Larry Nassar

[Aura]

I'm sorry, but what you are saying isn't true.

 

She specifically said (direct quote):

 

I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.

 

This is not acceptable behavior on the part of a judge. He deserved a tongue-lashing (an understatement if there ever was one), but wishing rape on a prisoner and saying you'd allow it (if not constrained by the Constitution) is shocking behavior from a judge.

 

Bill

 

Try quoting the whole sentence instead of cherry picking. Here, you did it the first time:

 

IMO this judge should be removed from the bench. It is unacceptable for a judge to say: 

 

Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment.“If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls ― these young women in their childhood ― I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.

 

Were it up to me, Judge Aquilina would be removed, possibly disbarred, and certainly censured for these remarks. They are appalling.

 

Larry Nasser certainly deserves to be rebuked in the strongest terms and life imprisonment is the correct sentence. But saying from the bench that, were it in her power and not constitutionally prohibited, that a judge would wish sexually assault on a person she is sentencing is beyond the pale.

 

Absolutely unacceptable behavior from a judge.

 

Bill     

 

Taken in its entirety, that whole actual sentence, she is not calling on him to be sexually assaulted or that he should receive that punishment.

 

At best, it's an interpretation issue where I see one thing and you see another. But you're calling for her disbarment after she ensured a fair trial and meted a just punishment? I think that's harsh and over-reaching.

[Scarlett]

Does this mean that you wish him to be placed in the general population to increase his risk of getting attacked and/or raped? I have seen many people express this sentiment, please let me know if that is not an accurate interpretation. If it is, I have a problem. I don't think anyone should be attacked/raped. Rape is never okay. Never. To answer violence with violence is not acceptable. We need to act like the people we are and not drop to behavior standards the lowest element of our society.

Yes. I don't have the desire to see him suffer. I have the desire that he never be released from prison. His own mind will be torture enough.

[Spy Car]

Is there anyway her remarks could taint the case or in any way cause a problem for the outcome? Obviously, I don't know my law. Could there be an appeal based on her statement?

 

I would certainly expect these words would be grounds for an appeal. On the other hand, I don't think there is a snowball's chance that they'd prevail.

 

Rarely is there a clearer villain than Larry Nasser. His behavior repulses everyone. But is only by not yielding our values, ethics, and morals when "the crowd" might cheer tossing aside civilized behavior that we protect what makes us a society of laws and not vendettas and retribution.

 

This judge's remarks are an insult to our values. I'm appalled that a judge in a sentencing says she would allow Nasser to be raped in prison if she were not constrained by the Constitution. Who says this from the bench?

 

This isn't a "Drunk Uncle" sketch on SNL.

 

This judge should apologize to the nation for her words and then step down. She lacks the required temperament for the office.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Try quoting the whole sentence instead of cherry picking. Here, you did it the first time:

 

 

Taken in its entirety, that whole actual sentence, she is not calling on him to be sexually assaulted or that he should receive that punishment.

 

At best, it's an interpretation issue where I see one thing and you see another. But you're calling for her disbarment after she ensured a fair trial and meted a just punishment? I think that's harsh and over-reaching.

 

No, what she is clearly saying--and in the plainest possible terms is that, were it not impermissible under the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition that she, a presiding judge in a case, could allow a convict to be multiply raped in prison.

 

Such words should cost her a judgeship. What could be a worse comment from a person in her position?

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Is there anyway her remarks could taint the case or in any way cause a problem for the outcome? Obviously, I don't know my law. Could there be an appeal based on her statement?

 

He can't appeal the conviction as he plead guilty.  He can appeal the sentencing but the sentence handed down is within the guidelines and can be supported by the victim impact statements as well as his callous behavior that has went on even after his plea.

[EMS83]

Oh good.

[Scarlett]

He really shows how delusional he is with what he wrote to the judge just a week ago...hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I found that comment to be as perplexing as it was shocking. Does he think these women were scorned? Does he realize that they were children when he abused them?

 

So nuts.

[swimmermom3]

He can't appeal the conviction as he plead guilty.  He can appeal the sentencing but the sentence handed down is within the guidelines and can be supported by the victim impact statements as well as his callous behavior that has went on even after his plea.

 

Thank you. I really didn't want there to be anything that could take this victory away from the victims. I also hope there are some bad actors out there that are really freaking out about now. Swim coaches, you know who you are. (My own special voodoo doll.)

[swimmermom3]

He really shows how delusional he is with what he wrote to the judge just a week ago...hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I found that comment to be as perplexing as it was shocking. Does he think these women were scorned? Does he realize that they were children when he abused them?

 

So nuts.

 

The quote I read said "scored." Either translation is horrific.

[Aura]

Look, I obviously disagree with you, Bill, so I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth.

 

I read her entire statement. I simply do not read (or hear) what she said to mean what you say it means. That key word might makes all the difference to me, especially when included with everything that she was saying: that she didn't see him taking any responsibility or having remorse or even that she saw he had the ability for rehabilitation. Everything she was saying to him was to underscore the severity of his crimes and to make him understand that she was taking as severe action as possible because of his own actions and inactions.  I just do not see what you're saying.

 

And I think that calling for her to be barred or to step down from being a judge is over-reacting. 

[MegP]

This is interesting-

 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/first-named-larry-nassar-abuse-survivor-rachael-denhollander-preaches-gospel-to-disgraced-doctor-215129/?utm_source=newsletter

[ktgrok]

I'm sorry, but what you are saying isn't true.

 

She specifically said (direct quote):

 

I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.

 

This is not acceptable behavior on the part of a judge. He deserved a tongue-lashing (an understatement if there ever was one), but wishing rape on a prisoner and saying you'd allow it (if not constrained by the Constitution) is shocking behavior from a judge.

 

Bill

 

Is that different than judges who have said they wish they could give the death penalty,but can't (for whatever reason)? I don't think it is. Wishing someone dead seems pretty bad. 

[ktgrok]

No, what she is clearly saying--and in the plainest possible terms is that, were it not impermissible under the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition that she, a presiding judge in a case, could allow a convict to be multiply raped in prison.

 

 

 

In  other words she i saying that his actual  sentence was NOT based on her own feelings and desires but on the law. As to should be. Judges can wish what they want, they are allowed their own personal emotions, as long as they don't allow those emotions to determine their course of action. Their decisions must be based on law, not emotion or personal prejudices. Which is what happened here. That's what all judges are called to do, follow the law not their own feelings. Doesn't mean they don't have those feelings. 

[ktgrok]

He can't appeal the conviction as he plead guilty.  He can appeal the sentencing but the sentence handed down is within the guidelines and can be supported by the victim impact statements as well as his callous behavior that has went on even after his plea.

 

Plus he already has 60 years from the porn charge.

[Tree Frog]

If you are interested in hearing the full victim impact statement from Rachael Denhollander, you can view it here. Please be aware that it contains very specific details of the assaults and therefore is graphic in some places. The video posted early was heavily edited - she spoke for just over 40 minutes. She is one amazing young woman. 

 

 

That is very powerful testimony. I can't imagine how often she has had to relive the abuse on her journey to stop Nassar.

 

I don't understand what happened around the 26:50 mark. She said she was done, the defense objected, and she continued speaking. Can anyone explain that to me?

 

Eta: Why are the cameras allowed in the courtroom? I thought cameras weren't allowed.

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by wilrunner

[Bluegoat]

Also, I've seen variations of this weird statement: that what made it bad was that his finger was ungloved.

 

Look, if a sport is giving my daughter injuries such that a doctor has to repeatedly (100 times!  Seriously!) insert his finger in her vagina, gloved or ungloved, the sport is not worth it.  It's like part of the argument is that it wasn't really a legitimate medical treatment - I dunno. It doesn't matter how legitimate it is, it's unacceptable in this context. 

 

There is something totally bizarre that comes over people with regards to kids and sport.  

 

I think the idea "we have to make sure she fulfills her potential" has a lot to answer for.

[TechWife]

That is very powerful testimony. I can't imagine how often she has had to relive the abuse on her journey to stop Nassar.

 

I don't understand what happened around the 26:50 mark. She said she was done, the defense objected, and she continued speaking. Can anyone explain that to me?

 

Eta: Why are the cameras allowed in the courtroom? I thought cameras weren't allowed.

 

Start at 25:28 for the entire interaction. She is talking about some of the things that happened to her as a result of her coming forward. One of them was having the defense attorney, Shannon Smith, question her character in court. She requested permission from the judge to respond to those accusations, the judge granted it and she said a few things to Ms. Smith. When she said she was done, she only meant she was done addressing Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith objected, but her objection was not allowed. Ms. Denhollander then continues with the remainder of her victim impact statement. 

 

Doe that make sense? 

 

Different courts have different rules regarding cameras being allowed in the courtroom.  Not all courts allow cameras. Of those that do allow them, the judge can disallow them for certain cases. Obviously, in this court they are allowed. 

[Spy Car]

Look, I obviously disagree with you, Bill, so I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth.

 

I read her entire statement. I simply do not read (or hear) what she said to mean what you say it means. That key word might makes all the difference to me, especially when included with everything that she was saying: that she didn't see him taking any responsibility or having remorse or even that she saw he had the ability for rehabilitation. Everything she was saying to him was to underscore the severity of his crimes and to make him understand that she was taking as severe action as possible because of his own actions and inactions. I just do not see what you're saying.

 

And I think that calling for her to be barred or to step down from being a judge is over-reacting.

The key word wasn’t “might,†it was “would’†as you in were I not constrained by the Constitution, I would allow you to be raped in prison.

 

This is unacceptable from a judge.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

In other words she i saying that his actual sentence was NOT based on her own feelings and desires but on the law. As to should be. Judges can wish what they want, they are allowed their own personal emotions, as long as they don't allow those emotions to determine their course of action. Their decisions must be based on law, not emotion or personal prejudices. Which is what happened here. That's what all judges are called to do, follow the law not their own feelings. Doesn't mean they don't have those feelings.

Not quite. LOL. She told him she was given him a “Death Sentence†and then said she’d personally favor his rape (and presumedly his killing) if it were up to her.

 

Encouraging prisoners to exact vengeance is not the role of judge in a civilized society.

 

Bill

[gardenmom5]

 

"While executing a search warrant, MSU police discovered external hard drives with more than 37,000 images and videos of child pornography that had been thrown away in Nassar’s garage can in front of his house on trash collection day."

 

 

 Thirty. Seven. THOUSAND. Images.  And hundreds of girls. I hope he gets an "internal massage" every day in prison for the rest of his life.  :cursing:

 

I doubt he'll have a very long life.  he strikes me as a coward.  so was ariel castro - who killed himself after three MONTHS in prison.

[maize]

Not quite. LOL. She told him she was given him a “Death Sentenceâ€

 

[snip]

 

Encouraging prisoners to exact vengeance is not the role of judge in a civilized society.

 

Bill

The death sentence was clearly a reference to the fact that his lifetime would end before the sentence ran out.

 

I agree with your last paragraph .

 

ETA I personally did not read the judge's statement as encouraging anything. More acknowledging that if punishment were commensurate with the crime his fate would be much harsher but our legal system does not work on an "eye for an eye" model.

Edited January 26, 2018 by maize

[Tree Frog]

Start at 25:28 for the entire interaction. She is talking about some of the things that happened to her as a result of her coming forward. One of them was having the defense attorney, Shannon Smith, question her character in court. She requested permission from the judge to respond to those accusations, the judge granted it and she said a few things to Ms. Smith. When she said she was done, she only meant she was done addressing Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith objected, but her objection was not allowed. Ms. Denhollander then continues with the remainder of her victim impact statement. 

 

Doe that make sense? 

 

Different courts have different rules regarding cameras being allowed in the courtroom.  Not all courts allow cameras. Of those that do allow them, the judge can disallow them for certain cases. Obviously, in this court they are allowed. 

 

Thank you for connecting the dots. I didn't realize Ms. Smith was in the courtroom and that Ms. Denhollander was addressing her in person. 

[MinivanMom]

I cried when Rachael Denhollander spoke about the violation of Nasser reading her personal journals. (I'm unclear on whether she voluntarily turned them over as evidence or whether they were subpoenaed.) Her statement was incredibly powerful.

 

I'm so proud of all the women who came forward and spoke. 

[Bluegoat]

It is my understanding that because he pled guilty the judge was under no obligation toward impartiality.

 

That's a little different though than a suggestion that rape would be a good outcome, even for a criminal.  It's a common enough sentiment but not really compatible with the whole rule of law as laid out by the state constraining personal revenge.

 

It's been one of the criticisms of the inclusion of victim impact statements that they encourage that kind of approach.

[Spy Car]

The death sentence was clearly a reference to the fact that his lifetime would end before the sentence ran out.

 

I agree with your last paragraph .

 

ETA I personally did not read the judge's statement as encouraging anything. More acknowledging that if punishment were commensurate with the crime his fate would be much harsher but our legal system does not work on an "eye for an eye" model.

The legal system is pretty clear in differentiating life-sentences and the death penalty. It isn’t a small area of distinction.

 

Calling a term a “death sentence†is very chilling when combined with a judge signaling she’s naturally sympathetic to extra- judicial

“justice.â€

 

I find her stamenents absolutely chilling.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

The death sentence was clearly a reference to the fact that his lifetime would end before the sentence ran out.

 

I agree with your last paragraph .

 

ETA I personally did not read the judge's statement as encouraging anything. More acknowledging that if punishment were commensurate with the crime his fate would be much harsher but our legal system does not work on an "eye for an eye" model.

The legal system is pretty clear in differentiating life-sentences and the death penalty. It isn’t a small area of distinction.

 

Calling a term a “death sentence†is very chilling when combined with a judge signaling she’s naturally sympathetic to extra- judicial

“justice.â€

 

I find her stamenents absolutely chilling.

 

Bill

[dirty ethel rackham]

If you are interested in hearing the full victim impact statement from Rachael Denhollander, you can view it here. Please be aware that it contains very specific details of the assaults and therefore is graphic in some places. The video posted early was heavily edited - she spoke for just over 40 minutes. She is one amazing young woman. 

 

 

I had assumed that the "cover up" was well-intentioned but misguided.  "Surely this good guy couldn't have done such evil things."  But hearing her testimony about the criminal manner in which the cover up was carried out by MSU and how victims were intimidated by coaches and officials at MSU, I am positively sick!  I seriously want to go after these people with a baseball bat.  How dare they!!!  How dare they further victimize these young women!!  I am furious.  I couldn't even listen past that so I did not hear if she attacked USAG and their actions.  

[TechWife]

I had assumed that the "cover up" was well-intentioned but misguided.  "Surely this good guy couldn't have done such evil things."  But hearing her testimony about the criminal manner in which the cover up was carried out by MSU and how victims were intimidated by coaches and officials at MSU, I am positively sick!  I seriously want to go after these people with a baseball bat.  How dare they!!!  How dare they further victimize these young women!!  I am furious.  I couldn't even listen past that so I did not hear if she attacked USAG and their actions.  

 

I agree, it is sickening. I have passed the point in my life where I can think that a cover up was well-intentioned. I have heard too many stories of cover-ups in various settings. The desire of executives and organization leaders to preserve the reputation of the organization and their own positions far exceeds their willingness to do the right thing. Honestly, the rest of her statement is worth listening too, if you can stomach it. I totally understand if you can't. Her ending is meaningful and so strong. 

[Guest]

The legal system is pretty clear in differentiating life-sentences and the death penalty. It isn’t a small area of distinction.

 

Calling a term a “death sentence†is very chilling when combined with a judge signaling she’s naturally sympathetic to extra- judicial

“justice.â€

 

I find her stamenents absolutely chilling.

 

Bill

Interesting. I found her honest horror and emotion refreshing. Judges aren’t robots.

[Lostinabook]

Thank you for connecting the dots. I didn't realize Ms. Smith was in the courtroom and that Ms. Denhollander was addressing her in person. 

 

 

She wasn't. Her minions protested on her behalf. As they did the day before when another survivor called her out.

[ktgrok]

nm

SaveSave

Edited January 26, 2018 by ktgrok

[gardenmom5]

Interesting. I found her honest horror and emotion refreshing. Judges aren’t robots.

 

 

she could have taught a lot to the judge in the brock turner case.  I would wish him to be disbarred, but more realistically is the voters will hopefully vote him off the bench.

[Spy Car]

Interesting. I found her honest horror and emotion refreshing. Judges aren’t robots.

 

Certainly not robots, but hopefully mature exemplars of our society's best values.

 

She failed miserably in her role today.

 

Bill

[sassenach]

Certainly not robots, but hopefully mature exemplars of our society's best values.

 

She failed miserably in her role today.

 

Bill

You’ve made your point and I’m sick of hearing it. Go start a new thread if you feel the need to rail against the judge.

[Spy Car]

You’ve made your point and I’m sick of hearing it. Go start a new thread if you feel the need to rail against the judge.

 

I won't be silenced when a judge acts this outrageously and get praised for her outrageous behavior.

 

Not a chance.

 

Bill

[sassenach]

I won't be silenced when a judge acts this outrageously and get praised for her outrageous behavior.

 

Not a chance.

 

Bill

Who said you needed to be silenced?

 

Your outrage is just so out of place on a day when so many other important words were said.

 

I’m wondering if being a man in the entertainment industry has been a pressing spot for you lately. LA must be a pressure cooker right now. Triggering.

 

Throw a couple of exclamation points on your multiple, repetitive, outraged statements and I might start wondering if Donald has joined the hive.

[Guest]

NM. I’m not going to further derail this thread. Hurray for brave judges!!!

Edited January 26, 2018 by Moxie

[ktgrok]

Certainly not robots, but hopefully mature exemplars of our society's best values.

 

She failed miserably in her role today.

 

Bill

 

Her role is to pass a sentence down according to the law. She did that. 

 

You think she's the first or only judge to feel such things about the defendant? Please. She just said it. And I bet a bunch of other judges say it too, and it doesn't get recorded for tv. 

 

Again, she did nothing wrong. She followed the law. The law says nothing about how she must feel about him. She can WISH she could sentence him to whatever she wants. as long as she DOESN'T do it. And she didn't. She followed the law. She sentenced him in accordance with our laws and the constitution. That is what they are there for. At no point did she allow her feelings to determine the sentence, at no point did she do anything unconstitutional. 

 

The whole purpose of rule of law, not men, is that it allows flawed, human people to apply justice evenly and it worked in this case. 

 

You can dislike her feelings, but they aren't against the law. Had her ACTIONS been unconstitutional, that would be a problem. But they weren't. 

[ktgrok]

I won't be silenced when a judge acts this outrageously and get praised for her outrageous behavior.

 

Not a chance.

 

Bill

 

You know, I get it, you see something totally outrageous and awful and just have to speak up. Kind of why the rest of us are talking about Nassar's behavior. Whole thread about it. And you pop in, and are also outraged......at the judge. Who broke no laws. Funny how you are having no problem being silent about the abuse, but can't keep your peace about the judge.

 

 

[Guest]

I’m with Celia the Tweeter on this one.

Amen and amen.

[plansrme]

I’m with Celia the Tweeter on this one.

 

Possibly this is the first time I've ever agreed with a sentiment expressed via Twitter, but yeah--go Celia.

[LMD]

Bill, could you be any more insensitive?

 

#teamCeliatheTweeter

[sassenach]

Celia is my new favorite writer.

[El...]

I sort of get where we can be outraged that the righteous are not perfect... the judge was too human, and could have phrased her outrage more carefully... but really, nope.  I'm with Celia on this one.  

[debinindy]

What is "unacceptable" and "absolutely chilling"

 

is that this man was NOT stopped and had unfettered access to innocent little girls in order to violate THEIR innocence for his disgusting pleasure and power!

 

That is unacceptable and chilling!

[shawthorne44]

You know, I never would have thought the phrase "shit bow" could be used in an acceptable manner.   But, once again, I am wrong.  

[TechWife]

In a perfect world, the judge would have kept her personal, and yes, inappropriate comments to herself. But, the entire past week has demonstrated that this is far from a perfect world. The judge did something none of us have done - she listened as hundreds of women gave statement after statement about the horrors they endured and the after effects of the trauma that have reverberated throughout their lives and will continue to do so for years to come. We can cut her slack. She certainly isn’t the first judge to do that and she won’t be the last. It certainly isn’t worth disbarment. I, too, am appalled that the men are focusing on the female judge and not the male pedophile who assaulted an unknown number of young girls, changing the trajectory of their lives forever. This is the way people try to make it seem that Nassar and his ilk aren’t the real problem, that the judge is the real problem. That is wrong and is, most assuredly a straw man argument in the #metoo and #timesup arena in which we live. More than 50% of the population of our nation is female, stop trying to silence us because you don’t like what we are saying. In the words of Ms. Denhollander “What is a young woman’s life worth? What is a girls life worth?†That is what our society needs to grapple with, not the perceived slight by a judge, who is more accomplished, educated and powerful than the men who are so disturbed by her exercising that power. Again, “What is a young woman’s life worth? What is a girl’s life worth?â€

[plansrme]

The only thing that surprises me about Celia's tweet is that, apparently, there are other men upset because the judge used her mean words (do these other mean also want to disbar her?).  I really assumed that Bill must be a lone wolf in that regard.  

[plansrme]

You know, I never would have thought the phrase "shit bow" could be used in an acceptable manner.   But, once again, I am wrong.  

 

Language evolves!  As a grammar purist, I may never get on board with the singular "they" or "literally" to mean "figuratively," but this one?  Sure; count me in.

[TechWife]

The only thing that surprises me about Celia's tweet is that, apparently, there are other men upset because the judge used her mean words (do these other mean also want to disbar her?). I really assumed that Bill must be a lone wolf in that regard.

Nassar actually accused the judge in a letter of being “mean,†IIRC. He didn’t want to sit through the victim impact statements.