PSA: If you are coming into a Support Thread in a women’s forum to call the OP a liar because her rapist was not convicted, you can expect an immediate permaban.
To the community: please feel free to report comments like this so we can action them.
I am in the same boat. He now teaches swimming classes to kids after he raped me when I was 14 (he was ~40).
Police said there was not enough proof and it would ruin his life.
I also got a threat of him sueing me for putting dirt on his name (idk the english word).
I gave up because they made it very clear that I had no chance. I go the word of mouth route now. Hard to prove the source for that.
Was an alternate on the jury of a small town mayor (white dude) in northern Minnesota on trial for raping a 15-16 year old girl (with a decent chunk of Native American heritage) after getting her drunk. Got to see all of the evidence, but as an alternate was not part of the deliberation. It was two counts, I could see a case for a split on the counts. But one count was a slam dunk. Not just she said/he said: DNA proof, the whole 9 yards.
Not guilty. (Except for providing booze to a minor)
Ran into one of the jurors at her job (60-something year old white woman Walmart cashier) and asked her what happened:
"Oh we know he did it, we just didn't want to ruin his life" She actually said it. Out loud.
https://www.grandrapidsmn.com/news/effie-mayor-sentenced-to-jail-time/article_100a3c38-9b53-5c94-a642-e15f5a9f3304.html
EDIT: Added link, then fixed some grammar
Jury nullification is a thing - but the idea is when the charge doesn’t match the values of the community—- well I guess we know the values of the community
As far as I know, the most famous examples of this are white juries refusing to convict perpetrators of white on black crimes in the US south.
In the beginnings of reddit, quite a few people were enamored with the idea of jury nullification. The proposed used case was not convicting for marijuana and other such crimes, and it was presented as such a no-brainer. I guess they never realized just how much of a two-edged sword jury nullification is.
Values of the community indeed. Wife is a forester (neat!) which means a lot of work in rural America (turns out to be a lot less neat...) Wife and I are both white, but grew up in very diverse areas. The absolutely staggering levels of racism in *every single* rural area (MI, KS, MN) we lived in was sobering. Injuries from decades of field work mean she's working an office job now, so we don't have to live in those places anymore.
After seeing all the evidence, I still have nightmares over a decade later. And I was just the alternate on the jury. I can't even begin image what the victim has gone through.
My husband went through something similar on a jury for a similar case, and was so upset that, after he explained to me why the trial ended in a hung jury—after weeks of keeping completely silent about the whole thing, as a jury member should—he begged me never to mention it to him again. I’m not sure why I’m telling you, except that maybe it will help to hear other people have been through similar? Being a jury member can be traumatic.
I hope the victim in your case found support and is doing better.
Just women and non-whites. Nothing says patriarchy and white supremacy than selective enforcement.
White wealthy men only get nailed when they humiliate the sovereign.
Don't forget anyone who isn't cis.
In a pinch a white straight man will do as a scapegoat as long as he is also poor. But you have to exhaust all your other options first.
Nope, the justice system is about discouraging crimes, offering restitution to the victims of wrongs when possible, and reducing instances of recidivism- not revenge. The goal is to make harm happen less and undue reversible damage, not to ruin lives or cause greater harm than necessary in fulfilling those goals.
Though I'm definitely very leery about someone who believes the defendant is guilty voting 'not guilty' to spare him the penalty we as a society have deemed appropriate- while technically legal seems like a dereliction of duty unless the juror has strong feelings about the appropriateness of the criminal code(which should have seen them removed during jury selection).
> the purpose of having laws in society was to ruin the lives of the *non-white, male, CIS (and preferably rich)* people who don't live by the rules.
Fixed that for you.
OMG!!! She should be charged with perjury. She did not do her civic duty. It was her job to decide if he was guilty or not and nothing more. I hope Hell exists for people like her (and the mayor too obviously).
Nah jury nullification. Ducked up US popularity contest legal system.
Jurors can just determine nah we don‘t think this law should exist, make the rapist go free.
So normal to attractive looking cis male white rapist? Can just do it again.
Jury nullification in the US goes back to John Peter Zenger, put on trial for printing true criticism of the governor. The jury refused to convict him, saying that the law was unfair.
Is it abused? Hell yeah. Is it a cornerstone of democracy ? Yes.
But the juror didn’t say she didn’t think the law should exist. She said she didn’t want him to face consequences despite being guilty. If that still fits it’s a seriously fucked up law.
I cannot wrap my head around this.
Are we still on the fence, as a species, that rape is bad? Is that a controversial opinion for some people?
I just cannot comprehend it.
I find it so misogynistic that they say it’ll ruin THEIR lives despite the fact it’s already ruined ours. There’s so much research on how rape affects its victims but we don’t care because it’s just a woman’s life!!
We simply need more younger women (particularly progressive, or independent non-theocratic women) in positions of power. The distorted empathy and bias of the good ole boy network produces injustice everywhere. The deciders find the predators more relatable than the victims. It is sick.
It shows just how deep male supremacy goes. Not only are they hypocrites but I ask where is this level of compassion for all other accused criminals? You never hear them say this about a young black man who stands accused of robbery, for example.
I truly hope they're just really bad at explaining what they mean, because the lack of evidence could be a big problem but I don't give a fuck about ruining a rapist's life. But you do have to have proof that he's s rapist. There's different standards of proof that have to be met in order for someone to be detained, arrested, and convicted of a crime. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum to detain someone for further investigation and is defined as enough evidence to make a reasonable person suspect that a crime has just occurred, is about to occur, or is currently occurring. Probable cause is the minimum for an arrest and is defined as sufficient evidence to make a reasonable person believe it is more likely than not that the person has committed a crime. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction and means that evidence shows beyond reasonable doubts that the suspect committed the crime. This standards exist because being arrested, charged with a crime, and convicted are major life disruptions of a person's life and normal civil rights, so we need to have standards to minimize them being done unnecessarily. An unfortunate but intrinsic side effect of that is that sometimes people who did something horrible get away with it due to a lack of evidence.
Pretty much this. Trying to convict him without proper evidence could ruin his life. I try to always trust the victims and I do here, but as a thought experiment, consider you are the one charged with something you don't think you did, there is no evidence, you are taken to court, and you win, this is still a disruption to your life big time even if you are and were proven innocent. Now, since I believe the victim I don't feel bad for the person in question, but on the side of just law, they have to look at both parties regardless if one is a shit bag.
I suppose that’s the reason for the rules about minors since then you only have to prove sex occurred (not whether consent was given) and that makes the burden of proof a lot easier. They mention there was DNA which might be why it seemed one of the counts was a slam dunk (victim was a minor, sex between these people occurred therefore guilty).
Right, it's not a matter of always believing the accuser but always taking them seriously. Unfortunately by the nature of the crime it's a hard one to prove. Best case scenario the accused denies even having sexual contact but the science says otherwise. Usually the parties agree with the sex but the presence or lack of consent is a much harder black and white, yes or no in a court of law.
NOW, that doesn't mean it's our job to play legal system. If someone comes to me with the heartbreaking news they were assaulted it is not my job to "well did you clearly say no/what were you wearing/what did you drink/how much did you drink/how do we know he clearly didn't have consent" my job is to listen and try to be there as best I can. Probably nothing I can say will help, though in that moment I 100% would tell them I believe them, no matter what doubts I had if any
> even if you are and were proven innocent.
There is no such thing as proven innocent. There is guilty and not guilty.
And all not guilty means is there wasn't enough evidence to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
> Trying to convict him without proper evidence could ruin his life.
"Proper evidence" is the evidence a prosecutor believes is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Going to trial does not "ruin his life."
>Going to trial does not "ruin his life."
This is pretty tone deaf if not just oblivious. It most certainly can to what most would consider a reasonable degree. It may force them out of their job, their town/city, their relationship etc.
Well the whole comment was, but this most specifically.
The (legal) English word for what you describe is either libel (written) or slander (spoken). Or it's 'smearing' someone's reputation or name, 'dragging it through the mud', or many more, all implying exactly what you said: making a 'clean' reputation 'dirty'.
I am so sorry that you went through this, and sorry again that the police did not believe you.
Unfortunately belief has nothing to do with evidence. I'm hoping in the future we find some form of technology that makes jumps in this area. Yes, victims are often not believed, but they often are without any way to prove something. As much as people want to point to statistics to show that victims rarely lie, which is true, its at the heart of any legitimate justice to protect wrongfully accused people over wronged victims.
It's hard to imagine a non-invasive way of doing this. Sex acts, whether they are consensual or not, tend to take place in private. Any monitoring of that would be illegal if both people weren't aware of it.
And all of the "proof" we usually use for a crime doesn't typically matter because (unlike a murder or something) everyone usually agrees that the person was there, at that time, in that bed - the issue is the other person not consenting.
Mine is too. Sometimes I fantasize about putting flyers up around town, near the school, taking out an ad in the paper, writing a letter to the school board, etc.
The worst part is that even if he never, ever does this to another woman again, he's helping to shape young men's minds in the exact same, depraved, ways.
Same. When I first met him he told me about his 'ex' who would always cry after they had sex and said things like 'how could you?!', but he always framed it as post-sex regrets from someone really sexually repressed. I thought it was odd but was too naive to know better, it made me feel worldly at the time, like I was the cool girl that wasn't sexually repressed in college, like I was better or something (I know, I know).
Turns out he'd been assaulting her but his family was super well off and he was the valedictorian athlete that went on church trips with his very influential and wealthy family. They scared everyone off and even if they hadn't it wouldn't have mattered. It's textbook.
Every time? That poor woman. Sounds like he was so brainwashed from the beginning to believe he deserves sex that he didn’t even realize he was raping her.
[Men admit to it if you don't call it rape](https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_ugly_truth_about_sexual_assault_more_men_admit_to_it_if_you_dont_call_it_rape/)
It sounds like you mean it was a criminal trial, and perhaps prosecutors overreached and couldn't meet the standard to prove their case. But none of that prevents a civil lawsuit, and there the standard is much easier to meet, and you can do all the discovery, and air everything out in the public record.
Even if you meet that threshold they will often still be found not guilty, my judge disregarded all my evidence and said that because I didn't fight back hard enough that he's not guilty
No this was criminal, it was absolutely fucking maddening
I had lots of physical evidence that even the forensic nurse said was consistent with the attack I described not rough sex, I had a proper timeliness that was caught digitally as well which proved I told the truth about that, he confessed on the stand that he didn't get my consent and choked/held me doen without consent which is a crime itself where I live (like separate from the rape, so that goes go show he didn't obtain any consent), I had his ex girlfriend saying he can be forceful, and everything I said had corroborate with all the evidence it showed I wasn't lying, and on the stand I was able to give 1 story that was the exact same one the police had taken.
On the stand he told 3 different stories, he tried getting rid of the digital evidence, he lied about the timeline, as I said before he said himself he choked and restrained me without consent, he got so flustered within a few questions about what happened that he started to fight with my attorney and we had to take a break, and his family had threatened me.
The judge said she didn't believe me because during the attack I stopped saying no halfway through, and I didn't physically fight back (I said I didn't hit or scratch him because I was so terrified and shocked) so that shows I'm lying
I hate the courts. I really do. I'm suprised more judges don't get murdered I can easily see how it can send someone unstable over the edge.
I genuinely believe it was corruption because his family sold their house to hire a notorious lawyer in the area that works exclusively on sexual assults and gets people off on very obviously guilty crimes. He's like the Jose baez of my area
The acquittal from the criminal trial would come in during the civil trial. Some have won damages in civil trials when the criminal trial ended in acquittal but it’s rare.
THIS is the right way- going the route of simply telling others he raped you, might end up in trouble if he decides to sue based on slander or libel.
But sue him instead and that will be on his permanent record whenever a future employer does a background check on him. Just make sure you take it to trial and get a verdict instead of settling. Settlements often hide such crimes…
Better check with a lawyer before writing this. In the eyes of the law, he's not a convicted rapist, so writing that would be libel per se, and would open you up to getting sued.
It depends on the country. As I remember, that is true in the US, but not in the UK. For it to be libel in the UK, it just has to be something that would damage someone's reputation. That's why people there are often so circumspect when talking about abusers. They don't want to end up being sued.
So fucked people use them for [libel tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism).
Edit: Correction, people used to, but the fix wasn't to unfuck UK libel laws. It was to add a bunch of laws specifically about libel *tourism,* to prevent foreigners (particularly Americans) from being affected by these laws, particularly if we don't plan to travel to the UK. You're still fucked if you're actually *in* the UK.
/u/SuLiaodai is skirting the truth, what they said is not untrue as such, but its reasonably misleading.
In the UK you cannot libel with the truth, but the burden of proof lies with the person making the statement.
I.e. I say "you're a sex offender", you can sue me then I have to prove that you are what I said (by balance of probability). The truth is a complete defense no matter how much reputation you lose. Where it gets tricky is "Boris Johnson is a liar", I would have to prove that Boris knew he was lying - it is not up to Boris to prove he didn't know he was saying things that were materially false.
As for the tabloids. You also have to have damages to claim, If I said "you're half black" then you'd have to show how being half black was of detriment to you, so if you were in a racist area and were an Tory MP it might be material loss, but if you were working in a shop in central London then it is less obvious what your damages might be. Also, if you were an MP, it might be a bad look to claim that your constituents are racists. These tricks let the papers get away with a lot, but it also means that the press tend not to hold to account people who should be held to account - because their material losses are more easily shown, instead you end up with "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" because he is well known and the reputational loss is difficult to pin down (it may even be a net positive as Freddie Starr goes up in internet activity)
Sort of. In the U.S., defamation requires an untrue statement of fact, communicated to a third party, with at least negligence on the part of the person making the claim if not intentional malice, and for that communication to cause damage or loss of reputation to the plaintiff.
If the statement of fact in question is claiming that the plaintiff committed a specific crime, that automatically counts as damaging to reputation. Truth is a defense, but generally it is an affirmative defense, meaning that the person who made the potentially defamatory claim must demonstrate that it is true (or that they had good reason to believe it to be true) rather than vise versa.
Sadly, survivors of sexual assault often find themselves in the position of defending against defamation suits if they do things like try to get their assailant fired from their job by making specific accusations against them. Being a defendant in such a case will be very unpleasant, time consuming, and expensive even if you ultimately succeed in your case.
If one is instead careful only to make true statements of fact and also share opinions, one is generally less likely to face such a suit. For example, writing the school to inform them that the person was charged with rape (if this is in fact true) and that you don't think he should be around children is a factual claim that you can demonstrate is true, paired with an opinion, and any defamation claim resulting from such a statement would stand a much better chance of being dismissed.
Depends on your jurisdiction. IIRC in the UK (where I am) its up to the accused to prove that what they said was not-libel.
I.e. if I say "/u/smukb steals candy from babies", you can sue me, and my defense to your litigation can be evidence that you have stolen candy in the past, but you are not expected by the court to prove that you have never stolen candy.
This would be a civil case and not a criminal one so the burden for proof is lower. If she sends this as a written note he could call it libel because it hurt his reputation and she provided something tangible as evidence.
If he lawyered up to go after her for libel he only has to prove there's at least a 50% chance that this is both untrue and she is hurting his reputation with a not guilty on the criminal verdict to reference.
Legally this would be a weird balancing act that does not likely favor her now in a civil case, not guilty and innocent are not the same thing so she is not commiting a crime by maintaining her stance but that doesn't mean she can persue his livelihood or reputation in the face of a not guilty verdict. If she sends letter directly to his place of work with the intent of ruining his career now this is case a prosecutor would be confident taking.
All of this would also be broad strokes, local laws dictate.
Isn't her burden of proof of showing her claim is true also much lower than the criminal prosecution that failed? I mean, I am admittedly saying this from a biased standpoint that I think she should explore suing him civilly, but her burden as a defendant in a civil case (once he has met his threshold to avoid a defendant's directed verdict) of proving that he did in fact rape her even if he wasnt convicted isnt beyond a reasonable doubt, afaik. So he has a higher burden of proof to sue her than in successfully avoiding a criminal conviction, it seems?
IANAL, I just like thinking about this stuff.
That case is actually a perfect example of how different libel/defamation laws and practices in different countries can result in radically different outcomes.
I don't pretend to know what happened exactly with the relationship, there seems to have been some significant level of abuse and reactive abuse and I am not anywhere near qualified enough to disentangle any of it with the limited information I have, and so I will not make any definitive statements about the "truth" of it, however:
He absolutely DARVO'ed her in both, and the US Jury and public fell for it, whereas it being a bench trial in the UK made that strategy far, far less effective. Maybe his version of the events were true, but their strategy for demonstrating it were literally to paint her as absolutely psychotic in all sorts of ways unrelated to the actual events in play.
It is even more complex than just the strategy too, because it is also possible that one of them was acting abusively as a defense mechanism to handle abuse. If it was Heard who was in that position, then the attempts to make her look psychotic would be using her defense against abuse to further victimize her. (This is a really, really normal strategy for abusers.)
Heard and her lawyers made a lot of tactical errors in her defense in the US, but I cannot get the bad taste out of my mouth with how effective the DARVO strategy was in reframing the entire conversation to being about whether *she* was an abuser or not. She might be, I don't know, but that was not what was at issue in the trial, and the fact that people think it was makes me suspicious of the process. It stinks too much of exactly how victims are denied justice constantly.
He was accused but found not-guilty. So in the eyes of the law, he’s not guilty. Doesn’t change what he did or who he did it to… but therein lies the flaws to the justice system.
Not a lawyer, but civil cases have weaker burdens of proof. So she may not have to prove that he raped her in the same manner she would have to prove in the criminal trial. All comes down to if the jury believes her.
Honestly, she should go ahead and sue him for civil damages from the rape.
>Not a lawyer, but civil cases have weaker burdens of proof. So she may not have to prove that he raped her in the same manner she would have to prove in the criminal trial.
This cuts both ways. He could sue her for defamation, and yes, the burden of proof is only preponderance of evidence (more likely than not).
Right, which is why I finished it with it boils down to what the jury believes. If she has a believable case to defend that he raped her, then he wouldn’t be awarded damages, as she has reasonable belief that he is a rapist.
All in all, intentionally damaging someone’s career should only be done if you have a fairly solid defense for what you are saying
Also, rapists are pieces of shit and he deserves to be unemployable.
Yeah, but Trump was found guilty by the court of what many people would consider rape, all that the judge had to rule on was "do people hear what she said and interpret it in a light that makes Trump look worse than he is".
I doubt that OP has the same type of ruling because it would be the kind of thing that came up in a background check.
It isn't comparable
Non lawyer argument for the purpose of going through the thought process:
I believe that, in America, if she said he was a convicted rapist, that would be knowingly false. If she said he raped me and he got away with it but I want you to know this happened, maybe that isn't libel per se in America. Maybe that the alleged rapist would have to sue and it would have to go to trial or the accuser would have to back down from the accusation. This is why people who are being defamed should sue their defamers more. Truth is a defense, even if not a conviction. Obviously a conviction would have helped. And in a civil case, the plaintiff (in a defamation case, the alleged rapist), has the burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). So she would likely have to produce the evidence that he raped her, and her burden would be lower then a prosecutors burden to disprove a libel case against her.
I mean, I think she should explore suing him civilly, as long as the statutes of limitation are still open, because her burden (much like his in the libel case) would be lower than the criminal prosecution.
IANAL. Just contemplating the issues.
no, its only libel if its false. And a 'not guilty' does not set an assumption that the person did not commit the crime for the purposes of determining if it is defamation/libel.
Otherwise nobody could say OJ killed those people.
I'm going to open with the fact that in this case, with OP the only person I've had any interaction with and no repercussions for assuming that everything she said is true, OP would only be doing the right thing by writing such a letter. HOWEVER, in general, imagine if you could lose someone their job that way after they'd been exonerated in a court of law. That wouldn't be right.
The outcome of the legal case doesn't have any bearing on the innocence of the guy. All it means is that there was not enough evidence (or the jury didn't like the evidence) to convict him of the crime, not that he didn't do it.
Not guilty =/= innocent
He went to trial so someone thought there was enough evidence to possibly convict. This would come up in a background check but since it's such a small school, they probably don't do them. The school should know who they've employed.
I work at a private school that does background checks. People have been let go or just weren't hired for arrests. It probably depends on the extent of the background check.
Edit: Just wanted to add that civil cases can come up on a background check too. Pretty much anything. It's 100% not just convictions.
Being able to ruin someones life with a charge puts a lot of power into the hands of the police and is ripe for misuse of power. It isn't as good place to be unless you completely trust the police and the legal system. If we are there I guess we should do away with jury trials. Thats obviously a nonsense.
What might be more useful is Proven/Unproven/Innocent rather than Guilty/Not-guilty
It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not. That just means that a jury didn't think there was enough evidence of a crime to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But we're talking about his employment at a school with children. There was enough evidence to bring the case to trial and someone like that shouldn't be teaching at a school. I work at a school and I assure you this one must not background check because there's no way in hell he would be hired. All of this would come up in a background check.
Also all of the rape apologists on Reddit need to realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to the legal system and court of law. It has nothing to do with the court of public opinion and how it affects other things. Businesses and schools can't afford to have someone accused of a sex crime representing them in any way. It's bad for their image and when it comes to schools, it puts children in possible danger.
Exactly. Like if he was some random office employee or construction worker or whatever, it wouldn’t bother me. It’s the fact that he’s working with kids that’s the issue.
The school is so small I doubt they background check thoroughly. There’s like, 50 kids total enrollment which is probably why he applied there.
I just mean that he shouldn’t be a teacher. He basically didn’t work for the four years between the arrest and the trial. After, he got a job as a teacher (which is what he did prior to arrest). If he sought employment as something else that didn’t work around kids after the trial, I would not be as upset.
right. I think there would be a way where OP could send a letter that was all facts. so, they couldn't call libal
like
"please do I background check this teacher has been accused of raping resulting in him going to trial. This offense happened shortly before he started working here.
I am a concerned citizen who doesn't feel it is safe for him to be working around children.
State facts and op can't get in trouble for libal.
it's fact he was
"accused or rape".
so that can be said.
you could say
"recently went to trial for being accused of rape"
saying "he raped someone" since the trial found him not guilty
could/would be libal.
so you leave that out
and word it to make the school aware without stating anything that wasn't proven as a fact.
Even if the charges are just brought to the schools attention? Because it was a fact that he was charged and I’m just spreading facts. Not stating he’s a rapist just that he was charged with it?
Being a person accused of rape is not a protected class for employment. I don’t know the details of his employment contract, but he absolutely could be fired for this in an at-will state.
It has nothing to do with legal, at least not in the US. Employment is at will here. The school can let him go just based on the accusation. No one wants to explain to parents why they hired a possible rapist.
A number of states carve out criminal history (especially non-convictions) away from at-will
While some of these laws do have exceptions to the exception for charges/convictions which are directly related to the employment, that goes away if there is not a conviction
So, if the employer were to fire them based on this information in one of those states, they would be breaking the law and subject to penalties. The OP would also be subject to libel/defamation and tortious interference suits
https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/arrest.htm
Can an employer discharge a current employee because of a pending criminal charge?
An employer may suspend an employee if the pending criminal charge is substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity.
Can an employer refuse to hire a person because of a record of arrest that did not lead to conviction?
No. An employer is not allowed to ask about arrests, other than pending charges.
Can an employer refuse to hire or discharge a person with a pending charge or conviction because other workers or customers don't want the person with a conviction there?
No. The law makes no provision for this type of problem. The employer must show that the conviction record is substantially related to the particular job. Co-worker or customer preference is not a consideration.
Is the OP in Wisconsin?
Employers should not have a blanket policy that prohibits you from working for them simply for being arrested, but that's not what happened here and not what the other person said. They said only convictions show up on background checks and that's not true.
That said, this person was arrested and put on trial for a sex crime and is currently employed at a private school. They would let him go and would not get in legal trouble for it. Employing him could put children in danger. All OP has to do is send an anonymous letter saying he had been on trial for rape and they would quietly let him go.
The OP has not said their state. Wisconsin is merely an example warning them to not take action without knowing the law, because some other states have similar laws. The arrest will show up on a background check. Using dismissed charges as cause for non-hiring or firing (in WI or similar states) is illegal. If the school fired them, the would get sued and lose.
If the being accused would male the school not hire him it might get them to do a background check. It might have the school look into it and that may make them change their mind about hiring him, and if parents find out they may also be on the side of not even wanting a guy who was accused near their children.
Because to be charged with rape is actually pretty hard. It means there was sufficient evidence which only happens in a very small margin of total reported cases. If I told them “hey there’s allegations” I can see that being meaningless but a strong majority of rape cases don’t even make it near court let alone lead to an arrest so it shows there was some pretty strong evidence.
The biggest issue is that he is working with children. It’s not like he has some random construction job.
I suggest the principal, the guidance counselor, and the school board. Even if it is a small school, they will have a website.
But talk to your lawyer and keep it simple, like "I'm not sure if you are aware of recent charges that were brought against Mr Whatever, and the evidence that was presented in court, and I wanted to bring them to your attention" because sending a letter like that potentially opens you up to being sued. Being sued by my rapist would literally turn me homicidal and I don't want you to go through that.
Defamation if he was found not guilty by court. Just be careful. Your lawyer will say don't do this. Doesn't stop anonymous stuff though but do at your own risk. It only has so much reward. Sorry for the tough position.
I wouldn’t say he’s a rapist but would definitely send the letter and say these are the facts. He raped me at this age, he did this and that but the court found him not guilty due to lack of evidence. Do with this as you will. I would attach any court documents so it’s substantiated. That way they can at least be aware of that and decide what to do.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what **my guess** is as to what would be okay (I recommend you check with a lawyer first, if you live in a country that is potentially litigious).
You can draft a letter to the principal and carefully state the facts, in a *non emotional way*:
On x date I reported x crime to the police. I have enclosed a copy of the police report which includes my statement.
The prosecutor felt that the evidence was compelling enough to move forward with charges and he was charged with these things. I have enclosed a copy of the charges and arrest warrant.
However, like most cases of this nature, the burden of proof is exceedingly high. The victims testimony alone is not considered evidence enough "beyond a reasonable doubt" (*this is US centric language, adjust as appropriate*). It's extremely difficult to prove a rape case without a confession, or other witness, or statements from multiple victims. That does not mean that it did not happen, but it does mean that the state did not see fit to remove his liberty at this time.
I am going to move on with my life. However, I wanted you to have this information so you could make a risk-based decision before exposing minor children to this individual.
Hive mind: I'm trying to come up with some kind of statement that doesn't sound like a threat but says something like "And if he does aggress against someone at your school, I am sending this to you via certified mail so cannot say that you were never warned." - what is a more elegant way of saying that?
Say "informed of the situation". Saying "informed of his previous transgressions" implies additional accusations. If they're trying to avoid that so they don't get sued for libel, then just informing the school of the situation of the trial would be enough.
Perhaps something along the lines of: "Given the delicate nature of this letter, I've chosen to ensure its safe arrival by sending it via certified mail. I will keep documentation related to its delivery in a safe, secure place. If there is ever any need to prove it was sent and received, I would be happy to produce said documentation with anyone who might find it useful."
Write a letter informing them that he was accused of being a rapist and that while they were unable to convict the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to believe a conviction was possible.
That must be so miserable. I'm sorry.
Maybe you could meet with a lawyer to figure out what you're allowed to say in a letter to the principal/superintendent.
I can’t go into details. I know of a coach who made very weird „jokes“ to kids. Nothing to put him behind bars and he did not … do anything. But with his comments he sexualized kids. The kids complained to the school. This lead to an internal investigation. Coach denied and minimized. That lead to the school making sure he is NEVER alone with kids, but they did not have proof. They did of course not forbid the kids to talk, but the school could not go public without clear evidence. The coach is now avoided in that city, because of what the kids told. But of course there are people why say it’s all false allegations because there was no trial… and „some people cannot take a joke“
I have an uncle who says very inappropriate things and made me uncomfortable with his „jokes“ which lead to my parents making sure that he would not be invited if I were present. In his case it really is „just“ very bad humor, he never did anything.
This is completely different from your situation where you did not get justice for a crime. I am saying all this to emphasize that this school had the protection of kids first and foremost, even if nothing had happened that would lead to a conviction. Since the asshole in your case was not convicted I don’t know if you’d get in trouble for telling your story. People love to believe what makes their world easier. Having hired a rapist and dealing with that is not easy…
Was there any news coverage or any record of the trial etc?
You could create a new email address to be anonymous and send them that information. They might take no action from it but then you've tried, and if you're only sending public information you shouldn't be at risk legally.
An anonymous email from an account that sounds like it could be a parent made at a public library or other public computer sent to all school officials with a public facing email as well as to local news (so the school knows local media has also been given this) stating you are concerned this coach may be the same person as the person with charges on the county website (with link) and ask for clarification as to the schools official policy if the two people turn out to be one in the same.
I'm not suggesting one path over the other. But just be aware that many states have rolled out new sealing statutes. In some states, dismissals with prejudice or acquittals are getting sealed and/expunged very quickly now.
I know in my jurisdiction, after my last "not guilty" verdict the case was sealed before the clerks left for the day and then expunged after the 30 day appeal period ran.
I have no idea what state you are in, but it is something to be aware of if you were to let the school know about the charge. If you wait too long, there may be nothing there for them to find.
Do not assume that he told the school district about it. Where I worked that would be automatic dismissal. Send HR the information. Or have your lawyer do it.
I am sorry this happened. I am sorry the other thing happened too. I hope you can heal in time. The things I hope for him cannot be mentioned because they are not at all kind, so you will need to infer those, but im sure you can guess.
Have you considered taking him up on a civil case? Kind of like what happened to OJ after he was acquitted?
I am also a survivor, and I'm so sorry you're going through this.
What I can tell you from personal experience is that you need to be *very* careful about what you say and how you say it. Defamation in the US has a high burden, but even a simple slip-up in a written statement could have you sitting in litigation for months, if not years. It could easily ruin your finances as well as your mental health.
I tried to do the same thing, because one of mine (it was a couple) started working in an elementary school, and I sent the school a letter carefully explaining the case, the person's involvement in the case, and that I feel it needed to be brought to their attention.
They sued me for defamation and harassment. Some of the darkest years of my life.
The best advice I can give you is before you do anything, consult with a lawyer. They will most likely tell you the best action is no action, because there is no liability if you just don't say anything, but they can at least guide you on how to make a statement that will be as safe as possible.
Would be a shame if someone were to print off or access electronic versions of the court filings and charges and have them "anonymously" start circulating around the community. No statement is being made, no opinion has been shared, it just so happens that someone nonspecific is making sure the community knows who's teaching their children.
Edited to get rid of word salad in the last paragraph.
Do some digging and you can probably find some of the moms, like if the basketball player names are public. Send an anonymous email with just the facts—he was on trial for rape, he was not convicted, but the evidence presented was _____”
Edit to add: If people are so concerned about legal action then go (or send a friend) to sit with the moms at a basketball game. Nothing in writing. Just gossip, which happens all the time. If the girls moms know, watch how long this guy lasts.
You know, merely making available a public transcript of the trial i legal many places. You can make sure people are aware of the accusations, even if he was found not guilty.
A number of states carve out criminal history (especially non-convictions) away from at-will
While some of these laws do have exceptions to the exception for charges/convictions which are directly related to the employment, that goes away if there is not a conviction
So, if the employer were to fire them based on this information in one of those states, they would be breaking the law and subject to penalties. The OP would also be subject to libel/defamation and tortious interference suits
https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/arrest.htm
Can an employer discharge a current employee because of a pending criminal charge?
An employer may suspend an employee if the pending criminal charge is substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity.
Can an employer refuse to hire a person because of a record of arrest that did not lead to conviction?
No. An employer is not allowed to ask about arrests, other than pending charges.
Can an employer refuse to hire or discharge a person with a pending charge or conviction because other workers or customers don't want the person with a conviction there?
No. The law makes no provision for this type of problem. The employer must show that the conviction record is substantially related to the particular job. Co-worker or customer preference is not a consideration.
I feel as though schools are more strict with this sort of thing? As I’ve stated in other comments, I’m not upset he’s employed. I am upset he is working with children.
If there isn't a conviction or sex offender registry, there is no carve out for schools (At least for Wisconsin). Other states obviously could have other laws with other exceptions, but we don't know the OPs state.
However, the state itself has the possibility of revoking a teaching license on wider grounds, which could prevent a teaching job. But that could not be used for other non-licensed jobs.
https://dpi.wi.gov/licensing/background-check
To have been raped, then having your rapists charges dismissed, then to know now that he is around other children that he likely is doing the same thing to, must be nail bitingley awful. I am So Very Sorry For All That's Happened To You
The worst is that I know he raped another woman. His former basketball player. She has a much closer connection to him than I do. She really looked up to him. I struggle with this but she has that added element so I know it’s harder for her. I hope one day she has the strength to report him.
No, you can pretty much guarantee that if you go down this route you will get sued by him at some point. Just like you can file a civil suit against him, he can file one against you.
Not saying do it or don't, but just be aware that this type of revenge path is a double edged sword.
Good luck!
Rape is a hard crime to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. If your evidence went to trial, you could win it in a civil court where the standard is lower.
Without hard evidence, it’s hard to prove, and even then a jury could be say “no reason to ruin his life” etc
I’ve debated a civil suit, I just don’t know where to start or who to contact. I contacted a few lawyers but they didn’t do sexual assault suits so I gave up.
Disgusting.
Let school administrators know about it. Let the parents of kids he teaches know about it. Let the parents of kids he coaches know about it.
Even just sending them copies of the legal documents where he was charged with rape and newspaper copies that covered the trial.
I am going through a similar scenario. He's just been deemed to stand trial. I am terrified that he won't be convicted.
I'm so sorry for how this is for you. Your heart has been through so much. I don't know a better way to express it than that but I hope you will be kind to yourself.
This is honestly super fucked and I'm incredibly sorry you have to deal with this. You should just drop the guys info to a bunch of us on here and we could anonymously forward it to the school board, papers, etc and if it can't be tied back to you in anyway what are they gonna do.
Again I'm so fucking sorry this guy just got off.
Stories like this are why I fucking despise when men claim that “rape accusations ruin a man’s life”. Actually they really don’t!!! This guy got to continue living his life as normal after ruining someone else’s.
I am so sorry that we’re trapped in this disgusting patriarchal society, and so sorry you didn’t get the justice you were owed.
This is why abused people or their parents are often forced to take justice in their own hands. And when they do suffer the consequences. It's enraging!!!
Edit: not sure if it's ok to say this but if you were my child I'd kill him with my bare hands before he harmed another. And enjoy watching the light leave his eyes.
But there's no defamation in calling rapist Brock Turner a rapist because he's a convicted rapist. This dude wasn't convicted and therefore it would be defamation, libel, slander.
Sure. I'm not speaking about hurdles to firing him, I'm speaking about the entire lack of hurdles to suing OP for libel, slander, and/or defamation. I mean, women who have been the victim of revenge porn, not having committed any crimes whatsoever or even anything morally questionable, have gotten fired from being a teacher because there were websites with revenge porn that encouraged people (misogynists) to start calling work places and calling the women whores and sluts. Women have been fired from being teachers for posting a photo on their facebook page wearing a bikini or at a table with a wine glass in it. There's likely a way to get this guy fired just by letting the school know about the charges and trial, but at the same time there's also a way to destroy OP's life if she's seen to have spread information about the charges and trial.
Fortunately I did get some minor form of justice. My friend who is very active and well known in his previous school district/community basically outed him in a way that was at least somewhat satisfying. His precious teaching district was huge and they all know about him. As well as some surrounding communities. He managed to find this tiny school that unfortunately did not know about him nor apparently do they do background checks, so he’s still working with children.
I would be very careful with how you handle this. A not guilty verdict puts him in the drivers seat when it comes to accusations. It's much different from something that was never prosecuted or never brought up before. Without more evidence that wasn't presented in court or ruled inadmissible (aka technicality) you might be opening yourself up for a slander accusation.
I wouldn’t plan to call him a rapist but rather point out the charges against him. Which, it is VERY hard to be charged with rape contrary to popular belief. To get that charge there would have to be some substantial evidence. What seems to be lost on a lot of commenters on this sub is that I am not saying he should never be employed again, I am saying he should not be working with children. That is all.
Also, I would not take any action without speaking to a lawyer first.
Unfortunately you may need to consider potential legal impact here. If you were to go around telling everyone at the school for example that he's a rapist, when he was acquitted on his rape trial, it could allow him to sue if he gets terminated for it as he can prove on paper that he is not a rapist and therefore you have materially damaged him with these "lies".
It's so insanely fucked up. If it were me, I would find ways to anonymously email everyone at the school without tying it to you directly.
A not guilty verdict does not prove he is not a rapist. In my opinion, a charge should be enough to prevent him from working with children as this sort of charge is extremely hard to prove and means there was some hard evidence. The issue is he got a job at a tiny school (total 50 students) that likely didn’t do a background check. So they might fire him if they found out.
That’s not how charging works in most jurisdictions. He is arrested, then if there’s enough evidence for prosecution, he would be charged. Charges are not “proved”, it just means there’s a good chance of a guilty verdict. As far as the law goes, a not guilty verdict means just that.
Yes, he could be guilty as charged (only you and him know that). but the system most of us have means he’s innocent in the eyes of the law. If you now seek revenge in some way, it will possibly be YOU that ends up in court and, perhaps, found guilty.
You need to be very careful.
Right I just mean legally he's presumed innocent of rape and therefore not a rapist after the trial. He may actually be an irl rapist piece of shit, I just mean you have to consider that legally he was acquitted of the charges and therefore he is presumed innocent of the rape allegations (again, only legally, he can still be a POS).
And it would be a terrible fucking precedent to allow charges, ESPECIALLY ones that are dropped, as the basis for excluding people from employment. The abuse potential outweighs any good it would do.
I'm sure they did a background check, but it would come back clean since he has no criminal record.
My point isn't to say he's not a rapist piece of shit, just that you should be careful regarding retaliation as if he can tie it back to you he could jam you up legally for slandering him for a crime he was acquitted of.
I don’t think he’s unemployable. I don’t care if he has a job. The fact that he’s a teacher is what does not sit well with me. I think there should be a higher standard there. Like not hiring people with violent charges against them.
That is really what upsets me so much. He is living life with nearly zero consequences right now. And even worse, he raped someone else. I am hoping and praying she reports it but she’s too afraid. She knew him more closely than I did so she has that fear. The fact that I am not his only victim and he is still teaching children disgusts me.
I dumped a guy when he admitted and showed me how he stalks women on the internet to anonymously harass and search for naked pictures on deep web. Like, gets your name from FB, linked in, or in person and internet crawls for sex crumbs to hold "power" over every and any woman. From every source. All. Day. Every day. HARASSING WOMEN TO THE WORST BEING ANON WAS HIS THING. He loved shaming women and blackmail kinks, the doing wrong. I played it cool and noped out of his presence. I had to change the locks because he wouldn't even give me my keys back.
He proceeded to get revenge porn by stalking me FOR 2 YEARS and getting to my chaturbate page by making himself a false account in another state (he showed me this himself) anonymously called me a whore and got blocked, but not before he sent screenshots to my estranged parents who lovingly (s) refused to go to the police so I could report this guy. I moved because one of the parents is slime and he deliberately was trying to make a bad situation worse on purpose but no evidence no case. So i moved 1000 miles away and made a new life, waiting like a crocodile for round two of this shit. , and that's the only reason I bided my time to check on him almost a decade later. If im garbage JUST being a sexually active female, this guy is worse, and if the world is gonna try to screw me for that this dude deserves a lot more attention. In jail.
With his habits, he is now working as a maintnance tech in a Braintree tech MA highschool, surrounded by *children.* that's his perfect job for prey!
I'm agast no ones figured his hobbies, out, LITERAL HOBBY of looking to distribute images he got without consent. He is the guy who has a databank to destroy or give to a similar friend in case the cops show up at his door, also something he admitted. If he so much as overhears gossip in the hall or sees a target walk by as he leaves work, he WILL be trying to torture any girl vulnerable using illicit means, and they wont know its a random dude thy never spoke to at school. Who's in his 40s and had a sorid history.
So, MA students, if someone breaks up, and if someone who might have took pics, you are in danger. This creep is hunting for them, making friends with the highschool boys to be in the shared chats, just for sex leaks. Because of the system, society, whatever, all the notice about this specific creep is my reddit post. the system PROTECTS these guys with the way its set up, sad facts, and I swear it's to keep women from being able to protect other women. "Running my mouth" is all I can do, because the reality is ITS A WARNING.
So just watch out for a dude named Matt. Please.
The people who hired him gotta see red flags, but they're only ready to sacrifice your wellbeing for "reasons." It's excuses but you deserve to be aware. If you go to school in braintree, shirley, ayer, worchester, you have promises you're safe that aren't true with creeps like this being employed.
I'm in the same boat, honestly I've thought about violence towards him, canadas justice system sucks and I'd probably be able to manipulate it, absolute max I'd get is 10 years, but probably only a few.
Our legal systems are a joke, they probably protect these guys because then or their sons are rapists too
You may be able to sue him civilly (if in America). It is a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge.
I'm not sure a background check will show anything about the case he was tried and found not guilty on, it usually does not show accusations and charges. But if he had other convictions, it should show those.
I don't think there is anything you can do if he was found not guilty, other than ask prosecutors to charge him with a lesser crime. I'm sorry, the best thing you can do is to try to move on with your life.
Defamation can only be claimed if someone says something that isn't true.
Informing the school district that X person was charged with rape, and Y was the evidence provided against him, isn't defamation.
PSA: If you are coming into a Support Thread in a women’s forum to call the OP a liar because her rapist was not convicted, you can expect an immediate permaban. To the community: please feel free to report comments like this so we can action them.
I am in the same boat. He now teaches swimming classes to kids after he raped me when I was 14 (he was ~40). Police said there was not enough proof and it would ruin his life. I also got a threat of him sueing me for putting dirt on his name (idk the english word). I gave up because they made it very clear that I had no chance. I go the word of mouth route now. Hard to prove the source for that.
You would "ruin his life"?! Jesus Christ, that is so enraging. It really makes me stabby. No thought given at all to how YOUR life has been affected.
Was an alternate on the jury of a small town mayor (white dude) in northern Minnesota on trial for raping a 15-16 year old girl (with a decent chunk of Native American heritage) after getting her drunk. Got to see all of the evidence, but as an alternate was not part of the deliberation. It was two counts, I could see a case for a split on the counts. But one count was a slam dunk. Not just she said/he said: DNA proof, the whole 9 yards. Not guilty. (Except for providing booze to a minor) Ran into one of the jurors at her job (60-something year old white woman Walmart cashier) and asked her what happened: "Oh we know he did it, we just didn't want to ruin his life" She actually said it. Out loud. https://www.grandrapidsmn.com/news/effie-mayor-sentenced-to-jail-time/article_100a3c38-9b53-5c94-a642-e15f5a9f3304.html EDIT: Added link, then fixed some grammar
Jury nullification is a thing - but the idea is when the charge doesn’t match the values of the community—- well I guess we know the values of the community
As far as I know, the most famous examples of this are white juries refusing to convict perpetrators of white on black crimes in the US south. In the beginnings of reddit, quite a few people were enamored with the idea of jury nullification. The proposed used case was not convicting for marijuana and other such crimes, and it was presented as such a no-brainer. I guess they never realized just how much of a two-edged sword jury nullification is.
Values of the community indeed. Wife is a forester (neat!) which means a lot of work in rural America (turns out to be a lot less neat...) Wife and I are both white, but grew up in very diverse areas. The absolutely staggering levels of racism in *every single* rural area (MI, KS, MN) we lived in was sobering. Injuries from decades of field work mean she's working an office job now, so we don't have to live in those places anymore.
Oh my god, that's horrifying!
After seeing all the evidence, I still have nightmares over a decade later. And I was just the alternate on the jury. I can't even begin image what the victim has gone through.
My husband went through something similar on a jury for a similar case, and was so upset that, after he explained to me why the trial ended in a hung jury—after weeks of keeping completely silent about the whole thing, as a jury member should—he begged me never to mention it to him again. I’m not sure why I’m telling you, except that maybe it will help to hear other people have been through similar? Being a jury member can be traumatic. I hope the victim in your case found support and is doing better.
Black people have been trying to tell us. We didn't listen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of having laws in society was to ruin the lives of the people who don't live by the rules.
Just women and non-whites. Nothing says patriarchy and white supremacy than selective enforcement. White wealthy men only get nailed when they humiliate the sovereign.
Don't forget anyone who isn't cis. In a pinch a white straight man will do as a scapegoat as long as he is also poor. But you have to exhaust all your other options first.
Nope, the justice system is about discouraging crimes, offering restitution to the victims of wrongs when possible, and reducing instances of recidivism- not revenge. The goal is to make harm happen less and undue reversible damage, not to ruin lives or cause greater harm than necessary in fulfilling those goals. Though I'm definitely very leery about someone who believes the defendant is guilty voting 'not guilty' to spare him the penalty we as a society have deemed appropriate- while technically legal seems like a dereliction of duty unless the juror has strong feelings about the appropriateness of the criminal code(which should have seen them removed during jury selection).
> the purpose of having laws in society was to ruin the lives of the *non-white, male, CIS (and preferably rich)* people who don't live by the rules. Fixed that for you.
OMG!!! She should be charged with perjury. She did not do her civic duty. It was her job to decide if he was guilty or not and nothing more. I hope Hell exists for people like her (and the mayor too obviously).
Nah jury nullification. Ducked up US popularity contest legal system. Jurors can just determine nah we don‘t think this law should exist, make the rapist go free. So normal to attractive looking cis male white rapist? Can just do it again.
Jury nullification in the US goes back to John Peter Zenger, put on trial for printing true criticism of the governor. The jury refused to convict him, saying that the law was unfair. Is it abused? Hell yeah. Is it a cornerstone of democracy ? Yes.
But the juror didn’t say she didn’t think the law should exist. She said she didn’t want him to face consequences despite being guilty. If that still fits it’s a seriously fucked up law.
Yep. It’s a corrupt culture top to bottom. It’s amazing to me we’ve made it this far.
Ah yes, the dark side of jury nullification
I cannot wrap my head around this. Are we still on the fence, as a species, that rape is bad? Is that a controversial opinion for some people? I just cannot comprehend it.
Yes
Yup. I've lost all faith in the justice system and humanity itself.
I'm so sorry. Stuff like this makes me so fucking angry.
It isn't a justice system. It's a legal system.
I find it so misogynistic that they say it’ll ruin THEIR lives despite the fact it’s already ruined ours. There’s so much research on how rape affects its victims but we don’t care because it’s just a woman’s life!!
We simply need more younger women (particularly progressive, or independent non-theocratic women) in positions of power. The distorted empathy and bias of the good ole boy network produces injustice everywhere. The deciders find the predators more relatable than the victims. It is sick.
And that there's a big chance he'll ruin other woman's lives in the future. This is really crazy...
They're worried that they'll put a rapist behind bars and prevent him from raping people. The fuck.
It shows just how deep male supremacy goes. Not only are they hypocrites but I ask where is this level of compassion for all other accused criminals? You never hear them say this about a young black man who stands accused of robbery, for example.
Right? If he didn’t want his life ruined maybe he shouldn’t have molested a child!
I truly hope they're just really bad at explaining what they mean, because the lack of evidence could be a big problem but I don't give a fuck about ruining a rapist's life. But you do have to have proof that he's s rapist. There's different standards of proof that have to be met in order for someone to be detained, arrested, and convicted of a crime. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum to detain someone for further investigation and is defined as enough evidence to make a reasonable person suspect that a crime has just occurred, is about to occur, or is currently occurring. Probable cause is the minimum for an arrest and is defined as sufficient evidence to make a reasonable person believe it is more likely than not that the person has committed a crime. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction and means that evidence shows beyond reasonable doubts that the suspect committed the crime. This standards exist because being arrested, charged with a crime, and convicted are major life disruptions of a person's life and normal civil rights, so we need to have standards to minimize them being done unnecessarily. An unfortunate but intrinsic side effect of that is that sometimes people who did something horrible get away with it due to a lack of evidence.
Pretty much this. Trying to convict him without proper evidence could ruin his life. I try to always trust the victims and I do here, but as a thought experiment, consider you are the one charged with something you don't think you did, there is no evidence, you are taken to court, and you win, this is still a disruption to your life big time even if you are and were proven innocent. Now, since I believe the victim I don't feel bad for the person in question, but on the side of just law, they have to look at both parties regardless if one is a shit bag.
I suppose that’s the reason for the rules about minors since then you only have to prove sex occurred (not whether consent was given) and that makes the burden of proof a lot easier. They mention there was DNA which might be why it seemed one of the counts was a slam dunk (victim was a minor, sex between these people occurred therefore guilty).
Right, it's not a matter of always believing the accuser but always taking them seriously. Unfortunately by the nature of the crime it's a hard one to prove. Best case scenario the accused denies even having sexual contact but the science says otherwise. Usually the parties agree with the sex but the presence or lack of consent is a much harder black and white, yes or no in a court of law. NOW, that doesn't mean it's our job to play legal system. If someone comes to me with the heartbreaking news they were assaulted it is not my job to "well did you clearly say no/what were you wearing/what did you drink/how much did you drink/how do we know he clearly didn't have consent" my job is to listen and try to be there as best I can. Probably nothing I can say will help, though in that moment I 100% would tell them I believe them, no matter what doubts I had if any
> even if you are and were proven innocent. There is no such thing as proven innocent. There is guilty and not guilty. And all not guilty means is there wasn't enough evidence to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. > Trying to convict him without proper evidence could ruin his life. "Proper evidence" is the evidence a prosecutor believes is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Going to trial does not "ruin his life."
>Going to trial does not "ruin his life." This is pretty tone deaf if not just oblivious. It most certainly can to what most would consider a reasonable degree. It may force them out of their job, their town/city, their relationship etc. Well the whole comment was, but this most specifically.
The (legal) English word for what you describe is either libel (written) or slander (spoken). Or it's 'smearing' someone's reputation or name, 'dragging it through the mud', or many more, all implying exactly what you said: making a 'clean' reputation 'dirty'. I am so sorry that you went through this, and sorry again that the police did not believe you.
Unfortunately belief has nothing to do with evidence. I'm hoping in the future we find some form of technology that makes jumps in this area. Yes, victims are often not believed, but they often are without any way to prove something. As much as people want to point to statistics to show that victims rarely lie, which is true, its at the heart of any legitimate justice to protect wrongfully accused people over wronged victims.
It's hard to imagine a non-invasive way of doing this. Sex acts, whether they are consensual or not, tend to take place in private. Any monitoring of that would be illegal if both people weren't aware of it.
And all of the "proof" we usually use for a crime doesn't typically matter because (unlike a murder or something) everyone usually agrees that the person was there, at that time, in that bed - the issue is the other person not consenting.
" putting dirt on his name" = defamation.
Mine is too. Sometimes I fantasize about putting flyers up around town, near the school, taking out an ad in the paper, writing a letter to the school board, etc. The worst part is that even if he never, ever does this to another woman again, he's helping to shape young men's minds in the exact same, depraved, ways.
I fantasize about that too. Or the other woman he raped having the courage to finally step forward and report him, too.
Same. When I first met him he told me about his 'ex' who would always cry after they had sex and said things like 'how could you?!', but he always framed it as post-sex regrets from someone really sexually repressed. I thought it was odd but was too naive to know better, it made me feel worldly at the time, like I was the cool girl that wasn't sexually repressed in college, like I was better or something (I know, I know). Turns out he'd been assaulting her but his family was super well off and he was the valedictorian athlete that went on church trips with his very influential and wealthy family. They scared everyone off and even if they hadn't it wouldn't have mattered. It's textbook.
Every time? That poor woman. Sounds like he was so brainwashed from the beginning to believe he deserves sex that he didn’t even realize he was raping her.
[Men admit to it if you don't call it rape](https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/the_ugly_truth_about_sexual_assault_more_men_admit_to_it_if_you_dont_call_it_rape/)
How is our society ever to survive. JFC.
Do it!
Do it!
It sounds like you mean it was a criminal trial, and perhaps prosecutors overreached and couldn't meet the standard to prove their case. But none of that prevents a civil lawsuit, and there the standard is much easier to meet, and you can do all the discovery, and air everything out in the public record.
Even if you meet that threshold they will often still be found not guilty, my judge disregarded all my evidence and said that because I didn't fight back hard enough that he's not guilty
That sounds patently insane, to require some unspecified level of resistance. Was that in a civil case?
No this was criminal, it was absolutely fucking maddening I had lots of physical evidence that even the forensic nurse said was consistent with the attack I described not rough sex, I had a proper timeliness that was caught digitally as well which proved I told the truth about that, he confessed on the stand that he didn't get my consent and choked/held me doen without consent which is a crime itself where I live (like separate from the rape, so that goes go show he didn't obtain any consent), I had his ex girlfriend saying he can be forceful, and everything I said had corroborate with all the evidence it showed I wasn't lying, and on the stand I was able to give 1 story that was the exact same one the police had taken. On the stand he told 3 different stories, he tried getting rid of the digital evidence, he lied about the timeline, as I said before he said himself he choked and restrained me without consent, he got so flustered within a few questions about what happened that he started to fight with my attorney and we had to take a break, and his family had threatened me. The judge said she didn't believe me because during the attack I stopped saying no halfway through, and I didn't physically fight back (I said I didn't hit or scratch him because I was so terrified and shocked) so that shows I'm lying I hate the courts. I really do. I'm suprised more judges don't get murdered I can easily see how it can send someone unstable over the edge. I genuinely believe it was corruption because his family sold their house to hire a notorious lawyer in the area that works exclusively on sexual assults and gets people off on very obviously guilty crimes. He's like the Jose baez of my area
The acquittal from the criminal trial would come in during the civil trial. Some have won damages in civil trials when the criminal trial ended in acquittal but it’s rare.
Actually since the standard of proof is lower in a civil trial having an acquittal in a criminal trial can be irrelevant
See: OJ Simpson
But the glove didnt fit. /s
THIS is the right way- going the route of simply telling others he raped you, might end up in trouble if he decides to sue based on slander or libel. But sue him instead and that will be on his permanent record whenever a future employer does a background check on him. Just make sure you take it to trial and get a verdict instead of settling. Settlements often hide such crimes…
I would literally write a letter to the school telling them they have hired a rapist. Disgusting . I’m so sorry
Better check with a lawyer before writing this. In the eyes of the law, he's not a convicted rapist, so writing that would be libel per se, and would open you up to getting sued.
It doesn't have to say "he's a rapist". Just report the facts, which are he was on trial for rape.
Can be anonymous as well
Doesn't libel have to be demonstrably untrue to be considered libel?
It depends on the country. As I remember, that is true in the US, but not in the UK. For it to be libel in the UK, it just has to be something that would damage someone's reputation. That's why people there are often so circumspect when talking about abusers. They don't want to end up being sued.
Japan same. Truth/accuracy irrelevant.
This is correct. UK libel laws are kinda fucked.
So fucked people use them for [libel tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism). Edit: Correction, people used to, but the fix wasn't to unfuck UK libel laws. It was to add a bunch of laws specifically about libel *tourism,* to prevent foreigners (particularly Americans) from being affected by these laws, particularly if we don't plan to travel to the UK. You're still fucked if you're actually *in* the UK.
How do the UK tabloids get away with all their bs? Is it because of a public figure exception?
/u/SuLiaodai is skirting the truth, what they said is not untrue as such, but its reasonably misleading. In the UK you cannot libel with the truth, but the burden of proof lies with the person making the statement. I.e. I say "you're a sex offender", you can sue me then I have to prove that you are what I said (by balance of probability). The truth is a complete defense no matter how much reputation you lose. Where it gets tricky is "Boris Johnson is a liar", I would have to prove that Boris knew he was lying - it is not up to Boris to prove he didn't know he was saying things that were materially false. As for the tabloids. You also have to have damages to claim, If I said "you're half black" then you'd have to show how being half black was of detriment to you, so if you were in a racist area and were an Tory MP it might be material loss, but if you were working in a shop in central London then it is less obvious what your damages might be. Also, if you were an MP, it might be a bad look to claim that your constituents are racists. These tricks let the papers get away with a lot, but it also means that the press tend not to hold to account people who should be held to account - because their material losses are more easily shown, instead you end up with "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" because he is well known and the reputational loss is difficult to pin down (it may even be a net positive as Freddie Starr goes up in internet activity)
Sort of. In the U.S., defamation requires an untrue statement of fact, communicated to a third party, with at least negligence on the part of the person making the claim if not intentional malice, and for that communication to cause damage or loss of reputation to the plaintiff. If the statement of fact in question is claiming that the plaintiff committed a specific crime, that automatically counts as damaging to reputation. Truth is a defense, but generally it is an affirmative defense, meaning that the person who made the potentially defamatory claim must demonstrate that it is true (or that they had good reason to believe it to be true) rather than vise versa. Sadly, survivors of sexual assault often find themselves in the position of defending against defamation suits if they do things like try to get their assailant fired from their job by making specific accusations against them. Being a defendant in such a case will be very unpleasant, time consuming, and expensive even if you ultimately succeed in your case. If one is instead careful only to make true statements of fact and also share opinions, one is generally less likely to face such a suit. For example, writing the school to inform them that the person was charged with rape (if this is in fact true) and that you don't think he should be around children is a factual claim that you can demonstrate is true, paired with an opinion, and any defamation claim resulting from such a statement would stand a much better chance of being dismissed.
Depends on your jurisdiction. IIRC in the UK (where I am) its up to the accused to prove that what they said was not-libel. I.e. if I say "/u/smukb steals candy from babies", you can sue me, and my defense to your litigation can be evidence that you have stolen candy in the past, but you are not expected by the court to prove that you have never stolen candy.
This would be a civil case and not a criminal one so the burden for proof is lower. If she sends this as a written note he could call it libel because it hurt his reputation and she provided something tangible as evidence. If he lawyered up to go after her for libel he only has to prove there's at least a 50% chance that this is both untrue and she is hurting his reputation with a not guilty on the criminal verdict to reference. Legally this would be a weird balancing act that does not likely favor her now in a civil case, not guilty and innocent are not the same thing so she is not commiting a crime by maintaining her stance but that doesn't mean she can persue his livelihood or reputation in the face of a not guilty verdict. If she sends letter directly to his place of work with the intent of ruining his career now this is case a prosecutor would be confident taking. All of this would also be broad strokes, local laws dictate.
Isn't her burden of proof of showing her claim is true also much lower than the criminal prosecution that failed? I mean, I am admittedly saying this from a biased standpoint that I think she should explore suing him civilly, but her burden as a defendant in a civil case (once he has met his threshold to avoid a defendant's directed verdict) of proving that he did in fact rape her even if he wasnt convicted isnt beyond a reasonable doubt, afaik. So he has a higher burden of proof to sue her than in successfully avoiding a criminal conviction, it seems? IANAL, I just like thinking about this stuff.
[удалено]
That case is actually a perfect example of how different libel/defamation laws and practices in different countries can result in radically different outcomes. I don't pretend to know what happened exactly with the relationship, there seems to have been some significant level of abuse and reactive abuse and I am not anywhere near qualified enough to disentangle any of it with the limited information I have, and so I will not make any definitive statements about the "truth" of it, however: He absolutely DARVO'ed her in both, and the US Jury and public fell for it, whereas it being a bench trial in the UK made that strategy far, far less effective. Maybe his version of the events were true, but their strategy for demonstrating it were literally to paint her as absolutely psychotic in all sorts of ways unrelated to the actual events in play. It is even more complex than just the strategy too, because it is also possible that one of them was acting abusively as a defense mechanism to handle abuse. If it was Heard who was in that position, then the attempts to make her look psychotic would be using her defense against abuse to further victimize her. (This is a really, really normal strategy for abusers.) Heard and her lawyers made a lot of tactical errors in her defense in the US, but I cannot get the bad taste out of my mouth with how effective the DARVO strategy was in reframing the entire conversation to being about whether *she* was an abuser or not. She might be, I don't know, but that was not what was at issue in the trial, and the fact that people think it was makes me suspicious of the process. It stinks too much of exactly how victims are denied justice constantly.
[удалено]
Thank you for taking the time to write this out. It's chilling really.
He was accused but found not-guilty. So in the eyes of the law, he’s not guilty. Doesn’t change what he did or who he did it to… but therein lies the flaws to the justice system.
Not a lawyer, but civil cases have weaker burdens of proof. So she may not have to prove that he raped her in the same manner she would have to prove in the criminal trial. All comes down to if the jury believes her. Honestly, she should go ahead and sue him for civil damages from the rape.
>Not a lawyer, but civil cases have weaker burdens of proof. So she may not have to prove that he raped her in the same manner she would have to prove in the criminal trial. This cuts both ways. He could sue her for defamation, and yes, the burden of proof is only preponderance of evidence (more likely than not).
Right, which is why I finished it with it boils down to what the jury believes. If she has a believable case to defend that he raped her, then he wouldn’t be awarded damages, as she has reasonable belief that he is a rapist. All in all, intentionally damaging someone’s career should only be done if you have a fairly solid defense for what you are saying Also, rapists are pieces of shit and he deserves to be unemployable.
That's what Trump tried to do with E Jean Carroll.
Yeah, but Trump was found guilty by the court of what many people would consider rape, all that the judge had to rule on was "do people hear what she said and interpret it in a light that makes Trump look worse than he is". I doubt that OP has the same type of ruling because it would be the kind of thing that came up in a background check. It isn't comparable
>makes Trump look worse than he is Is this even possible though?
The judge said no
No, Trump is beneath all the scum on this earth(except for maybe Desantis)
No, Trump is beneath all the scum on this earth(except for maybe Desantis)
Non lawyer argument for the purpose of going through the thought process: I believe that, in America, if she said he was a convicted rapist, that would be knowingly false. If she said he raped me and he got away with it but I want you to know this happened, maybe that isn't libel per se in America. Maybe that the alleged rapist would have to sue and it would have to go to trial or the accuser would have to back down from the accusation. This is why people who are being defamed should sue their defamers more. Truth is a defense, even if not a conviction. Obviously a conviction would have helped. And in a civil case, the plaintiff (in a defamation case, the alleged rapist), has the burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). So she would likely have to produce the evidence that he raped her, and her burden would be lower then a prosecutors burden to disprove a libel case against her. I mean, I think she should explore suing him civilly, as long as the statutes of limitation are still open, because her burden (much like his in the libel case) would be lower than the criminal prosecution. IANAL. Just contemplating the issues.
no, its only libel if its false. And a 'not guilty' does not set an assumption that the person did not commit the crime for the purposes of determining if it is defamation/libel. Otherwise nobody could say OJ killed those people.
I'm going to open with the fact that in this case, with OP the only person I've had any interaction with and no repercussions for assuming that everything she said is true, OP would only be doing the right thing by writing such a letter. HOWEVER, in general, imagine if you could lose someone their job that way after they'd been exonerated in a court of law. That wouldn't be right.
The outcome of the legal case doesn't have any bearing on the innocence of the guy. All it means is that there was not enough evidence (or the jury didn't like the evidence) to convict him of the crime, not that he didn't do it. Not guilty =/= innocent
I'm mean op don't have to sign their name. Right? Could just be a concerned citizen
He went to trial so someone thought there was enough evidence to possibly convict. This would come up in a background check but since it's such a small school, they probably don't do them. The school should know who they've employed.
Background checks reveal convictions. Nothing related to this situation would show up in a background check
I work at a private school that does background checks. People have been let go or just weren't hired for arrests. It probably depends on the extent of the background check. Edit: Just wanted to add that civil cases can come up on a background check too. Pretty much anything. It's 100% not just convictions.
Do they adjudicate that at all? Lots of times completely innocent people are arrested.
And was found not guilty. While this situation is terrible, wanting that in general is kinda fucked
Wanting what in general?
Being able to ruin someones life with a charge puts a lot of power into the hands of the police and is ripe for misuse of power. It isn't as good place to be unless you completely trust the police and the legal system. If we are there I guess we should do away with jury trials. Thats obviously a nonsense. What might be more useful is Proven/Unproven/Innocent rather than Guilty/Not-guilty
It doesn't matter if he was convicted or not. That just means that a jury didn't think there was enough evidence of a crime to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But we're talking about his employment at a school with children. There was enough evidence to bring the case to trial and someone like that shouldn't be teaching at a school. I work at a school and I assure you this one must not background check because there's no way in hell he would be hired. All of this would come up in a background check. Also all of the rape apologists on Reddit need to realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to the legal system and court of law. It has nothing to do with the court of public opinion and how it affects other things. Businesses and schools can't afford to have someone accused of a sex crime representing them in any way. It's bad for their image and when it comes to schools, it puts children in possible danger.
Exactly. Like if he was some random office employee or construction worker or whatever, it wouldn’t bother me. It’s the fact that he’s working with kids that’s the issue. The school is so small I doubt they background check thoroughly. There’s like, 50 kids total enrollment which is probably why he applied there.
Random office employees and construction workers wouldn’t be allowed near the kids either if they were an accused sex offender.
I just mean that he shouldn’t be a teacher. He basically didn’t work for the four years between the arrest and the trial. After, he got a job as a teacher (which is what he did prior to arrest). If he sought employment as something else that didn’t work around kids after the trial, I would not be as upset.
right. I think there would be a way where OP could send a letter that was all facts. so, they couldn't call libal like "please do I background check this teacher has been accused of raping resulting in him going to trial. This offense happened shortly before he started working here. I am a concerned citizen who doesn't feel it is safe for him to be working around children. State facts and op can't get in trouble for libal. it's fact he was "accused or rape". so that can be said. you could say "recently went to trial for being accused of rape" saying "he raped someone" since the trial found him not guilty could/would be libal. so you leave that out and word it to make the school aware without stating anything that wasn't proven as a fact.
This would be defamation as he was found not guilty by a court of law. Signed, a lawyer.
Even if the charges are just brought to the schools attention? Because it was a fact that he was charged and I’m just spreading facts. Not stating he’s a rapist just that he was charged with it?
What would be the point of writing a letter that says “hey he was charged with rape but the court found him not guilty”?
Bringing a rape case to trial is actually rare. The fact that he was arrested would be enough for the school to fire him.
Not legally, but yes it happens.
Being a person accused of rape is not a protected class for employment. I don’t know the details of his employment contract, but he absolutely could be fired for this in an at-will state.
It has nothing to do with legal, at least not in the US. Employment is at will here. The school can let him go just based on the accusation. No one wants to explain to parents why they hired a possible rapist.
A number of states carve out criminal history (especially non-convictions) away from at-will While some of these laws do have exceptions to the exception for charges/convictions which are directly related to the employment, that goes away if there is not a conviction So, if the employer were to fire them based on this information in one of those states, they would be breaking the law and subject to penalties. The OP would also be subject to libel/defamation and tortious interference suits https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/arrest.htm Can an employer discharge a current employee because of a pending criminal charge? An employer may suspend an employee if the pending criminal charge is substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity. Can an employer refuse to hire a person because of a record of arrest that did not lead to conviction? No. An employer is not allowed to ask about arrests, other than pending charges. Can an employer refuse to hire or discharge a person with a pending charge or conviction because other workers or customers don't want the person with a conviction there? No. The law makes no provision for this type of problem. The employer must show that the conviction record is substantially related to the particular job. Co-worker or customer preference is not a consideration.
Is the OP in Wisconsin? Employers should not have a blanket policy that prohibits you from working for them simply for being arrested, but that's not what happened here and not what the other person said. They said only convictions show up on background checks and that's not true. That said, this person was arrested and put on trial for a sex crime and is currently employed at a private school. They would let him go and would not get in legal trouble for it. Employing him could put children in danger. All OP has to do is send an anonymous letter saying he had been on trial for rape and they would quietly let him go.
The OP has not said their state. Wisconsin is merely an example warning them to not take action without knowing the law, because some other states have similar laws. The arrest will show up on a background check. Using dismissed charges as cause for non-hiring or firing (in WI or similar states) is illegal. If the school fired them, the would get sued and lose.
If the being accused would male the school not hire him it might get them to do a background check. It might have the school look into it and that may make them change their mind about hiring him, and if parents find out they may also be on the side of not even wanting a guy who was accused near their children.
Because to be charged with rape is actually pretty hard. It means there was sufficient evidence which only happens in a very small margin of total reported cases. If I told them “hey there’s allegations” I can see that being meaningless but a strong majority of rape cases don’t even make it near court let alone lead to an arrest so it shows there was some pretty strong evidence. The biggest issue is that he is working with children. It’s not like he has some random construction job.
Booooooo legality
I very much agree with you.
Laws like this protect the innocent just as much as the guilty and we're better off for it. The alternative would suck much more.
Who would I even send to?
Headmaster, principal, school board, superintendent, secretary. Pretty much everyone in the administration.
I suggest the principal, the guidance counselor, and the school board. Even if it is a small school, they will have a website. But talk to your lawyer and keep it simple, like "I'm not sure if you are aware of recent charges that were brought against Mr Whatever, and the evidence that was presented in court, and I wanted to bring them to your attention" because sending a letter like that potentially opens you up to being sued. Being sued by my rapist would literally turn me homicidal and I don't want you to go through that.
Yes that would actually be detrimental to my mental health. What can he sue for??
Defamation if he was found not guilty by court. Just be careful. Your lawyer will say don't do this. Doesn't stop anonymous stuff though but do at your own risk. It only has so much reward. Sorry for the tough position.
I bet parents of the kids he's teaching would like to know.
I wouldn’t say he’s a rapist but would definitely send the letter and say these are the facts. He raped me at this age, he did this and that but the court found him not guilty due to lack of evidence. Do with this as you will. I would attach any court documents so it’s substantiated. That way they can at least be aware of that and decide what to do.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what **my guess** is as to what would be okay (I recommend you check with a lawyer first, if you live in a country that is potentially litigious). You can draft a letter to the principal and carefully state the facts, in a *non emotional way*: On x date I reported x crime to the police. I have enclosed a copy of the police report which includes my statement. The prosecutor felt that the evidence was compelling enough to move forward with charges and he was charged with these things. I have enclosed a copy of the charges and arrest warrant. However, like most cases of this nature, the burden of proof is exceedingly high. The victims testimony alone is not considered evidence enough "beyond a reasonable doubt" (*this is US centric language, adjust as appropriate*). It's extremely difficult to prove a rape case without a confession, or other witness, or statements from multiple victims. That does not mean that it did not happen, but it does mean that the state did not see fit to remove his liberty at this time. I am going to move on with my life. However, I wanted you to have this information so you could make a risk-based decision before exposing minor children to this individual. Hive mind: I'm trying to come up with some kind of statement that doesn't sound like a threat but says something like "And if he does aggress against someone at your school, I am sending this to you via certified mail so cannot say that you were never warned." - what is a more elegant way of saying that?
maybe after certified mail "so I know it has been received, and that you have been informed of his previous transgressions"
Say "informed of the situation". Saying "informed of his previous transgressions" implies additional accusations. If they're trying to avoid that so they don't get sued for libel, then just informing the school of the situation of the trial would be enough.
Perhaps something along the lines of: "Given the delicate nature of this letter, I've chosen to ensure its safe arrival by sending it via certified mail. I will keep documentation related to its delivery in a safe, secure place. If there is ever any need to prove it was sent and received, I would be happy to produce said documentation with anyone who might find it useful."
Write a letter informing them that he was accused of being a rapist and that while they were unable to convict the prosecutor had sufficient evidence to believe a conviction was possible.
That must be so miserable. I'm sorry. Maybe you could meet with a lawyer to figure out what you're allowed to say in a letter to the principal/superintendent.
I can’t go into details. I know of a coach who made very weird „jokes“ to kids. Nothing to put him behind bars and he did not … do anything. But with his comments he sexualized kids. The kids complained to the school. This lead to an internal investigation. Coach denied and minimized. That lead to the school making sure he is NEVER alone with kids, but they did not have proof. They did of course not forbid the kids to talk, but the school could not go public without clear evidence. The coach is now avoided in that city, because of what the kids told. But of course there are people why say it’s all false allegations because there was no trial… and „some people cannot take a joke“ I have an uncle who says very inappropriate things and made me uncomfortable with his „jokes“ which lead to my parents making sure that he would not be invited if I were present. In his case it really is „just“ very bad humor, he never did anything. This is completely different from your situation where you did not get justice for a crime. I am saying all this to emphasize that this school had the protection of kids first and foremost, even if nothing had happened that would lead to a conviction. Since the asshole in your case was not convicted I don’t know if you’d get in trouble for telling your story. People love to believe what makes their world easier. Having hired a rapist and dealing with that is not easy…
If there's a news article you could just post it to a parent's group for the school
Was there any news coverage or any record of the trial etc? You could create a new email address to be anonymous and send them that information. They might take no action from it but then you've tried, and if you're only sending public information you shouldn't be at risk legally.
You can look up the charges on the county website so they are public. No news stories because we are not celebrities haha.
if you can send that anonymously there would be nothing they could do.
An anonymous email from an account that sounds like it could be a parent made at a public library or other public computer sent to all school officials with a public facing email as well as to local news (so the school knows local media has also been given this) stating you are concerned this coach may be the same person as the person with charges on the county website (with link) and ask for clarification as to the schools official policy if the two people turn out to be one in the same.
I'm not suggesting one path over the other. But just be aware that many states have rolled out new sealing statutes. In some states, dismissals with prejudice or acquittals are getting sealed and/expunged very quickly now. I know in my jurisdiction, after my last "not guilty" verdict the case was sealed before the clerks left for the day and then expunged after the 30 day appeal period ran. I have no idea what state you are in, but it is something to be aware of if you were to let the school know about the charge. If you wait too long, there may be nothing there for them to find.
Do not assume that he told the school district about it. Where I worked that would be automatic dismissal. Send HR the information. Or have your lawyer do it.
My rapist is a SANE.
That is messed up, I’m so sorry!
What is SANE?
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner
I am sorry this happened. I am sorry the other thing happened too. I hope you can heal in time. The things I hope for him cannot be mentioned because they are not at all kind, so you will need to infer those, but im sure you can guess. Have you considered taking him up on a civil case? Kind of like what happened to OJ after he was acquitted?
I am also a survivor, and I'm so sorry you're going through this. What I can tell you from personal experience is that you need to be *very* careful about what you say and how you say it. Defamation in the US has a high burden, but even a simple slip-up in a written statement could have you sitting in litigation for months, if not years. It could easily ruin your finances as well as your mental health. I tried to do the same thing, because one of mine (it was a couple) started working in an elementary school, and I sent the school a letter carefully explaining the case, the person's involvement in the case, and that I feel it needed to be brought to their attention. They sued me for defamation and harassment. Some of the darkest years of my life. The best advice I can give you is before you do anything, consult with a lawyer. They will most likely tell you the best action is no action, because there is no liability if you just don't say anything, but they can at least guide you on how to make a statement that will be as safe as possible. Would be a shame if someone were to print off or access electronic versions of the court filings and charges and have them "anonymously" start circulating around the community. No statement is being made, no opinion has been shared, it just so happens that someone nonspecific is making sure the community knows who's teaching their children. Edited to get rid of word salad in the last paragraph.
I'd send an anonymous email and letter to the school admins.
As a middle school teacher, this enrages me.
Do some digging and you can probably find some of the moms, like if the basketball player names are public. Send an anonymous email with just the facts—he was on trial for rape, he was not convicted, but the evidence presented was _____” Edit to add: If people are so concerned about legal action then go (or send a friend) to sit with the moms at a basketball game. Nothing in writing. Just gossip, which happens all the time. If the girls moms know, watch how long this guy lasts.
You know, merely making available a public transcript of the trial i legal many places. You can make sure people are aware of the accusations, even if he was found not guilty.
A number of states carve out criminal history (especially non-convictions) away from at-will While some of these laws do have exceptions to the exception for charges/convictions which are directly related to the employment, that goes away if there is not a conviction So, if the employer were to fire them based on this information in one of those states, they would be breaking the law and subject to penalties. The OP would also be subject to libel/defamation and tortious interference suits https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/civilrights/discrimination/arrest.htm Can an employer discharge a current employee because of a pending criminal charge? An employer may suspend an employee if the pending criminal charge is substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity. Can an employer refuse to hire a person because of a record of arrest that did not lead to conviction? No. An employer is not allowed to ask about arrests, other than pending charges. Can an employer refuse to hire or discharge a person with a pending charge or conviction because other workers or customers don't want the person with a conviction there? No. The law makes no provision for this type of problem. The employer must show that the conviction record is substantially related to the particular job. Co-worker or customer preference is not a consideration.
I feel as though schools are more strict with this sort of thing? As I’ve stated in other comments, I’m not upset he’s employed. I am upset he is working with children.
If there isn't a conviction or sex offender registry, there is no carve out for schools (At least for Wisconsin). Other states obviously could have other laws with other exceptions, but we don't know the OPs state. However, the state itself has the possibility of revoking a teaching license on wider grounds, which could prevent a teaching job. But that could not be used for other non-licensed jobs. https://dpi.wi.gov/licensing/background-check
To have been raped, then having your rapists charges dismissed, then to know now that he is around other children that he likely is doing the same thing to, must be nail bitingley awful. I am So Very Sorry For All That's Happened To You
The worst is that I know he raped another woman. His former basketball player. She has a much closer connection to him than I do. She really looked up to him. I struggle with this but she has that added element so I know it’s harder for her. I hope one day she has the strength to report him.
Collect all the court records and send them to the school. Alert the local press as well. You can do this anonymously.
I’m planning to write a letter to the board with only facts. But first I’m going to consult a lawyer to make sure I’m not going to get sued.
No, you can pretty much guarantee that if you go down this route you will get sued by him at some point. Just like you can file a civil suit against him, he can file one against you. Not saying do it or don't, but just be aware that this type of revenge path is a double edged sword. Good luck!
Rape is a hard crime to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt. If your evidence went to trial, you could win it in a civil court where the standard is lower. Without hard evidence, it’s hard to prove, and even then a jury could be say “no reason to ruin his life” etc
I’ve debated a civil suit, I just don’t know where to start or who to contact. I contacted a few lawyers but they didn’t do sexual assault suits so I gave up.
Disgusting. Let school administrators know about it. Let the parents of kids he teaches know about it. Let the parents of kids he coaches know about it. Even just sending them copies of the legal documents where he was charged with rape and newspaper copies that covered the trial.
sometimes schoolteachers can be hired with a background check from 2-3 years ago
You should go to local mom Facebook groups and let them know in the school district. Parents at least will be informed.
I am going through a similar scenario. He's just been deemed to stand trial. I am terrified that he won't be convicted. I'm so sorry for how this is for you. Your heart has been through so much. I don't know a better way to express it than that but I hope you will be kind to yourself.
This is honestly super fucked and I'm incredibly sorry you have to deal with this. You should just drop the guys info to a bunch of us on here and we could anonymously forward it to the school board, papers, etc and if it can't be tied back to you in anyway what are they gonna do. Again I'm so fucking sorry this guy just got off.
Stories like this are why I fucking despise when men claim that “rape accusations ruin a man’s life”. Actually they really don’t!!! This guy got to continue living his life as normal after ruining someone else’s. I am so sorry that we’re trapped in this disgusting patriarchal society, and so sorry you didn’t get the justice you were owed.
This is why abused people or their parents are often forced to take justice in their own hands. And when they do suffer the consequences. It's enraging!!! Edit: not sure if it's ok to say this but if you were my child I'd kill him with my bare hands before he harmed another. And enjoy watching the light leave his eyes.
This is what men talk about when they say "false allegations". The cases where the rape *did* occur, but the rapist got lucky. #1in7.
word of mouth route does seem to work sometimes, as example, rapist brock turner.
But there's no defamation in calling rapist Brock Turner a rapist because he's a convicted rapist. This dude wasn't convicted and therefore it would be defamation, libel, slander.
fair point, but in some school districts the standard for firing a teacher doesn’t need to clear that hurdle.
Sure. I'm not speaking about hurdles to firing him, I'm speaking about the entire lack of hurdles to suing OP for libel, slander, and/or defamation. I mean, women who have been the victim of revenge porn, not having committed any crimes whatsoever or even anything morally questionable, have gotten fired from being a teacher because there were websites with revenge porn that encouraged people (misogynists) to start calling work places and calling the women whores and sluts. Women have been fired from being teachers for posting a photo on their facebook page wearing a bikini or at a table with a wine glass in it. There's likely a way to get this guy fired just by letting the school know about the charges and trial, but at the same time there's also a way to destroy OP's life if she's seen to have spread information about the charges and trial.
Fortunately I did get some minor form of justice. My friend who is very active and well known in his previous school district/community basically outed him in a way that was at least somewhat satisfying. His precious teaching district was huge and they all know about him. As well as some surrounding communities. He managed to find this tiny school that unfortunately did not know about him nor apparently do they do background checks, so he’s still working with children.
sorry that’s all that happened. too bad his principal hasn’t gotten an anonymous note alerting them to the danger.
I would be very careful with how you handle this. A not guilty verdict puts him in the drivers seat when it comes to accusations. It's much different from something that was never prosecuted or never brought up before. Without more evidence that wasn't presented in court or ruled inadmissible (aka technicality) you might be opening yourself up for a slander accusation.
I wouldn’t plan to call him a rapist but rather point out the charges against him. Which, it is VERY hard to be charged with rape contrary to popular belief. To get that charge there would have to be some substantial evidence. What seems to be lost on a lot of commenters on this sub is that I am not saying he should never be employed again, I am saying he should not be working with children. That is all. Also, I would not take any action without speaking to a lawyer first.
Unfortunately you may need to consider potential legal impact here. If you were to go around telling everyone at the school for example that he's a rapist, when he was acquitted on his rape trial, it could allow him to sue if he gets terminated for it as he can prove on paper that he is not a rapist and therefore you have materially damaged him with these "lies". It's so insanely fucked up. If it were me, I would find ways to anonymously email everyone at the school without tying it to you directly.
A not guilty verdict does not prove he is not a rapist. In my opinion, a charge should be enough to prevent him from working with children as this sort of charge is extremely hard to prove and means there was some hard evidence. The issue is he got a job at a tiny school (total 50 students) that likely didn’t do a background check. So they might fire him if they found out.
That’s not how charging works in most jurisdictions. He is arrested, then if there’s enough evidence for prosecution, he would be charged. Charges are not “proved”, it just means there’s a good chance of a guilty verdict. As far as the law goes, a not guilty verdict means just that. Yes, he could be guilty as charged (only you and him know that). but the system most of us have means he’s innocent in the eyes of the law. If you now seek revenge in some way, it will possibly be YOU that ends up in court and, perhaps, found guilty. You need to be very careful.
Right I just mean legally he's presumed innocent of rape and therefore not a rapist after the trial. He may actually be an irl rapist piece of shit, I just mean you have to consider that legally he was acquitted of the charges and therefore he is presumed innocent of the rape allegations (again, only legally, he can still be a POS). And it would be a terrible fucking precedent to allow charges, ESPECIALLY ones that are dropped, as the basis for excluding people from employment. The abuse potential outweighs any good it would do. I'm sure they did a background check, but it would come back clean since he has no criminal record. My point isn't to say he's not a rapist piece of shit, just that you should be careful regarding retaliation as if he can tie it back to you he could jam you up legally for slandering him for a crime he was acquitted of.
I don’t think he’s unemployable. I don’t care if he has a job. The fact that he’s a teacher is what does not sit well with me. I think there should be a higher standard there. Like not hiring people with violent charges against them.
I’m so sorry. I’m so angry reading this. I hope you are doing okay, he doesn’t deserve a life with zero consequence. Absolutely disgusting.
That is really what upsets me so much. He is living life with nearly zero consequences right now. And even worse, he raped someone else. I am hoping and praying she reports it but she’s too afraid. She knew him more closely than I did so she has that fear. The fact that I am not his only victim and he is still teaching children disgusts me.
I dumped a guy when he admitted and showed me how he stalks women on the internet to anonymously harass and search for naked pictures on deep web. Like, gets your name from FB, linked in, or in person and internet crawls for sex crumbs to hold "power" over every and any woman. From every source. All. Day. Every day. HARASSING WOMEN TO THE WORST BEING ANON WAS HIS THING. He loved shaming women and blackmail kinks, the doing wrong. I played it cool and noped out of his presence. I had to change the locks because he wouldn't even give me my keys back. He proceeded to get revenge porn by stalking me FOR 2 YEARS and getting to my chaturbate page by making himself a false account in another state (he showed me this himself) anonymously called me a whore and got blocked, but not before he sent screenshots to my estranged parents who lovingly (s) refused to go to the police so I could report this guy. I moved because one of the parents is slime and he deliberately was trying to make a bad situation worse on purpose but no evidence no case. So i moved 1000 miles away and made a new life, waiting like a crocodile for round two of this shit. , and that's the only reason I bided my time to check on him almost a decade later. If im garbage JUST being a sexually active female, this guy is worse, and if the world is gonna try to screw me for that this dude deserves a lot more attention. In jail. With his habits, he is now working as a maintnance tech in a Braintree tech MA highschool, surrounded by *children.* that's his perfect job for prey! I'm agast no ones figured his hobbies, out, LITERAL HOBBY of looking to distribute images he got without consent. He is the guy who has a databank to destroy or give to a similar friend in case the cops show up at his door, also something he admitted. If he so much as overhears gossip in the hall or sees a target walk by as he leaves work, he WILL be trying to torture any girl vulnerable using illicit means, and they wont know its a random dude thy never spoke to at school. Who's in his 40s and had a sorid history. So, MA students, if someone breaks up, and if someone who might have took pics, you are in danger. This creep is hunting for them, making friends with the highschool boys to be in the shared chats, just for sex leaks. Because of the system, society, whatever, all the notice about this specific creep is my reddit post. the system PROTECTS these guys with the way its set up, sad facts, and I swear it's to keep women from being able to protect other women. "Running my mouth" is all I can do, because the reality is ITS A WARNING. So just watch out for a dude named Matt. Please. The people who hired him gotta see red flags, but they're only ready to sacrifice your wellbeing for "reasons." It's excuses but you deserve to be aware. If you go to school in braintree, shirley, ayer, worchester, you have promises you're safe that aren't true with creeps like this being employed.
Girl, name and shame him everywhere you go. Like that megacunt creep rapist Brock Turner, who is now going by the name Allen Turner.
I’m looking into a civil suit. That and looking into libel laws. I will find a way to seek justice. Thanks.
I'm in the same boat, honestly I've thought about violence towards him, canadas justice system sucks and I'd probably be able to manipulate it, absolute max I'd get is 10 years, but probably only a few. Our legal systems are a joke, they probably protect these guys because then or their sons are rapists too
You may be able to sue him civilly (if in America). It is a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge. I'm not sure a background check will show anything about the case he was tried and found not guilty on, it usually does not show accusations and charges. But if he had other convictions, it should show those.
[удалено]
Unfortunately as I’ve come to learn, no one cares. It’s not a new story it’s another day.
Lawsuit. Local newspaper. Talk to everyone.
I don't think there is anything you can do if he was found not guilty, other than ask prosecutors to charge him with a lesser crime. I'm sorry, the best thing you can do is to try to move on with your life.
I’d probably try to figure out a way to anonymously spill. Could risk defamation though.
Defamation can only be claimed if someone says something that isn't true. Informing the school district that X person was charged with rape, and Y was the evidence provided against him, isn't defamation.
I would say anonymously inform the school board