-
With respect to Debbie’s statement last August that used the word “cleared”, I think the statement was written by a lawyer. It was very misleading in the direction she wanted, but each individual statement was true. Very lawyerly.
-
With respect to RM’s recent statement about the newspaper story; what a disaster, he talked to a lawyer too late.
-
More importantly. You lumped the two together as “the McDonalds” and then specifically called for sanctions against Debbie for her lies.
a) Suppose, counter factually, that Debbie first met Bob at age 26, after what may or may not have happened between RM and the claimants in the early seventies, and after he was divorced, so that she is just the “normal” wife of a man accused of sexual misconduct involving minors. Legally and morally, to what extent should she be entitled to be shielded from the fallout of HIS crimes, especially if they occurred prior to their marriage? In the counter factual case in which she “was not in the picture at the time”, I think she should not be punished for his crime. Even if, as the wife, she issues a deliberately misleading, but technically true, statement.b) The new, really tragic twist is that it now looks like Debbie WAS “in the picture” in the two or three year period when the complainants were being groomed and abused. While she was training with and working for RM alongside the underage claimants, we don’t know whether she was or wasn’t a completely parallel underage victim herself. Ex post, her case is different from theirs, because she married the guy and the others didn’t, but during the years of the abuse, she may have been one of (at least) three victims.
I seem to have crossed the line into victim blaming when I used the word “flaky” to describe the fact that I thought the claimants’ refusal to testify (which seemed to have happened at the last minute) contributed to the mess. Poor choice of words. Beyond, words, though, I thought the sentiment was, “How dare you criticize (blame) the victims for anything?” [I certainly was not blaming them for having brought the abuse on themselves.]
I turn this question (well, it’s sort of an accusation) back on you: If the underage victims groomed and abused by RM was a group of young teen students, one of which was Debbie McDonald, why is it OK to blame her for the fallout 46 years down the road?
The case is now being tried in the court of public opinion, and it makes RM look really ugly. IF the arbitration had happened, I would condemn him right alongside GM, RG, etc. But, because of the actions of the claimants, however understandable, he did not get the arbitration. I still feel that his not having gotten his hearing from an independent arbitrator resulting in a prolonged limbo, and a public trial by media, is not entirely fair to him.
But my main issue is with your faulting Debbie “for her lies” and saying she should lose her USDF training role. While she is not a claimant, isn’t she a full fledged victim in this case, victimized as much as the claimants?
ETA If I were in the shoes of the claimant last August listening to the grossly misleading statements about the dropping of the case meaning he had been “cleared”, it would have annoyed me.
However, I assume that at the point that they informed SS that they were refusing to testify, SS informed them that a consequence of their decision was that SS could not uphold the ban and the abuser gets off. Of course he’s going to make statements that misleadingly say he was cleared. Numerous posters in this thread said at the time “of course this DOESN’T mean he’s cleared.”
The claimants had a choice to
- testify, despite their dissatisfaction with how SS may have mishandled the investigation, and take a shot at upholding the ban, despite personal costs to themselves, or
- not testify and thereby drop their chance to have the ban upheld.
If I were listening to him brag that he had been cleared, a big part of my annoyance would have been directed at myself for deciding not to testify.
I was the victim of a violent, stranger rape on a dark street in my early twenties. I do not equate that sexual assault with the grooming and abuse of 13 and 14 year olds. No suspect was ever identified, so I did not have the opportunity to testify against the rapist. However, if there had been a trial, I would have testified, even though I would anticipate having to answer hideously intrusive questions.
I agree that they are entitled to their decision to decline to testify. But RM falsely claiming that he had been cleared was one of the obvious consequences of that decision.
When the bombshell cancellation of the arbitration was announced, I do remember the word “closed” being used, and DON’T remember a statement that SS reserved the right to reopen the case. It’s surprising to me that they’re saying they could reopen the case now.
