Ben, Jan and Amy Ebeling Named in Sexual Assault Civil Suit

[DownYonder]

@Rubyroo

I agree that it seems like an entirely different mindset, because your parents seem similar to what we refer to today as “helicopter parents”.

Not really helicopter parents, but there were rules and expectations and we were closely monitored to make sure we toed the line. Dad was a career military officer, so that may have factored into the “discipline.” As we became older teens and had demonstrated that we exercised good judgement, the leashes were let out a little bit (not to say that I didn’t get into some high jinx of my own from time to time - although I didn’t try alcohol until I was close to graduating from high school. LOL).

[DownYonder]

FWIW, Ken Braddick states that JE is expected to compete at next week’s CDI4* in Kronberg, Germany, which I believe is the last U.S.observation event for the World Championships.

Steffen Peters, Katie Duerrhammer, Sarah Tubman and Jan Ebeling appear likely to compete and possibly Alice Tarjan.

Steffen Peters & Suppenkasper, Adrienne Lyle & Salvino Top Ranked for...

[Edited because I initially typed “BE” instead of “JE.”]

[erinmeri]

@supernatural

The person involved is now an adult. No one knows what happened except the two people involved. It’s a terrible situation but I will wait for the outcome of investigations and the findings in the Civil Trial before giving any opinions.

They may now be an adult, but they carry the trauma from their childhood. I am an adult many times over compared to this adult, and I know I do.

[SillyHorse]

For many years, starting when I was about seven, I rode at a barn with a huge lesson program with several barns and many people on staff. One of those people was the brother-in-law of the owner who we all considered to be a nice fellow and certainly no one to be afraid of. He was probably in his late 30s or early 40s.

One day, when I was about 13 or 14, I was alone in one of the barns doing something (I don’t remember exactly what) and this brother-in-law came into the barn. He engaged me in conversation and when he was close enough, he put his hands on me. I remember a moment of confusion, then fright and shame. I ran out of the barn as fast as I could.

I continued to go to that barn for several years, but made sure I was never anywhere near that man again if I could help it.

This moment, right now as I write this, close to 60 years later, is the first time I have ever told anyone about it. I felt so ashamed that I never told my parents, any of my friends, or anyone at the barn. So it’s easy for me to understand that bad things can happen to us, things that we never tell our parents.

[erinmeri]

@Maria

Just a few words about parents knowing what happens to their kids.

Nope not always. I was molested at 7 or 8 years old by my step-grandfather while visiting my grandparents in FL. I was a very sheltered child. My parents did not read the signs that I remember afterwards. I never told them. They never questioned me.

My parents are now deceased. Either they know now or they are wondering why that so called man is not around as I imagine he is rotting in hell.

I am hesitant to share this (although some of you already know). I have been sexually assaulted and raped more than once. My father had no idea. He thought I was a “wild child” and a problem, and never considered that I had experienced anything negative.

The first sexual assault I experienced was in the middle of the ocean with a surf instructor. I literally could not flee. And when it was over and time to “trade boards”, I willingly offered over my best friend to him afterwards to get away. I left a surfboard floating in the ocean and paddled for my life. I prayed he only targeted me, but when I opened the hotel room door and saw her, I knew. I am haunted to this day.

She went on to compete in BIG competitions, and we don’t talk about it. But, 30 years later, I am haunted. Parents had/have no clue,

[DownYonder]

@erinmeri

If the allegations are true, it isn’t the actions AFTER THE FACT that matter, rather it is the actions leading up to and during the act that matter.

Good point - and my initial comment was in response to someone else stating that JD may not have immediately realized what had happened. My point in that initial comment was that she would surely have realized it when BE began asking her about her period. And in a follow up comment, I mentioned that the fact that her bra was missing would have pretty much been an immediate signal that something had happened. I also commented that if she was STILL incapacitated when her parents got her home – remember they were “horrified” at her condition – that it is possible that her mother may have helped her undress and go to bed – and would have noted the missing bra.

Some folks took issue with me mentioning the missing bra and suggesting that PERHAPS her mother may have helped her undress and get into bed, and my assumption that if that had been the case, the mother would probably have noticed the missing bra. My intent was not to vilify JD or her parents, but merely to try to figure out when her parents became aware because I am hoping they became aware very early on and were there to support this girl emotionally in the ensuing years.

Again, I am not assuming JD is lying, nor am I assuming BE is guilty and I am hoping the legal system can get this sorted out so the victim(s) get justice. I am troubled though by the revelations that there may be other victims of BE - if so, things are going to go very, very badly for him (as well they should).

[IdahoRider]

And lets consider the power dynamic. Jan Ebeling rode the Rommny horses. The family as a whole might have had to struggle with questioning how someone that far up the food chain could have let his kid walk off and drink with a 14 year old girl.
Sheilah

[erinmeri]

@DownYonder

Good point - and my initial comment was in response to someone else stating that JD may not have immediately realized what had happened. My point in that initial comment was that she would surely have realized it when BE began asking her about her period. And in a follow up comment, I mentioned that the fact that her bra was missing would have pretty much been an immediate signal that something had happened. I also commented that if she was STILL incapacitated when her parents got her home – remember they were “horrified” at her condition – that it is possible that her mother may have helped her undress and go to bed – and would have noted the missing bra.

Some folks took issue with me mentioning the missing bra and suggesting that PERHAPS her mother may have helped her undress and get into bed, and my assumption that if that had been the case, the mother would probably have noticed the missing bra. My intent was not to vilify JD or her parents, but merely to try to figure out when her parents became aware because I am hoping they became aware very early on and were there to support this girl emotionally in the ensuing years.

Again, I am not assuming JD is lying, nor am I assuming BE is guilty and I am hoping the legal system can get this sorted out so the victim(s) get justice. I am troubled though by the revelations that there may be other victims of BE - if so, things are going to go very, very badly for him (as well they should).

What was alleged to have happened is horrifying. That said, I think it is in bad taste to speculate,

At the end of the day, this is an alleged sexual assault, and if any of you have not been sexually assaulted, maybe take a knee.

My point was, the alleged perpetrator and the people associated and their actions leading up to and during the alleged assault are what matter. NOT what happened afterwards.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

The parents of the alleged victim apparently did not notice the missing bra, did not go to the police or the hospital, and permitted their daughter to continue training there for “some months”. If the Ebelings are going to be sued for their casual attitude of “kids will be kids”, it seems completely pertinent to point out that the response of the victim’s parents was pretty symmetrical. Even after knowing of the underage drinking and the Ebelings attitude of “kids will be kids”, the victim’s parents continued to let her train there for “some months”. I wonder how many months.

You seem to be going to great lengths to shift hypothetical blame. The parents of the plaintiff paid money to professional coaches/trainers that they entrusted with care of their daughter. The filer of the suit is not the parents, but the (now adult, then minor child) victim. While I don’t know whether the behavior of the adult Ebelings did or did not amount to inadequate supervision, I think it is pretty low to assume that the parents of the alleged victim (who were paying clients) is “pretty symmetrical”.

This focus on the actions or inactions of the adults in the aftermath of the incident is tangential and distracts from the HUGELY disturbing allegations.

If the allegations are true, it isn’t the actions AFTER THE FACT that matter, rather it is the actions leading up to and during the act that matter. The alleged victim’s parents’ actions or inactions therefore aren’t likely of import, whereas the actions or inactions of the alleged perpetrator and his parents are, as they were business owners with an obligation to protect their clients.

I thought that advocating for victims was a large driver behind your involvement in these threads. This does not sound like victim advocacy.

Re bolded. I absolutely agree. No one has disputed this.

Remember that the suit is 1) pursuing BE for sexual battery, and 2) pursuing the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision of the teenagers. The action or inaction of the girl’s parents upon seeing their daughter after the incident is potentially relevant only for the latter, not the former.

The parent picking up the daughter knew, at a minimum, that the two teenagers had engaged in underage drinking; the girl was apparently heavily intoxicated. A discussion occurred with one or both of the Ebeling parents in which they brushed it off with “kids will be kids”. Numerous posters have provided personal testimonials as to their own historical underage drinking at about that age.

The daughter is now suing the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision. If the 14 year old’s parent, upon picking her up, was “horrified” at her condition, and learned that the Ebeling’s position was “kids will be kids” with respect to the underage drinking, then I’m just wondering why the parents permitted their daughter to return to that barn the next day, and for “some months” thereafter.

That’s what I meant by the reaction of the girl’s parents being “somewhat symmetrical” to the reaction of the Ebeling parents. They knew about the underage drinking, they knew about the “kids will be kids” attitude of the Ebelings, and they nevertheless continued the arrangement for “some months”. If the reaction of the girl’s parents was “wildly divergent” to that of the Ebeling parents upon learning of the underage drinking, I would have thought that would have been demonstrated by their not permitting their daughter to return to the same trainer at the same barn.

That’s all I said. I am not “going to great lengths to shift hypothetical blame”. I’m not blaming or shaming the 14 year old, and I’m not blaming her parents either. I’m just noting that I’m having trouble reconciling these two aspects of the case, as alleged in the suit: 1) the girl’s parents were “horrified” at her condition, intoxicated and perhaps drugged and incapacitated, and 2) they continued to leave their daughter in the exact same training relationship for “months” afterwards.

Thank you for noting that my position in “these threads” is one of pushing back on victim blaming. The poster Davignport rather bizarrely asserted that I had a “pattern” of victim shaming on “other threads”.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Re bolded. I absolutely agree. No one has disputed this.

Remember that the suit is 1) pursuing BE for sexual battery, and 2) the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision of the teenagers. The action or inaction of the girl’s parents upon seeing their daughter after the incident is potentially relevant only for the latter, not the former.

The parent picking up the daughter knew, at a minimum, that the two teenagers had engaged in underage drinking; the girl was apparently heavily intoxicated. A discussion occurred with one or both of the Ebeling parents in which they brushed it off with “kids will be kids”. Numerous posters have provided personal testimonials as to their own historical underage drinking at about that age.

The daughter is now suing the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision. If the 14 year old’s parent, upon picking her up, was “horrified” at her condition, and learned that the Ebeling’s position was “kids will be kids” with respect to the underage drinking, then I’m just wondering why the parents permitted their daughter to return to that barn the next day, and for “some months” thereafter.

That’s what I meant by the reaction of the girl’s parents being “somewhat symmetrical” to the reaction of the Ebeling parents. They knew about the underage drinking, they knew about the “kids will be kids” attitude of the Ebelings, and they nevertheless continued the arrangement for “some months”. If the reaction of the girl’s parents was “wildly divergent” to that of the Ebeling parents upon learning of the underage drinking, I would have thought that would have been demonstrated by their not permitting their daughter to return to the same trainer at the same barn.

That’s all I said. I am not “going to great lengths to shift hypothetical blame”. I’m not blaming or shaming the 14 year old, and I’m not blaming her parents either. I’m just noting that I’m having trouble reconciling these two aspects of the case, as reported in the suit: 1) the girl’s parents were “horrified” at her condition, intoxicated and perhaps drugged and incapacitated, and 2) they continued to leave their daughter in the exact same training relationship for “months” afterwards.

Thank you for noting that my position in “these threads” is one of pushing back on victim blaming. The poster Davignport rather bizarrely asserted that I had a “pattern” of victim shaming on “other threads”.

Help me understand how you are helping the victim. Your narrative is beyond bizarre. Nothing about what you have stated is in any way congruent with my beliefs.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Thank you for noting that my position in “these threads” is one of pushing back on victim blaming. The poster Davignport rather bizarrely asserted that I had a “pattern” of victim shaming on “other threads”.

And yet your behavior here is quite the opposite.

[ohmyheck]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not blaming or shaming the 14 year old, and I’m not blaming her parents either. I’m just noting that I’m having trouble reconciling these two aspects of the case, as reported in the suit: 1) the girl’s parents were “horrified” at her condition, intoxicated and perhaps drugged and incapacitated, and 2) they continued to leave their daughter in the exact same training relationship for “months” afterwards.

First of all, don’t put ‘horrified’ in quotes. It looks like you’re trying to cheapen (question?) their experience.

Secondly, you claim not to be blaming the parents but then appear to do exactly that with your list of irreconcilables.

All these tedious attempts to dissect the minutia of such an event in order to introduce vague insinuations about the family. Pretty low grade stuff.

Also, (generally) I wish the comments discussing this teen girl’s undergarments and periods would end. None of this is anybody’s business. Does it really need saying?

Class. I miss it in society.

[BigMama1]

@ASB_Stars

Once again, I am simply wondering why they didn’t have her examined at that time. And, clearly, for anyone who is reading this, it is a cautionary tale.

If they thought she had been drinking with a good friend (as he apparently was),simply had too much and got super drunk, why would they assume she needed to be examined? A lot of teenagers come home drunk and dishevelled after an evening of partying too hard at least once in their lives, and most parents wouldn’t automatically jump to the conclusion that meant they had been sexually assaulted.

If Jane wasn’t aware she’d been assaulted at the time and / or didn’t tell her parents at the time, dragging her to a doctor or hospital for an examination seems like a huge overstep and a gross invasion of privacy.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

Re bolded. I absolutely agree. No one has disputed this.

Remember that the suit is 1) pursuing BE for sexual battery, and 2) the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision of the teenagers. The action or inaction of the girl’s parents upon seeing their daughter after the incident is potentially relevant only for the latter, not the former.

The parent picking up the daughter knew, at a minimum, that the two teenagers had engaged in underage drinking; the girl was apparently heavily intoxicated. A discussion occurred with one or both of the Ebeling parents in which they brushed it off with “kids will be kids”. Numerous posters have provided personal testimonials as to their own historical underage drinking at about that age.

The daughter is now suing the Ebeling parents for inadequate supervision. If the 14 year old’s parent, upon picking her up, was “horrified” at her condition, and learned that the Ebeling’s position was “kids will be kids” with respect to the underage drinking, then I’m just wondering why the parents permitted their daughter to return to that barn the next day, and for “some months” thereafter.

That’s what I meant by the reaction of the girl’s parents being “somewhat symmetrical” to the reaction of the Ebeling parents. They knew about the underage drinking, they knew about the “kids will be kids” attitude of the Ebelings, and they nevertheless continued the arrangement for “some months”. If the reaction of the girl’s parents was “wildly divergent” to that of the Ebeling parents upon learning of the underage drinking, I would have thought that would have been demonstrated by their not permitting their daughter to return to the same trainer at the same barn.

That’s all I said. I am not “going to great lengths to shift hypothetical blame”. I’m not blaming or shaming the 14 year old, and I’m not blaming her parents either. I’m just noting that I’m having trouble reconciling these two aspects of the case, as reported in the suit: 1) the girl’s parents were “horrified” at her condition, intoxicated and perhaps drugged and incapacitated, and 2) they continued to leave their daughter in the exact same training relationship for “months” afterwards.

Thank you for noting that my position in “these threads” is one of pushing back on victim blaming. The poster Davignport rather bizarrely asserted that I had a “pattern” of victim shaming on “other threads”.

Help me understand how you are helping the victim. Your narrative is beyond bizarre. Nothing about what you have stated is in any way congruent with my beliefs.

To reiterate, I said I’m not blaming or shaming the victim. What should I do in order to “help the victim”?

Would it be “helping the victim” to prejudge the case and conduct a SM campaign that assumes BE and his parents are guilty of all the allegations in the suit? Before the jury has rendered a verdict and before any evidence or testimony has even been given?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

Thank you for noting that my position in “these threads” is one of pushing back on victim blaming. The poster Davignport rather bizarrely asserted that I had a “pattern” of victim shaming on “other threads”.

And yet your behavior here is quite the opposite.

No, it’s not. Nothing I have written here is blaming or shaming the victim.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, it’s not. Nothing I have written here is blaming or shaming the victim.

Interesting. I would disagree.

[Cowgirl]

It is sometimes easier to believe the easy explanation for what you are seeing than going to the potential horrific actual story. Also people in the USA who work as exempt (of labor laws) employees on salaries are often pushed past having any time or energy to deal with serious personal issues and might choose to believe the easy explanation initially. I am not saying this is right, just that it might be understandable why the parents let her go back, thinking the Ebelings would be aware and do better and not initially believing the worst. I myself sent a horse to be started in a very expensive fancy place and didn’t accept initially that the horse was being abused and let it go on a week longer than I should have because I was under so much stress at work that it was easier to accept the trainers’ explanations. I won’t make that mistake again and I have lost my “innocence” in believing a trainer’s word. Please don’t beat up the parents. Having never had to deal with this before, their response might be the easy one and not the perfect one.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

To me, that suggests that either it didn’t happen the way the civil suit alleges, or the evidence is not there to prove that it happened. In either case, innocent until proven guilty still applies.

You have made your opinion known. Classy!

[erinmeri]

@Cowgirl

It is sometimes easier to believe the easy explanation for what you are seeing than going to the potential horrific actual story. Also people in the USA who work as exempt (of labor laws) employees on salaries are often pushed past having any time or energy to deal with serious personal issues and might choose to believe the easy explanation initially. I am not saying this is right, just that it might be understandable why the parents let her go back, thinking the Ebelings would be aware and do better and not initially believing the worst. I myself sent a horse to be started in a very expensive fancy place and didn’t accept initially that the horse was being abused and let it go on a week longer than I should have because I was under so much stress at work that it was easier to accept the trainers’ explanations. I won’t make that mistake again and I have lost my “innocence” in believing a trainer’s word. Please don’t beat up the parents. Having never had to deal with this before, their response might be the easy one and not the perfect one.

Hi Cowgirl, please go back and look at years with regards to other threads involving this poster. I appreciate your instinct to help, but we don’t need it.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ohmyheck

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not blaming or shaming the 14 year old, and I’m not blaming her parents either. I’m just noting that I’m having trouble reconciling these two aspects of the case, as reported in the suit: 1) the girl’s parents were “horrified” at her condition, intoxicated and perhaps drugged and incapacitated, and 2) they continued to leave their daughter in the exact same training relationship for “months” afterwards.

First of all, don’t put ‘horrified’ in quotes. It looks like you’re trying to cheapen (question?) their experience.

Secondly, you claim not to be blaming the parents but then appear to do exactly that with your list of irreconcilables.

All these tedious attempts to dissect the minutia of such an event in order to introduce vague insinuations about the family. Pretty low grade stuff.

Also, (generally) I wish the comments discussing this teen girl’s undergarments and periods would end. None of this is anybody’s business. Does it really need saying?

Class. I miss it in society.

I put the word “horrified” in quotes to indicate it was a direct quote from the suit.

I’m not blaming the parents. I’m saying that by the fact that they kept the girl in training at that barn for months afterwards, that suggests to me that they were not sufficiently alarmed by the incident to remove the girl from the program. It appears that neither set of parents were aware of the alleged sexual battery at the time.