterday - I’m not sure if it’s been run previously but it’s pretty spot-on:
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-colleges-can-protect-students-assault-53095
Silpat - so sorry.
Re the link about the expert witness. I have no opinion on the content on what she said, but I do hate when practices that are normal and everyday get condemned as if they are novel. Oh dear, she gets paid a retainer and a $350/hour fee and her travel is covered. Well, duh, same for every professional expert witness. My spouse testifies in medical cases involving his specialty (sometimes for plaintiff, sometimes for defendant). No retainer, but $350/hour for records review and substantially more for in person testimony. And of course his travel is paid for. Are people stupid? Do they expect highly paid professionals to give their time away for free and bear their own cost of travel? Why is this exclaimed over like it’s damning, when it isn’t?
@GnocchiB - There might be people out there who will provide anonymous feedback just like the women on the swim team.
Agree Pizza. 'm not exactly sure why anyone would still be picking over this case. It’s over, he was found guilty.
As always the Onion link is hilarious.
@momofthreeboys “not exactly sure why anyone would still be picking over this case. It’s over, he was found guilty.”
This report of Stanford administrators discouraging athletes from reporting information that could be relevant to the character of the convict is legally important. It is not legal to try to prevent the reporting of information related to a criminal investigation. If it were proven that Stanford administrators discouraged anyone from reporting what they knew about the convict and his behavior to authorities, that could be Obstruction of Justice. If convicted, any/all administrators involved could be go to prison.
@momofthreeboys:
Maybe because the people posting are expressing outrage at an unjust sentence, that basically because a judge seems to think that an upper middle class kid who went to an elite school (his alma mater, no less) was the real victim here and created a travesty. I am glad that people in broader society are digging deeper, it might get the judge thrown off the bench (which I would hope voters would try to do), and more importantly, maybe it will raise consciousness among those who think that these kinds of incidents aren’t rape, or that because it involved alcohol that the victim was responsible for what happened to her, or that somehow an upper class kid like that shouldn’t suffer the consequences because “look how much he lost”. Every day when revelations come out, there is a bigger push for change in this country and we get away from the idea that boys have Dieu et Mon Droite when it comes to women, or that if they do something like this they are just as guilty as the perp who puts a gun to a woman and rapes her.
@pizzagirl:
Having been in civil juries with experts, yep, that is standard practice, and it is also something Jurors on civic cases take into account when deciding them, least it was on mine. Who was more believable? Whose testimony fit common sense? Which one seemed to be the more believable, even if both were obviously hired guns? And of course those on both sides are going to find an expert willing to testify on their behalf, and given that much of this comes down to opinion, on things where ‘facts’ aren’t crystal clear, it gets very difficult to claim, for example, that someone was saying something simply for the money (ie lied), when it comes down to opinion.
As long as the Turner family continues to seek to appeal the decision , it’s not over.
Here are a couple of reasons why I think the whole situation is not over, even if Turner were to decide not to appeal:
-
Turner blamed the culture of the swim team for influencing him to act wrongly. Either this is just false, and it is calumny directed against members of the swim team; or it is true, and Stanford has a bigger problem than Turner. I suppose it might be somewhere in the middle–but at least it seems quite possible that the members of the swim team were not active in trying to dissuade Tuner from his views/actions. Or perhaps they tried unsuccessfully. It would be useful for Stanford to know about this, so it could be addressed.
-
Judge Persky was (according to one report I’ve read) a member of the “same athletic fraternity” as Turner. I can’t tell whether this is “fraternity” as in a metaphorical camp tent over all Stanford athletes, without any of the usual membership activities of a Greek society, or whether it is a real fraternity. If it is a real fraternity, then Stanford may have a larger problem with this athletic group.
-
Does anyone imagine that Turner was the only athlete with an MIP arrest? That’s a problem, too.
-
What about Turner’s coach at Stanford? Does a coach bear any responsibility for encouraging proper behavior by his team members? I can understand if the coach gets a free pass on the first month or so, because that is a short time to turn someone’s behavior around. But presumably the current Stanford coach recruited Turner. One suspects that the coaches care almost entirely about times in various events. They should also give serious consideration to character.
-
Judge Persky said that he took Turner “at his word.” What’s up with that? Particularly given the inaccurate representation that Turner gave of his past experience.
-
Turner was admitted to Stanford over a lot of very well qualified applicants in his year. We have been told before on CC that the admissions staffers have special insights into the psychology of young adults, and that they are looking to build a “community.” I don’t see the first one at all in this case. The second may have been their aspiration, but they failed pretty badly at it.
“We have been told before on CC that the admissions staffers have special insights into the psychology of young adults”
I don’t know who’s been saying that. Not anyone who knows what they’re talking about. Of course they are trying to build a community, but they don’t have any special gifts to make that happen. They’re just doing their best with imperfect information and limited time.
There are a specific number of athletic scholarships over which the admissions has zero control as long as they meet the academic standards. If this guy had olympian abilities as they seem to be claiming, the admissions had zero shot at judging his character.
The expert witness story ran in the university’s newspaper. I’d assume, for that audience, the writer would have to explain a bit about what expert witnesses are, how they’re paid and how much, and who they’ve testified for. Not sure why the story did not mention any expert witnesses for the victim.
I think with that story of the women’s team, Stanford’s goose might be cooked. Serious violation of Title IX if it turns out the the swimmers were directed to cover up harrassment. Which is what I’d call the reported “tits” comment.
@texaspg I don’t believe that there are “athletic scholarships over which the admissions has zero control” at Stanford. Stanford athletes complete a regular application just like every other student. Do they get preferential treatment? Yes, but admissions has the last word. I know some quite qualified applicants in a number of sports with admittable academic credentials and who the coaches at Stanford really wanted who were not admitted.
Brock Turner was one of the top swimming recruits in the country, but I think the “Olympian abilities” thing is way overstated. The difference between a high school star and a college star, much less an Olympian is huge. He was just a freshman and had proven nothing in terms of his swimming ability/potential at Stanford when this happened.
@anxiousmom1 - I see some contradiction in this statement. If he is a top recruit, shouldn’t he be an Olympic aspirant (I thought there was a facebook page promoting it).
There is no such thing as preferential treatment, there are only likely letters quota allowed for each team.
Stanford recruits about 250-300 athletes each year and every coach has their own slots. It is not the admissions officers who can decide who the recruits are, only who is allowed to be admitted once the coaches get a shortlist of their candidates. The swim team might be trying to recruit 20 people but only have 5 spots they are allowed to give likelies to. The swim coach will rank them and ask the admissions office to issue the likelies based on his allowed quota. The admissions office at that point will make a determination that the academic requirements either meet the high standards and they don’t need to make an exception or go back to the coach and ask for another candidate who does meet the standards.
There is a community based decision. Not all athletes fit the same role on each team. Stanford will need to have swimmers who do 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500 and so on and that is the community they are building for the team, not one that has to fit in with the student community.
There was a golfer with a very very very well known alum father who was known to have been admitted in 2013 class, long before classes started in fall of 2012.