OT: Victim of Larry Nassar writes open letters to two MSU administrators
Worthy of its own post, by my lights. These letters are clear-eyed, measured, and brutal indictments of an administration that decided to defend its fort rather than address repeated evidence of sexually assaulting children. Resulting in dozens and dozens of additional victims over the years (with Kathy Klages complicit in the cover-up). Sound familiar?
William Strampel (the Dean in charge of Nassar), Kathy Klages and Lou Anna Simon are names that we should remember as this all unfolds. The deserve as much opprobrium as we can muster.
My partner has four daughters and one is a highly accomplished ballerina who is in one of the nations largest ballet companies. When she was growing up he would sometimes take her to see Nassar from Cleveland when she suffered any sort of injury or needed treatment because he was fantastic at helping her fully recover. I asked him recently if he had any reason to believe that anything ever happened to his daughter and he said "no" but they did ask her (she's now 30) and they pray she told them the truth.
But he also said it sometimes keeps him up at night wondering what if she isn't telling them the truth. He'll never know.
These type of situations are hard. I know someone who spent time around a sexual predator when she was 8-10. People asked her if anything happened, and she does not even know. And now she has memories of things happening that she can't tell if they are real, or fabricated out of fear and people asking her about it.
IMO, if a victim of sexual assualt is able to move on, then allow them to. If a victim is able to live life unbothered by past events, more power to them.
I myself was taken advantage of by a girl when I was in my teens. After I got checked for STDs I literally didn't care at all. Of course it is diffrent for a guy mnay times. I was able to shove the girl on the ground and leave. That is not an option for many females.
My main poin is people react to things differently. Don't make a big deal about something that the victim has moved on from.
Nobody really cares about MSU. If this happened at Michigan, OSU, PSU then absolutely.
you're right. What happened to these kids and young people is no less horrible whether Nassar worked at MSU or anywhere else.
Nobody cared about Baylor either.
You actually want to see improvement at Staee?
Even at the hieght of thier, ahem, power (LOL!!) the last several years, the football team was still an afterthought when discussing football powerhouses. A few good seasons against weak competition doesn't move the national dial across seasons.
in a lot of ways, this seems actually worse than the Sandusky incidents at penn state. The one thing I can't understand is, if my daughter came to me and said Daddy this guy raped me or this guy sexually assaulted me.... How are these Dad's not in prison?
But again, media has only recently been covering it.
This is Sandusky level shit. Not sure the current MSU football sexual assualt scandals fall under the same umbrella / administrators? - But if so, pretty obvious how it went off the rails there. Culture lacking accountability, having zero integrity, and looking the other way ala Joe Pa.
I hope all victims get the help they need to heal as best as possible from a clearly fucked up reality perpetuated by some absurdly incompetent / corrupt people at the top.
I see it as kids were molested, admin had a good idea of what was going and continued to employ said molester. At the very least MSU should have distanced themselves from Nassar after the first few allegations. The only difference I see is Sandusky preyed on young boys and Nassar went after young girls. We'll just agree that both situations should not be allowed to happen gain and all parties responsible for allowing it to continue need to be punished.
I'd say they really are the same level. I agree with your point that most of these girls had parents they could go to whereas the boys didn't, but I'm not sure that in and of itself really separates the two situations much given the gravity of the acts.
I don't think your point about Paterno holds much water. Whether he's helping to cover up or whether it is the MSU university administration, it's still people in authority keeping a lid on it.
I think you're a little too quick to dismiss how awful this experience was for these girls and young women. Being abused in the "safety" of a medical office by a trusted "medical professional" who "knows more than you" about your body, and being patted on the head by officials/coaches/mentors who say "don't worry" you just "misunderstood" your "medical treatment"... I hope all these women are getting the help they need to come to terms with what happened to them.
I mean in no way to diminish or discount how awful Sandusky was/is or what those boys went through and what they are struggling to come to terms with as men (and I also hope they are all getting the help they need).
But I take issue with somehow lightening the offense because Nasser was crafty and these girls/women need to process what they'd been through before they "knew to complain". And frankly, the girls who complained where turned away and dismissed - it doesn't have to be someone at "diety" status to sheild a predator, it's equally reprehensible.
- Sandusky used Penn State football as his candy to lure victims. Nassar didn't use MSU Athletics in this way.
- The people at Penn State knew about Sandusky for decades and--with that knowledge--decided that it was better to let boys continue to be raped than to lose football games. There's no way that MSU folks were like, "If Nassar leaves, we'll never win championships anymore."
I hope MSU pays a heavy financial price for what has transpired, not because it is MSU but because of the abject stupidity and disregard for the well being of students that was displayed.
Large awards of money are the only thing that makes institutional leadership sit up and notice that their conduct was grossly inappropriate, although I wonder if some criminal prosecutions might be available against people other than Larry Nassar.
How Rachael refers to research and statistics, speaking in the language of the dean, president, and other administrators. She's out-arguing them on their own platform. Shame that she has to do so, but go Rachael!
This probably won't be a popular comment, but it will be a true one.
The reality our of legal system is that until there is a conviction, there are only "alleged victims". It sure smells bad for Nassar and related and unrelated MSU cases in this realm. The MSU administrators seemed to have enabled the atmosphere if not the acts themselves.
However, so you and I can have due process for us and ours, let's make sure Nassar gets his. The will be plenty of time to talk about the victims, punishment, etc. if and when there are convictions.
Just sayin.
You don't have to have a conviction to have actual (not just alleged) victims. And the presumption of innocence is a protection from state action, not a requirement that we all assume everyone is innocent (no matter the amount of evidence) until a court declares otherwise.
Absolutely dead wrong.
But, like most Americans who take some of our freedoms for granted, I don't expect you to support such a concept until you or one of your own family is unjustifiably charged.
Can't say any more, becuase it will devolve I am sure into politics.
You have my respect as a blogger, but you are dreadfully deficient in this discussion in my humble opinion.
Nobody is preventing you from having an opinion on guilt or innocence, just politely requesting some acknowledgement and respect for the presumption of innocence that operates in our system when discussing such matters.
is that Nassar isn't the only one with something on the line here. In a court of law, he's the one on trial. In the court of public opinion, everyone (accuser, accused, and bystanders) is being evaluated. Larry Nassar deserves the courtesy of a thoughtful evaluation of the facts. But so does Rachel Denhollander.
And you only need to read the "legal opinions" on this blog to understand why what you say is 100% accurate.
Some people probably have friends or family that were unjustifiably charged, whereas others have friends or family that were victims where the accused was not punished. This street goes both ways, and you have a very myopic view of it.
You write "[t]he reality our of legal system is that until there is a conviction, there are only "alleged victims"." Let's talk reality. This is a sports blog, not a court of law. An Mgoblog opinion is not held to any standard of proof. If you don't like the term "alleged victim" unless there is a criminal conviction, good for you. If we were in court, especially in front of a jury, I would agree with you. We're on a blog, though, Francis, so lighten up!
You write, "[h]owever, so you and I can have due process for us and ours, let's make sure Nassar gets his. The will be plenty of time to talk about the victims, punishment, etc. if and when there are convictions." My response is STFU! You are honestly conflating an Mgoblog MgoBoard discussion with some sort of real threat that Larry Nassar is being denied due process. This thought should be nominated for the award of greatest leap of logic in this Board's history. Michigan fans electing not to use your courtroom-sanitized term of "alleged" will have 0% impact on Nassar's due process rights so long as the presiding judge and prosecutor adhere to long-settled principles of law.
You write, "[b]ut, like most Americans who take some of our freedoms for granted, I don't expect you to support such a concept until you or one of your own family is unjustifiably charged." If anyone is wondering what a straw man argument looks like ... here it is. Exactly nobody is trying to advance the argument -- that Nassar shouldn't get criminal due process -- that you are arguing against.
You write, "[n]obody is preventing you from having an opinion on guilt or innocence, just politely requesting some acknowledgement and respect for the presumption of innocence that operates in our system when discussing such matters." Another logic gap and straw man cheap shot. No one is disrespecting the presumption of innocence in this thread. Get off your high horse! What gives you the right to speak down to the posters on this Board as if they are simpletons who don't, or won't, understand fundamental constitutional rights. You are out of line. You are so desperate to appear smarter than everyone else that you are blind to the fact that you are accomplishing the opposite of what you seek.
Here's a little personal tidbit, something I have avoided for years when posting. These days, I fight for the criminally-accused every day of my professional life. Posts like yours do nothing to protect the accused. They usually do the opposite. Posts like yours cause eye-rolls and metaphorical middle fingers. The jurors I have appeared in front of for decades know when people are speaking down to them, or insulting their intelligence, or making straw man arguements.
Rant over.
Billy Ray, sometimes I log in just to say I really enjoyed reading that.
rant. Well done.
You would NEVER be representing me, or anyone else that I had input in the decision to hire because:
1. You are a mental dwarf.
2. If you actually are a criminal defense attorney, you do not defend people accused, you merely "host" the conviction.
I am guessing you practice in Ohio.
And if you really want to be a prosecutor that bad, go apply for a job as one, and give all the poor people you represent courtesy of the State a break.
BTW internet tough guy---I suspect you would not be so disrespective of my 1st Amendment rights (STFU!) if you were standing next to me in person. Lawyers like you are not part of the solution; you're part of the problem.
One more thing, my post and your services evidently have something in common---they do nothing to protect the accused.
The jurors you have appeared in front of for decades know when people are speaking down to them, or insulting their intelligence, or making straw man arguements (sic), because YOU are doing the speaking. My guess that is that it has been so long since you have either tried a case before a jury AND actually won one, that you have forgotten what your job actually is---to give your client the best defense. Thirty years of the government paying your paltry fees will do that to a guy. I do not blame you, more like the p word.
You could not try your way out of a wet paper bag is my guess. You package all the plea deals together you can, regardless of whether your client has a valid defense, and you go from sentencing hearing to sentencing hearing trying to mitigate sentences in a punitive society. Well done, public defender. Were I you, I could not sleep at night. But I have a feeling you do just fine Billy Ray (I suspect that is your real name).
2 days for a comeback ... impressive:
...she is under no obligation - ethical, moral, or legal - to refrain from talking about her experience while waiting for the the cases against Nassar to proceed.
Nobody criticized or questioned anything about her letters or her opinions therein, but hey, why let the facts get in the way? Not trying to be a smart ass, because your comment was respectfully made, but don't think I said anything about what you commented on. BTW---I agree with you.
was all discussed, in detail, in the Gareon Conley thread a week or so ago, before it was locked. I think the consensus was that both positions are 100% right and 100% wrong - so this has all been worked out already.
...due process either, so I took your comment have a message that went beyond what it contained on its face. I misunderstood if it did not.
issue boils down to the difficulty of balancing fundamental notions of due process against the need to support the victims of sexual abuse to report the abuse. The two really can co-exist but it requires message discipline and avoidance of hyperbole on all sides of the discussion. It turns out that this blog is not really the best place to get to the bottom of the issue.
When the president of MSU makes a public statement (especially one that the research shows is false) that predators can't be stopped, Rachael or anyone else has the absolute right to refute her statement publicly.
My cousin works with abuse victims and she correctly pointed out to me the words "alledged victim" undercut their credibility and is extremely harmful/hurtful to victims that are scared to come forward.
I understand from a legal perspective Nassar has not been convicted of anything yet, but let's try to be more sensative about the victims and not undercut them. We don't refer to people as "alledged car jacking victim" or "alledged robbery victim". If you want to call Nassar an "alledged sexual assault suspect", that's fine but the victims should get the benefit of the doubt, especially with 80 of them.
/off my soapbox this story is just close to my family and I'm sensative to it.