A male student at the University of Connecticut will get a new campus hearing – with strict instructions for fairness – after the school punished him even though evidence suggested his accuser was not credible.
The student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, will receive a new hearing that will allow him to actually present evidence in his defense. John was accused by a female student referred to only as Jane Roe several months after the two engaged in sexual intercourse in April 2019.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-he-sexually-assaulted-her-the-school-ignored-witnesses-that-challenged-her-credibility">reported</a>, Jane and her friend began talking to John. Jane later expressed interest in him and left with him and several other students after the party to get food:
<blockquote>When the party ended, a group of six students piled into a car to get food. Jane sat on John’s lap, but later claimed she was forced to. John said he didn’t ask her or force her to sit on his lap. The student in the front passenger seat later said he felt Jane’s knees against the back of the seat and he could tell she was moving around on John’s lap. Another student in the back seat said he had to look away from the two because Jane was gyrating her hips on John’s lap. Jane later claimed she did not do this, and the multiple witnesses disputing her story were kept out of the campus investigator’s report on the allegations. The fact that Jane had at least two instances of claiming one thing while multiple witnesses disputed her should have made UConn skeptical of her allegations, yet the school ignored them and expelled John, later reducing his punishment to a two-year suspension.</blockquote>
The other instance of Jane claiming one thing while witnesses said another was when she said John was “falling over” drunk. Multiple other witnesses, including one of Jane’s friends, said otherwise.
John said he fully intended to go home alone that night and was even dropped off in front of his dorm, but Jane kept calling for him to get back in the car and go home with her. She would later claim she didn’t invite John back, and then change her story to say she did invite him back, but just to watch TV and eat pizza. Multiple witnesses disputed both of her claims.
Still, campus investigators ignored all this evidence and took Jane’s allegations as fact. John explained how Jane gave him “unambiguous” consent for sexual activity, but because Jane denied this, UConn investigators found John responsible.
John petitioned the court to stop UConn from implementing his two-year suspension and the court agreed, finding that the school ignoring Jane’s history of inconsistent statements and her lack of credibility to determine John responsible violated his due process rights.
Now the school and John have agreed to a new hearing, as author and professor K.C. Johnson noted on Twitter.
“After [temporary restraining order], pending settlement in <a href="https://twitter.com/UConn">@UConn</a> due process case. Guilty finding w/drawn, student gets new hearings w/new rights: to call witnesses, to have relevant questions asked through panel, to have credibilty [sic] determination made in context of events of entire night.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After TRO, pending settlement in <a href="https://twitter.com/UConn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UConn</a> due process case. Guilty finding w/drawn, student gets new hearings w/new rights: to call witnesses, to have relevant questions asked through panel, to have credibilty determination made in context of events of entire night. <a href="https://t.co/K3swaZ5YrN">pic.twitter.com/K3swaZ5YrN</a>
— KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) <a href="https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1226966759229546496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 10, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Indeed, the court listed 12 demands of the new hearing, including documentation of its rationale behind its future finding of John, and the requirement that evidence and witnesses presented at the hearing must be made available to both parties prior to the hearing.

Don&#8217;t Mess With Me

Male Student Railroaded By Campus Kangaroo Court Gets Another Chance

Connecticut

Sexual Assault

Title IX

A county in Kansas last year dropped charges against three women suspected of filing false rape accusations. The county’s response was not to make it less palatable for someone to file a false accusation, but to actually make it easier to file such a claim.
Douglas County law enforcement officials will be “updating” their training of attorneys and victim/witness coordinators to include radical new “trauma-informed” training material, which essentially teaches that any evidence of a false accusation is actually evidence of trauma caused by a real accusation. The Associated Press <a href="https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Kansas-county-making-changes-after-false-rape-report-cases-567669281.html">reported</a> that Lawrence, Kansas, District Attorney Charles Branson announced last week that employees in his office, as well as police detectives in the county, would have to complete a five-hour training course on how to conduct “trauma-informed” sexual assault investigations. That’s right, such “training” only ever applies to sexual assault investigations, not murders or burglaries or any other type of crime, in which an accuser who appears to be lying will be regarded suspiciously while an investigation takes place.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kansas-prosecutors-drop-false-accusation-charges-claiming-real-victims-would-be-hurt">reported</a>, police dropped charges against women who appeared to have made false allegations:
<blockquote>The situation began in mid-September, when a female University of Kansas student told police she had been raped the night before. She said at the time she had been drunk and didn’t remember much of the encounter and didn’t want to press charges. She gave them access to her phone and her text messages suggested the encounter was consensual but a “mistake.”
It appeared to police that the woman was trying to get back at her ex-boyfriend by sleeping with his friend, and only claimed it was rape after an acquaintance threatened to tell people about the sexual encounter. The woman threatened this acquaintance by saying: “I’m pretty sure it was borderline rape and I have the bruises and statements to prove it so if you want to go there let’s do it.”</blockquote>
The woman’s text messages also showed she joked about the incident, later claiming she did that because she was “unable at the time to admit she had been raped.” Then she started “remembering” the incident and began claiming she kept telling her ex-boyfriend’s friend “no” and tried to leave.
The charges against her were dropped because prosecutors feared real victims would be afraid to come forward if possibly fake victims were held accountable. As I wrote in December:
<blockquote>A claim that has permeated throughout the culture and infected law enforcement is that prosecuting women who lie about being raped or sexually assaulted will hurt women who have actually been raped or sexually assaulted. The theory is that real victims won’t come forward for fear of being prosecuted even though there’s no evidence to suspect that real victims become fearful when fake victims are held accountable for their lies.</blockquote>
The prosecutor’s office then dropped charges against two more women who were suspected of lying about being raped. Under “trauma-informed” investigations, it’s unlikely any woman will ever be held accountable for lying about being raped. Such “training” teaches investigators that if a woman appears to be lying, she’s just traumatized from the encounter. There is literally no way to prove a woman is lying, because all evidence of lying is claimed to be evidence of the assault.

Handcuffed

Women Were Charged With Making False Rape Accusations. The Charges Were Dismissed.

false accusations

Kansas

On Friday’s episode of The New York Times&#8217; podcast “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/podcasts/the-daily/weinstein-trial.html">The Daily</a>,” Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based attorney who has represented dozens of men accused of sexual misconduct, was asked in a pre-recorded interview about her decision to now defend disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein. 
&#8220;My role in this is to represent him in a criminal case, and as I&#8217;ve said multiple times, there&#8217;s a difference between sins and crimes. You can believe that Harvey Weinstein is a sinner, and you can believe that he did things that you wouldn&#8217;t do or you wouldn&#8217;t like, but my question here is does that rise to the level of a crime,&#8221; Rotunno told Megan Twohey, the Times reporter who co-wrote the 2017 Weinstein investigation. 
“I think quite often, we look to the accusers and we talk about the effects that these things have on their lives, but we do not look at the effects that these types of allegations and accusations have on the person being accused,” said Rotunno. 
Rotunno remains particularly concerned with the long-term effects that sexual misconduct accusations have on men, invoking an observation her mother made about the media’s rush to condemn three Duke University lacrosse team players for a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/lacrosse/2013/02/28/duke-2006-rape-allegations/1953607/">gang-rape allegation</a>: “When those boys die someday, their obituary is going to say the Duke Lacrosse players.” 
To clients who once felt hopeless, Rotunno’s legal acumen has made a world of difference. In 2013, Rotunno represented high-end fashion designer Elhadji Gueye, who was arrested when an acquaintance filed a police report alleging sexual assault, a charge Gueye maintained was filed only after he refused to pay her $50,000 in hush money, according to <a href="https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2018/The-Defender/">Chicago Magazine</a>. 
When police requested as evidence the clothing she was wearing at the time of the alleged rape, the accuser didn’t submit the pajama bottoms, and later told the court she didn’t know where they went. But during cross-examination, Rotunno pointed to a peculiarity, revealed by a security camera that recorded the accuser’s alleged hush money request: “Of all the clothes in your closet, the ones you choose to wear to meet your ‘rapist’ were the pants you were raped in?” 
Rotunno believes her pointed question led the jury to a prompt not-guilty verdict, and reflected on the trial during the Times’ interview: “He wins, but what do you win? You win your case in criminal court, and then you have to worry about building your reputation back, if you can, where people are then willing to come back and frequent your establishment.”
According to <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-donna-rotunno-daily-times-interview">Buzzfeed News</a>, after the interview aired on Friday, &#8220;prosecutors argued it violated Judge James Burke&#8217;s previous order directing lawyers to not discuss the case and the witnesses in public.&#8221; Rotunno claims the interview was recorded &#8220;a long time ago&#8221; and didn&#8217;t know when it would air, but the New York Times claims the interview was recorded on January 28 and that Rotunno knew it would air Friday.
When it concerns the man who sparked the #MeToo movement, the court of public opinion has been swift and decisive. But while nearly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/us/harvey-weinstein-trial.html">80 women</a> have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted groping to forcible rape, the charges in the Manhattan trial are specific and concern only two criminal accusers. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weinstein-jury-forced-to-review-his-nude-photos-following-intersex-vagina-allegation">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Jessica Mann, a former actress who is now a hairstylist, claims she consensually entered into a relationship with Weinstein after he forced her to permit him to perform oral sex. 
“I made the decision to be in a relationship with him,” said Mann, according to <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/jessica-mann-harvey-weinstein-trial-testimony.html">Vulture</a>. “And part of that was because I was sexual with very few people. I entered into what I thought was going to be a real relationship with him — and it was extremely degrading from that point on.”
Mann has also alleged that Weinstein violently raped her at a New York City hotel in 2013; Weinstein maintains that all encounters were consensual, and his defense team has produced emails from Mann showing that she maintained contact with him for years, and would provide him with updated contact information on multiple occasions. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harvey-weinstein-accuser-he-ripped-out-my-tampon-and-performed-oral-sex-on-me">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Weinstein has also been accused of forcibly performing oral sex on Mimi Haleyi, a production assistant for Project Runway, at his apartment in 2006. 
In total, Weinstein faces five criminal counts, including rape and predatory sexual assault, in connection with alleged assaults against the two accusers. He faces up to life in prison if convicted. 
This report has been updated to include additional information about the nature of the interview, including a statement by Rotunno and the New York Times about it&#8217;s timing and release.

Harvey Weinstein Trial Continues In New York

Lead Weinstein Attorney Speaks Out: Here’s Why I Defend Men Accused Of Rape

Crime

Harvey Weinstein

Lawsuit

MeToo

Prison

Rape

Sexual Harassment

Most people probably believe that Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual assault and will be convicted at the end of his ongoing trial in Manhattan.
But as the prosecution case comes to an end, it’s clear the case is not as strong as the headlines, or some activists, suggest. There is a very real possibility that Weinstein will be cleared of the charges and emerge from the courtroom a ruined but officially innocent man.
Let&#8217;s be clear Harvey Weinstein is the  epitome of an amoral Hollywood Producer — in a field that has a lot of debauched competition. By his own admission, he was a serial cheater on his wife — often with junior employees young enough to be his daughter. He even cheated on his mistresses.
Many people, particularly conservatives, might balk at the thought of having any concern for Weinstein and his legal troubles. He was one of the country’s most outspoken and obnoxious liberals, lavishing money on Democrats and, in particular, Hillary and Bill Clinton. He understood the Andrew Breitbart dictum that “politics is downstream from culture.” He produced and brilliantly promoted every Michael Moore documentary — using the culture to influence politics. He produced the documentaries “Sicko,” which was upstream from Obamacare, “Roger and Me,” which laid the groundwork for the auto bailout, and &#8220;Bowling for Columbine,&#8221; which popularized gun control.
But Weinstein is facing a trial by mob, and that is not a metaphor. During jury selection there was an actual feminist flash mob outside the court chanting, “The Rapist is You.” It could be heard in the courtroom. On the opening day of the trial, a journalist joined actors/activists Rose McGowan and Patricia Arquette in a press conference and compared Weinstein to a pedophile.
Conservatives who care about due process should pay careful attention to this prosecution. It’s prosecution by popular demand using legal doctrines that are stretching the concept of a fair trial. After they finish with Harvey Weinstein, who will the mob come for next?
With that said, these are five mostly unreported reasons Weinstein may emerge from the Manhattan courtroom a legally innocent man.
1) Despite reports of 80 victims, Weinstein faces only two criminal accusers.
The media and activist groups cite over 80 women — one report says more than 90 — who have been victims of Weinstein. However, when the case opened in Lower Manhattan, the jury was told they are only to decide on his guilt with two accusers. Now the court has also heard allegations from four other women, but these are just being used to show &#8220;previous bad acts&#8221; to bolster the case. The jury is not being permitted to pronounce judgment on the actions alleged by these four women.
2) Every allegation contains serious evidential weaknesses, and in some cases defies common sense.
There are serious holes in the accounts of the two women he is accused of assaulting in the criminal case. Jessica Mann claims she was raped but that afterwards she decided to have a relationship with him. After the alleged rape, she wanted him to meet her mother and, in a diary, described him as her casual boyfriend. She says she continued in the relationship because it would be a “benefit” to her. His other accuser Miriam Haley accepted flights, expensive hotel stays and gifts from him after the alleged attack and desperately tried to change a flight so she could meet him in London. She also signed emails to him “Lots of Love Miriam” after he allegedly sexually assaulted her. Both of the accusers maintained loving or business contact with Weinstein after their alleged assaults.
There are similarly large holes in the accusations of the four supporting alleged victims. One had memories of her attack that were so “fragmented” that the prosecution wrote to her lawyer saying there was no way they could pursue the case. However, the case and her memory was strengthened after 55 visits to a trauma/memory expert recommended by the prosecution.
3) The prosecution is relying on a radical new theory to explain why Weinstein’s alleged victims maintained sexual, friendly and business relationships with him after allegedly being attacked.
Enter Dr. Barbara Ziv. Dr. Ziv is a professor at Temple University and now has a career giving evidence at rape trials pushing the new theory that it is normal for women to have relationships with and write lovingly to their attackers often for years after the initial attack.  According to Dr Ziv, “It is extremely common. In fact, it is the norm for individuals who have been sexually assaulted, to have subsequent contact with the individual. Now that contact can range from having text messages or e-mail exchanges with them to continuing in a relationship with them, or to developing a relationship with them, even if one did not exist before the sexual assault.” This theory makes it difficult for Weinstein to argue his innocence because apparently friendly contact from the alleged victim is now said to be normal after a rape. But it is probably a very difficult theory for the jury to accept.
 4) At times the prosecution appears to be reaching in their attempts to explain why Weinstein’s sexual encounters must be rape.
You could call this the “Is She Really Going Out with Him” theory. No joking, the prosecution has argued on a number of occasions that because Harvey Weinstein is and was physically unattractive and the women were beautiful that this is evidence that the jury should consider in their deliberations. “Jessica gave him her number thinking this was a good networking opportunity. Certainly not thinking anything remotely sexual or romantic, after all the defendant at this point was old enough to be her father, significantly overweight and sloppy looking,” the prosecutor told the jury. This point was made a number of times to the jury, until Donna Rotunno, Weinstein&#8217;s defense lawyer, finally exploded and bitterly complained to the judge and asked him to prevent them from pushing this rather bizarre theory.
“So this notion that he doesn&#8217;t look right or he is too large or his clothes don&#8217;t look right, it is insulting and I think the record needs to be clear about the fact that there is an attempt to continue to berate Mr. Weinstein about who he was as a person, and that&#8217;s not what this trial is about,” Rotunno argued.
It is a bizarre prosecution strategy trying to convince the jury that it is ludicrous that young women would not consensually date an unattractive powerful older man — when the opposite is clear to see in the streets of Manhattan every day
5) The prosecution is urging the jury to believe “Her Truth” — the defense asks them to believe “The Truth.”
This trial is a pivotal case. It will set standards going forward. Should we “believe all women” or should we follow all evidence? The prosecution has talked about “Her Truth” — they want the jury and the public to believe what the women say — the defense has countered with asking the jury to believe “The Truth.” The defense has asked the jury to apply their common sense to a series of encounters that appear consensual, while the prosecution are urging them to adopt an apparently new way of looking at sexual assault. Will they succeed?
Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are the creators of the “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer,” “The Ann &amp; Phelim Scoop,” and “Fracknation.”  Their new podcast, “The Harvey Weinstein Trial: Unfiltered,” can be found on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.  You can listen to the verbatim reenactment of the Weinstein trial at <a href="https://anchor.fm/harveyweinstein/episodes/Trailer-Introducing-The-Harvey-Weinstein-Trial-Unfiltered--A-New-Daily-Podcast-ea3lcb">WeinsteinPodcast.com</a>.

McALEER & McELHINNEY: Five Reasons Harvey Weinstein May Be Found Not Guilty 

Hollywood

A Maine prosecutor has vowed to prosecute people accused of sexual assault even if there is not enough evidence to prove they committed the crime.
WGME reported District Attorney Natasha Irving said she would try to reform the legal system by prosecuting cases that previously had been deemed “too hard to prove.” She said prosecutors shouldn’t decline to take on such cases because “that response is very damaging to a survivor,” suggesting she believes every accuser is a “survivor.”
Irving serves Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and Waldo counties in Maine.
Irving also repeated the misleading statistic that just 2% to 8% of sexual assault accusations are false. The number, as I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lies-damned-lies-and-campus-sexual-assault-ashe-schow">have written</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/even-if-false-rape-reports-are-rare-they-shouldnt-be-ignored">numerous times</a>, refers only to cases that have been proven false. The real number is unknown. Using the same logic employed by Irving, one could say just 3% to 5% of rape accusations are true, since that’s how many go to trial and result in a guilty finding.
Irving went on to explain the two criteria she will use to bring forward rape allegations. 1. Is the allegation credible? (Judging from Irving’s statements it’s hard to see her believing many allegations aren’t credible) and 2. Is the accuser (WGME predictably calls them a “victim”) willing to go forward with the case and potentially testify?
That’s it. That’s all it will take for Irving to drag someone through a lengthy court battle even if it’s obvious they will be found not guilty. As criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield wrote on his blog <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/02/01/prosecute-smear-acquit/">Simple Justice</a>, Irving’s approach seems to be about smearing the accused rather than obtaining justice in any particular case:
<blockquote>This isn’t to say that prosecutors should reject any case that isn’t a slam dunk, but to prosecute men based on the litany of rationalizations, as proffered by the “experts” who teach the jury what they’re to believe to be fact, when the evidence at best fails to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a deliberate abuse of power. Ironically, it’s the same abuse complained of by reform prosecutors in any other prosecution not involving an accusation of sexual assault. Go figure.</blockquote>
Irving said herself that she “would rather show a victim that we will fight for them, than [rejecting a case] because it’s too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Right there, Irving equates accusers to victims. This bias is prevalent in campus sexual assault policies and #MeToo victimology. Everyone who makes an allegation is immediately considered a victim or a “survivor,” no matter the evidence. It turns “innocent until proven guilty” on its head and implies that since the person is being called a victim, the accused must be guilty.
“We don’t want law enforcement or prosecutors to ever think that something is a ‘he said she said,’” Irving added.
But many if not most allegations of sexual assault are a “he said, she said” situation.
Greenfield explained what the result will be of Irving’s #MeToo style “reform”:
<blockquote>Will it work? First, it doesn’t have to in order to accomplish its goal. As the saying goes, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride. Men will be arrested and prosecuted, their faces and the accusations against them will appear in the media. They will lose their jobs, their homes, their families and be criminals. Even acquitted, the belief of guilt isn’t dissipated. After all, juries don’t return verdicts of “innocent,” but not guilty. And as the presumption of innocence is reduced to a “legal technicality” rather than a tenet of law, there is no way to overcome the taint.
But second, it may well work. For the reasons detained people plead guilty now, they will plead guilty to sex offenses rather than roll the dice at trial or spend a few years awaiting their chance for vindication.
And third, if the rationalizations, the expert witnesses, the narrative, accomplish what their pushers hope, perhaps juries will convict despite the gross inadequacy of proof. Is it “unfair” that some accusations of sexual assault and rape are hard to prove? Perhaps, but that’s always been the nature of our criminal justice system, that it’s better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. There was no exception for sex offenses. Until now.</blockquote>

Natasha Irving

District Attorney In Maine Wants To Start Prosecuting People Based On Accusations And Nothing Else

Maine

A judge has sided with an accused student against the University of Connecticut after the school ignored evidence that challenged the female accuser’s version of events.
The male accused student, referred to as John Doe in court documents, was one semester away from graduating when a female student, referred to as Jane Roe, accused him of sexual assault. After a campus process that denied John the ability to question Jane’s credibility, he was expelled. He then sued the university and was granted a temporary restraining order blocking the school from implementing his punishment based on an unfair procedure.
In <a href="https://www.thefire.org/order-on-plaintiffs-motion-for-temporary-restraining-order-doe-v-university-of-connecticut-no-320-cv-00092-d-conn-jan-23-2020/">his ruling</a>, U.S. District Judge Michael Shea admonished the university for violating John’s due process rights.
The case stems from an April 2019 encounter between the two students that John said was consensual, but Jane months later said was not. Within a month of the accusation a hold was put on John’s transcript and he was barred from registering for the spring semester in 2020. This was all done the same day he was first interviewed about the allegations.
John was drinking the night of April 5, 2019. Jane and her friends would later claim that John was so drunk he was “falling over” and needed help standing, but multiple other witnesses – including one of Jane’s close friends – confirmed this was not true. Jane and her friend started talking to John and later expressed interest in him.
When the party ended, a group of six students piled into a car to get food. Jane sat on John’s lap, but later claimed she was forced to. John said he didn’t ask her or force her to sit on his lap. The student in the front passenger seat later said he felt Jane’s knees against the back of the seat and he could tell she was moving around on John’s lap. Another student in the back seat said he had to look away from the two because Jane was gyrating her hips on John’s lap. Jane later claimed she did not do this, and the multiple witnesses disputing her story were not kept out of the campus investigator’s report on the allegations. The fact that Jane had at least two instances of claiming one thing while multiple witnesses disputed her should have made UConn skeptical of her allegations, yet the school ignored them and expelled John, later reducing his punishment to a two-year suspension.
John said he intended to go home to bed alone, but Jane called for him to get back in the car when he got out in front of his dorm. John accepted her invitation and Jane’s roommate would say the next morning that two couples came back to the dorm room and quietly, mutually agreed to go to two separate bedrooms. Jane later claimed she did not invite John back to her dorm, but again, multiple witnesses said she pleaded with John to go back with her.
Jane would later claim she only intended to invite everyone over to watch TV and eat pizza, but this was again disputed by other witnesses.
Jane’s story about what happened that night would keep changing. At one point she said John didn’t have a condom and it was an “excuse” not to have sex, but she later said he did have a condom. John explained that Jane asking about the condom and removing her own underwear showed “unambiguous” consent for sexual activity, but because Jane said otherwise, the UConn investigator ignored John’s claim.
Jane’s story would also contradict itself. She would claim at one point that she “froze,” but then said she got on top of him during the sexual encounter. She also admitted she was “cooperative” and “partook” in the sexual act despite her alleged “freezing.” She was never asked about her inconsistencies. Jane would claim she said “no” and “stop,” but John said Jane said no such things.
When the two finished, they rejoined the other couple in the apartment. John’s lawsuit alleges the two women were “giggling and having a good time” when the two men left. Jane later claimed she didn’t say she was raped at first because she was “shocked.”
John’s attorneys could not be sure just why Jane regretted having sex with John so quickly. They suggest it may have been because Jane’s friend had expressed interest in John shortly before he and Jane had sex. Jane’s friend would later say the accuser came to her room that night to ask her for permission to have sex with John.
Because of Jane’s inconsistent statements and her demonstrated display of a lack of credibility, Judge Shea ruled UConn had violated John’s due process rights. Sam Harris of The Foundation For Individual Rights in Education received <a href="https://www.thefire.org/uconns-disdain-for-due-process-rights-evident-in-hearing-transcript/">a transcript</a> of the court’s discussion with an attorney for UConn arguing that witnesses that spoke against Jane’s credibility were not “relevant” to the hearing against John.
“First, she argued that their testimony was irrelevant because they only witnessed the consensual sexual activity in the car, not the allegedly non-consensual sexual activity in the bedroom,” Harris wrote of the UConn attorney. “But the judge disagreed — if the complainant lied about initiating sexual activity in the car, that spoke directly to her credibility, and the two parties’ credibility is the central issue in the case.”
The attorney then tried to argue that the testimony wasn’t relevant because the two witnesses didn’t watch Jane gyrate on John in the car – because one was in the front seat and felt her knees while the other one looked away after seeing what was happening.
The court did not accept this argument from UConn’s lawyer, saying: “[C]ome on. I thought you were going to be serious about this… That’s not a serious answer.”
The judge moved on to another matter regarding the fact that UConn hearing officers relied on previous written statements of witnesses for Jane that didn’t testify at the hearing, meaning John could not question their statements. The judge admonished the school for denying the student the ability to cross-examine witnesses and the evidence against him, especially given how substantial the punishment was.

Regret

She Claimed He Sexually Assaulted Her. The School Ignored Witnesses That Challenged Her Credibility.

Education

Actress Jessica Mann testified in a Manhattan courtroom on Friday that when disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein allegedly raped her in 2013 that she thought he was &#8220;intersex&#8221; because he did not have testicles and appeared to have a vagina.
&#8220;Weinstein faces charges in New York City for allegedly raping Mann, and for an alleged sexual assault on former actress Mimi Haleyi,&#8221; Vulture reported. &#8220;Prosecutors have used Sopranos actress Annabella Sciorra’s allegation that Weinstein raped her around late 1993 to bolster their claim that Weinstein has a pattern of predatory behavior. Weinstein has maintained his innocence.&#8221;
During her testimony, Mann said that Weinstein &#8220;would talk very dirty to me about fantasies and things, and compare me to the other things actresses that he said were doing kinky, dirty things with him. He always wanted to film me. I never gave him permission.&#8221;
At one point during her testimony, Mann said, “The first time I saw him fully naked I thought he was deformed and intersex. He has an extreme scarring that I didn’t know, maybe [he] was a burn victim …”
“He does not have testicles, and it appears that he has a vagina,” Mann said regarding the first time she saw him naked.
Vulture reported that as Mann made the allegations, Weinstein dropped his head.
When asked about Weinstein’s hygiene, Mann said, “It was very bad. He smelled like shit — excuse me, sorry, like poop. He just was dirty.”
Vulture&#8217;s report on Mann&#8217;s testimony detailed several highly graphic alleged instances of sexual assault that Mann said happened, including while she was in a brief tumultuous relationship with him.
Vulture asked Weinstein after the hearing if her description of him was accurate.
Weinstein responded: “Yeah, perfect.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here is what <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HarveyWeinstein?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HarveyWeinstein</a> had to say when asked if <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/jessicamann?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#jessicamann</a>&#39;s description of yr body accurate: <a href="https://t.co/jdT2JDK7ZI">pic.twitter.com/jdT2JDK7ZI</a>
&mdash; Victoria Bekiempis (@vicbekiempis) <a href="https://twitter.com/vicbekiempis/status/1223356641095159811?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The sexual allegations made against Weinstein in October 2017 were the catalyst for the #MeToo movement which saw numerous high profile men go down over sexual misconduct allegations.
The New York Times broke the story on October 5, 2017, writing:
<blockquote>Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview.
“How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein?” Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.
In 2014, Mr. Weinstein invited Emily Nestor, who had worked just one day as a temporary employee, to the same hotel and made another offer: If she accepted his sexual advances, he would boost her career, according to accounts she provided to colleagues who sent them to Weinstein Company executives. The following year, once again at the Peninsula, a female assistant said Mr. Weinstein badgered her into giving him a massage while he was naked, leaving her “crying and very distraught,” wrote a colleague, Lauren O’Connor, in a searing memo asserting sexual harassment and other misconduct by their boss.</blockquote>
Read The Times&#8217; full report <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html">here</a>. 
This report has been updated to include additional information.

US-trial-assault-film-celebrity

Weinstein Rape Accuser Testifies: He Didn’t Have Testicles, Appeared To Have Vagina First Time I Saw Him Naked

Judiciary

Sexual Abuse

Sexuality

In the wake of Kobe Bryant&#8217;s tragic death in a helicopter crash, reactions from the media have run the gamut — with his status as a sports icon existing alongside the fact he was accused of raping a woman back in 2003.
&#8220;Westworld&#8221; star Evan Rachel Wood has endured a public scolding on social media since Sunday for hailing the ill-fated basketball star as both a &#8220;sports hero&#8221; and a &#8220;rapist.&#8221;
“What has happened is tragic. I am heartbroken for Kobe’s family. He was a sports hero. He was also a rapist. And all of these truths can exist simultaneously,” <a href="https://twitter.com/evanrachelwood/status/1221542230457905152" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wood said</a>.
&#8220;Beloveds, this was not a condemnation or a celebration,&#8221; she later added. &#8220;It was a reminder that everyone will have different feelings and there is room for us all to grieve together instead of fighting. Everyone has lost. Everyone will be triggered, so please show kindness and respect to all.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Beloveds, this was not a condemnation or a celebration. It was a reminder that everyone will have different feelings and there is room for us all to grieve together instead of fighting. Everyone has lost. Everyone will be triggered, so please show kindness and respect to all.
&mdash; #EvanRachelWould (@evanrachelwood) <a href="https://twitter.com/evanrachelwood/status/1221878619485532160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Evan Rachel Wood was referencing the fact that Bryant had been accused of rape in 2003 — charges that were eventually dismissed after his accuser told prosecutors that she would not testify in court. <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/evan-rachel-wood-kobe-bryant-sports-hero-rapist-tweet-hours-death">Fox News</a> provided more details:
<blockquote>Wood was referencing an incident from 2003 outlined in a 2016 article from <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/woman-accuses-bruce-lindahl-suspected-chicago-area-serial-killer-of-rape?ref=scroll" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Daily Beast</a> in which a 19-year-old woman accused Bryant of choking and sexually assaulting her in a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/west/colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Colorado</a> hotel room. Bryant was arrested and charged with sexual assault and false imprisonment at the time, but the criminal case was ultimately dropped when the accuser refused to testify and agreed to hear Bryant issue a formal apology in court, which he had his lawyer read.</blockquote>
Fans of Kobe Bryant responded to Wood&#8217;s tweet with outrage, denouncing her for &#8220;white feminism&#8221; and even &#8220;veiled racism.&#8221;
&#8220;Evan. We met as kids &amp; I grew up in the same industry has you and have admired your work from afar these past few years. On camera and off. But this tweet? How f***ing dare you?&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/KylaPratt/status/1221609060031553536?s=20">tweeted</a> actress Kyla Pratt.
&#8220;This is an absolutely disgusting comment that reeks of white feminism, narcissism and veiled racism. You took this tragedy and made it about yourself,&#8221; said one Twitter user.
&#8220;And this is where the #MeToo movement has gotten out of control &#8230; attacking a man who literally just died less than 24 hours ago, with his little girl! Was it proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he raped somebody? Did he go to jail? Was he charged?&#8221; said another user.
Other Twitter users pointed out that Evan Rachel Wood had previously worked with director Woody Allen on &#8220;Whatever Works.&#8221; Allen, of course, has also been accused of sexual abuse, although he has never been charged or convicted.
Evan Rachel Wood is not alone, of course, in her mentioning of the Kobe Bryant rape allegation. Washington Post reporter Felica Sonmez <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wapo-reporter-suspended-after-tweeting-on-kobe-bryant-rape-case-report-her-post-wasnt-the-problem">also referenced</a> it at the time of his death, an action that culminated in a series of events that led to her suspension reportedly after she publicly shared a screenshot from her email inbox that revealed the names of her professional critics.

Premiere Of Disney&#8217;s &#8220;Frozen 2&#8221; &#8211; Arrivals

‘Westworld’ Star Evan Rachel Wood Slammed For Hailing Kobe Bryant A ‘Rapist’ And A ‘Hero’

Evan Rachel Wood

Kobe Bryant

Columbia University continues to deny students accused of sexual assault their due process rights, going out of their way to ignore exculpatory evidence in order to find accused men responsible no matter how thin the allegations.
The latest example is Ben Feibleman, who is using his real name to fight the allegations against him, made by a woman who, as usual, gets to keep her anonymity and is only referred to as Jane Doe in court documents. The Daily Caller’s Betsy Rothstein recently published <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/23/columbia-university-guilty-ben-feibleman-voice-recordings/">an exclusive interview</a> with Feibleman regarding the $25 million lawsuit he filed against the university last May. I encourage you to read her full story (warning: language and graphic depictions of sex), which includes a complete transcript of the 30-minute audio recording Feibleman made of the woman when he started to suspect things might go wrong.
Columbia’s adjudicators ignored the audio recording Feibleman made and scoffed at his allegations that he was the one who was sexually assaulted. The adjudicators, according to Rothstein, told them there was “insufficient evidence” that he was assaulted (despite the audio recording) and that even if he had been assaulted, he would have liked it, therefore, Jane was “not responsible” for any alleged assault. Columbia found Feibleman responsible and retroactively expelled him and revoked his diploma (he had been allowed to graduate during the investigation).
Jane and Feibleman knew each other a little from their journalism classes. After an event (which Feibleman says wasn’t the sort of place to get wasted), Jane allegedly asked him to put his head on her lap.
“She later sneaked kisses when her friends weren’t looking. She poured beer down his throat during a drinking game. Then she asked him to walk with her to the roof, where she climbed atop the water tower and beckoned him. She took off her top while he unclasped her bra,” Rothstein reported.
The two engaged in some sexual activity and she allegedly insulted him for not wanting to go near the edge of the water tower. He said she performed a “perfect backward roll off the side of the water tower,” taunted him for being afraid of heights even though he was a Marine, and they continued to flirt and engage in sexually charged activities.
His audio recording of her taped her continuously begging him for sex – a total of 29 admissions. He told her repeatedly he wanted to but thought she was too drunk (he didn’t, but said he used that as a “nuclear option” to get out of the situation). She said she wanted rough sex and allegedly pulled his pants down and tried to “force her mouth on his penis.”
When he’d try to leave, she’d cry. If he declined to have sex with her, she’d say he thought she was “gross.” When he tried to leave again, she wouldn’t let him.
Throughout the tape he declined to have sex with her even though she begged. After he was finally able to leave, she allegedly told her roommate that “Ben tried to have sex with me.” She also told this to her boyfriend who questioned her level of intoxication. The next morning she told Columbia Feibleman sexually assaulted her.
The school refused to ask her questions about his side of the story or even use the evidence he provided.
“At one point, they warned him not to utter a word about a medical report he obtained that addressed her level of capacity based on 700 photographs and the 30-minute recording,” Rothstein reported. “According to his legal complaint, a witness ‘Jane Doe’ called to support her in Columbia’s case against him later called Feibleman and told him that she sometimes mixed pills and alcohol to get over a boyfriend. If he mentioned the report, Columbia authorities said they’d throw him out of the hearing and proceed without him.”
Feibleman is now suing Columbia with the help of attorney Kimberly Lau. Columbia is trying to get Feibleman’s military service records in what Lau says is a fishing expedition, while at the same time refusing to provide Feibleman with relevant documents related to his accusation.
He was found responsible for the sexual activity that occurred before the recording, even though he provided evidence to show Jane wasn’t incapacitated at the time. His case is yet another example of a university doing everything it can to find a male responsible because in today’s #MeToo age, males are expendable while a woman claiming to be a victim must be believed.

Woman with condom

She Begged Him For Sex And Then Accused Him Of Sexual Assault. Columbia Expelled Him Despite Audio Proving His Side.

Columbia University

Someone was actually sentenced to prison for falsely accusing a man of sexual assault. It was only three years, and they won’t likely serve the full term, but still.
Have you ever had a dispute with your neighbor over landscaping and considered falsely accusing them of a crime? Well, apparently that’s what one police officer in Uxbridge, west London did after feuding with a neighbor over hedge trimmings.
Police Constable (PC) Hitesh Lakhani, 42, reported that he saw a man try to lure a 5-year-old girl into the bushes while her mother was walking just a few steps ahead. Lakhani said he then saw the man pull down his pants and force the girl to touch him. The mother, Lakhani claimed, called for her daughter, which allowed the girl to escape. Lakhani even took a photograph of the alleged perpetrator to share with police, The Mirror <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-cleared-assaulting-girl-5-21253745.amp?__twitter_impression=true">reported</a>. The photo was shared on social media to help find the accused man.
Who would ever lie about such a thing?
Lakhani. Lakhani would lie about such a thing.
The man who was accused was a street cleaner and neighbor of Lakhani, it turns out. The two previously had an argument about hedge trimmings falling into the street. As retaliation, Lakhani invented the claims about the neighbor assaulting a child.
CCTV footage from a neighbor’s home proved the incident did not happen and could not happen as Lakhani described. Judge Jonathan Davies, during sentencing, explained exactly what is wrong with sexual assault accusations these days: An accusation is all that is needed, and if the accused hopes to be vindicated, they better pray there is evidence out there proving the crime didn’t happen. That’s a horrible legal standard. Traditionally, a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense, theoretically, doesn’t have to present any evidence since the burden of proof is on the prosecutors/accusers. It makes sense: You make an accusation; you have to prove it. But Davies let the truth slip.
“This was wicked, prolonged and cruel conduct,” Davies said, as <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-officer-jailed-for-three-years-over-fake-claim-against-cleaner-in-hedge-row-a4331421.html">reported</a> by The Evening Standard. &#8220;Had Mr. Lakhani&#8217;s evidence not been covered by CCTV this man would have been arrested and remanded in custody.”
Yep. It didn’t matter that the only evidence was Lakhani’s claims – the accused would have been arrested.
&#8220;[Lakhani] never did back down and this calls in to question other cases where he has given evidence,” Davies added.
The judge sentenced Lakhani to three years in prison, chastising him for abusing his profession.
“You were a police officer who would normally be calm and professional,” Davies said. &#8220;This wasn’t spontaneous, you planned this. You have damaged the credibility of police officers generally and cases you have been a part of may need to be re-examined.&#8221;
David Davies of the Crown Prosecution Service said that a “police investigation found no trace of sexual crimes being reported in the vicinity, various inaccuracies in Lakhani’s account and CCTV evidence from a neighbouring house, which proved the sexual assault could not have happened.”
&#8220;The implications for this victim could have been profound, but we were able to prove Lakhani’s account was entirely fictional and unfounded,” he added.

Hedge trimming

Police Officer Jailed For Three Years After Falsely Accusing Neighbor Of Sexually Assaulting A Child Following Hedge Trimming Dispute

London

A lawyer for infamous #MeToo perpetrator Harvey Weinstein was promptly shut down on Friday after requesting that Judge James Burke alter the jury selection process to ensure that it is “fair,” according to <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/01/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-media-shut-out-jury-selection-motion-1202826722/">Deadline</a>. 
“Most people do not speak in front of the international media,” Arthur Aidala, an attorney for Weinstein, told Burke, according to <a href="https://variety.com/2020/film/news/harvey-weinstein-rape-trial-jury-selection-media-1203463038/">Variety</a>. “That’s not a normal case. I don’t think there is any other case in this building where a juror is going to say something and it’s going to be [covered by the media].” 
Aidala presented individual jury selection as a solution to the problem, to which Burke promptly responded “denied,” reports the news agency. After Aidala protested that Burke hadn’t even read his motion, which is 14 pages long, the judge remarked that he would read the letter but quipped that he is “generally familiar with this area of the law.”
According to the news agency, the media were “strictly told not to take any photographs of the potential jurors as they were whisked into the courtroom past reporters in the hallway.”
A copy of the motion obtained by <a href="https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/jury-sequest-motion-jan-10-2020-wm.pdf">Deadline</a> reveals that Aidala also requested to remove 32 potential jurors from the trial because they were in the room when another prospective juror told the court: “I have a close friend who had an encounter with the defendant in his hotel room, and I do not think I can be a fair juror in this case.”
In another legal maneuver, Damon Cheronis, another defense attorney for Weinstein, asked to have those jurors who heard a protest going on outside disqualified, saying that “it’s this type of atmosphere that makes it impossible for Mr. Weinstein to get a fair trial,” reports the <a href="https://apnews.com/f2c3963cf21b1d5bc7b32160e5b2b342">Associated Press</a>. 
“You’re probably not aware of this, but people chant and protest outside this courthouse all the time,” retorted Burke, according to the news agency. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weinstein-request-for-new-judge-denied-medical-emergency-interrupts-proceedings">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, jury deliberations began on Tuesday for the trial of former film producer and longtime Democratic Party mega-donor Harvey Weinstein. Throughout the week, the court has been sifting through hundreds of potential New Yorkers to find jurors who can judge the case solely on the merits of the evidence presented in court. 
Weinstein stands accused of forcing a woman to let him perform oral sex on her in 2006 and raping another woman, who has not been named, at a hotel in 2013. Due to a predatory sexual assault charge, Weinstein faces up to life in prison. 
Donna Rotunno, a lead attorney for Weinstein, has claimed that the charges against her client “don’t rise to the level of rape.”
The disgraced film producer has also been charged with sexual assault in Los Angeles for two instances dating to 2013. 
In a press conference on Monday, Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey said that prosecutors were requesting Weinstein’s bail be set at $5 million but acknowledged that he would not appear in court until his Manhattan trial had concluded. If convicted there, Weinstein faces upward of 28 years in state prison.

‘Denied’: Judge Promptly Shuts Down Latest Request From Weinstein’s Legal Team

An accused student from Johnson &amp; Wales University (JWU) may be taking his case to trial after a judge denied the school summary judgement late last month.
I <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/23/judge-gender-played-role-male-students-expulsion-due-process-fiasco/">covered</a> the lawsuit from the student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, at length last year. John had a sexual relationship with a woman referred to as Mary Smith, who also had a boyfriend (unbeknownst to John at the time), referred to as B.K.
Nearly a year after John and Mary’s final sexual encounter, B.K. (not Mary), reported that Mary had been sexually assaulted twice. Mary was asked about her boyfriend’s allegations and gave statements that contradicted the claims that she had been sexually assaulted. She said she and John were “friends with benefits.” On one night in October 2016, Mary said according to John’s lawsuit, that she was with John in his bed and the two had sex but it was rougher than usual. She got up but returned to John’s bed and spent the night with him.
John says this alleged sexual encounter never even happened, and his roommate – who was in the room at the time – said he didn’t hear anything. Another roommate said he saw Smith leaving the next morning and that she was in a good mood. A week later after this alleged sexual assault, Mary went back to John’s room to have sex with him again. She said it started consensually but eventually started “to hurt,” so they changed positions but it started hurting again. There is no indication that she told him she was in pain or asked him to stop. John said their sexual encounter was no different than their previous encounters, and Smith continued to like his social media posts afterward.
Nearly a year later, on June 1, 2017, Mary’s boyfriend, B.K., reported the alleged sexual assaults to JWU security. When Sgt. Robinson called Mary to ask about the assaults, she said “she did not want to talk about it at the moment.” When Robinson emailed her the next day, insisting she was “a victim of sexual assault” and that “we are here to support you,” Mary responded by saying she did not need any help.
Robinson contacted John, who denied the assaults.
Three months later, B.K. and Mary moved in together and decided to lodge a formal complaint against John. Mary now claimed she had been sexually assaulted and that it affected her life in one specific way &#8212; “her relationship with her boyfriend,” according to court documents.
John was “charged” with sexual assault and faced a campus hearing, where he was not allowed to see the “evidence” against him.
Mary was allowed to name B.K. as her advisor, which kept him from being questioned by John about his motivation or inconsistent statements.
John was expelled and sued.
Incredibly, the three campus “judges” who found John responsible all used the exact same phrases to claim they were impartial. Author and professor K.C. Johnson <a href="https://academicwonderland.com/2019/12/20/johnson-wales-the-disciplinary-panel-that-thought-alike/amp/?__twitter_impression=true">explained</a> how “judges” Elizabeth Zmarlicki, Tim Brown, and Caitlin Codding all tried to claim they were fair in their decision with eerily similar affidavits that raise questions about their authenticity:
<blockquote><a href="https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/zmarlickijwu.pdf">According to Zmarlicki</a>, her training led her to approach the case “without any predisposition or bias,” allowing her to reach a decision with “an open mind.” <a href="https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/coddingjwu.pdf">Codding said</a> that she too approached the case “without any predisposition or bias,” allowing her to reach a decision with “an open mind.” <a href="https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/brownjwu.pdf">What about Brown</a>? He affirmed that he approached the case “without any predisposition or bias,” allowing him to reach a decision with “an open mind.” The three JWU employees did not explain how they came up with the exact same formulation to describe how they approached to the case. (Couldn’t one of them, at least, have used synonyms to make things less obvious?) The university’s position is that outsiders must trust that when these JWU employees said, using the exact same words, that they acted without bias and with open minds, they actually did so: JWU neither recorded nor kept a transcript of the hearing.
Zmarlicki testified that the panel asked “probative” questions of both John and Mary, but she didn’t say what any of those questions were. According to Codding, the panel asked “probative” questions of each student, but she, too, couldn’t identify any of those questions. And Brown? He recalled the panel asking “probative” questions of John and Mary—questions that his affidavit didn’t detail. Again, couldn’t one of the panelists have come up with another word to describe their questioning strategy?
How did each panelist reach the decision? Zmarlicki affirmed that despite having “considered carefully the fact that John Doe and Mary Smith admitted that they had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse before the two evenings at issue,” she made a “careful assessment” to conclude that John was nonetheless guilty—because John was “consistently vague” and Mary provided “specific details.” Codding, despite having “considered carefully the fact that John Doe and Mary Smith admitted that they had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse before the two evenings at issue,” made a “careful assessment” to conclude that John was nonetheless guilty—because John was “consistently vague” and Mary provided “specific details.” And Brown? Despite having “considered carefully the fact that John Doe and Mary Smith admitted that they had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse before the two evenings at issue,” he made a “careful assessment” to conclude that John was nonetheless guilty—because John was “consistently vague” and Mary provided “specific details.” If this trio were JWU students, they would have been brought up on plagiarism charges.</blockquote>
Each of the panelists also said they deliberated for a “lengthy” period of time but could not recall the “precise duration” of such deliberation.
A previous ruling found that the only explanation for John’s expulsion was that “gender played a role.”
A recent <a href="https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/jwu-ruling.pdf">ruling</a> from a different judge noted that John’s attorney made the case that the proceeding was unfair based “virtually entirely on facts put forth or acknowledged by JWU itself,” including the suspiciously similar affidavits from the three panelists who determined John’s fate.

Couple in bed

Her Boyfriend Claimed She Was Raped By Another Man. The Accused Sued, And The Case Is Heading To Trial.

Dr. Raj Mehta, 65, had been a general practitioner for the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) for nearly 40 years when he was accused of sexually assaulting a female patient during a consultation.
The patient claimed Mehta touched her breast during the consultation – which was, apparently, not a breast exam. He was charged in 2017 with two counts of sexual assault. He was convicted on one of those counts. The U.K.’s General Medical Council revoked Mehta’s right to practice after his conviction, even though he had planned to appeal.
Last week, Mehta won his appeal after his attorney’s found evidence that the patient who accused him had lied under oath. The decision to appeal was made on December 13 and a full written judgement will be released in the New Year.
GP Online, a magazine and news source for general practitioner, <a href="https://www.gponline.com/gp-exonerated-15-months-prison-assault-patient/article/1669363">reported</a> that Mehta was “enormously relieved” after he was exonerated on appeal nearly three years after being convicted.
“After my conviction, I lost everything. I lost my career after nearly 40 years of NHS service. I lost my reputation after adverse media coverage, but also following the medical regulator’s decision to strike me off the medical register, instead of waiting for the outcome of the ongoing appeal,” Mehta told the outlet. “I feel very anxious for the medical profession. Doctors work to do their very best for their patients, often in challenging circumstances, and there simply are not adequate protections to safeguard them against the few patients who make false accusations.”
Dr. Rob Hendry, medical director of Medical Protection, told the outlet: “We are delighted that Dr Mehta has been acquitted by the Court of Appeal. He and his family fought hard to clear his name and we are proud to have been able to support them in achieving this outcome.”
“False allegations can cause a loss of reputation, profession and income. Tragically in Dr Mehta’s case, they can also lead to a loss of liberty,” he added.
Further, Hendry told the outlet, these kinds of allegations hurt trust, which is “vital to the doctor-patient relationship.”
“While such cases are very rare, it is vital that support and protection are in place to protect doctors and the wider profession from the threat of false accusations,” he said.
Nigel Richardson, a defense attorney at Hodge Jones &amp; Allen who represented Mehta, told GP Online: “The conviction of Dr Mehta was particularly troubling, and it took a great deal of effort to uncover the evidence that undermined the single witness’s account.”
Richardson added that Mehta’s “long and distinguished career” had been destroyed due the false allegations and hoped the new British government would pass reforms to the justice system to help victims like Mehta.
It is unknown at this time what evidence the defense presented that convinced a judge to overturn Mehta’s conviction. A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service told GP Online that “The material that formed the basis of the grounds of appeal was not in the possession of the CPS at the time of the original trial, and the Court of Appeal did not suggest that that the prosecution had failed in our duties of disclosure.”

Doctor patient

She Claimed Her Doctor Touched Her Breast During A Consultation. His Conviction Was Overturned After A Court Determined She Lied.

Health Care

Colleges and universities have a lower standard of proof than the American legal system when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. This means that a student who is charged with sex-related crimes but found not guilty by an impartial jury can still be expelled from his school.
The difference in proof &#8212; coupled with an inherent bias in adjudicators who are trained to believe all women &#8212; makes it easy for colleges to expel students based on less evidence that is presented at trial.
This is what happened in the case of Saifullah Khan and Yale University. In March 2018, Khan was found not guilty by a jury in a court of law. While some could argue that “not guilty” does not mean “innocent,” the jurors <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/16/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-yale-sex-assault-trial/">I spoke to</a> after the trial said that they saw Khan as innocent.
“He’s innocent, and the facts prove it,” said Elise Wiener, an alternate juror who saw the same evidence as the other jurors. “He was acquitted because he deserved to be acquitted and the prosecutor should never have brought the case in the first place.”
Wiener and main juror Jim Gallulo said they didn’t believe Khan’s accuser. At one point, prosecutors showed a still frame from surveillance footage that appeared to show Khan holding up his accuser (her name has not been released and she is referred to as Jane Doe in court documents). Prosecutors claimed this was evidence that the accuser was too drunk to even stand on her own and that Khan had to practically drag her to the dorms. The defense, however, played the actual video from surveillance footage, which showed Khan and his accuser walking arm in arm and appearing to be a happy couple.
That is how every moment on the evening of the alleged sexual assault played out in court. Prosecutors spun everything as evidence that Khan was forcing Jane toward sex. For example, prosecutors claimed Khan took the accuser’s phone at one point. In reality, he was helping her find a ticket for a concert they were both attending. During the concert, Khan’s accuser threw up. Prosecutors described the situation in a way that made jurors believe the woman must have been really ill. But when defense attorneys produced the accuser’s dress from that night &#8212; which hadn’t been washed &#8212; there was only a faint trace of vomit.
The sexual encounter happened hours later. Keen observers will realize that vomiting actually removes much of the alcohol from one’s system.
Khan was found “not guilty,” and returned to Yale, but he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yale-student-cleared-sexual-assault-will-return-ashe-schow">still faced a pseudo trial</a> at his university. The Yale kangaroo court found Khan responsible for sexual assault and expelled him. Many of the same people involved in Khan’s expulsion have been involved in other sexual misconduct “trials” for accused students who were also found responsible based on flimsy evidence or when there was exculpatory evidence.
Khan is now suing Yale. In court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire, one of the named persons being sued by Khan is David Post. Post was the Yale administrator <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yale-student-railroaded-by-university-kangaroo-court-is-finally-moving-on-with-his-life">who convinced a student</a> to file a formal allegation against former Yale basketball star Jack Montague after another administrator falsely told the woman that Montague had assaulted another woman on a previous occasion.
Khan was born in a refugee camp in Pakistan six months after his family fled Afghanistan to avoid potentially being killed by the Taliban. He grew up in and around the refugee camp before fleeing to the United Arab Emirates. Khan, a bright student, applied to Yale and was accepted, but suggested he attend the preparatory Hotchkiss School in nearby Lakeville, Connecticut first. Khan accepted a full scholarship to Hotchkiss and Yale. Prior to attending Hotchkiss, Khan hadn’t even learned to use a knife and fork.
Khan knew his eventual accuser previously, and attended a Halloween party where he met up with her before a concert by the Yale Student Orchestra later that evening. Jane drank during the party and became ill during the concert and threw up on her costume. Khan and Jane left early due to the illness.
The pair walked together across campus &#8212; as seen in the surveillance footage mentioned earlier &#8212; and returned to their dormitory. Khan took Jane to her room and used his key card to swipe her in. A minute later, Khan used his key card to enter his own dorm room. Khan and his attorneys say that Jane called Khan to ask him to come back to her room.
Once there, Jane asked Khan to check up on one of her friends, who had too much to drink that night. Time codes show that Khan used his key card in an area of the dorm he had no otherwise reason to be in &#8212; the area where Jane’s friend was sick. Khan returned to Jane’s room after checking on her friend, and Jane performed oral sex on Khan. Jane asked Khan to wear a condom, but she gagged on it and went into the bathroom to vomit.
While she was in the bathroom, Khan called his girlfriend at another university, with whom he had an open relationship. Khan did not understand how an American girl might feel about him talking to another woman just after engaging in sexual activity, as Khan and his girlfriend were both from Afghanistan.
Khan and Jane then engaged in sexual intercourse and fell asleep in Jane’s bed. The next morning, Khan returned to his own room.
According to Khan’s lawsuit, Jane then started telling her friends she was raped, but told a campus health care worker that she had consensual unprotected sex. Jane then publicly accused Khan of rape and went to the Yale Women’s Center where she was advised to file a formal complaint against Khan. Based on her complaint, Khan was immediately suspended and police opened an investigation. Khan was charged but acquitted at trial based on the evidence laid out earlier in this article, as well as flirtatious texts she had sent to Khan and the inconsistent claims she gave to authorities about their encounter.
Khan was allowed to return to Yale after the trial, but soon after, a man who had been acting as Khan’s media relations manager accused the Yale student of sexual assault. The man, who will not be named by The Daily Wire, had become taken with Khan and the two had engaged in flirtatious phone and text messages and participated in a threesome with an unnamed woman found on a dating app while in Washington, D.C. The male accuser was not associated with Yale in any way, but the accusation further served to rally activists against Khan.
Yale administrators then suspended Khan “for your physical and emotional safety and well-being and/or the safety and well-being of the university community,” according to a letter from Yale dean Marvin Chun.
This suspension, like the first, left Khan homeless and threatened his status in the U.S. This second suspension also caused him to lose his university health insurance. Yale suspended Khan even though he was acquitted of the first accusation and the second accusation came from someone not affiliated with the university.
Khan’s lawsuit alleges that he was suspended due to “a combination of factors including his unique history at Yale, the bitter disappointment of many Yale students and faculty that Brett Kavanaugh was expected to be confirmed as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court at or about the time of Mr. Khan’s suspension, and a prevailing culture of over-heated sensibilities regarding claims of sexual assault shared by many students at Yale and expressed under the then-common hashtag #MeToo.”
Khan is suing Yale for $110 million. In a statement to The Daily Wire, Khan’s attorney, Norm Pattis – who defended him during his previous trial – said:
The state charged Mr. Khan with every applicable variant of sexual assault. Jurors acquitted him quickly of each and every charge. Jurors told us afterwards; they did not believe the accuser. The jury got it right; Yale got it wrong. We’re out to correct this injustice.

Young couple

A Jury Acquitted Him On All Charges, But Yale Still Expelled Him. Now He’s Suing The School And His Accuser.

Yale

Disgraced movie producer and accused sexual predator Harvey Weinstein believes he should be lauded &#8212; not potentiall convicted and jailed &#8212; for how he treated actresses he worked with and other women in Hollywood, <a href="https://pagesix.com/2019/12/15/harvey-weinstein-i-deserve-pat-on-back-when-it-comes-to-women/">according to an interview he gave the New York Post</a> ahead of his criminal trial.
Weinstein has been accused of sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and even raping upwards of 80 women, most of whom are or were aspiring young actresses and models, and some of whom were accomplished in their field before reportedly turning down Weinstein&#8217;s sexual advances.
He&#8217;s about to face a criminal trial in New York City &#8212; he&#8217;s out on bail pending a &#8220;major operation&#8221; for back injuries sustained in an August car crash &#8212; and could face other charges in California and London, but Weinstein doesn&#8217;t appear even the least bit sorry for his actions, maintains his innocence, says his affairs were consensual, and believes he should be lavished with praise and awards for the contributions he made to dispelling sexism and evening the playing field for women looking to make it big in the movie industry.
“I feel like the forgotten man,’’ he told The Post. “I made more movies directed by women and about women than any filmmaker, and I’m talking about 30 years ago. I’m not talking about now when it’s vogue. I did it first! I pioneered it!”
“It all got eviscerated because of what happened,’’ Weinstein continued, referencing the dozens of accusations of sexual impropriety leveled against him. “My work has been forgotten.’’
Indeed, Weinstein&#8217;s movie studio is now bankrupt (though he is not), and his insurance company is on the hook for a nearly $100 million settlement he and his lawyers inked with dozens of his alleged victims &#8212; a settlement that includes a fund operating in perpetuity in case more victims come forward seeking redress against the movie mogul.
Weinstein spoke with the Post from a posh hospital room in New York, where he&#8217;s recovering from a three-hour surgery for compressed discs in his spine &#8212; a condition many in the media speculated was &#8220;overblown.&#8221; Weinstein used a standard, hospital-issue walker in his bail hearing last week, and appeared heavily styled to maximize sympathy, with dishelved hair, an oversized and wrinkly polyester suit, and cheap sneakers.
“I want this city to recognize who I was instead of what I’ve become,” he told Post reporters.
What he &#8220;was,&#8221; he says, was an expert career-creator. In the interview, he took credit for a number of successes, including Gwyneth Paltrow&#8217;s Oscar-winning performance in &#8220;Shakespeare in Love.&#8221;
“Gwyneth Paltrow in 2003 got $10 million to make a movie called ‘View from the Top,’&#8221; Weinstein said. “She was the highest-paid female actor in an independent film. Higher-paid than all the men.&#8221;
Paltrow, for her part, says she narrowly survived being blacklisted in Hollywood after resisting Weinstein&#8217;s efforts to grope her in a hotel room when she was just 22.
He also claimed to have paved the way for &#8220;woke&#8221; culture, greenlighting films about drag queens and television shows about transgender individuals and projects with a &#8220;social justice agenda.&#8221; He raised money for victims of 9/11, he said.
The Post reports that Weinstein threatened &#8220;to terminate the sit-down each time a question was posed that he didn’t like,&#8221; and that he accused prosecutors of trying to &#8220;embarrass&#8221; him.
Weinstein goes on trial for rape in early January.

Harvey Weinstein Says He Deserves A Pat On The Back For Helping Women In Hollywood

False accusations affect different people in different ways. Many students who have been railroaded by their universities after being dubiously accused of sexual assault find it difficult to move on. Some require extensive therapy and medication for depression and anxiety. Many contemplate suicide, feeling their futures are over.
Jack Montague, a former Yale University basketball star, is doing his best to move on from his ordeal and move on with his life. Alice True, who runs a website called Save Our Sons, has posted <a href="https://helpsaveoursons.com/great-news-jack-montague-is-succeeding-here-is-an-update/">an update</a> on Montague’s life following his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yale-convinced-her-report-him-sexual-assault-ashe-schow">settlement with Yale</a> in June.
“The details of the settlement are confidential but I can tell you that Jack is happy with the deal, and he is deeply thankful for the support he’s received from the public. Although the past few years have been tough on Jack, he’s excited to put this behind him and move on to the next chapter of his life,” True wrote.
She added that Montague has recently graduated from Belmont University with a master’s degree in accounting. Montague also would like to eventually give his account of what he has gone through.
“Unfortunately, the publications that covered the expulsion and campus controversy were mostly silent about the settlement. So, Jack is now forced to rectify his public image and set the record straight. As for his standing with Yale, his status may have been changed to ‘withdrawn’ from the settlement, but because the details are confidential we are in the dark for now,” True wrote.
Montague’s ordeal began in 2015 after he was accused of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had an ongoing sexual relationship. The two had sex on four separate occasions, and, according to Montague’s lawsuit filed in 2016, the conditions during the fourth encounter were similar to those of the others. But a year later, the woman (who has never been named) claimed the fourth encounter wasn’t consensual, even though she returned to his dorm afterward to share his bed.
During Montague’s legal action with Yale it was discovered that a Yale administrator, David Post, encouraged the accuser to file a formal report. Another administrator, Deputy Title IX coordinator Angela Gleason, falsely claimed to the accuser that a “new development” had come up in the case and that “she would not be able to keep [Roe’s] name confidential” because a previous complaint had been filed against Montague.
The accuser had not wanted Montague punished prior to these claims, but then decided she should file a formal complaint believing Montague had hurt other women.
In reality, there was no “new development.” Montague had previously been cited for a drunken antic involving a rolled up paper plate shoved down a woman’s shirt. The incident was not considered sexual, but Yale did not report this to Montague’s accuser.
True now reports that Gleason was removed as Yale’s Title IX coordinator but was able to move on to Morse College as a dean.
The Yale Daily News, which reported Montague’s story from the insinuation that he was guilty, barely mentioned the settlement and framed it as Yale settling merely due to litigation costs. But, there’s a “silver lining,” True wrote (emphasis original):
Jack’s case will likely be used for future Title IX cases regarding due process. Although Jack’s team was not granted their Title IX discrimination argument, the Spring summary judgment ruling is momentous against such discrimination. Many close to this issue argue that this judge’s ruling was the most favorable ruling given to any student recently involved in a Title IX lawsuit. The judge recognized the lack of impartiality of the UWC hearings and seemed to have a disapproving attitude towards Yale’s actions. His ruling and commentary will most likely be cited in future similar cases.

Jack Montague

Yale Student Railroaded By University Kangaroo Court Is Finally Moving On With His Life

A male Fairfield University student was effectively expelled from the school after a female student made conflicting sexual assault claims against him after the two broke up.
The male student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, was a senior at the university when he began a sexual relationship with a female student, referred to as Jane Roe. John was preparing to graduate and go on to a graduate program at another university when he and Jane, whom he had known for a year prior, started a physical relationship. Previously, Jane had invited John to sleep in her bed on three separate occasions, according to John’s lawsuit against Fairfield reviewed by The Daily Wire.
John had not wanted to enter a physical relationship with Jane prior because she had a boyfriend, but once she said the two had broken up, John and Jane engaged in undisputed consensual oral sex in mid-September 2017. On September 29, 2017 the two separately attended the President’s Ball at the university. Jane would later invite John to a local bar with her friend, according to John’s lawsuit.
Jane’s account of the evening would change drastically depending on who she talked to and when, but her initial report to campus officials stated that she only had one or two drinks at this bar. She and John went to his off-campus residence, where they talked and kissed for some time. Eventually, John, says, he invited Jane into his bedroom and she accepted. The two kept kissing and undressed themselves, according to John. His lawsuit then says that he specifically asked Jane if she wanted to have sex and she verbally agreed, as she was already touching his genitals.
Later that night, John’s roommate returned home but waited outside the shared bedroom because he heard the sounds of sex. This roommate would later tell Fairfield’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) that he heard no sounds of distress while he was waiting and that when he eventually entered the room, everything seemed normal. He even had a short conversation with the couple. This roommate also said that after that night, Jane returned to the apartment to have sex with John several more times.
John provided Jane some clothes to sleep in and drove her home the next morning. Afterwards, Jane texted John: “We’re in the clear, everyone was asleep besides [Witness K.P.] and I can handle her. Thanks for the ride and the clothing.”
The two continued to exchange friendly text messages over the next few days, according to the lawsuit. On October 3, 2017, Jane texted John that she would “let him know when [she is] heading over.” Two days later, on October 5, she invited John to join her at the bar again. The two engaged in sexual intercourse again that night; Jane would repeatedly admit that it was consensual that night, according to the lawsuit.
On October 11, 2017, John texted Jane to let her know that he no longer wanted to pursue a relationship with her, sexual or otherwise. Jane, according to the lawsuit, said she understood and that they could remain friends.
Sometime after John and Jane engaged in sexual intercourse, Jane went to the school health clinic for an STD test. At the time, she did not report any sexual misconduct. Months later, after she had accused John of sexual assault, she allegedly returned to the clinic to try and get them to falsify her records by claiming she had reported sexual misconduct at that time, according to John’s lawsuit.
At some point after breaking up with Jane, John began dating one of their mutual friends.
The first sign he received that Jane was rethinking their sexual encounter was on November 28, 2017, when one of her friends verbally attacked John, claiming he “should be in jail for what he did to [Jane Roe],” according to the lawsuit.
A week later, on December 6, 2017, Jane went to DPS and filed a report claiming John sexually assaulted her during their September 29th encounter. Her report was forwarded Karen Donoghue, Fairfield’s associate vice president and dean of students, who then informed John that allegations had been made against him and were being referred to the University Disciplinary Process.
Jane’s claims to DPS differed from what she told in subsequent interviews and to her friends, according to John’s lawsuit. One of her stories claimed that John lifted her onto his bed on the night of September 29, lifted her dress, removed her underwear, and sexually assaulted her. She simultaneously claimed that she took off her own dress to “see fully what was going on” and claiming she went into “survival mode.” She also said she laughed at John and asked, “Are you kidding me?”
Jane presented edited text messages between herself and a friend, referred to in court documents as M.R. The text messages were sent the day after her encounter with John, and the portions she provided to school investigators (she refused to provide the full context of the conversation), appeared to show she was sexually assaulted. In one message, she claimed that John “literally stuck his penis inside of me without any real consent and without a condom and it didn’t feel good.” Another text message called him a “f*** boy,” referring to a person who is only interested in sex.
Jane blacked out some of the messages in the conversation, meaning it is unclear in what context she made these claims. Given the fact that she continued to have a sexual relationship with John after the text messages were sent, it is not unreasonable to assume that they were part of a larger conversation that was not antagonistic toward John.
Jane’s friend, M.R., also claimed in a statement to school investigators that Fairfield would have tried to bury the case if Jane hadn’t persisted. But she also said that both Jane and her roommate, referred to as A.B., were both interested in John and that a rift formed in the household and friendship because of it. M.R. explained in her statement that the housemates sided with A.B., which created a hostile environment for Jane.
John’s lawsuit claims Fairfield did not take this statement into account as a possible motive for Jane to lie.
Another one of Jane’s housemates, K.P., said that Jane didn’t tell her that the sex with John was not consensual until a month after the first encounter, which was also after John broke up with Jane. Yet another witness, S.C., provided a statement to investigators that Jane referred to herself as “The House Whore” when they ran into her at a bar. Jane claimed that John “raped” her. At this time, Jane claimed she drank so much alcohol that night that she blacked out and then passed out on John’s bed and later woke up to him raping her. This version was drastically different from what she had told other people, which the lawsuit notes were also “inconsistent from one another.”
Later, Jane told S.C. that she didn’t have alcohol that night. S.C. said in their statement that they doubted Jane’s story.
It was not until January 23, 2018 that John was informed of the full allegations against him via email. He was told that the Title IX Compliance Investigator, Officer Pat Jacquot, would be completing an investigation.” Not more than five minutes later, John received another email from the same administrator saying she had received Jacquot’s investigation.
John was provided the “investigation report,” which contained only Jane and her witness’ statements.
John Doe attended a hearing for the allegations against him on February 9, 2018. He could not bring an attorney and was only allowed an advisor from the Fairfield community. Still, his advisor, Brian Walker, turned out to decent.
Fairfield, like many other colleges and universities around the country, failed to adhere to its own policies during the hearing, according to John’s lawsuit. During the hearing, several members on the hearing panel had clear conflicts of interest (such as working for the campus Sexual Assault Campus Resource Team or previously working with Jane), but were not removed. Further, Jane was allowed to break Fairfield policy during the hearing, but John was bound to it. For instance, Jane was allowed to directly ask questions of witnesses, even though policy stated questions must be asked through the hearing board chairman. Jane’s advisor was allowed to provide a list of questions to the hearing board chair and directly address the hearing board, but John’s advisor was not allowed to do the same. Jane was also allowed to present witnesses who did not have “direct knowledge or specific information” regarding her allegations. Meanwhile, John was barred from asking questions or even submitting questions for witnesses to ask him.
Further, witnesses were allowed to testify who weren’t on the list given to John prior to the hearing. And John couldn’t cross-examine Jane or any of the witnesses against him.
John’s advisor sent a list of grievances to administrators and John was provided a new hearing, however, the new hearing would follow a new policy for adjudicating campus sexual assault, which had been adopted after John’s encounter with Jane. In addition, John alleges he received conflicting information about this policy. At one point, John said he was provided a sheet of paper with a list “of random phrases without description” according to his lawsuit, and was not published as part of Fairfield policy. Fairfield still failed to adhere to its new policies in re-adjudicating John.
Prior to John’s second hearing, he raised concerns that the time stamps on some of Jane’s submitted emails and text messages between herself and her friends were questionable. John alleged that it appeared Jane had set up the messages by asking her friends to ask her certain questions in an attempt to build evidence against John.
During the second hearing, Jane publicly threatened John by saying, “if my dad knew about this, he would kill you.” Nothing was done about Jane’s threat until John’s parents got involved in the process, the lawsuit stated. John was also called a “rapist” during this hearing and was barred from defending himself from such accusations.
On March 9, 2018, John was found responsible for sexually assaulting Jane, but he was not expelled or suspended. Instead, he was barred from campus but allowed to continue his coursework from home. The school, however, did not inform his professors of this and did not allow John to make accommodations for his ADHD, a disability he was diagnosed with and the school knew about. Further, John was not allowed to enter campus to attend labs that required attendance. Because of Fairfield’s refusal to allow John to actually complete his coursework, he was effectively expelled, as he would end up failing many, if not all, his classes.
John appealed the decision and provided a statement from a new witness, which should have reopened the investigation. Fairfield President Mark Nemec refused John’s appeal without explanation and without interviewing the new witness, claiming in his denial that the “appeal did not provide new evidence or adequate evidence to substantiate an error in the proceedings.”
John sued the school with the help of attorney Andrew Miltenberg. Earlier this month, the case was dismissed after both parties agreed to settle out of court. It is unclear what John received in the settlement, but schools have been increasingly settling by clearing students’ records and providing some monetary benefit.
Miltenberg‘s office confirms the case was settled.

Jealousy

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault After They Broke Up. He Was Punished, But The School Just Settled.

Two previously charged with sexual assault have had their charges tentatively dismissed after the prosecutor in charge of the case resigned over allegations of misconduct.
One of the accused men lived in Detroit’s affluent Oxford suburb. The other was his stepson. The Daily Wire will not name the men because the charges have been tentatively dismissed. Both were investigated in 2015 for the alleged sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. The Detroit Free Press <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/25/nessel-larry-orr-oxford/4300124002/">reported</a> that the “Oakland County Sheriff’s Office had investigated the cases against [the two men] in 2015 and submitted its findings to the prosecutor&#8217;s office, which ended up not charging the two men because it couldn&#8217;t establish that the crime had occurred.”
But earlier this year, the two men were investigated for the same crime once again. Undersheriff Mike McCabe wrote a letter on September 13 to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, saying, &#8220;The defendants were thoroughly investigated on the same allegations in 2015 by the Oakland County Sheriff&#8217;s Office, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office, Child Protective Services and the FBI.” McCabe added that after “careful review, it was determined by all four agencies that the case lacked evidence and probably [sic] cause to justify actions by CPS or an arrest warrant” for either of the men. The stepfather, McCabe said, also passed several polygraph tests. Further, the two men were kept in prison for six months due to the allegations. The stepfather was kept in isolation because he was a police officer.
The prosecutor involved in the case this year, assistant Attorney General Brian Kolodziej, resigned in September after it was revealed he had an inappropriate intimate relationship with the victim in another sexual assault case. Kolodziej’s behavior led to investigations into all his other cases. Of those cases, the one involving the Oxford man and his stepson “rose to the level of further investigation and have been turned over to the Michigan State Police to see whether criminal charges can be brought against Kolodziej,” the Free Press reported.
Michigan Attorney General Nessel did not expand on why she filed a motion to dismiss the charges against the two men.
“I am compelled to dismiss the charges in this case following the information we received regarding Mr. Kolodziej’s prosecutorial conduct, which are tantamount to serious violations of our prosecutorial standards,” Nessel said in a statement, as reported by the Free Press.
Chief Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Paul Walton said the case was too murky to bring charges four years ago.
&#8220;Not based on the evidence we had,&#8221; he told the Free Press, &#8220;We had no evidence of sexual abuse and we had two forensic interviews of the child where there was no disclosure of criminal sexual assault.&#8221;
Kolodziej’s affair also led to Nessel setting aside the plea deal of the man accused of sexually assaulting the woman with whom the former assistant AG had the relationship.
“We are committed to doing everything we can to address the issues caused by Mr. Kolodziej’s employment as an assistant attorney general,” Nessel said, according to the Free Press. “We will submit all of our internal interviews to the Michigan State Police as well as the Attorney Grievance Commission so they may independently determine appropriate actions.&#8221;
The Attorney General added that the dismissals did not mean the office thought the accusers were lying, and said the charges could be brought again if more evidence came to light.

Scales Of Justice

Sexual Assault Charges Dropped After Prosecutor Accused Of Misconduct

Michigan

Tragedy struck the campus of the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC) this week. Ruth George, a talented and thriving student studying physical therapy, was murdered and sexually assaulted by a mentally ill homeless man after she left a professional fraternity event Saturday night.
George was walking alone to her car in a parking garage when she passed a Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line stop on campus. Twenty-six-year-old Donald Thurman saw George and tried to talk to her. George ignored him, since he was a stranger, and continued walking to her car. Thurman followed her, still trying to talk to her and “catcalling” her, according to prosecutors. George continued to ignore him, which made Thurman angry, Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy said at a bond hearing last week, The Chicago Tribune <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-ruth-george-uic-student-dead-20191126-ukju2tlhl5eqjoapljjodkirba-story.html">reported</a>.
Prosecutors allege that Thurman followed 19-year-old George to her car, where he then choked her from behind, dragged her into the back seat of her car, and sexually assaulted her. He then fled the scene.
George’s sisters became concerned when she didn’t return home and called the police. Her friends, family, and the police tracked her cell phone to her car, and found George cold to the touch, unresponsive, and partially nude. It was clear she had been involved in a struggle.
CPR was performed, but George was pronounced dead at the scene.
Investigators tracked Thurman and charged him with first-degree murder and criminal sexual assault.
Thurman already had a criminal past, having been sentenced in August 2016 to six years in prison for stealing a woman’s iPhone and fleeing in a stolen vehicle. He was paroled in December 2018. Though police found the jacket he wore when he allegedly murdered George at a home, Thurman was considered homeless, “bouncing from place to place,” his court-appointed attorney, Assistant Public Defender Valerie Panozzo, said, according to the Tribune. Panozzo also said Thurman had a history of mental health problems.
George’s death is a tragedy.
The media, however, have framed this tragedy in a way that attempts to paint women as being in danger anytime a man speaks to her.
Thurman was not a member of the fraternity that held the event George attended the evening she died. He was not a student of UIC and was not affiliated with the university at all, but many media outlets – <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/us/university-of-illinois-chicago-ruth-george/index.html">CNN, for example</a> – didn’t report Thurman’s history of mental illness or the fact that he was not affiliated with UIC. The Washington Post waited until the end of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/11/27/woman-ignored-mans-catcalls-so-he-chased-her-down-killed-her-prosecutors-say/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_studentkilled-320am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&amp;tid=sm_tw">its story</a> to mention these facts.
A death like this is an absolute tragedy, and the media shouldn’t try to frame these stories to push a narrative that women are constant victims and that even ignoring a man’s catcalls can get them killed. The George case was not about catcalling, it was about a mentally ill man who stalked and murdered an innocent woman. Yet the media continues to try and insist that women &#8212; especially college women &#8212; are in constant danger at the hands of men.

Donald Thurman

Media Report Woman Murdered For Ignoring Man’s Catcalls. Here’s The Full Story.

Chicago

Media Bias

In his first interview since being sentenced in September 2018 to 3 to 10 years in prison for charges of aggravated indecent assault involving the drugging and molestation of Andrea Constand in 2004, comedian and actor Bill Cosby, 82, predicted that he would be forced to serve out his full sentence because &#8220;they’re not going to hear me say that I have remorse.&#8221;
&#8220;I have eight years and nine months left,&#8221; Cosby told National Newspaper Publishers Association’s <a href="http://www.blackpressusa.com/">BlackPressUSA.com</a> in a phone interview published Sunday. &#8220;When I come up for parole, they’re not going to hear me say that I have remorse. I was there. I don’t care what group of people come along and talk about this when they weren’t there. They don’t know.&#8221;
The ruling against him, the comedian told NNPA&#8217;s Stacey M. Brown, was all a &#8220;set-up&#8221; and the jury rigged.
&#8220;It’s all a set up. That whole jury thing. They were imposters,&#8221; he said. As alleged evidence, Cosby pointed to &#8220;the woman who blew the whistle,&#8221; the potential juror who said she overheard another juror declare before the trial began that &#8220;he&#8217;s guilty.&#8221;
&#8220;Then she went in and came out smiling, it’s something attorneys will tell you is called a payoff,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I know what they’ve done to my people. But my people are going to view me and say, ‘that boy looks good. That boy is strong.’ I have too many heroes that I’ve sat with. Too many heroes whom I listened to like John Henrik Clarke, Kenneth Clark, and Dorothy Height. Those people are very strong, and they saw the rejection of their people. This is political. I can see the whole thing.&#8221;
The &#8220;Cosby Show&#8221; star spent a lengthy portion of one of the multiple 15-minute-limited calls through SCI Phoenix&#8217;s phone system describing his sense of &#8220;mission&#8221; in prison, which he suggested is trying to instill some personal accountability in the other prisoners through his role as a featured speaker with SCI Phoenix&#8217;s <a href="https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sciphoenixmannup2019">Mann Up</a> prisoner empowerment program.
Calling his cell his &#8220;penthouse,&#8221; he said he goes to &#8220;lay down and start to think about how I can relay a message and give it on Saturdays so that they would hear it and feel it.&#8221; He noted that he frequently has to tell other inmates that he&#8217;s &#8220;not a psychologist&#8221;; rather, he is &#8220;an educator.&#8221;
Asked if he believes he&#8217;s reaching people, Cosby said yes, &#8220;because they want to be reached; they’re in prison.&#8221; While he tells people he doesn&#8217;t know the secret to success, he says he does know &#8220;the secret to failure&#8221;: trying to &#8220;please everybody.&#8221;
In response to Brown&#8217;s question about how he &#8220;did not let them break&#8221; him, Cosby said it was his &#8220;spirit,&#8221; which has remained strong despite the situation.
While Cosby expressed no &#8220;remorse&#8221; for the actions in 2004, he did suggest that his famous <a href="http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm">&#8220;Pound Cake&#8221; speech</a> delivered that year should not have been directed to the entirety of the African American community, rather to a more narrowed portion of it: the type of people who end up at SCI-Phoenix.
&#8220;The mistake I made [in the speech] is making it sound like all the people were making the infractions, and that’s not true,&#8221; he said. But what he said in the speech, he stressed, has a &#8220;light&#8221; behind it.
As for the current state of the African American community, he described it generally as &#8220;under siege&#8221; and resulting in what he was trying to warn people about in 2004. &#8220;This thing with the drugs and the different pockets of the neighborhoods where it’s going on,&#8221; he said. &#8220;When you look at what drugs are doing… things that make these people drive around and shoot into crowds.&#8221;
&#8220;The insanity of what is the cause to the brain by all the drugs these people are dealing with,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;It’s exactly what I warned them about in 2004. They’ve thrown education out the window. They’ve thrown respect for the family out the window, and they’re blaming each other for what’s going on. There is post-traumatic stress syndrome, and there are also bad manners.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-cosbys-spokesman-explodes-wild-racially-james-barrett">Bill Cosby’s Spokesman Explodes In Wild, Racially-Charged Rant</a>
&nbsp;

Menu