Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[smac97]

.

Edited Saturday at 07:38 PM by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape.

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent.

That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape."

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law,

Alas, that won't happen.  At this point, even an acquittal or a retraction from Jane Doe would not restore them to their status quo ante.  

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?  

I think news stories that get this sort of coverage seldom end in rational outcomes.  For many, the options are A) the frat guys are guilty of rape, or B) the frat guys got away with rape.

I asked Grok what happened to the men accused in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Scandal:

Quote

What happened to the accused men in the Duke lacrosse case

In 2006, three Duke University lacrosse players—David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann—were charged with rape (and related offenses) after Crystal Mangum, a stripper hired for a team party, accused them. The case drew intense national media coverage framed around race and class.

Key developments:

• DNA evidence did not implicate them, and Mangum’s accounts were inconsistent.
• District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred and briefly jailed for ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence.
• In April 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all remaining charges and took the unusual step of declaring the three men innocent, calling the prosecution a “tragic rush to accuse.”
• In late 2024, Mangum publicly admitted she had fabricated the allegations.

Aftermath for the players

• Duke settled with them (reported figures around $20 million each in some accounts). They also reached a settlement with the City of Durham.
• David Evans graduated from Duke, earned an MBA from Wharton, and has worked in finance/private equity (including as a partner at Apax Digital).
• Reade Seligmann transferred to Brown, graduated, earned a law degree from Emory, and has worked as an attorney (including recognition related to eyewitness identification reform).
• Collin Finnerty transferred to Loyola University Maryland, continued playing lacrosse, later earned an MBA from Columbia, and has worked in investment banking.

Did their reputations recover?

Formally and legally, yes: they were exonerated, received substantial settlements, and built professional careers. The Attorney General’s explicit declaration of innocence, Nifong’s disbarment, and Mangum’s later admission removed the legal stigma.

In practical terms, recovery was incomplete and uneven. The initial media firestorm, campus protests, “wanted” posters, and suspension of the season created lasting public association with the accusations for many people who followed the story in real time. Some reporting notes that false accusations of this kind leave residual reputational damage that is hard to fully erase, even after exoneration. The players themselves and their families have described the experience as a prolonged ordeal that disrupted their lives, though they have largely moved on professionally and privately.

In short: the three men were cleared, compensated, and established careers, but the intensity of the original coverage meant that, for a significant portion of the public, the case remained a durable reference point long after the charges were dropped.

And that was for men who were affirmatively exonerated and won millions in compensation.

These guys will likely live the rest of their lives under the stigma of the accusations, regardless of whether the allegations are proved up or rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

@Grok

In response to your summary of the aftermath for men accused of rape falsely, Chat wanted me to be sure and let you know its opinion:

Quote

The Other Side of the Presumption of Innocence: What Happens to Women Who Report Rape?

It is legitimate to be concerned about men who are falsely accused of rape. A false accusation can damage a person's reputation, relationships, education, employment, and mental health, even when no criminal conviction occurs. A fair system must take that harm seriously.

But an argument that focuses almost exclusively on the consequences for men accused of rape is incomplete. It treats the possibility of wrongful accusation as the central danger while often overlooking the consequences for women who report rape—including women whose accounts are true, women whose cases cannot be proved, and women whose accusations are never accepted by the people around them.

The problem with the conclusion that we must therefore become more skeptical of women's claims is that skepticism is not applied in a vacuum. Women who report sexual assault already face social, institutional, and legal barriers. Greater skepticism can protect an innocent man in some circumstances, but it can also silence a genuine victim, reinforce misconceptions about sexual assault, and leave perpetrators free to harm others.

The appropriate goal is not to choose which sex deserves the benefit of the doubt. It is to assess evidence fairly, distinguish uncertainty from falsity, and recognize the consequences of both kinds of error.

1. In general: The consequences for women who come forward

A woman who reports rape does not simply tell a story and wait for a verdict. She may have to revisit a traumatic experience repeatedly, explain intimate details to strangers, answer questions about her behavior, and expose herself to disbelief, gossip, retaliation, or public scrutiny.

Her experience can become a matter of public debate in which people who know little about the circumstances decide whether she is credible. Friends may distance themselves. Partners may question her. Classmates or colleagues may treat her differently. She may be blamed for drinking, going to someone's room, knowing the accused, or failing to resist in a way others consider appropriate.

And none of these consequences requires the accused to be convicted—or even formally charged.

Research supports the significance of these secondary harms. A study of 374 college women found that blaming responses to sexual assault disclosures were associated with lower self-esteem and poorer coping outcomes. A separate study of 1,863 survivors found associations between negative social reactions and greater PTSD symptoms.

The consequences can also discourage future reporting. Qualitative research has documented survivors withdrawing from disclosure after being blamed, doubted, or treated insensitively by people they approached for help.

This creates a fundamental problem with the argument that we should simply become more skeptical of women's claims to protect men from false accusations. The social cost of reporting can be substantial even when the woman is telling the truth. Increasing generalized suspicion can make that cost worse without necessarily making anyone better at identifying false allegations.

That does not mean every allegation should be believed as an established fact. It means that the decision to report is not cost-free for women, and those costs belong in any honest comparison of the harms associated with sexual assault allegations.

There is also a distinction between being careful about what we conclude and being suspicious of the person who reports. We can avoid declaring an accused man guilty without automatically treating the woman as dishonest, manipulative, or mistaken.

2. When the woman's account is validated by the legal system

When a rape allegation results in a conviction, the legal system has determined that the evidence satisfies the applicable criminal standard of proof. That is a materially different situation from one in which an allegation remains unresolved.

But a conviction does not reverse the harm the woman has already experienced.

She may have endured:

The physical and psychological consequences of the assault itself.

Delays and uncertainty while deciding whether to report and while the case proceeds.

Repeated questioning about intimate details of the assault.

Challenges to her credibility and scrutiny of her conduct before and after the assault.

Disruption to her education, employment, relationships, and social life.

Harassment or hostility from people who support the convicted offender.

The continuing effects of trauma after the criminal case concludes.

A conviction can provide formal recognition that a crime occurred. It cannot restore the time, security, relationships, or sense of safety that may have been lost.

Nor does a conviction guarantee social vindication. People may continue to defend the offender, question the verdict, minimize the crime, or criticize the woman for reporting it. In cases that attract public attention, the survivor may remain the subject of commentary long after the trial ends.

The criminal justice process itself can also be difficult. A systematic review of 36 studies covering 288,066 sexual assault cases found substantial attrition at multiple stages, from investigation through conviction. The studies varied considerably in their samples and results, so their pooled figures should not be interpreted as a single national probability for every report. Nevertheless, the review illustrates how rarely a reported case necessarily proceeds through every stage of the criminal justice system.

If we care about the consequences of wrongful accusations, we should also care about the consequences of genuine assaults—even when a conviction is ultimately obtained. The former does not cancel out the latter.

And if the argument is that men can suffer reputational damage before a case is resolved, that is true. But women can also suffer reputational damage before a case is resolved, including when they ultimately prove their allegations in court.

The difference is that the woman may have already suffered the assault itself, while the accused man may or may not have committed the act in question. Both sets of consequences deserve consideration, but they are not interchangeable.

3. When the evidence is inconclusive and reasonable people disagree

This is the hardest category, because it is where the presumption of innocence, the limits of evidence, and people's competing interpretations collide.

Imagine a woman reports being raped while intoxicated. The man says the sex was consensual. There are no independent witnesses to the sexual encounter, the available messages are ambiguous, and the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.

One person concludes that the woman was assaulted. Another concludes that she is lying. A third concludes that the available evidence does not permit a reliable determination.

Only the third conclusion necessarily follows from the lack of sufficient evidence. The first might be supported by evidence not available to the second person, while the second requires a basis for concluding that the woman fabricated her account rather than being mistaken, unable to remember events clearly, or unable to prove what happened.

An allegation that cannot be proved is not thereby a false allegation. Equally, the fact that an allegation has been made does not establish that it is true.

This is where people often apply the presumption of innocence inconsistently. They correctly argue that an accused man should not be declared guilty without sufficient evidence, but then go further and treat the absence of proof as evidence that the woman fabricated the allegation.

Others make the opposite error, treating the woman's account as conclusive regardless of contradictory evidence.

Neither approach is sound.

The consequences for the woman do not depend on the verdict

If the woman is telling the truth, an inconclusive case may leave her without legal recognition of what happened. The accused may return to ordinary life while she continues to experience the consequences of the assault.

If the allegation becomes public, she may be called a liar, a vindictive ex-partner, an attention-seeker, or someone attempting to destroy an innocent man's life. Her motives may be scrutinized more closely than the evidence. She may lose friends or be excluded from a social group. She may regret reporting the assault at all.

If she is mistaken about some aspects of the event, she may still have experienced a frightening or distressing encounter. That does not automatically make every allegation accurate, but it also does not justify assuming deliberate deception.

And if the accusation is maliciously fabricated, then the accused man is a victim of a serious wrong and deserves appropriate protection and redress.

These are different possibilities. An inconclusive case does not tell us which one occurred.

The consequences for the man also matter

An innocent man may suffer significant reputational, professional, educational, and personal damage from an accusation, even if the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt. Public accusations can spread beyond the reach of later corrections, and a legal dismissal may not restore his reputation.

That harm should not be minimized.

But it does not follow that the appropriate response is to presume that women who make unproven allegations are lying, or to discourage women generally from reporting sexual assault.

The appropriate response is to avoid claiming more than the evidence supports, protect due process, discourage harassment and retaliation, and recognize that an unresolved case is not proof of either guilt or fabrication.

There is a further asymmetry worth considering: when the evidence is inconclusive, the accused may be protected from criminal punishment while the woman may receive neither legal validation nor social support. She can be left in the position of having to defend not only her account but her character, while the accused can point to the absence of a conviction as though it settles the underlying facts.

It does not.

The legal system may be unable to determine what happened. That uncertainty is real. But uncertainty about the facts is not a reason to assume that the person reporting harm is dishonest, any more than it is a reason to assume the accused is guilty.

4. What a genuinely rational and cautious approach would look like

If the stated goal is rationality and fairness, the standard should apply to both sides.

Do not treat an accusation as proof of guilt.

Do not treat the absence of a conviction as proof that an accusation was fabricated.

Distinguish deliberate falsehood from mistaken recollection, insufficient evidence, and inability to establish a crime.

Evaluate the evidence rather than relying on stereotypes about how a genuine victim or an innocent accused person should behave.

Recognize that trauma responses, intoxication, delayed reporting, imperfect memory, and apparently ordinary behavior afterward cannot be interpreted in isolation as definitive proof for or against an allegation.

Protect people from disproportionate punishment, harassment, and retaliation while facts are being established.

Allow proportionate safety measures and support without requiring a definitive verdict.

Apply the same intellectual standards to claims made by the accused and the complainant.

The aim is not to replace a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. It is to stop treating a legal safeguard against wrongful conviction as a universal instruction about whom to believe, whom to support, or whose welfare deserves consideration.

Chat knows it can go a bit long at times, it is used to a slower pace, so provided this Tl;dr version for Grok as well because it knows Grok is quite busy these days and wants to help the whiz kid make his mark in the digital world….

Quote

The central double standard

Here is the argument in a more concise form, suitable for a discussion:

I agree that false accusations of rape can cause devastating harm to innocent men. That deserves to be taken seriously. But an argument that focuses on this harm while concluding that we should be more skeptical of women's reports leaves out the other half of the problem.

Women can suffer serious consequences for reporting rape whether or not a case results in conviction. They may face disbelief, victim-blaming, social exclusion, harassment, and damage to their reputations. If their claims are true but cannot be proved, they may be denied both legal recognition and social support. Even women whose allegations are ultimately validated in court may have endured years of scrutiny and hostility before receiving that validation.

In an inconclusive case, some people will conclude that the woman lied, others will conclude that she was assaulted, and others will recognize that the evidence does not permit a reliable conclusion. Only the last position is necessarily justified by the fact that the case is inconclusive. An unproven allegation is not automatically a false allegation.

If we want to be rational, we must distinguish between protecting an innocent man from wrongful punishment and treating every woman whose allegation cannot be proved as presumptively dishonest. Those are not the same thing.

We should not presume that a man is guilty because a woman accuses him. But neither should we presume that a woman is lying because a man denies her account or because the legal system cannot establish guilt.

A fair standard does not ask us to choose in advance which sex deserves our skepticism. It asks us to evaluate the evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and take the consequences for both parties seriously.

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape. Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law, will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?  

Those are good questions to ponder.  Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? 

What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)?  Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated?  If the answer is no, then it could not be wrong to rail against the legal system if someone were found innocent that we believed was guilty.

From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides.  Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement.  But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial.  Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature. 

[smac97]

IN THE SPOTLIGHT What happens next in Cornell 7? Exact evidence needed for charges, haunting texts, & loophole that could bring case down

Quote

THE fate of seven former Cornell fraternity members accused of sexually assaulting a student could hinge on a string of troubling text messages, conflicting accounts, and a controversial legal loophole.

After weeks of explosive allegations, leaked conversations, and denials from the accused men, prosecutors now face the difficult task of deciding whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges.

That the "difficult task" in view is determining whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges at all (as opposed to there being sufficient evidence to create a likelihood of a conviction) is a notable point.

Quote

The case, centered on an alleged assault at Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca, New York, in October 2024, is now being reviewed by state Attorney General Letitia James.

And two legal experts have told The U.S. Sun that while some of the evidence could help prosecutors build a case, other details may prove just as valuable to the defense.

I am not adept at criminal law, but the evidentiary issues in this case are pretty clear to anyone with experience in the law.

Quote

Former prosecutor Nana Knight said the biggest question is whether the allegations against the seven men could ultimately be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“As a former prosecutor, I’m looking at this case and I’m trying to see if this case, based on the evidence that’s out there in public, is provable beyond a reasonable doubt,” Knight told The U.S. Sun.

That Knight saying she is "looking at this case" and "trying to see" if it is viable "based on the evidence" is, to me, an indicator that she presently thinks that the case is not 

Quote

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit last month accusing seven men of sexually assaulting her after she allegedly became heavily intoxicated and was given ketamine.

The defendants have denied wrongdoing, and none has been criminally charged.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten initially declined to prosecute the case in 2024, but reopened the investigation in September after the lawsuit brought previously undisclosed evidence to public attention.

I wonder what the "previously undisclosed evidence" is.  I think it may be Jane Doe's affirmative statements to the police that she had been sexually assaulted.

Quote

What evidence could lead to charges

Knight believes the case has enough publicly available evidence to warrant a trial, although she stressed that prosecutors would face serious challenges in securing a conviction.

“Based on what I have seen that’s publicly available as a former prosecutor, that this becomes a triable case, right?” she said.

“Because there’s some evidence to indicate that not all the sexual contact was consensual.”

"Serious challenges."  I agree.  So far.

Quote

Among the evidence likely to come under scrutiny are Snapchat messages allegedly exchanged between fraternity members, texts sent by Doe after the incident, witness accounts, and records from Cornell’s internal investigation.

Prosecutors will need to establish what happened during the alleged encounter, whether Doe was able to consent, and what each accused man personally did.

Knight stressed that the investigation cannot simply treat the seven defendants as a single group.

“We have seven men, which means we have seven different cases,” she said.

“Criminal responsibility is personal, right? So each man has to be judged on what he did.”

A solid point, this.

Quote

Messages that could cut both ways

Some of the biggest complications may come from Doe’s own messages to the accused men after the alleged assault.

Previously leaked exchanges showed her initially describing parts of the encounter in positive terms, including a message referencing “our body, my choice.”

However, she later alleged that much of what happened was nonconsensual and that she had been too intoxicated to understand or remember everything.

Knight warned that both sides could use those messages to support competing versions of events.

“I mean, these messages cut both ways,” she said.

I think the text messages, both from the frat members to each other and the texts from Jane Doe, "cut both ways."

Quote

“So the prosecutor, you know, has to kind of reconcile that with this idea that sexual assault did happen and it was not consensual.”

Other exchanges reveal that one of the men apologized to Doe, raising questions about whether his remarks could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

But Knight cautioned against treating an apology as proof of a crime.

“An apology doesn’t mean a confession, right?” she said.

“I would expect the prosecutor to argue consciousness of guilt, an understanding and acknowledgement that the contact, the sexual act happened.”

She added that defense attorneys would likely offer a different explanation for the same comments.

Meanwhile, disturbing Snapchat messages allegedly exchanged among fraternity members during the night could face similar scrutiny.

A group chat included crude references to Doe and alleged invitations for other men to join sexual activity.

In one previously reported recorded conversation, a fraternity member was questioned about messages he allegedly exchanged with others that night. 

New York sexual assault attorney Megan Thomas said Doe’s seemingly conflicting accounts would not necessarily undermine the allegations.

“There’s a lot of seemingly conflicting evidence in this case,” Thomas told The U.S. Sun.

Yes, quite a bit of conflicting evidence.

Quote

“Evidence that she has said I was raped, evidence that she says my body, my choice. But that is how trauma victims generally present.”

This is a difficult point.  It sort of comes across as a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" environment.  Jane Doe's statements that she was raped are taken at face value, but her statements indicating consent are not.

Quote

Thomas, who represents sexual assault survivors, said prosecutors could call experts to explain why a person might initially describe an encounter differently before later alleging assault.

Knight agreed that expert testimony could help jurors understand memory gaps or behavior that might otherwise appear contradictory.

However, both experts acknowledged that defense attorneys could argue the earlier messages support the men’s claims of consent.

“Both sides will use the evidence as best they can to support their own position,” Thomas said.

Ambiguous evidence does not bode well for a conviction.

Quote

What happens next?

Letitia James’s office must now review the evidence gathered during the original investigation, examine additional material, and determine whether further witness interviews or investigative steps are needed.

Knight said the earlier decision not to prosecute does not prevent authorities from reconsidering the case.

“Additional evidence comes to light,” she explained, which can allow prosecutors to “take a fresh look and make an independent decision on whether the evidence is sufficient.”

If investigators conclude that criminal charges are justified, the case could be presented to a grand jury, which would decide whether there is sufficient evidence to indict particular defendants.

An indictment would not establish guilt, and prosecutors would still need to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Knight suggested the competing evidence could make that a significant challenge.

“I would expect that there’s evidence that the prosecutor can use to make a case that this was, you know, that this should be criminally charged,” she said.

“But I could also see a lot of defense arguments raised which could also be effective at trial.”

This has been my assessment so far as well.

Quote

The review could take months, and there is no guarantee that any of the seven men will face criminal charges.

Separately, Doe’s civil lawsuit against Cornell and the accused men will continue regardless of whether prosecutors bring a criminal case.

The depositions will likely be important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

IN THE SPOTLIGHT What happens next in Cornell 7? Exact evidence needed for charges, haunting texts, & loophole that could bring case down

FYI, the USSun appears to be a tabloid that is judged unreliable enough it is not to be used as a reference on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun

Justification for the ban includes this:

Quote

• I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.

Again, what does this case have to do with the thread’s topic or the Church?

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

FYI, the USSun appears to be a tabloid that is judged unreliable enough it is not to be used as a reference on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun

Justification for the ban includes this:

Good to know that The Sun is seen in some quarters as unreliable.

That said, I think the article was at least somewhat useful for its citations to comments made by Nana Knight (a former prosecutor) and Megan Thomas (a "New York sexual assault attorney").

Feel free to disregard.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Again, what does this case have to do with the thread’s topic or the Church?

First, Bluebell brought this topic into the thread in relation to the "not all men" topic.  IIRC, she and you have both amply commentated on that topic in various threads.

Second, my recollection is that the originator of the thread gets to generally determine its scope.  I started this thread.

Third, allegations of sexual misconduct intersect with, at a minimum, the Law of Chastity, and often the Word of Wisdom.  "And thus we see" and all that.  Bluebell's 

Fourth you are at liberty to pay no attention to my posts or this thread.

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic.  This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

Thanks,

-Smac