Witt Accused of Sexual Assault in NYT

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/sports/ncaafootball/at-yale-the-collapse-of-a-rhodes-scholar-candidacy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&src=twrhp

What do folks think of this article? I'm pretty uncomfortable with the lack of sources of the worst charge against him.

[Sly Fox]

I'm usually a critic of the Times but I thought they did an excellent job investigating the charges. What a sad story for all parties involved.

[Bogus Megapardus]

What a crock.

"Accused of sexual assault?" Kind of like the Duke guys? Did not the NY Times learn its lesson there? Since when does a newspaper determine that "news" consists of unsourced gossip about an "assault" that no one has reported or alleged? Worse yet, who gets to decide when it is appropriate to refer to some unseen and unannounced conduct as a "sexual assault?" A prosecutor? A jury? One of the parties to the conduct? The NY Times? May I simply choose an athlete somewhere at random an surmise that he or she is guilty of a felony because the athlete's school and family refuse to respond to my questioning about it?

I'll judge Patrick Witt only by what I see with my own eyes - which happened this past fall on Fisher Field: while accurate, he's really not all that great of a QB. He crumbles under pressure and forces ill-advised passes into coverage. But the NY Times saw nothing, possesses no facts, and did no investigation other than to make a couple of accusatory telephone calls and mimic what staffers likely gathered from their subscriptions to the Yale Daily News about the harassment policy and the fraternity situation in New Haven.

This character assassination by the NY Times, especially in the wake of the manner in which it bungled the Duke situation, is inexcusable.

[Mr. C]

What a crock.

"Accused of sexual assault?" Kind of like the Duke guys? Did not the NY Times learn its lesson there? Since when does a newspaper determine that "news" consists of unsourced gossip about an "assault" that no one has reported or alleged? Worse yet, who gets to decide when it is appropriate to refer to some unseen and unannounced conduct as a "sexual assault?" A prosecutor? A jury? One of the parties to the conduct? The NY Times? May I simply choose an athlete somewhere at random an surmise that he or she is guilty of a felony because the athlete's school and family refuse to respond to my questioning about it?

I'll judge Patrick Witt only by what I see with my own eyes - which happened this past fall on Fisher Field: while accurate, he's really not all that great of a QB. He crumbles under pressure and forces ill-advised passes into coverage. But the NY Times saw nothing, possesses no facts, and did no investigation other than to make a couple of accusatory telephone calls and mimic what staffers likely gathered from their subscriptions to the Yale Daily News about the harassment policy and the fraternity situation in New Haven.

This character assassination by the NY Times, especially in the wake of the manner in which it bungled the Duke situation, is inexcusable.

The only similarity between this and the Duke lacrosse case is both involved sex. As a journalist, who has occasionally had to properly use unnamed sources in the past, I feel like the Times did an excellent job on this story. It used multiple sources and the Times appears to have done everything the right way in terms of an unnamed-source story. There are times when the only way you can get a story is by using unnamed sources. Does anyone remember Watergate? Also, before this story ever made it to print, there had to be a high degree of confidence from the newspaper's attorneys that this was completely accurate. You don't know what evidence and what facts that the Times has that it may not have been able to use. You also have no idea of what kind of information might have been provided that was off-the-record that might have further given the reporters understanding to what happened. Unless you been a part of similar investigations, you have no idea what hoops you have to jump through at a major newspaper to get a story like this published. Mistakes like the Duke fiasco are fortunately rare in our business. I don't see ANY character assassination, randomness, or vendetta in this story. It sounds like Witt has been working on ruining his career choices for quite awhile.

I am more concerned about how Yale has responded (or not responded) to this and many other complaints.

[AmsterBison]

Dang, I was hoping this thread was going to be about a time-traveling Katerina Witt coming to our time from the 1980's to go on a Communistic sex offensive.

So much for visions of me stepping forward with a cry of, "Save yourselves, mes amis! I'll try to hold her off for as long as I can!"

[Wildcat80]

Given that this is the NYTimes, Yale, and that an "informal" process was selected.....I will assume that nothing "serious" was involved.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Re-reading this, it sure looks a lot more like the NYT is the one jumping through hoops to call this news and saying "trust us".


This account of the accusation against Witt and how it affected his Rhodes candidacy is based on interviews with a half-dozen people with knowledge of all or part of the story; they all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing matters that the institutions treat as confidential.

Yale refused to confirm or deny the existence of the complaint. “The administration very strongly believes in the confidentiality policies we have in place,” said Thomas Conroy, Yale’s chief spokesman.

Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary for the Rhodes Trust, said, “Matters relating to Rhodes scholarship selection, deliberations and decision-making have always been considered confidential.”

Many aspects of the situation remain unknown, including some details of the allegation against Witt; how he responded; how it was resolved; and whether Yale officials who handle Rhodes applications — including Richard C. Levin, the university’s president, who signed Witt’s endorsement letter — knew of the complaint.

I mean, come on. Shouldn't someone at the Times have taken one look at the four paragraphs admitting that they can't say anything, and said don't run the story? At best, it's vague. At worst, it allows the Yale president to cover up his tracks - if he, as the piece seems to be attempting to imply, is part of this supposed "cover-up". Even just one of the supposed "half-dozen" people coming clean about the allegations would made this legitimate.

The Times is saying, in effect, "Trust us! We have half a dozen people who have told us this!" And if you don't buy that central premise, the whole article comes down like a pack of cards. All the rest - his fraternity is bad! His coach lied about other stuff! He snuck into a concert at a local club! - is so tangential and irrelevant it's actually embarrassing that the Times included it.

I have no particular love for Mr. Witt, and like Bogus I was unimpressed with him athletically, against Lehigh especially. But I smell agenda with this article.

[RichH2]

Just read the article.Guess, suppositon, imagination etc etc. perhaps these people made the claimed statements but show me at least a little factual corroboration.
Having multiple people repeating a story is not in and of itself proof of the underlying facts alleged. Why print gossip?

[Ivytalk]

I think the football gods meted out appropriate punishment: 45-7.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

For what it's worth, the comments board on this article (which ran on the front page, incidentally) is filled with accusations of gossip and hearsay. One commenter compared the Times with TMZ.

[Dane96]

The only similarity between this and the Duke lacrosse case is both involved sex. As a journalist, who has occasionally had to properly use unnamed sources in the past, I feel like the Times did an excellent job on this story. It used multiple sources and the Times appears to have done everything the right way in terms of an unnamed-source story. There are times when the only way you can get a story is by using unnamed sources. Does anyone remember Watergate? Also, before this story ever made it to print, there had to be a high degree of confidence from the newspaper's attorneys that this was completely accurate. You don't know what evidence and what facts that the Times has that it may not have been able to use. You also have no idea of what kind of information might have been provided that was off-the-record that might have further given the reporters understanding to what happened. Unless you been a part of similar investigations, you have no idea what hoops you have to jump through at a major newspaper to get a story like this published. Mistakes like the Duke fiasco are fortunately rare in our business. I don't see ANY character assassination, randomness, or vendetta in this story. It sounds like Witt has been working on ruining his career choices for quite awhile.

I am more concerned about how Yale has responded (or not responded) to this and many other complaints.

I stopped reading when I saw you wrote attorneys must have thought it was accurate.

Was the Duke case accurate? Tawana Brawley? Etc.

Point being, I don't know....and frankly I don't care what or about Witt. What I will say is "journalism" is a farce and a shell of itself these days, as are the lawyers at the paper. THE ATTORNEY'S DON'T MAKE THAT FINAL SAY...IT'S THE EDITORS. All the attorney will say is, "yeah...it's not slander because you repeating what someone else is saying and you have no reason to believe your source is overtly lying."

Please...journalistic and integrity went out the window a long...long time ago (as a general notion).

[Dane96]

Re-reading this, it sure looks a lot more like the NYT is the one jumping through hoops to call this news and saying "trust us".



I mean, come on. Shouldn't someone at the Times have taken one look at the four paragraphs admitting that they can't say anything, and said don't run the story? At best, it's vague. At worst, it allows the Yale president to cover up his tracks - if he, as the piece seems to be attempting to imply, is part of this supposed "cover-up". Even just one of the supposed "half-dozen" people coming clean about the allegations would made this legitimate.

The Times is saying, in effect, "Trust us! We have half a dozen people who have told us this!" And if you don't buy that central premise, the whole article comes down like a pack of cards. All the rest - his fraternity is bad! His coach lied about other stuff! He snuck into a concert at a local club! - is so tangential and irrelevant it's actually embarrassing that the Times included it.

I have no particular love for Mr. Witt, and like Bogus I was unimpressed with him athletically, against Lehigh especially. But I smell agenda with this article.

This!

[Bogus Megapardus]

All the attorney will say is, "yeah...it's not slander because you repeating what someone else is saying and you have no reason to believe your source is overtly lying."

376 U.S. 254 (1964).

And Witt becomes a "public figure" because the NY Times made him so. It's filthy and contemptible.

[danefan]

376 U.S. 254 (1964).

And Witt becomes a "public figure" because the NY Times made him so. It's filthy and contemptible.

Well I'm not sure the Times made him a public figure. He arguably made himself a public figure through his accomplishment both on the field and off.

[RichH2]

376 U.S. 254 (1964).

And Witt becomes a "public figure" because the NY Times made him so. It's filthy and contemptible.

Well "overtly lying" is indeed part of the analysis but it does not control Court's determination , at least under NY law. Repeating slander is actionable in NY and the mere belief w/o substantially more is not a defense. That said NYT lawyers more than likely did opine something close to this but that still does not warrant the NYT publishing gossip and innuendo. This is cr*p NY Post usually throws out on Page 6 as a "credible" celebrity item.

[Dane96]

Danefan is correct on the public figure point...especially since Witt made such a big deal about denying the Rhodes Interview b/c of football. He reasonably has no expectation of privacy with this regard anymore...at least in my opinion.

However, I really think the point Bogus is trying to make is this (and forgive me for speaking out of turn if this is not what you meant):

The media is trying cases these days...not the court system. It is something that has perturbed my brain for awhile, and it started with that byotch Nancy Grace...though she is far from the only guilty party. With a rush of tv shows...and the need for viewership to increase ad dollars, everything is in the news.

While I think most lawyers are idiots for what they do with their clients, e.g. put them on T.V., in some ways I think they feel if they don't put their client on TV or go on themselves as a stead for their client then the client will be deemed guilty. I find this ironic because the whole point of not going to the stand is either strategy (bad witness...don't need the testimony to prove point) or because you have a Constiutional right not to say something that may incriminate yourself.

Being that most people are not "media" or "public speaking" savvy...most are going to get crushed in an interview.

All that aside, we have gone from a society of trials by peers and "expert" representation...to trial by media and sensationalism. I'd argue it's pretty hard to get a fair trial these days if you're story is media worthy.

Off my soapbox, you'd think the NYT would learn after YEARS...and I DO MEAN YEARS...of discredited journalists and stories infecting the bowels of that once proud paper. This story is pure sensationalitic agenda hunting. You have no real source, a girl who hasn't brought charges, and a kid who has a "past" that you can exploit ("Bobby once killed a bug crawling on his dog, he must be a criminal deviant because today we heard that someone's cat was killed...and Bobby knows her".

Good job NYT, Great Job Media in General, and a Continued Sad Day for our general society.

[Dane96]

Well "overtly lying" is indeed part of the analysis but it does not control Court's determination , at least under NY law. Repeating slander is actionable in NY and the mere belief w/o substantially more is not a defense. That said NYT lawyers more than likely did opine something close to this but that still does not warrant the NYT publishing gossip and innuendo. This is cr*p NY Post usually throws out on Page 6 as a "credible" celebrity item.

Not trying to be a dick...but I'd like some current case law that shows that if I hear that Bob was banging Suzy from John...and I tell Joe that...and I had no reason to believe John was lying (e.g., I didn't have any evidence in my possession to indicate that John's statement was pure slander) that a court would find me guilty of slander or libel.

I am pretty positive that standard is not a standard considered by any State...as it is SO OVERLY broad it's unconstitutional (Read: Freedom of Speech, which of course has it's limits...but not to the standard you lay out).

[Mr. C]

I stopped reading when I saw you wrote attorneys must have thought it was accurate.

Was the Duke case accurate? Tawana Brawley? Etc.

Point being, I don't know....and frankly I don't care what or about Witt. What I will say is "journalism" is a farce and a shell of itself these days, as are the lawyers at the paper. THE ATTORNEY'S DON'T MAKE THAT FINAL SAY...IT'S THE EDITORS. All the attorney will say is, "yeah...it's not slander because you repeating what someone else is saying and you have no reason to believe your source is overtly lying."

Please...journalistic and integrity went out the window a long...long time ago (as a general notion).

Like I said, this isn't anything like the Duke case. As an attorney, you should know the difference between libel and slander, BTW.

[Dane96]

You really didn't respond to the point I was making that journalists have jumped the shark in general. Second, I don't see how this is not similar to the Duke case other than charges were filed. In fact, it is worse than the Duke case...at least there was a legit source to lean on...an indictment.

Finally, I full well know what slander is...and libel...and in this case, it can be both.

[RichH2]

Basically libel is written slander, so throwing the words around like handgrenades doesn't mean much

[Dane96]

Who are you defining this for?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Dang, I was hoping this thread was going to be about a time-traveling Katerina Witt coming to our time from the 1980's to go on a Communistic sex offensive.

So much for visions of me stepping forward with a cry of, "Save yourselves, mes amis! I'll try to hold her off for as long as I can!"

You may be in luck AmsterBison...

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/1p1yLCGhNPEl.jpg

[Dane96]

xbeerchugx

[Wildcat80]

Witt's statement in response.

http://portal31nhr.blogspot.com/

[danefan]

Witt's statement in response.

http://portal31nhr.blogspot.com/

Confirms some of the facts in the NY Times article are correct. It also refutes others.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yale offers students both informal and formal avenues to address certain issues. An “informal” complaint is heard by a committee of university community members, but no fact-finding process occurs and there is no burden of proof required for filing a complaint. In Patrick’s case, no formal complaint was filed, no written statement was taken from anyone involved, and his request to the Chairman of the committee for a formal inquiry was denied because, he was told, there was nothing to defend against since no formal complaint was ever filed. Further, while the committee can refer an informal complaint into a formal process if more substantial disciplinary action may be warranted, it did not do so in Patrick’s case. At that time, all parties, including the University and Patrick, considered the matter ended.

Furthermore, according to Witt, he's graduating on time.

Methinks the Times is in a heap of trouble. They claimed that he was, in effect, suspended from school over the allegation, which appears to be completely false. With the assistance of Yale's president, I might also add.

[DetroitFlyer]

Furthermore, according to Witt, he's graduating on time.

Methinks the Times is in a heap of trouble. They claimed that he was, in effect, suspended from school over the allegation, which appears to be completely false. With the assistance of Yale's president, I might also add.

Wow, I am shocked, the NYT published an inaccurate article.... About the only thing I would use that rag for is to keep my dog happy when he cannot go outside....

[Bogus Megapardus]

Of course, there's always the lovely and talented Alicia Witt as well . . . .



http://cbsmancavedetroit.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/111111-alicia-witt-6.jpg


She wears Leopard print, of course.

[Mr. C]

Basically libel is written slander, so throwing the words around like handgrenades doesn't mean much

In the legal sense, it means a lot. It isn't just semantics.

[Mr. C]

Furthermore, according to Witt, he's graduating on time.

Methinks the Times is in a heap of trouble. They claimed that he was, in effect, suspended from school over the allegation, which appears to be completely false. With the assistance of Yale's president, I might also add.

Did you ever think that Yale might not be dealing with the truth in this matter? This is as much about Yale's behavior as it is Witt's.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post delivers a choice uppercut to the NYT on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-yale-qb-and-the-new-york-times-all-the-news-thats-unfit-to-print/2012/01/27/gIQAFxKPWQ_story.html

[Dane96]

In the legal sense, it means a lot. It isn't just semantics.

Actually, it really doesn't. Publication is publication...but most definitely a newspaper vs. let's say a normal citizen writing an e-mail (both statements rising to slander) would have a likely different result. The newspaper will get slammed much harder than Joe Citizen.

[Dane96]

The NYT...is a ****ing rag...has been for years...and this isn't a political thing, this is fact. That newspaper has gone so far downhill...it may never find it's way home.

[Mr. C]

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post delivers a choice uppercut to the NYT on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-yale-qb-and-the-new-york-times-all-the-news-thats-unfit-to-print/2012/01/27/gIQAFxKPWQ_story.html
Sorry, but that is one of the worst opinion pieces I have EVER read. I don't think Ms. Parker even understood what the original story was even about.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Sorry, but that is one of the worst opinion pieces I have EVER read. I don't think Ms. Parker even understood what the original story was even about.

I think Ms. Parker's broader point is, when a publication prints the words, "alleged sexual assault," how does it fact check its use of that term? Why not print what actually happened, rather than lazily resort to the use of an inflammatory conclusion? How does the journalist know that the alleged victim knows what constitutes a "sexual assault?"

For example (and not in any relevant context here), why not print, "the alleged victim states that the alleged assailant asked her to come upstairs in the fraternity house several times, and when she refused, he called her a derogatory name" or "the alleged victim states that the alleged assailant began to rub her shoulders during the party, without first receiving her permission to do so. The alleged assailant states that it was merely a playful gesture in the middle of a group of friends." Simply concluding that it was a "alleged sexual assault" is just poor, lazy, sensationalist journalism at its worst.

Of course if the journalist does not have enough facts to print what actually happened, and knows only that the alleged victim has concluded that, whatever happened, it constitutes "sexual assault," then the story has no business being in print - especially in a publication such as The New York Times, which at one time (perhaps 20 or so years ago) had a reputation for credibility.

[Wildcat80]

Sorry, but that is one of the worst opinion pieces I have EVER read. I don't think Ms. Parker even understood what the original story was even about.

I disagree....she nailed it IMO.

[BlueHenSinfonian]

I think Ms. Parker's broader point is, when a publication prints the words, "alleged sexual assault," how does it fact check its use of that term? Why not print what actually happened, rather than lazily resort to the use of an inflammatory conclusion? How does the journalist know that the alleged victim knows what constitutes a "sexual assault?"

For example (and not in any relevant context here), why not print, "the alleged victim states that the alleged assailant asked her to come upstairs in the fraternity house several times, and when she refused, he called her a derogatory name" or "the alleged victim states that the alleged assailant began to rub her shoulders during the party, without first receiving her permission to do so. The alleged assailant states that it was merely a playful gesture in the middle of a group of friends." Simply concluding that it was a "alleged sexual assault" is just poor, lazy, sensationalist journalism at its worst.

Of course if the journalist does not have enough facts to print what actually happened, and knows only that the alleged victim has concluded that, whatever happened, it constitutes "sexual assault," then the story has no business being in print - especially in a publication such as The New York Times, which at one time (perhaps 20 or so years ago) had a reputation for credibility.

I agree. If whatever happened, if anything happened, wasn't worth the time of the 'victim' to bring an actual criminal complaint, or even an official written statement, how can it be justified to drag Witt's name through the mud?

In any 'he said she said' type of case the media always seems to take the side of the she, even in extreme situations like this where her name isn't even known and there is no official statement. Witt has to deal with a black mark on his reputation, while the complainant doesn't even reveal her identity. In any case where there is a real assault obviously the guilty party should be punished. My problem with situations like this is that just based on the unverified statements of who-the-hell-knows the accused is punished in the court of public opinion without any trial, or even indictment, while the anonymous accuser can just go along on her merry way as if nothing happened without anyone even knowing her name.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The story rolls on, this time with the Rhodes trust themselves disclosing their side:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/sports/ncaafootball/rhodes-trust-gives-account-of-quarterbacks-candidacy.html?src=recg

Still parsing the specifics, but it appears to me like the Times' original report was trash, specifically due to this timeline:


In a rare public disclosure, the Trust confirmed that it had put on hold the candidacy of the quarterback, Patrick J. Witt, upon learning that a fellow student had filed a complaint against him. Elliot F. Gerson, the American secretary of the Trust, made clear to Yale officials on Nov. 4 that Witt’s candidacy could not move forward unless the university re-endorsed him in writing by Nov. 15, according to the statement. No such re-endorsement was filed before Witt’s announcement Nov. 13 that he would forgo his chance at the scholarship to play on Nov. 19 in Yale’s biggest game of the year.

Also:


“To be clear: no one from Yale or the Rhodes Trust ever notified Patrick that he was ‘suspended,’ no documentation to this effect exists, and the Rhodes Trust has no formal process by which to ‘suspend’ a candidate,” Magazu said in a statement.

IMO, and this is only on an initial read, the entire case against Witt has fallen completely apart. He didn't even lie when he gave his statement that he withdrew from the process.

[T-Dog]

Mr C could make an argument that the Nazi's were horrible and despicable human beings but after reading it people would think "You know, the Nazi's don't seem that bad". That's how unlikeable his points are.

And now he'll give me a smarky response and neg rep me but that's okay.

It's one thing to hear a half-dozen unnamed sources talk about, for example, a rumor regarding Lady Gaga doing a show in MSG. That's fine as it doesn't attack someone's character. It's another to publicly accuse someone of sexual assault to millions of people.

[Twentysix]

Mr C could make an argument that the Nazi's were horrible and despicable human beings but after reading it people would think "You know, the Nazi's don't seem that bad". That's how unlikeable his points are.

And now he'll give me a smarky response and neg rep me but that's okay.

It's one thing to hear a half-dozen unnamed sources talk about, for example, a rumor regarding Lady Gaga doing a show in MSG. That's fine as it doesn't attack someone's character. It's another to publicly accuse someone of sexual assault to millions of people.

Totally agree with the bolded. I would think this sort of problem would be even worse in a setting like Yale, but that is a guess on my part.