11/21/24
July 20, 2009
Woman Accuses Ben Roethlisberger of Rape: Andrea McNulty, a Harrah's Entertainment employee, filed a civil suit July 17 in Washoe County, Nev., accusing Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault in July 2008, the web site Pro Football Talk reported this evening. "Ben has never sexually assaulted anyone," said David Cornwell, an attorney for Roethlisberger, who calls the allegations "viciously false."
It does seem a little fishy that she didn't file a police report but she's filing a civil suite. I mean, obviously, I don't know all the details, but that seems to be something of a red flag.
The whole part about accusing her co-workers of covering for him also sort of seems suspicious. Not saying that its not possible, but that just seems bizarre.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:50 PM on July 20, 2009
Is there a time limitation to file a lawsuit? It's nearly a year since the alleged rape occurred. The story said they could not determine if she attempted to file criminal charges -- probably not or we would have known about this months ago. Looks like she wants an eight-figure settlement and believes Ben would pay just "to make it go away."
posted by jjzucal at 11:16 PM on July 20, 2009
I love the line where Ben's lawyer states "Ben has never sexually assulted anyone, especially Andrea McNulty". Seems like an odd statement to make.
If you hit the link at the bottom of the article you get to read this about Kellen Winslow "A league source tells us that the talk among the Browns is that tight end Kellen Winslow landed in the Cleveland Clinic because his balls swelled to the size of grapefruits"
Priceless.
posted by dviking at 01:18 AM on July 21, 2009
lack of criminal complaint and investigation is the key. Civil suit is much easier to win (ask the Simpson family) so that's the route she's going.
Cases like these it's best to let the facts come out...it's easy for these guys to be targets. All it takes is being alone with the guy (especially intimate alone) and it becomes a matter of he said/she said....worth a roll of the dice for some greedy people. One of the reasons Pujols says he won't even ride an elevator alone with a woman.
posted by bdaddy at 09:03 AM on July 21, 2009
He raped the Cardinals too. You don't see them filing suit.
I'm not going to be one of those "wait for the facts" guys. IMHO, it is what it looks like; she wants money and will lie to get it. In the end, one fact will ring true - her sex life is officially over.
That's a great Pujols quote, bdaddy. Looks like that's what it has come to.
posted by smithnyiu at 09:16 AM on July 21, 2009
It's not just women. Some men try to start fights with athletes hoping to sue afterward.
posted by rcade at 09:46 AM on July 21, 2009
I still like Mike Tyson's comment to one of his handlers when his rape allegations originally came out: "If I would have just walked the B*tch down to her car" (Implications being that she slept with him willingly, but then when he blew her off she decided she had been taken advantage of).
Now knowing what we know now about Mike, I'm not so sure I believe his end of the story anymore, but I can certainly see the situation he described happening to those guys in the spotlight.
posted by bdaddy at 10:57 AM on July 21, 2009
He raped the Cardinals too. You don't see them filing suit.
That's not even close to funny. Ignorant, in fact.
posted by tommybiden at 11:08 AM on July 21, 2009
Is there a time limitation to file a lawsuit? It's nearly a year since the alleged rape occurred.
There is no statute of limitations on rape in Nevada (for criminal charges), so long as it is reported within 4 years (and for those wondering, I looked it up -- I have never set foot in Nevada, let alone been charged with a crime there). The statute of limitations for civil suits in most states is typically 2-4 years, depending on the specific cause of action.
posted by holden at 11:09 AM on July 21, 2009
I hope she wasn't raped, that's a terrible thing to be a victim of. And if she was indeed raped, I'd hate to be one of these low characters who forget that, among other things, she's someone's daughter.
Nobody here knows whether her allegations are true or false, including me. Assuming either way is problematic; airing those assumptions, despicable.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:19 AM on July 21, 2009
Hugh: Given the weight of the allegation, and the number of people who will see a headline containing "Roethlisberger" and "Rape" and think he must have done something wrong, I don't think it's unfair to give tough scrutiny to these allegations. The accuser's decision to file a civil suit when no criminal charges have been filed is highly suspect.
posted by rcade at 11:27 AM on July 21, 2009
That's why I say "assuming either way." Scrutiny is one thing. Calling a possible rape victim a liar, especially when the case is only in the allegation stage, is just plain scummy.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:33 AM on July 21, 2009
agree absolutely, rcade. Given the publicity the news itself will generate and the historical examples of false accusations in this area (the lady deported for the Michael Irvin charges comes to mind) I would say the topic DESERVES this scrutiny, and certainly isn't "despicable". Few things in my mind fall into that category, and these discussions certainly don't.
posted by bdaddy at 11:44 AM on July 21, 2009
Like I said, I'm not talking about scrutiny. I'm talking about categorically stating stuff like "she wants money and will lie to get it." I'm not saying she's definitely a victim, nor am I saying she's definitely a liar. I'm saying that making either assumption is wrong.
And if we really were looking at the history of rape, we'd find far more rape victims who were called liars by people ignorant of the facts and thus intimidated into silence (or worse) than we would falsely accused non-rapists whose careers were ruined by such allegations.
It's not the questioning that bothers me, it's the certainty. Yes, she might be lying. Yes, he might have raped her. Being so sure of either is shameful.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:04 PM on July 21, 2009
I'm talking about categorically stating stuff like "she wants money and will lie to get it."
It's not the questioning that bothers me, it's the certainty.
Hugh, this isn't mainstream media; it's a place where friends get together and give our own opinions about current events. Our own original thoughts. Lighten up.
posted by smithnyiu at 12:29 PM on July 21, 2009
Like I said, I'm not talking about scrutiny. I'm talking about categorically stating stuff like "she wants money and will lie to get it."
But I don't see any of that going on in this thread. About the worse thing people are saying here are "it seems a little fishy", and to me we're certainly right to express those types of concerns given the circumstances.
And if we really were looking at the history of rape, we'd find far more rape victims who were called liars by people ignorant of the facts and thus intimidated into silence (or worse) than we would falsely accused non-rapists whose careers were ruined by such allegations.
If you take ALL rape cases into consideration, probably. I wouldn't take that same bet on rape cases on high profile (i.e. rich/famous) people. I have no statistical evidence on either, but I feel I've seen more of these accusation/dismissal cases than those that have actually held up to scrutiny. Heck, we don't even have to look to another team...Jerome Bettis went through a similar issue a few years back and never faced charges because the claims didn't hold up.
posted by bdaddy at 12:32 PM on July 21, 2009
These cases ave very difficult to prove. On one hand everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but does that mean to presume Rothlisberger is innocent we have to presume the alleged victim is lying? In most cases of rape the victim is given a lot of credibility as there isn't much motivation for a person to lie about being raped. They usually suffer a lot of scrutiny and embarassment from making the accusation and rarely receive any benefit other than seeing their attacker punished if convicted. In these case where a wealthy and famous person is accused, the credibility of the alleged victim suffers much more scrutiny, as there is potentially a monetary gain for that accuser whether or not criminal charges are filed and upheld on conviction. So unfortunately for the alleged victim, this scenario has a substantial monitary motive.
In order to presume Rothlisberger innocent we must inquire as to the motivation of the alleged victim and wonder why the alleged crime was not reported, and why there is little support or corroboration from co workers or witnesses. Without physical evidence I think this is a tough case to win. The biggest crime might be that in a system like ours, there is a huge incentive for a potentially innocent Rothlisberger to save money, embarassment, legal fees, time and potential loss of reputation and endorsements, to settle. The accuser and her attorneys know this as does Rothlisberger. Who the victim is here will never really be known.
posted by Atheist at 12:46 PM on July 21, 2009
It's not the questioning that bothers me, it's the certainty. Yes, she might be lying. Yes, he might have raped her. Being so sure of either is shameful.
Agreed.
posted by rcade at 12:48 PM on July 21, 2009
But I don't see any of that going on in this thread.
You aren't looking very hard then.
About the worse thing people are saying here are "it seems a little fishy"
That's not true.
we're certainly right to express those types of concerns given the circumstances.
I'm not calling anyone's right to question, into question.
I'm just saying, if someone's immediate reaction to rape allegations, even ones brought against a star athlete in a civil venue, is to refuse to wait for the facts and to state that she's a liar and just out for money, that person should think about the women in his life and feel more than a little shame.
If you had read carefully, bdaddy, you would know that I wasn't talking about you; what's more, you would know what I am talking about. I'm done repeating myself. And seriously, smithnyiu, though we may all be friends and sharing opinions here, even if this case turns out to be a false allegation, I was still right about your reaction: assuming right off the bat that the bitch is a money-grubbing slut shows no class.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:50 PM on July 21, 2009
posted by tommybiden at 12:53 PM on July 21, 2009
The Nevada Statute of Limitations on civil suits is 6 years. I live in Washoe County (and I'm a Miami University grad), so I'll be keeping a close eye on this one. When I have more time, I'll comb the local news and keep people abreast on what they're saying.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:56 PM on July 21, 2009
You aren't looking very hard then.
You're right...I missed that post, even on 2nd skim through.
posted by bdaddy at 01:19 PM on July 21, 2009
Sorry to be so strident towards you, bdaddy, but I just didn't think I was wrong to say what I did. Thanks for taking the time to look again, I do appreciate it.
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:25 PM on July 21, 2009
He raped the Cardinals too. You don't see them filing suit.
That's not even close to funny. Ignorant, in fact.
That was pretty funny considering what Roethlisberger did in fact do to the Cardinals. Very snarky.
posted by BornIcon at 02:07 PM on July 21, 2009
Comparing a sports team's defeat to being raped is way more tasteless than amusing, in my opinion.
posted by rcade at 02:11 PM on July 21, 2009
right off the bat that the bitch is a money-grubbing slut shows no class.
Don't put words in my mouth. I called her a liar, because that is what I think she is, based on the facts. And I might not have taken the high road, but at least I took a road, instead of judging people who's opinions differ from yours, but might actually be right.
Tired of this shit. Out.
posted by smithnyiu at 03:24 PM on July 21, 2009
I called her a liar, because that is what I think she is, based on the facts.
What facts? There are no facts. There is a bunch of conjecture and speculation, but unless you're actually involved in the case, you know absolutely nothing.
And I might not have taken the high road, but at least I took a road, instead of judging people who's opinions differ from yours, but might actually be right.
Wow, using "I might be wrong, but at least I took a side" as a defense is one of the most ignorant things I think I've seen in a while. Congrats!
posted by dfleming at 03:46 PM on July 21, 2009
..right off the bat that the bitch is a money-grubbing slut shows no class
But someone actually calling this woman a "bitch" or a "slut" is appropriate? I would never condone any woman to be raped.
posted by BornIcon at 03:53 PM on July 21, 2009
He raped the Cardinals too. You don't see them filing suit.
That's not even close to funny. Ignorant, in fact.
That was pretty funny considering what Roethlisberger did in fact do to the Cardinals. Very snarky
Given that one definition (Webster's not mine) of rape is "to plunder", the comment becomes a play on words and thus funny. No one would think that the writer meant that he forced the Cardinals into unwanted sex.
As to questioning this woman's motives, hell yes. She didn't even file criminal charges, not even a complaint. I totally understand the civil charges if a person feels that the justice department isn't doing enough, as in the Simpson case. However, to never have filed charges is more suspect than my thinking allows. Yes, I have a wife and a daughter, and no, I don't want them to suffer the indignity of a rape. However, if they do, they sure as hell will be pressing criminal charges, not waiting a year before pressing civil charges.
I do not know any more about this case than the rest of you, that alone does not preclude me from having the opinion that the woman is a bit suspect in her motives.
posted by dviking at 04:27 PM on July 21, 2009
My money's on Big Ben. Given his demeanor and background, I think he knows better. I feel this girl is a gold digger.
posted by Doehead at 04:37 PM on July 21, 2009
Given that one definition (Webster's not mine) of rape is "to plunder", the comment becomes a play on words and thus funny. No one would think that the writer meant that he forced the Cardinals into unwanted sex.
Given that the woman in this case hasn't (so far as I know) accused Mr. Roethlisberger of plundering her, but in fact, of having unwanted sex with her, I think it is quite safe to assume that the writer meant that he forced the Cardinals into unwanted sex.
I stand by my original comment.
posted by tommybiden at 05:11 PM on July 21, 2009
seriously? I read that joke and instantly understood that he didn't mean that he actually forced anyone, or the organization, to have sex with him.
posted by dviking at 05:17 PM on July 21, 2009
I've updated the link with a more detailed story from NBC. It's bizarre that NBC is now reporting this without identifying the woman, as if it wasn't already revealed by the initial coverage from an NBC site.
posted by rcade at 05:29 PM on July 21, 2009
seriously?
Seriously. I don't happen to think rape is a joking matter.
posted by tommybiden at 05:40 PM on July 21, 2009
oh, okay, guess you told me.
Maybe my tolerance for a bit of low brow humor is more than yours, regardless, I don't think smithnyiu in any way inferred that the actual crime of rape is somehow a joking matter. Clearly, it was a joke, and you knew that the second you read it.
please don't reply with "don't tell me what I knew". anyone reading that line knew it was a joke.
posted by dviking at 06:09 PM on July 21, 2009
seriously, rape isn't a joking matter
unless of course you are referring to Big Ben raping the cardinals secondary in the final quarter of SB
posted by sgtcookzane at 06:21 PM on July 21, 2009
I don't know how much trust you could have in a website like TMZ, but here's this
posted by sgtcookzane at 06:42 PM on July 21, 2009
And if we really were looking at the history of rape, we'd find far more rape victims who were called liars by people ignorant of the facts and thus intimidated into silence (or worse) than we would falsely accused non-rapists whose careers were ruined by such allegations.
This.
anyone reading that line knew it was a joke.
Crappy jokes are, well, crappy jokes. If we're going to make funny with rape, can we add nigger jokes to our repetoire, while we're at it?
posted by rodgerd at 07:10 PM on July 21, 2009
W
posted by sgtcookzane at 07:20 PM on July 21, 2009
rodgerd, you know the answer to your question, but for others that might not, jokes with the n word are racist, so that goes beyond a discussion of taste.
Any stand up comedian addressing a mostly sports oriented crowd could easily get away the rape joke offered above. A joke with the n word, not so much.
I never said it was a great joke, just that it was obviously a joke.
posted by dviking at 07:38 PM on July 21, 2009
Any stand up comedian addressing a mostly sports oriented crowd could easily get away the rape joke offered above.
In this crowd? Not so much.
posted by rcade at 08:58 PM on July 21, 2009
it got mixed reviews...sometimes that's all a comedian is looking for.
Several thought it was funny, some didn't, some were offended. There's a long list of top tier comedians that made their living with those results.
posted by dviking at 09:48 PM on July 21, 2009
...I think it is quite safe to assume that the writer meant that he forced the Cardinals into unwanted sex.
Seriously?
posted by tselson at 11:55 PM on July 21, 2009
I admit it, I'm wrong, you're right.
Rape, and using the comparison of sexual violence against women (predominantly) to how Ben Roethlisberger played against the Arizona Cardinals is fall on the floor funny.
It's more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
I don't know how I could possibly have thought differently.
Please accept my apologies.
How could I have been so obtuse?
One million pardons, please !
posted by tommybiden at 12:12 AM on July 22, 2009
you know tommy, you bring up a good point.
by adding (predominantly) you sparked my thinking...haven't there been numerous jokes made on this site about prison rape? Seems like every time an athlete goes to jail a bunch are thrown out. No one gets all twisted over those. Sexists pigs.
Seriously, I'm joking.
posted by dviking at 12:55 AM on July 22, 2009
No one gets all twisted over those.
FWIW, I don't like those, either.
posted by inigo2 at 09:43 AM on July 22, 2009
Several thought it was funny, some didn't, some were offended
well in my view it wasn't funny (I didn't even smile and I'm a steeler fan), but certainly wasn't as distasteful as some paste it to be. Anyone should know the poster wasn't "making light" of rape or making some social commentary how some sports comparison is anywhere equivalent. It was just a comment, followed by a flood of instinctive male guilt (sortof like what's going on in the Erin Andrews thread.)
When I say my back is killing me, I'm not trivalizing murder and nobody would be on here saying how distasteful that comment is and how I would feel different if my child was a victim, etc. So why is using rape in a similar, light-hearted metaphor different?
posted by bdaddy at 10:19 AM on July 22, 2009
So why is using rape in a similar, light-hearted metaphor different?
Because this is a thread about rape. If you made a choke about murder in a thread about a murdered victim, that wouldn't be funny either. Rape jokes are probably funny to a pretty small population under the best of times.
posted by bperk at 10:28 AM on July 22, 2009
fair enough.
posted by bdaddy at 10:59 AM on July 22, 2009
Rape jokes are probably funny to a pretty small population under the best of times.
Mel Brooks comes to mind...
posted by mjkredliner at 11:33 AM on July 22, 2009
Mel Brooks comes to mind...
Everybody! Jump the Queen!
posted by bdaddy at 11:41 AM on July 22, 2009
Doesn't arguing about what is funny or not seem like a losing battle? I thought it was humorous but then again I am hard to offend. Some are sensitive and some just want to be the politically correct joke police.
FWIW I think the word rape has multiple uses and yes you can rape a defensive secondary. Rape as in the meaning - to plunder, take without permission or by force, violate or humiliate. Rape can be sexual, and it can also apply to other situations as he raped the company coffers for all he could get, or as used in the comment in question. Certainly it was only a play on words and in no way was meant to demean or trivialize the crime of sexual rape against anyone.
I can in fact make a joke about priests diddling alter boys without it meaning I condone the action or trivialize the impact of it. Lighten up.
Also for the record I believe a lot of athletes behave badly and believe they can get away with a whole host of crimes. In this case, just from the facts that she waited a year to say anything, did not file a criminal complaint, seems to have no coroborating witnesses ( not even as to her condition or distress afterwards) and is asking for $400,000 in civil damages (which is very low in a matter this serious) rather than wanting him punished criminally, leads me to believe Rothlisberger is innocent. If he is presumed innocent then she must be presumed a liar until proven otherwise. Her actions are certainly very suspect. The dollar amount also leads me to believe she went with a low enough number that she may have felt he would settle quickly rather than choose to stand up and fight. Bad pubplicity aside, he will spend more defending himself against this claim that it will cost to make go away. I commend him for not being extorted if in fact he is innocent.
posted by Atheist at 11:52 AM on July 22, 2009
It was just a comment, followed by a flood of instinctive male guilt (sortof like what's going on in the Erin Andrews thread.)
Instinctive guilt? All men are not knuckle draggers, Bdaddy. Sportsfilter has always resisted the lowbrow and lecherous stuff that's common on most other sports-related sites. We set out the goal of being more thoughtful and less stupid, so there aren't a lot of Fark-style comments making everything into a joke no matter how serious. What some people see as us getting "all twisted" or being too sensitive is just the nature of the community.
posted by rcade at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2009
Instinctive guilt? All men are not knuckle draggers
My "instinctive male guilt" comment didn't imply that we were. Sort of the opposite in fact.
The fact that the posters on this forum are generally all of those things you mention (more thoughtful, less stupid, non-fark style, etc.) is what I was getting at. We feel an instinctive reaction to NOT be associated with that, so you see defensive postings (overly sensative in some cases) about things like an off-hand rape comment, a perceived racist comment, etc.
I'm not saying that's bad, but I think it's there.
posted by bdaddy at 12:18 PM on July 22, 2009
and is asking for $400,000
To be clear, she's asking for around 400k (medical as I understand it, as she was in therapy) PLUS punitive damages "enough to discourage others from doing the same" (or some such) whose amount is TBD.
So if this goes to trial, she'll be looking to make a lot more than 400k.
An interesting point I read (no idea if it's true) is that someone close to her reportedly said that the therapy she received after this incident didn't have anything to do with the rape, but was rather due to an affair she was having with a married man. I'm sure we'll hear more about that, if it's true.
posted by bdaddy at 12:25 PM on July 22, 2009
I see what you're saying now. I got faked worse than LeBron James at a prep all-star game.
posted by rcade at 12:25 PM on July 22, 2009
Seriously. I don't happen to think rape is a joking matter
And neither do I but it was a play on words. Very similar to when I played on Xbox LIVE and killed this dude on UFC last night, it doesn't really mean that I murdered him.
If we're going to make funny with rape, can we add nigger jokes to our repetoire, while we're at it?
No, now your just being an assbag. Save your racist comments for your next clan meeting.
I got faked worse than LeBron James at a prep all-star game
Allegedly.
posted by BornIcon at 02:27 PM on July 22, 2009
If we're going to make funny with rape, can we add nigger jokes to our repetoire, while we're at it?
No, now your just being an assbag. Save your racist comments for your next clan meeting.
Okay, I think I understand now.
"Jokes" or comments that involve racism, they're bad.
"Jokes" or comments that involve sexual violence, they're okay.
Is that right? I just want to keep up with the rest of the class.
posted by tommybiden at 03:07 PM on July 22, 2009
it was a play on words
The alleged joke was obvious and unfunny (and this comes from someone who thinks JACKASS is great comedy).
It had all the wit and subtlety of a 5 year old screaming Doody.
posted by cjets at 03:15 PM on July 22, 2009
I have to agree with Atheist here. If I was raped, I sure as hell would not wait a year to say anthing about it! I would be down at the police station so fast I'd be a blur on the way there! I would press charges to the fullest extent I could.
And a civil suit and money would be the last things on my mind. At least until the outcome of the criminal trial. Then maybe I would persue a civil suit, if I felt like putting myself through another ordeal of my sexual history, mental stability, and credibility being suspect
I think ( bias aside, see my name) it just comes down to $$$$$$. I felt the same way about the Kobe Bryant case.
posted by steelergirl at 06:08 PM on July 22, 2009
cjets...doody jokes are always funny.
posted by dviking at 08:22 PM on July 22, 2009
I wish Ben would stick to riding motorcycles.
Now THAT's a funny joke.
I agree with Hugh_Janus whose username is ironic. He is very wise and considerate. Until the facts come out I will reserve judgement on either party.
posted by scully at 09:10 PM on July 22, 2009
Since I won't be on the jury and I'm not a member of the media, I have no obligation to be neutral here. So I'll just come right out and say that I think she's lying. She waited a long time, and she is also accusing Harrah's of conspiring to cover it up, which seems like an even bigger leap of faith to believe, even if Roethlisberger is a friend of the owner. If she had another staff member to corroborate that part of the story, I might rethink my view, but for now, I can't buy into it. The Duke lacrosse team case seemed about 100 times more plausible at the time, and that one turned out to be bogus, so I tend to have a bias toward the accused, especially given that Big Ben doesn't have a bad reputation.
I'll also cast my vote that I thought the Cardinals joke was funny. But to each their own.
posted by TheQatarian at 10:54 PM on July 22, 2009
I wish Ben would stick to riding motorcycles.
But he's still riding without his helmet.
posted by bdaddy at 10:26 AM on July 23, 2009
The alleged joke was obvious and unfunny (and this comes from someone who thinks JACKASS is great comedy).
And that's your opinion that it wasn't funny but I thought it was.
Just so you know, JACKASS sucks! Get your facts right!
posted by BornIcon at 12:49 PM on July 23, 2009
And that's your opinion that it wasn't funny but I thought it was.
The fact that you think it's funny just proves my point that it was tasteless and juvenile.
posted by cjets at 04:39 PM on July 23, 2009
The fact that you think it's funny just proves my point that it was tasteless and juvenile
Well...then I guess it's a beautiful thing that your opinion on what I think is funny or not doesn't keep me up at night.
I bet you think that Wilford Brimley is hilarious.
posted by BornIcon at 05:14 PM on July 23, 2009
I bet you think that Wilford Brimley is hilarious.
He had some pretty funny lines as Pop Fisher in The Natural.
posted by mjkredliner at 07:27 PM on July 23, 2009
Ordinarily I'd wait on a story like this until it was coming from a more mainstream source, but MSNBC has this on its front page, so it will inevitably be reported all over the place. NBC apparently owns ProFootballTalk.