Tuesday, July 21, 2009

What possible motive would a woman have to file a civil suit against Ben Roethlisberger for sexual assault? Cha-ching!

In the news story printed below this comment, another young male celebrity has been accused of sexual assault. This time it's Super Bowl quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers. His accuser apparently never pursued criminal charges, and her allegation is made in the context of a civil suit seeking monetary relief. The burden of proof in a civil action is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) as opposed to the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those who assert that false rape claims are a myth often raise what they think is a rhetorical question: what possible motive could a woman have to lie about rape? Of course women have plenty of motives to lie. The most authoritative, even-hand study of false rape claims ever conducted demonstrated this beyond any question. The better question is, since false rape claims are so easy to make and almost impossible to completely disprove, why don't more women make them? The answer, I suspect, lies in the fact that most women are decent people. The ones who aren't, though, can, and often do, destroy the lives and reputations of innocent males based on nothing more than a rape allegation.

Why do women file civil claims alleging rape? Many if not most such claims against famous young men seem to amount to nothing more than shakedowns. This website is one of the few in the world devoted exclusively to giving voice to those falsely accused of rape and sexual assault, and we do that by telling their stories. Anyone who thinks rape accusers don't often lie out of selfish motives would do well to spend a couple of days reading on this website the true-life accounts of the countless men and boys falsely accused of this terrible crime.

We don't know what happened here beyond what the news report shows. We do know that countless young men in the limelight are subjected to false rapes claims. It is an occupational hazard of being a famous young male.

Some might have forgotten that now-retired and beloved ex-Pittsburgh Steeler Jerome Bettis once was subjected to a rape claim. In that case, the District Attorney said there was "clear" evidence that the accuser's uncle planned to use the allegation to extort money from Bettis, and no charges were brought against the popular Steeler.

At that time of Bettis' exoneration, then-Steelers' coach Bill Cowher made two points that are applicable here: First, Cowher hoped Bettis' exoneration "gets the same amount of attention as the initial headlines got." Amen, Coach. An unsubstantiated rape claim by a lone accuser garners big headlines, but what of the exoneration? Does not the press owe the presumed innocent male a duty to furnish equal publicity? In Roethlisberger's case, since there are no criminal charges, there won't be an exoneration, but my bet is there will be a dismissal with prejudice. Will there be the same sort of news coverage for it?

In addition, Coach Cowher said this about the Bettis exoneration: "Cowher said the matter illustrated that players are in the public eye and must be careful."

Hmm . . . If the Coach publicly stated that young women need to be careful in their dealings with men, the same crowd that insists false rape claims are a "myth" would brand such a statement "victim blaming" and probably call Cowher a "misogynist."

The fact is, it's damn good advice for both genders -- but especially for famous young males who are too often subjected to shakedowns by women who realize the power of a rape lie.

HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:

Roethlisberger named in Reno case

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has been named a defendant in a defamation lawsuit that was filed last week in Reno, Nev.

A copy of the lawsuit was not available last night, but a court docket entry showed that a civil complaint was filed on Friday in Washoe County, Nev., accusing Mr. Roethlisberger of libel and slander.

The lawsuit was filed by a woman identified as Andrea McNulty. It named Mr. Roethlisberger and eight other defendants. They include: John Koster, Guy Hyder, Mark Masters, Dave Monroe, Mike Rosenow, Debbie Neall, Bryan Casuscelli and Stacy Dingman.

The complaint was filed by attorney Calvin R. Dunlap, of Reno, who could not be reached for comment.

Atlanta-based sports attorney David Cornwell issued a statement on Mr. Roethlisberger's behalf late last night.

"This weekend Andrea McNulty served Ben Roethlisberger with a civil complaint accusing him of sexually assaulting her in July 2008. Ben has never sexually assaulted anyone; especially Andrea McNulty. The timing of the lawsuit and the absence of a criminal complaint and a criminal investigation are the most compelling evidence of the absence of any criminal conduct. If an investigation is commenced, Ben will cooperate fully and Ben will be fully exonerated.

"Ben will not be baited into a public discussion about his personal life, but we will defend him vigorously. The limited value that Ms. McNulty derived from public disclosure of these viciously false allegations is the only value she will ever receive from Ben in this case," the statement said.

Mr. Cornwell declined to elaborate.

Link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09202/985312-66.stm?cmpid=newspanel2

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cha-ching! is right. This man's life is now ruined forever because of an uncorroborated lie from a woman who doesn't have the guts to file criminal charges because that would involve her having to answer questions. This is the kind of society that we live in, folks: pro-liar, pro-shakedown, pro-feminist.

Pierce Harlan said...

I think Ben will recover, just as Bettis recovered -- Bettis became a revered figure in Pittsburgh after that. But note, those are exceptions. Most men do not recover.

Anonymous said...

I don't think he'll recover. I think he'll be in pain because of this for the rest of his life, just as he would if he had been disfigured. His career may continue but he'll never be the same again.

Kobe Bryant, David Copperfield, Ben R. -- which successful man will be destroyed next?

scott said...

Any man who has anything to lose is a target to the "new sirens"

Norm said...

She knows her case will not stand up under "reasonable doubt", thus the reason for the path she is taking. Also she doesn't have the money to spend for lawyers to prosecute the criminal case, and doesn't want to settle for the D.A.'s office.

It seems like ever since Rodney King, this type of stuff is more common (not just for rape).

Norm said...

What happened to David Copperfield? or need I ask...

ForeignWomenOnly said...

I'm glad that you are observing the similarities of this case to those of past false rape cases. I have made quite extensive observations on the FWO blog as well.

--FWO

slwerner said...

Norm - "She knows her case will not stand up under "reasonable doubt", thus the reason for the path she is taking. Also she doesn't have the money to spend for lawyers to prosecute the criminal case, and doesn't want to settle for the D.A.'s office."

I would add that her claim likely would not have stood up to a police investigation (well ahead needing to overcome reasonable doubt at trial.

But, one small quibble with her post, Norm. I know that you are sincere and of only the best intention here, but, one doesn't need any money to pursue a criminal investigation. The police and prosecutors are going to handle it all at tax-payer expense. And, one cannot hire a private attorney to prosecute a case for them. Only DA's, state Attorney's General offices, or (in rare cases) the U.S. Attorney's Office can prosecutes a crime such as rape.

[I'm certainly not meaning to "bust" on you Norm - I've seen enough from you to know full well your sincerity on such issues - I'm just trying to clear up any possible misunderstandings of the workings of the criminal justice system]

Anonymous said...

Not true. The real standard isn't "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" -- that's just a legal fiction. We read all the time about men being convicted based on nothing but the testimony of women who often turn out to be fruitloops.

So no, there is no reason to believe that criminal charges could not have been filed again Ben.

Anonymous said...

What happened to David Copperfield? or need I ask...

GOOD QUESTION. When I google him I don't even find anything about his case, so I can only assume that he made that bullshit disappear.

Norm said...

slwerner,

hey guy no problem. I guess its 'duh' time, I didn't think about how you can't hire someone to prosecute. The thing is I quit watching TV so have really not seen a lawyer show since 'L.A. Law', so have lost my k'nowledge' in that area.

I finally quit reading the paper too. I'd rather be totally in the dark than exposed to all the misandry. The last time I turned on the news was a couple years ago, when there was all this smoke and soot in the air, and a red glow in the sky at night - so just wanted to see if I should evacuate my residence anytime soon.

The Archivist said...

For David Copperfield, he was accused of raping a woman in the Bahamas back in 2007, but no charges were ever filed.

The thing was, she never had a rape kit done, and didn't report it in the Bahamas, she waited until she had returned to the States, and then the FBI got involved. What was suspicious at the time, was that he was under investigation for another rape claim in Washington State at the time, which was public knowledge. Nothing came of that investigation either.

It was felt that the second accuser knew about the first, and was after the money by making her claim.

The Archivist said...

Norm,

It's sad, but I rarely watch television anymore either. My wife doesn't understand it. I keep telling her, 'why would I want to see the same depressing slanted/biased crap everyday?'

Let's be honest, the media tries cases before they ever see the inside of a courtroom. With all the speculation, experts, etc., the polluting of a potential jury pool is inescapable.

The only thing that should be allowed for the media to print, when it comes to crimes/arrests/court, should be that so and so was arrested, and then, what the outcome of the court decision/sentencing is. They should not be allowed to give any more info than that.

The Duke case is a prime example of that. There was no way in hell that those 3 young men could get a fair trial in any venue, after all of the media exposure, primarily because 99% of that coverage presumed them guilty.

Anonymous said...

True and correct Archivist. The media, just like feminism, is set on self destruct.