New information on the Ludlow case suggests the whole thing might be made up...

[TheVineyard]

If this evidence of Ludlow's accuser making friendly communication with Ludlow during the time that the accuser was supposedly trying to kill herself/in the hospital and extremely depressed does exist, and it surely does because they are obviously ready to show it in court, then this accusation, as I feared, has done a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name, and the damage was done before Ludlow even got a chance to share his side/evidence.

Again I say, not every accusation = a terrible person. Not every accusation means you should flee the departments involved. Sometimes accusations are made by crazy people or liars.
 

Statement from the lawyer:

 

"Mr. Ludlow denies P's allegations that he sexually harassed or assaulted her. Mr. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or any lawsuit by P. That, alone, speaks volumes about this case. The authorities have never notified Mr. Ludlow of any criminal complaint nor has he ever been contacted by the police. He certainly has never been charged with any crime, now or ever. Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated.

 

Mr. Ludlow did not assault P nor did he engage in any inappropriate conduct. We have corroborating evidence that P propositioned Mr. Ludlow. He refused her advances.

 

We are in possession of communications which show that P initiated friendly communications with Mr. Ludlow the day after and then again four and five days after the date on which she now alleges he assaulted her. Some of these communications were via social media. We also have text messages which show that P was very friendly with Mr. Ludlow on February 15, 2012--five days after the alleged assault--and that she, in fact, asked him to meet with her in person and then came to a conference he was attending, asking him to talk with her. At that time, Mr. Ludlow told her, as he had in the past, that he did not want to be romantically involved with her.

 

On April 24, 2012, P's previous attorneys sent a letter to Mr. Ludlow requesting a "settlement." Mr. Ludlow refused to enter into any type of settlement because he had done nothing wrong. We heard nothing more from P until we learned of the lawsuit she had filed against Northwestern.

We encourage the press and people reading the articles arising out of this complaint to remember that there are two sides to every story. We also encourage the press to engage in responsible reporting and not to inflame an already difficult situation. These allegations are very serious and will be dealt with in due course through the litigation process."



 

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Monadology]

As far as I can tell, this information doesn't suggest anything (if you meant it in an evidential sense) other than that Ludlow wants us to believe it was all made up. He might want us to believe that because it's true or he might want us to believe that because he wants to avoid legal trouble.

 

In addition, many of the facts cited are consistent with some form of actual sexual assault happening. Victims of sexual assault who are romantically involved with their assaulters may initially try and make sense of what happened to them in more charitable terms because it is a very difficult experience to process and cope with and it's hard to understand why someone you feel very positively about would do something like that. But romantic feelings (before or after the fact) doesn't affect whether she actually consented or was able to consent to what Ludlow allegedly did to her. They are consistent with being negatively affected by the experience: emotions can be ambivalent or waver between extremes. Finally we don't know what 'positive' is supposed to mean. There is also the power dynamic to keep in mind. 

 

Also the fact that Ludlow wasn't named in the lawsuit and didn't have criminal charges leveled against him doesn't say much either. Sometimes the experience of going through the legal process in such cases that involve directly confronting their assualter can be frightening and traumatizing enough for the victim that they choose to take more indirect means if they take any means at all.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Monadology

[Weltgeist]

Monadology said what I wanted to far more articulately: depression and signs of assault do not manifest always themselves directly and straightforwardly: factors like fear or confusion or who knows what else drives victims to put on a happy face and pretend like it never happened.

 

edit: and whether or not Ludlow did it, the fact that he would stoop to this kind of tactic is proof enough that he's at least an asshole.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Weltgeist

[ianfaircloud]

Sounds like a lot of speculation.  I see no reason to attempt to weigh evidence and come to any meaningful conclusion, on this forum, on the matter of whether Ludlow harassed or assaulted this person.  Any speculation (e.g. "could", "if", "maybe", "possible", "might", etc.) only suggests what I take to be Vineyard's intended point: we simply don't know what happened.  

 

The proper thing is for the proper authorities to investigate the case and come to a conclusion based only on relevant evidence.  The investigation begins by taking very, very seriously the possibility that a woman was assaulted, harassed, or in some way harmed by a man in a position of power.  It also begins by not assuming that Ludlow is guilty.

Edited February 15, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[Hypatience]

I concur with what TheMonadology has said. 

[MattDest]

 

Statement from Ludlow's lawyer:

If this evidence of Ludlow's accuser making friendly communication with Ludlow during the time that the accuser was supposedly trying to kill herself/in the hospital and extremely depressed does exist, and it surely does because they are obviously ready to show it in court, then this accusation, as I feared, has done a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name.

 

 

 

 

Just so everyone's clear, this is not part of the statement from Ludlow's lawyer. Text messages that make "friendly communication" are not evidence that the person did not harm themselves, that no assault occurred, or anything else. It's reading way, way too much into it to suggest that "a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name" has been done on the basis of the defense attorney's statement. 

[xypathos]

You're going to need something a bit more substantial than a statement from the accused's lawyer that he's innocent. Nice try though.

[TheVineyard]

Sounds like a lot of speculation.  I see no reason to attempt to weigh evidence and come to any meaningful conclusion, on this forum, on the matter of whether Ludlow harassed or assaulted this person.  Any speculation (e.g. "could", "if", "maybe", "possible", "might", etc.) only suggests what I take to be Vineyard's intended point: we simply don't know what happened.  

 

The proper thing is for the proper authorities to investigate the case and come to a conclusion based only on relevant evidence.  The investigation begins by taking very, very seriously the possibility that a woman was assaulted, harassed, or in some way harmed by a man in a position of power.  It also begins by not assuming that Ludlow is guilty.

 

Yes, this was the message. "We simply don't know what happened."

 

Just so everyone's clear, this is not part of the statement from Ludlow's lawyer. Text messages that make "friendly communication" are not evidence that the person did not harm themselves, that no assault occurred, or anything else. It's reading way, way too much into it to suggest that "a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name" has been done on the basis of the defense attorney's statement. 

 

Yeah I misplaced that preface. Its been moved to the right place. It was an injustice the way that the community responded, assuming his guilt, students on this forum saying we should reject any Northwestern or Rutgers offer, people saying that we should pressure Rutgers to rescind the job offer, etc. It is unjust to do that to someone without hearing the second side of the story.

 

You're going to need something a bit more substantial than a statement from the accused's lawyer that he's innocent. Nice try though.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know and we should never have jumped to the conclusion like many did that Ludlow is guilty. Nobody could imagine that perhaps the accusation was false, and that we should wait for the details. Instead, everyone white-knighted and assumed Ludlow's guilt having only read (often libelous) news articles.

People threw Ludlow under the bus with no information in order to appear to be the most concerned with climate issues. Instead, they have promoted a new climate issue: a community that assumes full guilt at any hint of an accusation.

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Hypatience]

Yes, this was the message. "We simply don't know what happened."

 

 

Yeah I misplaced that preface. Its been moved to the right place. It was an injustice the way that the community responded, assuming his guilt, students on this forum saying we should reject any Northwestern or Rutgers offer, saying that we should pressure Rutgers to rescind the job offer, etc. It is unjust to do that to someone without hearing the second side of the story.

 

 

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying that we don't know and we should never have jumped to the conclusion like many did that Ludlow is guilty. Nobody could imagine that perhaps the accusation was false, and that we should wait for the details. Instead, everyone white-knighted and assumed Ludlow's guilt having only read (often libelous) news articles.

People threw Ludlow under the bus with no information in order to appear to be the most concerned with climate issues. Instead, they have promoted a new climate issue: a community that assumes full guilt at any hint of an accusation.

 

I think it is totally reasonable to put pressure on an institution to not hire somebody who has been accused of this kind of behaviour, especially in light of the fact that an internal committee at Northwestern found him at fault and recommended that he be fired. I think it is also reasonable to put pressure on Northwestern for ignoring the recommendation of that committee.

 

Maybe I'm just a feminist firebrand, but hey, sue me. False accusations are relatively rare and the evidential standards for formally establishing the occurrence of rape are such that perpetrators are seldom able to be held accountable for their actions. I believe and support survivors; it helps me sleep at night.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Hypatience

[ianfaircloud]

I think it is totally reasonable to put pressure on an institution to not hire somebody who has been accused of this kind of behaviour, especially in light of the fact that an internal committee at Northwestern found him at fault and recommended that he be fired. I think it is also reasonable to put pressure on Northwestern for ignoring the recommendation of that committee.

 

Wow, I wish I knew more about this committee, how it conducted itself, what its members knew and didn't know, etc.

[TheVineyard]

I think it is totally reasonable to put pressure on an institution to not hire somebody who has been accused of this kind of behaviour, especially in light of the fact that an internal committee at Northwestern found him at fault and recommended that he be fired. I think it is also reasonable to put pressure on Northwestern for ignoring the recommendation of that committee.

 

Maybe I'm just a feminist firebrand, but hey, sue me. False accusations are relatively rare and the evidential standards for formally establishing the occurrence of rape are such that perpetrators are seldom able to be held accountable for their actions. I believe and support survivors; it helps me sleep at night.

 

 

Wow, I wish I knew more about this committee, how it conducted itself, what its members knew and didn't know, etc.

 

The lawyer's statement says, "Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated."

So at the very least, this committee information is not public or easily accessible. I certainly couldn't find it. Perhaps this committee does exist, but we cannot take this "committee report" as surefire evidence against Ludlow when none of us have read it or seen it. Keep in mind, the same reports that talked about this committee were the ones who said that Ludlow was accused of rape when he wasn't, so we know those news reports can't be trusted.

 

Edited February 15, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Table]

If this evidence of Ludlow's accuser making friendly communication with Ludlow during the time that the accuser was supposedly trying to kill herself/in the hospital and extremely depressed does exist, and it surely does because they are obviously ready to show it in court, then this accusation, as I feared, has done a terrible injustice to Ludlow's name, and the damage was done before Ludlow even got a chance to share his side/evidence.

 

Huh, that's an interesting epistemic principle: assume that when people say something knowing they will likely need to verify it in court, what they say is probably true. So then, surely, we should think the student's claim that a Northwestern investigation found Ludlow had acted inappropriately—the basis of the student's lawsuit against Northwestern—is probably true. 

 

From the other thread, where this was unfortunately cross posted: 

 

MattDest, you say: There is evidence that we should take these allegations seriously (despite your claim that there is "no evidence") which includes the testimony from the university officials which concluded " The complaint alleges that a university official (Ms. Slavin) concluded, "based on the totality of the evidence...that Ludlow engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances toward Plaintiff on the evening of February 10-11, 2012. In particular, Ms. Slavin found that Ludlow initiated kissing, French kissing, rubbing Plaintiff’s back,and sleeping with his arms on and around Plaintiff on the night of February 10-11, 2012." (link)

 

Read that over again, and see if you can see what's gone wrong. You say there is evidence. You cite as evidence that "the complaint alleges that a university official concluded..." So, the university official's report is not itself evidence...it is an alleged report. As the lawyer's statement explains, the report hasn't even been presented to the accused's lawyer.

 

Awkward. 

 

If there is anyone that actually thinks Vineyard is a fair-minded skeptic suspending judgment, that should be enough to convince you otherwise. (The fact that he considers a statement from Ludlow's lawyer denying the allegations to be "new information on the Ludlow case suggest[ing] the whole thing might be made up" should also be enough to convince you otherwise.)

 

Vineyard, for the exact same reasons you think Ludlow actually has the texts in question, you should think the student really was in the hospital. As others have said, the existence of "friendly" texts from the student does not suggest there was no sexual assault. You don't seem to know a great deal about sexual assault. You also seem to think the existence of these texts would mean she was not actually in the hospital when the lawsuit she said she was. This may shock you, but you can actually send texts from a hospital. 

 

 

ETA: I just read that the student's attorney has released a copy the email the student received from NU's director of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Office telling her the results of the investigation. 

Edited February 17, 2014 by Table

[m-ttl]

I think it is totally reasonable to put pressure on an institution to not hire somebody who has been accused of this kind of behaviour, especially in light of the fact that an internal committee at Northwestern found him at fault and recommended that he be fired. I think it is also reasonable to put pressure on Northwestern for ignoring the recommendation of that committee.

 

Maybe I'm just a feminist firebrand, but hey, sue me. False accusations are relatively rare and the evidential standards for formally establishing the occurrence of rape are such that perpetrators are seldom able to be held accountable for their actions. I believe and support survivors; it helps me sleep at night.

 

It has nothing to do with being a firebrand. The facts state: 

The FBI collects data on all crimes and has found that people falsely report being sexually assaulted at the same rate as other comparable crimes: 3 percent of the time. [source] 

 

Which means 97% of the time, sexual assault charges are NOT false. You can look at pretty much any center that discusses this and find similar information, including RAINN and so on. I believe that stat is found on the NCVS [National Crime Victimization Survey] 

Edited February 17, 2014 by m-ttl

[maxhgns]

Even if he didn't assault her (remember that the standard of evidence required to prove an assault beyond reasonable doubt is very high, and typically quite hard to provide), he engaged in totally inappropriate behaviour that provides grounds not just for reprimand, but to want to be rid of him. That seems to have been the university's conclusion too.

[xypathos]

But Ludlow's lawyer says otherwise, so clearly it must be otherwise.