Tuesday, March 20, 2012

He said/she said rape claim dropped, accused sues accuser

An unnamed 20-year-old female undergraduate at the College of William and Mary claimed that in the early morning hours of October 15, 2011, she was raped in a campus residence hall by a 27-year-old male undergraduate and Iraq War veteran named Jeffrey B. Weaver.

According to the criminal complaint, the accuser told the police that she and the accused walked from the College Delly to her dorm room at around 1:45 a.m. When they arrived, she said, the two spent time kissing before she asked him to leave. She claimed that all she wanted to do was kiss. She asked him to leave, she said, but he would not get off of her. According to the police report, the woman said that Mr. Weaver physically overpowered and raped her, then departed.

Mr. Weaver maintains he had consensual sex with the woman and that she provided him with a condom. After about 10 minutes she said she didn’t want to continue, and Mr. Weaver says he stopped.  He claims the accuser changed her story multiple times after reporting the encounter. He claims the accuser told a friend “at first, I kinda said yes,” then changed her mind.  Moreover, he says, details about the alleged attack also changed.  In nurse’s notes from Riverside Hospital where a rape examination took place, he says the woman said Mr. Weaver retrieved his own condom from his pocket, whereas, at Mr. Weaver’s bond hearing in October, the accuser said she gave a condom to him.  Mr. Weaver alleges the woman provided false testimony in hearings to get him expelled from the college.

One news report, posted online just three days after the alleged incident, described the encounter in terms that led readers to believe it was a definite rape:

▲"The Virginia Gazette reported the perpetrator to be Jeffrey B. Weaver, a 27-year-old undergraduate student." (In fact, the online report from the October 18, 2011 Virginia Gazette did not report that Mr. Weaver was "the perpetrator." It only said that Mr. Weaver had been "charged" and was a "suspect," although it did refer to the accuser as "victim.")

▲"It is likely that Weaver will now be dismissed from the College in light of the 2011 Campus Safety Report, which instituted serious consequences for those whose actions were in breach of the sexual misconduct policy."

▲"This shocking incident adds to current statistics at the College that show that five percent of students have experienced rape or attempted rape in the last year, raising questions about campus safety."

In January 2012, charges against Mr. Weaver were dropped. According to Commonwealth Attorney Maureen Kufro, after reviewing the evidence of the case and consulting with the alleged victim, the decision was made to not prosecute. Kufro would not elaborate on the specific reasons for dropping the charges.

Now, Mr. Weaver has filed a civil action accusing the 20-year-old woman of knowingly giving false information to police and health care workers, and repeating it to college officials while seeking to have him removed as a student at W&M.

The suit accuses the accuser of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. It seeks $5 million in compensatory damages, plus interest and court costs. He also seeks $350,000 on each count. Further, the suit emphasizes that the woman’s statements led to media coverage. He lists more than a dozen print, TV and Internet accounts of the story, which caused him to become depressed and withdrawn, and his hair began to fall out.

It would be most unusual if this accuser has the ability to pay a sizable judgment entered against her.

Despite the fact that the allegations of the complaint represent Mr. Weaver's assertions and there has been no adjudication, some readers assume they know the truth.  The comments beneath news story include the following: "Good for him, I hope he wins and I'm a female . . .." And: "FINALLY...it appears that the 'tables are turned' towards JUSTICE and what will eventually be the TRUTH!" And: "These girls think they can get a man all worked up then change their mind. Then ruin a mans life. . . . ." (The last comment is curious, given that women are entitled to "change their minds" during the act.)

Isn't it curious that so many people seem to know what happened based on the word of just one party?

Links
http://www.dogstreetjournal.com/story/4799

http://flathatnews.com/2011/10/21/76003/

http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/10/17/news/doc4e9ca0a7157f7159064569.txt

http://www.andanh.com/watch/p1/flathat.wm.edu

10 comments:

  1. This case is very interesting and I definitely will be watching to see how it turns out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ours is a culture for jumping to conclusions when it comes to rape claims.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "she provided him with a condom."

    "at Mr. Weaver’s bond hearing in October, the accuser said she gave a condom to him."


    Which seems to me to be an even more positive affirmation of consent than even just saying "yes".

    And, it seems that Mr Weaver even ceased in the consensual sexual activity when she asked him to do so.

    This guy did things the way that young men are told they should.

    He used a condom at her request, and he stop when she asked him to. And yet, he gets accused of rape.

    To me, this one begs an uncomfortable question:

    Given that she had condoms on hand (indicating that she was already "sexually active"), and that she invited him to her place (where she had condoms on hand), and that she asked him to wear the condom that she provided [all of which point towards not just her consent, but her proactive pursuit of sex, IMHO]; that she subsequently asked him to stop after about 10 minutes, and then accused him of rape, almost seems to me to suggest that her assessment of the act as rape revolved around her seeming lack of satisfaction with that sexual encounter.

    I hate to put it this way, but is sounds like her position can be summed up as: "You were an inadequate lover, therefor I consider it to have been rape"

    Sort of along the lines of the "What do you mean you're not Jewish? You raped me by not being Jewish" criterion used by that Israeli (sex-posi slut) women who banged a guy she had just met, and then found out that he wasn't Jewish (something that if it was so important to her, she should have asked about beforehand).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh how delicious. Please keep an eye on this one Mr Werner. I have looked over your links and seen nothing on any suit brought against W & M. In my opinion they are as culpable and should not get off scott free. As a matter of fact who ever made the decision to expel(or attempt) to expel him should be outed as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scatmaster - "I have looked over your links and seen nothing on any suit brought against W & M. In my opinion they are as culpable and should not get off scott free. As a matter of fact who ever made the decision to expel(or attempt) to expel him should be outed as well."

    I would imagine that he will not have legal grounds to file suit against eh school unless and until he is actually expelled.

    But, given that he has the stones to go after his accuser for liable to the tune of $5M, do you really think that he would let W&M off the hook if they don't wise up and allow him to continue his education there?

    There have been a few case of late in which wrongly expelled students shave gone after the school. I think (or at least I hope) that these schools are starting to take notice.

    What I see as being key in this case is that the report of rape was made to police, as opposed to "keeping it in-house" within one of those kangaroo-court tribunals.

    Had she not gone to police, the telling facts such as her having provided the condom, his having stopped when asked, and her ever-changing story might not have even been considered in following the DOEd's "Dear Colleague" guidelines.

    Law Enforcement has had a dubious history when it comes to handling rape allegations, but, when they do it right, they tend to to turn up important facts and evidence that the college tribunals have neither the will nor the resources to even try to investigate.

    Despite their the errors of the past, it seems that more and more PD's are starting to figure out that proper police investigations are always the correct course of action - even when the alleged crime is rape. And, significantly, they seem to be asking tougher questions of accusers, which often trip them up, and lead to admissions that they lied about the incident. You know full well that no college tribunal is ever going to ask one single "tough question" of a woman making an allegation against a man.

    I believe that any guy in college who finds himself accused of a rape he knows he didn't commit should insist that since he's being a accused of a felony crime, that the police (the real police, not the campus police) must be notified and allowed to investigate BEFORE he is brought before the schools tribunal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have had more than enough of keeping the accuser anonymous.

    If you want to make allegations based on nothing more than your word that can destroy someone's life you should at least have to put your name behind them

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no problems with withholding the accuser's name, provided that the accused's name is also withheld until after a court has made a decision. This would prevent vigilante crimes, and convictions in the public theatre.

    If the accused is found guilty then I see no reason to continue to withhold the name. If however the accused in found not guilty then the name should be sealed away and never revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Have to agree, both accuser and accused should remain anonymous.

    Also, the intent of a $5M claim is to garnish her wages and force her to pay it off monthly for the rest of her life. Sound outrageous?

    It's just reverse alimony.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's be realistic.

    In the united states there is NO WAY the media would ever keep an alleged rapist's name anonymous...it's way too profitable for them to put his name and face all over their networks.

    Just imaging the Duke boy's or Big Ben or David Copperfield not being named! Yeah right!

    So as long as they are putting his name and face on every newspaper and news show (which will be from now until the sun turns to ice) they should also have to name the person who is making these accusations.

    If someone broke into my house and stabbed me and set me on fire my name would be in the media. But if I allegedly grabbed a girl's butt at the bar her name would be withheld....makes zero sense.

    However I totally agree with the idea that if you are keeping the alleged victim anonymous then you should keep the alleged perpetrator anonymous also... it will just never happen. Also leads to having sort of a secret trial.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have stated this before in the past. In my opinion, the only way to effect any change in relation to false rape allegations is for the wrongly accused to start "fighting" back like this gentleman.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.