→Incident Details section is misleading: do you have a citation for this claim? |
2600:1702:1cd0:1710:81e3:575d:4347:6780 (talk) →Michele Dauber's promotion of "Stanford Rape Case", effect on trial and public perception of case: new section Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
The blood on her hands, IF there was any, was due to EMTs taking blood tests and putting in an IV. |
The blood on her hands, IF there was any, was due to EMTs taking blood tests and putting in an IV. |
||
:You need to cite all this information from a reliable, respected source. Otherwise, it would almost seem as if had some kind of agenda. Brock Turner wasn't convicted of 'rubbing against a woman with his clothes on.' [[User:Bkatcher|Bkatcher]] ([[User talk:Bkatcher|talk]]) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC) |
:You need to cite all this information from a reliable, respected source. Otherwise, it would almost seem as if had some kind of agenda. Brock Turner wasn't convicted of 'rubbing against a woman with his clothes on.' [[User:Bkatcher|Bkatcher]] ([[User talk:Bkatcher|talk]]) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Michele Dauber's promotion of "Stanford Rape Case", effect on trial and public perception of case == |
|||
A Stanford Law Professor, Michele Dauber, had a huge influence on this trial and the public perception of Brock Turner and Chanel Miller. |
|||
The professor's daughter Amanda Dauber had committed suicide many years before - it may be Dauber blames the suicide on Amanda's alleged assault by her uncle when Amanda was 5 years old. |
|||
In any case, Dauber herself in an autobiographical interview, indicated she got involved with #MeToo acitivism shortly after the suicide. |
|||
Dauber got on the sexual assault committees and is closely allied with Catherine Lhamon who was in the Obama administration at the time of the Dear Colleague letter. Dauber took up the cause of Leah Francis, a Stanford undergrad who said she was raped by another Stanford student, who she had gone to high school with - because Stanford did not expel him on her demand, Leah Francis, the accuser, held several rallies on campus where she said "Stanford is protecting my rapist" - it is important to note - the DA in Juneau Alaska where they were from cleared the man of ANY crimes whatever - Leah Francis claims of being raped were entirely spurious. But, according to Francis, Professor Dauber advised her and encouraged her to continue with her complaints. It is important to know - Francis admitted seeking out the man - finding him, going home with him, taking off her clothes and getting in his bed, and not objecting to sex - her "rape" claim was based entirely on the claim he did not ask for permission verbally before sex- and she claimed to be frozen in too much fear to object when her long term lover started sex. |
|||
It was only a few months after Leah Francis ceased her campaign against Stanford that the Brock Turner incident occurred. |
|||
Professor Dauber soon took up the cause against Brock Turner - and ran the campaign to recall the judge in the case. |
|||
The campaign against Judge Persky was extremely dishonest - it was run by one of the partners in an infamously dishonest PR firm and started with the false accusation Persky had given a Latino convict a much longer sentence for a similar crime - but, in fact, the Latino's sentence was the result of a plea bargain, not a conviction after trial. There were many other misrepresentations of fact in the campaign. |
Revision as of 13:53, 23 September 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Victim Impact Statement inaccuracies inflamed public anger
There were a lot of incorrect claims made in the famous Victim Impact Statement which did a great deal to inflame public anger at Turner and Persky.
1. Miller said Turner "jabbed" "pine needles" into her vagina, but she also claims to remember nothing and no pine needles were found inside her. So, this claim was baseless Turner admitted masturbating Miller, but there was no evidence he stuck things into her. This seems to me a very serious misconception.
2. It should be pointed out Miller's claim she had blood on her hands was very misleading. The EMTs said she had no injuries. Any blood was almost certainly due to medical treatment, but the public came to believe Turner and injured Miller.
- Nothing on the page suggests #1. And to call it "masturbating" is wrong. It's sexual assault. Also, read WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this page does not go into the specific false claims made in the Victim Impact Statement, but when the statement is referenced, the fact it contained such big falsehoods is worth pointing out, in my view. Also, your "It's sexual assault" comment is not the point - I am not saying what it was, but Turner himself said it was consensual masturbation, I was quoting Turner. I bring up the "pine needles" and the "blood on my hands" because these were very highly inflammatory false statements which large numbers of people who followed the story believe - since the record is clear, and there is a popular misconception, I think we should add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I should respond to your "No Original Research" link. I want to be absolutely clear, I am basing the statements there were no wounds to Miller on the police and EMT reports from the night of the incident. There were no pine needles, or anything else, in Miller's vagina, bawsed on the forensic exam, the "rape kit" and the responding EMTs reported no injuries. The blood on her hands is never explained by Miller as far as I know. So, we can attribute it to Miller, but the article should not imply, as Miller unfortunately already has done, that it was due to injuries caused by Turner.
- Turner was convicted of felony sexual assault. This is not up for debate. These are "the facts" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Also, it's somewhat hard to follow what exactly you want changed with all these talk page posts here and at Talk:Chanel Miller. Please frame as "Change X to Y" with the exact wording you think should be used and link to the exact sources you think support your changes. Enwebb (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Turner was convicted of felony sexual assault. This is not up for debate." Nice strawman. The OP never suggested that Turner wasn't convicted of felony sexual assault. Their question was entirely valid: is it WP's place to repeat claims that are not based in demonstrable fact? And the obvious answer is "no". A victim's statement could very well include the claim that they were abducted by aliens and medically probed aboard their spaceship. Victims' statements should not be confused with statements of fact. Bricology (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I suggest something like this: "Chanel Miller's Victim Impact Statement was widely disseminated but contained many false statements. In one passage, Miller states "fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris", but forensic examination provided no evidence of that (Citation would be "rape Kit" report from trial evidence). Additionally,she claimed to have blood on her hands and elbow, but the police and EMT reports indicated she had no injuries. (Citation to EMT and police reports from trial evidence) Stanford Professor Michele Dauber added to the claim MIller had been injured by claiming she was "gravely injured"in an interview with Democracy Now - (Citation to Video of Dauber interview). This was false. "Gravely injured" is a term of art meaning a person's survival is in doubt.(Every source will confirm that, I can cite dozens) Miller not only had no significant injuries, when she retrieved her phone the next day, she said she had no injuries at all. (Citation to police interview with Miller when she picked up the phone, the following day, from trial evidence)
"Additionally, Miller claimed she thought, when she woke up, she had "fallen and was in an administrative office of the school" but when speaking to police when she picked up her phone, she said she thought she was in a medical facility for people who had drunk too much." (Citation again, to Miller's talk with police when she picked up the phone) (I want to point out here -the drunk tank is NOT an "administrative office of the school" - that is just silly. I am QUOTING MILLER'S OWN WORDS. I can not see how the court records or her own words are "original research" any more than quoting any "reliable source" is.
Finally, I expect to find a reliable source for the following sentence "Victim Impact Statements are not made under oath or penalty of perjury and not subject to cross examination by defendants" - in other words, the factual claims made in the Victim Impact Statement can not be assumed to have any basis in reality- they are whatever the victim wants to say.
Quick Update - The Trinity County (California) DA has a page about victim impact statements confirming there is no cross examination of the victim regarding them, so I would use that as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:7492:efa4:e2e6:f1ca (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Some of this seems more applicable to the Victim impact statement entry. The rest seems to be a synthesis of original research (e.g., pointing out the 'errors' in the Victim impact statement). Find a reliable source which does the synthesis then that can be used. Also don't forget to sign. --Erp (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
"Stanford University student athlete" nixed
I have removed this part from the lead. I believe it was UNDUE, as Turner is not notable for any of his extracurriculars, including swimming. He is notable for committing felony sexual assault. Miller is not introduced by her university of affiliation or her extracurriculars, additionally. I therefore do not believe Turner's former status as a student athlete is appropriate for the lead, especially since so much media coverage of the case was criticized for focusing on his swimming accomplishments over his criminal actions. Let's leave it in the body. Or if it has to go in the lead, let's consider putting it after Turner's criminal convictions. Enwebb (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that addition could be classed as vandalism, not just undue. I've reverted back a stage further to what is a better description. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Chaheel Riens, right, so I'm saying we should not have the description "Stanford University student athlete" in the lead, especially not before why Turner is actually notable, which is for felony sexual assault. I believe that is undue. Miller is not introduced by university affiliation or extracurriculars. The media has been criticized for putting his status as a swimmer before his criminal actions, see here and here. Enwebb (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- e/c x 2 Additional - I quickly zapped the above to initially justify my dodgy reversions earlier. I think it is relevant to mention that he was a student athlete as - despite criticism - much comment was made of his potential athletic career and how it was over, due to his "20 minutes minutes of action". The article makes it clear that he was enrolled at Stanford on a swimming scholarship - I don't see it as being undue at all. Attending school under a sports scholarship does seem to suggest that you're an athletic student. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Chaheel Riens, I'm not saying it has to be scrubbed from the article, or that it's irrelevant. I'm saying it is not why he is notable, and it should not be put before that. Putting his extracurriculars before his criminal actions is undue. Enwebb (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree - particularly because the campaign to recall the judge in this case was accused of favoritism towards Turner BECAUSE he was a student athlete at Stanford - that accusation was made again and again - AND, I would point out - the mass media reports about this case emphasized Turner was an athlete - and at Stanford, a super elite school. The fact the media emphasized it should not be ignored. Doesn't the article say how many times people looked at the Victim Impact Statement on Buzzfeed? Refusing to put it in seems to be a political decision more based on Chanel Miller's objections to him being identified as a student athlete, - explicitly made in her Victim Impact Statement, - rather than an objective evaluation of "weight" The "weight" has effectively already been assigned by the mass media coverage - and the Recall Persky campaign - and finally, I would argue, by Miller herself. When she complained it had been given undue weight in the media, SHE said it was an important issue. At the least, the article should explicitly says "Miller complained Turner's status as a world class swimmer was emphasized over her sexual assault" (Citation, her own Victim Impact Statement)
I just can't see not including something the mass media, Recall Persky, and Chanel Miller ALL said was important information, on the basis of including it would be "undue weight" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:7492:efa4:e2e6:f1ca (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Um... while I agree with you, you replied to a conversation that is over a year old. The term "student athlete" is in the lead section. We can move on. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
"The rapist brock turner" redirect?
On reddit, and on social media in general, Brock Turner is referred to as "The rapist Brock Turner" or "The Stanford rapist Brock Turner". This article already redirects a search for brock turner to this article, I think it should also redirect for "rapist brock turner". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1805:C35A:BCAC:34FF:8471:17A (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Reaction Section POV
The reaction section features comments, quotes, etc., almost entirely supportive of the ruling, with the only critical reactions being included being of the father's '20 minutes of action' letter. It even goes as far as to paraphrase and cite articles that critiqued the decision as too harsh. Meanwhile, a quick web search brings up several examples of extensive critiques of the ruling. The reaction section fails to include some of the most reported-on reactions to the trial, including backlash against judge's assertion that a prison sentence could have an undue "severe impact" on Turner, or the public reaction to the Rasmussen letter. Overall, it seems very slanted in Persky's favor, particularly when it comes to the recall section. --PaKYr (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then balance it out. If there are dissenting opinions from reliable sources that you found in a search, then by all means, add them, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Location of assault relative to the dumpster(s)
Under the heading "Incident details" it states "According to Arndt and Jonsson, they surprised Turner behind a dumpster as he was on top of an unconscious woman." (emphasis added) The source provided for this statement is the Stanford Daily News article about Turner's conviction which in fact never mentions a dumpster. "Dumpster" is mentioned a further 3 times in the wiki, but nowhere does it establish where the assault took place, relative to a dumpster. Searching around on-line did not provide any clarity about the location of the assault, but a number of photographs have surfaced of the dumpster in question, as well as the "memorial park" which replaced it. It was actually what is commonly referred to as a "dumpster corral" -- an area somewhat larger than a dumpster (in this case, two dumpsters), with a curb surrounding it on three sides, to prevent the dumpsters from rolling away. There was also a bare wooden fence about six feet tall enclosing the dumpsters on the three closed sides, as can be seen in all of the contemporary photos. This dumpster corral was located across an asphalted driveway from the back of KA House, with the open, east side of the corral facing the driveway and parking lot, and the (paved) south side contiguous with the driveway. The west side was bordered by a steep dirt slope about fifteen feet wide, sloping down to a basketball court. To the north side of the corral was a flat area of bare dirt which had shrubbery as tall as the corral. The assault is consistently described as having taken place on grass; in some places, it is described as a "grassy hill". So there seems to be some confusion as to exactly where the assault took place. The only grassy area near KA House was to the west of it, well to the south of the dumpster corral. The use of the word "behind" is also problematic, since it requires context. After all, referring to an eclipse where the moon obscures our view of the sun, it is commonly said that "the sun went behind the moon" -- a notion that is entirely dependent upon our perspective from earth. If something is described from one position as having happened "behind a dumpster", it will necessarily not be happening "behind" it from all other perspectives. So whose perspective is being used to locate the assault? -that of the two Swedish cyclists who happened upon Turner and Miller? Presuming they were riding on the driveway that goes between KA House and the dumpster corral, it is unclear how they could have seen Turner and Miller, if Turner and Miller were "behind a dumpster". If they were riding north, view of any grassy area near the dumpsters would seem to have been blocked by the tall fence around the dumpster corral, as well as the shrubbery. If the two cyclists were riding south, they could have seen the nearest grassy area to the driveway, but it would not be "behind a dumpster". To be clear: I am in no way suggesting that Turner did not sexually assault Miller; that has already been established in court. Nor am I suggesting that the two Swedish cyclists did not discover them. My question relates entirely to the use in this article of the phrase "...behind a dumpster...", which does not seem to be supported by any primary sources that I can find, nor by photographs of the site taken before or after the assault. I am neither attempting, nor asking for, original research. I am looking for sources to back-up the assertion that the assault took place "behind a dumpster". The article does not provide any reliable sources to that being factual, only asserted. Google Earth view of the back of Kappa Alpha House showing area where assault took place Photo of "memorial park" showing grassy picnic area well beyond former dumpster corralPhoto of location of former dumpster corral, looking south towards Kappa Alpha House Photo of dumpster corral taken from direction of Kappa Alpha House, with basketball court visible beyond, to the left Bricology (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Incident Details section is misleading
There are several problems with the Incident Details section. For one thing, it lacks a lot of details for example, that Turner did not rape Miller and only rubbed against her with all this clothes on - this was proven by the forensics but many people have the mistaken belief he actually had intercourse with her -
Also, the part about Miller experiencing "Trauma" - this is completely wrong - the EMTs saw no trauma on her - she said she had no pain the next day - the article quotes a newspaper report of testimony at the trial. I am not sure if the reporter got it wrong, or there was inaccurate testimony at trial, but the EMT reports, AND the actual forensic report, AND Miller's own statement do not indicate any injuries.
The blood on her hands, IF there was any, was due to EMTs taking blood tests and putting in an IV.
- You need to cite all this information from a reliable, respected source. Otherwise, it would almost seem as if had some kind of agenda. Brock Turner wasn't convicted of 'rubbing against a woman with his clothes on.' Bkatcher (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Michele Dauber's promotion of "Stanford Rape Case", effect on trial and public perception of case
A Stanford Law Professor, Michele Dauber, had a huge influence on this trial and the public perception of Brock Turner and Chanel Miller.
The professor's daughter Amanda Dauber had committed suicide many years before - it may be Dauber blames the suicide on Amanda's alleged assault by her uncle when Amanda was 5 years old.
In any case, Dauber herself in an autobiographical interview, indicated she got involved with #MeToo acitivism shortly after the suicide.
Dauber got on the sexual assault committees and is closely allied with Catherine Lhamon who was in the Obama administration at the time of the Dear Colleague letter. Dauber took up the cause of Leah Francis, a Stanford undergrad who said she was raped by another Stanford student, who she had gone to high school with - because Stanford did not expel him on her demand, Leah Francis, the accuser, held several rallies on campus where she said "Stanford is protecting my rapist" - it is important to note - the DA in Juneau Alaska where they were from cleared the man of ANY crimes whatever - Leah Francis claims of being raped were entirely spurious. But, according to Francis, Professor Dauber advised her and encouraged her to continue with her complaints. It is important to know - Francis admitted seeking out the man - finding him, going home with him, taking off her clothes and getting in his bed, and not objecting to sex - her "rape" claim was based entirely on the claim he did not ask for permission verbally before sex- and she claimed to be frozen in too much fear to object when her long term lover started sex.
It was only a few months after Leah Francis ceased her campaign against Stanford that the Brock Turner incident occurred.
Professor Dauber soon took up the cause against Brock Turner - and ran the campaign to recall the judge in the case.
The campaign against Judge Persky was extremely dishonest - it was run by one of the partners in an infamously dishonest PR firm and started with the false accusation Persky had given a Latino convict a much longer sentence for a similar crime - but, in fact, the Latino's sentence was the result of a plea bargain, not a conviction after trial. There were many other misrepresentations of fact in the campaign.