People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[Paint_Party]

Ah, well, I didn’t know Scott Reid was so well versed in Safe Sport and associated issues. Good for him!

[La-LaPopRider]

@Paint_Party

Despite the confidentiality of Safe Sport documents, is it possible that one of the Jane Does had copies of, or access to, some of the documents related to her SS case, and she shared them with the OC Register reporter?

100%
SafeSport has made MANY huge errors. When they do, it is chalked up to this: “sorry, it was clerical error.” It would be very easy for one of the Jane Doe’s to have received copies of SS documents “in error,” which would then make them non confidential.

Much earlier in this thread, I mentioned that USEF protects its “higher ups,” and their close buddies and they all are represented by 1 attorney. Howard Jacobs. SafeSport is afraid to take on Jacobs & Jacobs is well funded by a certain board member’s “sponsor.” (More there… but not for this thread) That sponsor is a huge donor to “developing dressage,” and likely a big contributor to “Private Donors of Wellington,” LLC. Money (and I mean upwards of 500 k annually by one single donor alone kinda money) is given directly to USEF (not USDF- interestingly) and helps keep Jacobs on the permanent payroll. This, combined with the numerous mistakes made by SafeSport, would surely end in a lawsuit here.

I would almost guarantee SafeSport told the Jane Doe’s they did not need to participate in the arbitration bc, they (SS) “had all the testimony and evidence needed to proceed to arbitration without the actual participation of the Jane Doe’s.” Now, if this were the case- and I fully believe it was- why would the Jane Doe’s want to relive their experiences? They wouldn’t. This gives SafeSport the literal perfect excuse to lift the ban, blame it on the “non participation,” of the women, (women, who believed this would all be “confidential,” under SS’s “rules,”) and save themselves from having to go up against Howard Jacobs, and hope like hell it all goes away. I’d bet anything SafeSport nor the McDonald’s saw this lawsuit coming.

I have no doubt in my mind the alleged victims were provided incorrect information by SafeSport. And, Safesport’s constant unwillingness to admit when huge mistakes have been made by their “investigators,” would be a major turn off for the Jane Doe’s and severely discourage trust in the “SafeSport process.” SafeSport hasn’t an Internal Affairs office. They answer to no one. (Except Congress.) And, incidentally, the McDonald’s believe they should also have to answer to no one. These Jane Doe’s were never “going away.” This news could not be less surprising to myself and others- but- I’m betting SafeSport, USEF & R/DMD are in legit panic mode. As they should be.

[BITSA]

@La-LaPopRider

I would almost guarantee SafeSport told the Jane Doe’s they did not need to participate in the arbitration bc, they (SS) “had all the testimony and evidence needed to proceed to arbitration without the actual participation of the Jane Doe’s.” Now, if this were the case- and I fully believe it was- why would the Jane Doe’s want to relive their experiences? They wouldn’t. This gives SafeSport the literal perfect excuse to lift the ban, blame it on the “non participation,” of the women, (women, who believed this would all be “confidential,” under SS’s “rules,”) and save themselves from having to go up against Howard Jacobs, and hope like hell it all goes away. I’d bet anything SafeSport nor the McDonald’s saw this lawsuit coming.

I have no doubt in my mind the alleged victims were provided incorrect information by SafeSport. And, Safesport’s constant unwillingness to admit when huge mistakes have been made by their “investigators,” would be a major turn off for the Jane Doe’s and severely discourage trust in the “SafeSport process.” SafeSport hasn’t an Internal Affairs office. They answer to no one. (Except Congress.) And, incidentally, the McDonald’s believe they should also have to answer to no one. These Jane Doe’s were never “going away.” This news could not be less surprising to myself and others- but- I’m betting SafeSport, USEF & R/DMD are in legit panic mode. As they should be.

Or some of the survivors have their own documents that they freely shared with the reporter; maybe they wanted the individual publicly outed because SS is so private?? Just another theory.

[LexInVA]

A more plausible theory is that one Jane Doe was simply going around asking other potential victims that they knew to be students of BM. It is normal that an investigator of sex crimes - particularly those that are a result of social engineering/grooming - would ask someone if they knew of any other potential victims and ask that person to reach out to potential victims to come forward and participate. Due to the lack of available and open documentation about students/clients/etc., the only way to find potential victims of BM is to get the word out and see who is willing to come forward. That would certainly explain why there was an unusual amount of “quiet discussion” with this particular case, before it went wide open. Said Jane Doe (or other) could have furnished their documents to the reporter after the SS sanction came down.

[trubandloki]

@LexInVA

A more plausible theory is that one Jane Doe was simply going around asking other potential victims that they knew to be students of BM.

This is the first thing that came to mind for me.
Jane Doe knows that Julie Doe also trained with the same person that was their abuser so Jane Doe asks Julie Doe if she too was abused.

Though conspiracy theories are more interesting to read.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@La-LaPopRider

I would almost guarantee SafeSport told the Jane Doe’s they did not need to participate in the arbitration bc, they (SS) “had all the testimony and evidence needed to proceed to arbitration without the actual participation of the Jane Doe’s.” Now, if this were the case- and I fully believe it was- why would the Jane Doe’s want to relive their experiences? They wouldn’t. This gives SafeSport the literal perfect excuse to lift the ban, blame it on the “non participation,” of the women, (women, who believed this would all be “confidential,” under SS’s “rules,”) and save themselves from having to go up against Howard Jacobs, and hope like hell it all goes away. I’d bet anything SafeSport nor the McDonald’s saw this lawsuit coming.

In this case, I think actually the problem was between the SafeSport investigator and the victims. I haven’t gone back and re-read the OC Register article, but I seem to recollect that the SafeSport investigator’s notes didn’t match the victims stories (there was an implication of poor work by the investigator), and the victims were upset about this, and nervous that if they participated in the arbitration, the discrepancies could be used by McDonald to get his ban overturned, and there would be an established record of details that didn’t align with the true facts of their abuse, and it might impact later litigation. So the victims declined to cooperate with the arbitration, and SafeSport dropped the complaint against McDonald. But apparently… the original error lay with how SafeSport documented things in this case.

It’s still a bit vague to me, but that’s what I seem to recollect. I hope the plaintiffs attorneys have closed the loop on whatever went wrong with the first SafeSport case, so that McDonald can now be held accountable, if the evidence meets the standard of proof.

This case has been messy for sure though. And in my opinion, it has seemed unwise for USDF to have continued to employ Debbie as an advisor, as Bob was never actually “cleared.” It’s sad, but there seems to be something to this case, and it is tied to Debbie. No way around it.

[Ghazzu]

It is amazing how easily some people can spin an entire conspiracy theory out of a very few bits of information.
Interesting pattern.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

I agree with most of what you say, but not that USDF should have fired Debbie. Debbie was not part of the original SS accusations against Bob, and even the original SS case against Bob was closed.
I don’t think it would be appropriate for USDF to fire or otherwise sanction Debbie for guilt by association with Bob, especially when the case against Bob was dropped.
Debbie met Bob at 14, and was working for him while still a minor, wasn’t she? If they got engaged when she was no longer a minor (age 20), her working and romantic relationship from 14 to 20 was all during a period when there was an age and power imbalance, so, despite the fact that she married him, the entire 6 year period was a relationship that SS would sanction him for if it happened today.
If, when Debbie was 17 (the time at which Bob is accused of starting the abuse of age 14 Doe 2018), Debbie was in the midst of a power imbalance sexual relationship with Bob, then in what sense is she responsible for or capable of protecting other minors from the predatory behavior? Ultimately, she married the guy. But if she hadn’t, she would be in the exact role of another Jane Doe victim.
It’s almost like trying to hold Jane Doe 2018 responsible for what happened to Jane Doe 2019. Not quite, but almost.

[hoopoe]

Or did SS drop their case because the Doe’s brought their case to the courts?

As far as Debbies role in @CurrentlyHorseless scenario. If Debbie was acting as an assistant trainer at age 17 then there is the power imbalance as defined by SS. If she was in some way employed by BM in some management role her position shifts from potential victim to associate

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I agree with most of what you say, but not that USDF should have fired Debbie. Debbie was not part of the original SS accusations against Bob, and even the original SS case against Bob was closed.
I don’t think it would be appropriate for USDF to fire or otherwise sanction Debbie for guilt by association with Bob, especially when the case against Bob was dropped.
Debbie met Bob at 14, and was working for him while still a minor, wasn’t she? If they got engaged when she was no longer a minor (age 20), her working and romantic relationship from 14 to 20 was all during a period when there was an age and power imbalance, so, despite the fact that she married him, the entire 6 year period was a relationship that SS would sanction him for if it happened today.
If, when Debbie was 17 (the time at which Bob is accused of starting the abuse of age 14 Doe 2018), Debbie was in the midst of a power imbalance sexual relationship with Bob, then in what sense is she responsible for or capable of protecting other minors from the predatory behavior? Ultimately, she married the guy. But if she hadn’t, she would be in the exact role of another Jane Doe victim.
It’s almost like trying to hold Jane Doe 2018 responsible for what happened to Jane Doe 2019. Not quite, but almost.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I am undecided on whether I think it’s reasonable or fair for Debbie to be named in the civil suit, and for anyone to have expected that a 20 something year old Debbie should have prevented Bob from engaging in private criminal behavior, way back when.

My opinion on the wisdom of Debbie and USDF severing ties goes back to the statements made by both Bob and Debbie in the aftermath of his SafeSport case being dropped. Bottom line, Bob publicly claimed that he was “cleared” by SafeSport, and that’s why they dropped the case and failed to follow through on arbitration. Reporting indicates that was not true… the case was dropped because of technical problems, and SafeSport and the victims didn’t want to go through with arbitration, and arrive at a final decision given the known issues.

Debbie had a carefully crafted public statement in the wake of Bob’s SafeSport ban being withdrawn. It seemed like it was written by a professional PR person, or a lawyer… which is fine, and understandable. She didn’t go so far as to say he was cleared… but, she clearly stood by her husband.

I don’t begrudge her that decision… I am not standing in her shoes. But… it’s a clear example of an equivocation on the part of a key person in leadership with a governing body, on a SafeSport issue. I think that’s a problem. And I think it would be wise for the governing body and Debbie to cordially part ways, and for Debbie to just do her own private coaching business at this point.

That’s just how I see it. It’s not about Debbie deserving any sort of punishment for Bob’s actions… it’s about the governing bodies needing to present a clear, consistent message on zero tolerance for sexual abuse in sport. Even when it comes to beloved people, who are at the top of the sport, and stuff having occurred long ago. That excuse has been made over and over again. I think the governing bodies need to be careful not to inadvertently legitimize that particular point of view with regard to the sexual abuse of minor athletes. It’s a really fine line.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@hoopoe

Or did SS drop their case because the Doe’s brought their case to the courts?

As far as Debbies role in @CurrentlyHorseless scenario. If Debbie was acting as an assistant trainer at age 17 then there is the power imbalance as defined by SS. If she was in some way employed by BM in some management role her position shifts from potential victim to associate

SS dropped their case before the civil suit got going. Here’s a more basic breakdown of how events unfolded:

1. SS first announced a lifetime ban for McDonald.

2. McDonald responded that he would challenge the ban via the arbitration process.

3. Issues with how the SafeSport investigator conducted the investigation were identified, and rather than pursuing arbitration (which would have resulted in a final decision), SafeSport decided to “administratively close” the case, which preserved the option of reopening it, and handing down a ban to Bon at a later time. The SS ban against McDonald was then lifted.

4. McDonald made public statements declaring he had been “cleared” with respect to this complaint.

5. In February of 2021, SafeSport’s official spokesman went on the record with the OC Register and stated that he had NOT been cleared, and that the case had only been administratively closed, but could be reopened later.

6. Later in 2021, A civil suit against Bob and Debbie McDonsld is filed by the Jane Does involved in this situation.

I went back and found the OC Register article that came out in February about this case, and linked it. It’s incredibly thorough… a really sad read.

SafeSport documents detail sexual abuse allegations against horse trainer Bob...

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@hoopoe

Or did SS drop their case because the Doe’s brought their case to the courts?

As far as Debbies role in @CurrentlyHorseless scenario. If Debbie was acting as an assistant trainer at age 17 then there is the power imbalance as defined by SS. If she was in some way employed by BM in some management role her position shifts from potential victim to associate

My understanding is that SS wanted to defend their lifetime ban of McDonald by going through the arbitration phase, but decided that they couldn’t because the two Does decided not to testify. As VirginiaHorseMom suggests, the Does’ decision not to participate may have been related to their desire to bring a civil case.

Whether DM was a student, working student, or assistant trainer at ages 16 to 20, she was in a situation of power imbalance with respect to BM. I don’t see how the aspect of power imbalance goes way if she is the assistant trainer.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Whether DM was a student, working student, or assistant trainer at ages 16 to 20, she was in a situation of power imbalance. I don’t see how the aspect of power imbalance goes way if she is the assistant trainer.

I agree with this. I find the whole case really sad.

[vxf111]

This was my assumption too. The Jane Does know what they shared with SS and may have also shared that and those specific documents with Reid.

[vxf111]

When you meet with a whistleblower you often ask “who else should I talk to?” or “who else can corroborate these details?” Your goal is to find out what that person knows and to exhaust his/her knowledge, not to encourage that whistleblower to go contact other victims and do his/her own legwork. But in an effort to be helpful and bolster the case, that’s what some whistleblowers will do. So you really have to be clear about expectations leaving the interview. It’s quite possible that the SS investigator was not clear about boundaries and/or Jane Doe 1 didn’t understand or care and contacted Jane Doe 2 anyway.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I agree with most of what you say, but not that USDF should have fired Debbie. Debbie was not part of the original SS accusations against Bob, and even the original SS case against Bob was closed.
I don’t think it would be appropriate for USDF to fire or otherwise sanction Debbie for guilt by association with Bob, especially when the case against Bob was dropped.
Debbie met Bob at 14, and was working for him while still a minor, wasn’t she? If they got engaged when she was no longer a minor (age 20), her working and romantic relationship from 14 to 20 was all during a period when there was an age and power imbalance, so, despite the fact that she married him, the entire 6 year period was a relationship that SS would sanction him for if it happened today.
If, when Debbie was 17 (the time at which Bob is accused of starting the abuse of age 14 Doe 2018), Debbie was in the midst of a power imbalance sexual relationship with Bob, then in what sense is she responsible for or capable of protecting other minors from the predatory behavior? Ultimately, she married the guy. But if she hadn’t, she would be in the exact role of another Jane Doe victim.
It’s almost like trying to hold Jane Doe 2018 responsible for what happened to Jane Doe 2019. Not quite, but almost.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I am undecided on whether I think it’s reasonable or fair for Debbie to be named in the civil suit, and for anyone to have expected that a 20 something year old Debbie should have prevented Bob from engaging in private criminal behavior, way back when.

My opinion on the wisdom of Debbie and USDF severing ties goes back to the statements made by both Bob and Debbie in the aftermath of his SafeSport case being dropped. Bottom line, Bob publicly claimed that he was “cleared” by SafeSport, and that’s why they dropped the case and failed to follow through on arbitration. Reporting indicates that was not true… the case was dropped because of technical problems, and SafeSport and the victims didn’t want to go through with arbitration, and arrive at a final decision given the known issues.

Debbie had a carefully crafted public statement in the wake of Bob’s SafeSport ban being withdrawn. It seemed like it was written by a professional PR person, or a lawyer… which is fine, and understandable. She didn’t go so far as to say he was cleared… but, she clearly stood by her husband.

I don’t begrudge her that decision… I am not standing in her shoes. But… it’s a clear example of an equivocation on the part of a key person in leadership with a governing body, on a SafeSport issue. I think that’s a problem. And I think it would be wise for the governing body and Debbie to cordially part ways, and for Debbie to do her own private coaching business at this point.

That’s just how I see it. It’s not about Debbie deserving any sort of punishment for Bob’s actions… it’s about the governing bodies needing to present a clear, consistent message on zero tolerance for sexual abuse in sport. Even when it comes to beloved people, who are at the top of the sport, and stuff having occurred long ago. That excuse has been made over and over again. I think the governing bodies need to be careful not to inadvertently legitimize that particular point of view with regard to the sexual abuse of minor athletes. It’s a really fine line.

When SS dropped the case because it couldn’t go through with the arbitration, of course BM is going to send out a press release saying he’s been cleared. As I recall, SS said at the time, ‘We stand by the investigation (we still think you’re deserving of the sanction), but we’re closing the case because we can’t prove it.’ It will be interesting to see if SS reopens the case now that the Does are willing to participate in the arbitration. Or is that route closed because of a double jeopardy consideration?

Re: the position of USDF: I don’t think it’s a “fine line”, I think it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If the civil case against Debbie is successful, she’s toast. But up until now, there have been no accusations against her, and even now I find the accusations against her very troubling, given that her role at the time was so parallel to that of the victims.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It will be interesting to see if SS reopens the case now that the Does are willing to participate in the arbitration. Or is that route closed because of a double jeopardy consideration?

Re: the position of USDF: I don’t think it’s a “fine line”, I think it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If the civil case against Debbie is successful, she’s toast. But up until now, there have been no accusations against her, and even now I find the accusations against her very troubling, given that her role at the time was so parallel to that of the victims.

ETA: actually, I just reread the COTH article, and @CurrentlyHorseless is right, the two Does have apparently indicated they are now willing to testify in a SafeSport arbitration process. Good for them. I hope they get some measure of closure from both proceedings.

Clarification… there is no indication that the two Jane Does are willing to participate in a SafeSport arbitration process right now. Their civil suit against Bob and Debbie McDonald is a completely separate matter, that is moving through our civil court system.

The SafeSport case against Bob McDonald remains “administratively closed.” Apparently, SafeSport can reopen it at any time, and then hand down a lifetime ban against Bob… at which point Bob could potentially decide he wants to pursue the arbitration process again. At that time, SafeSport might feel confident about the ban being upheld, if there is already a civil judgement on the record, against Bob, for these allegations. I believe the burden of proof I’m a SafeSport matter is the same as that required by a civil action… a preponderance of the evidence.

Of course, if the civil case against Debbie is successful, she’s gone. But what if it is only successful against Bob? Debbie and Bob are married… their business interests have always been joint. And therein lies the challenge. This issue is coming up over and over and over in SafeSport cases… what happens when a business is jointly held by a married couple. In the case of the Fellers, Shelly harassed complainants and interfered with the investigation, and all that earned her a SafeSport penalty of her own. In the case of the Campfs, that Shelley apparently transferred their joint business into her name only back in spring of 2021, before he was banned… which is a clear indication they were anticipating a ban. So the Campf coaching business can continue on… but given that the Campfs are still married… it’s basically just a technical detail that the business is only in her name.

[vxf111]

Double jeopardy is a concept that applies to a criminal case that goes to an actual adjudication before a fact finder.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@vxf111

When you meet with a whistleblower you often ask “who else should I talk to?” or “who else can corroborate these details?” Your goal is to find out what that person knows and to exhaust his/her knowledge, not to encourage that whistleblower to go contact other victims and do his/her own legwork. But in an effort to be helpful and bolster the case, that’s what some whistleblowers will do. So you really have to be clear about expectations leaving the interview. It’s quite possible that the SS investigator was not clear about boundaries and/or Jane Doe 1 didn’t understand or care and contacted Jane Doe 2 anyway.

Sooo… you are on point with this comment. The name of the original SafeSport investigator assigned to this matter is Bruce Tucker Smith. According to Scott Reid’s interview (he works for Southern California News Group/OC Register) with Jane Doe 1 (referred to in the article by her initials, K.D.) and subsequent Feb. 2021 article:

“ “There was the article on Jimmy Williams,” K.D. said. “I saw an article on Rob Gage, both horse trainers I knew personally, worked for. I was not a victim of either one. I knew most of the women (named in the reports) and felt a moral obligation to report to SafeSport, to do a report” on McDonald.

Within weeks of Gage’s suicide, she contacted SafeSport.

The two women first met as teenagers and continued to cross paths at horse shows when they were in their 20s, but were unaware of the other’s alleged abuse by McDonald, they told SCNG. They had not been in contact since 1984 or 1985, K.D. said. When SafeSport’s Smith asked K.D. in January 2020 about other potential victims, she mentioned the other woman as a possible victim, K.D. said. Smith asked her to contact the other woman, K.D. said.

K.D. recounted to SCNG that she asked the woman if she had followed news reports about sexual abuse allegations against other high profile trainers and “then I told her I had been abused by Bob McDonald and she just lost it. She went, ‘Oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh. He did it to me too.’”

“It took years for me to really fully grasp it,” K.D. told SCNG, referring to McDonald’s alleged misconduct. “I knew by definition it could be considered statutory rape but Bob was such a salesman, I don’t know how else to put it. It’s like he played the role of what a 14-year-old would want as a (boyfriend). I had such ambivalence. At one level, I didn’t even like him, I didn’t find him attractive. I would go through things in my mind. He was balding on top. It was gross. But once I got into the situation, I didn’t know how to get out. I felt trapped.

“Horses for a young girl, especially as someone as shy as I was. That was my entire world.” “

Anyway… this, as well as other details in Reid’s article, definitely create the impression that the SafeSport investigator (Smith) could/should have done a better job handling this case. But it’s important to bear in mind that the initial complaint by Jane Doe was made at the end of 2019, and SafeSport was overwhelming with a flood of complaints then, and both understaffed and underfunding at that time.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

And, Kristin Medallion Simpson-Ferguson Hardin has publicly posted about the recent McDonald news on her Facebook page…

The post indicates she has been in contact with one of the 2 Jane Does involved. It provides more background information on why they backed away from the original SafeSport arbitration process, and gives some more background information on why Jane Doe came forward now. Really sad. I am not sure who the original attorney representing the two Jane Doe complainants was… from KMSFH’s comments, it sounds like it might have been John Manly, and he’s based in SoCal. Regardless, it sounds like they feel better represented by their current attorney… Mike Reck.

It does seem like there are a handful of attorneys whose names are coming up over and over again as representing plaintiffs or defendants in these cases (both in SafeSport processes and in civil litigation). Just interesting to note.

Anyway, here’s the text of KMSFH‘s post:

“ The Chronicle of the Horse published an article yesterday , that I shared it on my page , it details a history of abuse that happened right under everybody’s noses in Orange County

They were just some innocent kids who wanted to learn to ride and jump their horses better and trusted their trainer and those around them.

They were betrayed at every level.
Their feelings were not heard or noticed.
Their physical scars were not attended to.
They were simply pushed aside like they didn’t matter.
But they do matter and they did matter, and it does matter‼️

What happened to them was heinous evil and unforgivable.

Their lives were forever changed, their paths were redirected- what they hoped and dreamed for changed due to the acts of this very sick man.

They went on with their new redirected paths but they never forgot what happened to them.

When safe sport became available and they took that avenue, it seemed like everything was going well for them.
Initially he was “banned for life” There was enough evidence for that, but the safe sport process requires the victims to participate all the way through, which includes an arbitration at the end. The arbitration is with the perpetrator and the victims.
The process basically brings it all out into the open via a face-to-face or zoom meeting . It requires a conversation with the person who abused you , and it works conversely -some of the perpetrators are not brave enough to see their victims, either- they can’t face them in arbitration, it’s a difficult process, on both sides.
That is what happened in June 2019 with the famous case in California. The arbitration was set for a Monday and the perpetrator hung himself a few days prior. In that case more victims had come out more people that he had to face and he simply could not do it , which was really sad for both sides- and is still sad .

It seems like if you aren’t able to face what you’ve done in your life maybe you shouldn’t have done it in the first place.

These women in the Orange County case , initially hired a famous attorney help them with the Safesport process, but when they were emotionally unable to see it through, with that last arbitration, he left them at the gates of hell

in my not so humble opinion, he is not a hero as he portrays himself to be in the movie about the gymnastics scandal , which was the catalyst for Safesport.
Either that or he was completely emotionally incapable of supporting his clients when they needed him the most.

Now the women in this recent case have the support of attorney who is dedicated to child victims’ rights.
He is helping change the world.
He is helping, with his team, to stop the legacy and cycle of abuse, that so many people got used to, and were afraid to address.

These women never got used to it
How could they ? one of them was unable to have pain free intercourse or to have children, due to her physical scars , from the repeated rapes that she suffered as a child.
No court case or safe sport or jail term or amount of money will ever erase what he did to her.

I speak for her , in saying her reasons are simple , she cannot change her life but hopes that by speaking up , and reporting and filing ,and shining a bright light on the darkness, that she prays that this never happens to any other child.
She knows that that is impossible, but the steps she is taking may help.
I agree 100%

I applaud both of these women for their unwavering determination for the truth, their courage, their tenacity, and their bravery.
They will change the world, they are changing the World, and I believe the World can change one human at a time “