Got raped at school? Well don't be so "careless" and "negligent"

[Travis]

Well I know one thing....I'm thinking this is all horrible.

http://www.dailycal.org/tag/kristen-cunnane/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/...ctim-negligent-and-careless-in-her-own-abuse/

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8870872

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21906364/moraga-school-district-child-sex-abuse-victim-was

 

[Edx]

I cant understand what their point was, why did the School District claim she was "careless and negligent"? Did I miss something?

From what I gather, the perpetrator was a teacher named "Julie Correa". I cant help but think that it wasnt taken seriously because she was a women. Even as recently as the 90s it was considered unthinkable that a women could be a sexual abuser. It happens a lot more often than people think it does, it seems women also seem more likely to abuse children.

 

[Travis]

My guess is the school knows it likely losing millions over this and is just throwing crap at the walls.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I cant understand what their point was, why did the School District claim she was "careless and negligent"? Did I miss something?

From what I gather, the perpetrator was a teacher named "Julie Correa". I cant help but think that it wasnt taken seriously because she was a women. Even as recently as the 90s it was considered unthinkable that a women could be a sexual abuser. It happens a lot more often than people think it does, it seems women also seem more likely to abuse children.

Jeez, put your hobby horse back in the barn. There was a female teacher involved (and she's in the pen) and there was a male teacher, who killed himself.

The school didn't take it seriously because it always takes a bomb under their asses to get them to take things like this seriously. Look at the Sandusky case. The old boy, old girl, old teacher network comes into play.

 

[Edx]

I read the article wrong but the fact remains that female sexual abuse is ignored and minimised.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I read the article wrong but the fact remains that female sexual abuse is ignored and minimised.

The fact remains... and should remain in your pet threads. I'm personally involved in rehabilitating the working class elephant. I do not see something in every thread, though, that I can interpret as relating to that worthy cause.

 

[Travis]

What the.....pet threads.....elephants?

 

[tyr_13]

What the.....pet threads.....elephants?

I only have a vague idea what they're talking about too. Edx normally posts about men's rights issues and being critical of feminism, and it appears that Foolmewunz disagrees that this case is an example of female predators getting off lightly.

Me, I think the cover-up denial of responsibility mechanism of this school and others needs to change. It's going to be painful and difficult but if one good thing comes out of the Sanduski debacle it will be this.

 

[Morrigan]

Kristen Cunnane was "careless and negligent" and contributed to her ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a middle school teacher, the Moraga School District claimed in its first legal response to the UC Berkeley swim coach's lawsuit against the school district and three former administrators.
The district and three other defendants claim Cunnane "was herself responsible for the acts and damages of which she claims," in the Oct. 24 legal filing.
"Carelessness and negligence on (Cunnane's) part proximately contributed to the happenings of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damages," they claim.
[...]
The school district's attorney said Thursday that the language used as part of its legal stance was appropriate and necessary at the start of such a civil case with significant financial ramifications. The response did not specify how Cunnane was "negligent" or "responsible" for the abuse.
Louis Leone said "every potential defense" must be raised in such legal filings, "since failure to do so results in a waiver of the defense."

Holy *********** ****. Victim blaming justified by sleazy lawyer manipulation? This is surreal.

 

[Edx]

Id be interested if anyone can find the original statement, would be interesting to read those quotes in context and see if its as terrible as it sounds

EDIT: Nevermind I think I may have found it!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...dent-was-herself-responsible-for-being-raped/
linking to ... http://www.contracostatimes.com/new...s-legal-response-sex-abuse-victims?source=pkg

Without reading through their whole defence, it does seem like they are taking a very strange and ridiculous stance considering how this often goes down.

 

[This is The End]

The fact remains... and should remain in your pet threads. I'm personally involved in rehabilitating the working class elephant. I do not see something in every thread, though, that I can interpret as relating to that worthy cause.

I'm confused. The topic is sexual abuse perpetrated by a female. Society reacts differently to sexual abuse perpetrated by females than it does to sexual abuse perpetrated by males. Someone brings this up.... and you get mad at them???

 

[Morrigan]

^ The topic isn't about sex abuse perpetrated by a female. The victim mentioned in the OP was sexually abused both by a woman and a man, and the topic is about how she is being blamed for it by the defendants in her lawsuit.

 

[Edx]

@OnlyTellsTruths: He's complaining because I have said recently on the forum we are biased to be less concerned with and/or minimise violence and abuse perpetrated by women. I happened to read the article wrong and thought there was only Julie Correa. Research into perceptions of sexual abuse carried out by women shows that this would explain the actions of the school district. Since there is apparently also a man involved I dont know why they are acting the way they are especially when we're living in a climate where schools and colleges are more likely to be oversensitive to sexual harassment and rape, than to actually blame a young teen girl like this. Its almost the reverse of whats normal as I see it.

 

[This is The End]

^ The topic isn't about sex abuse perpetrated by a female. The victim mentioned in the OP was sexually abused both by a woman and a man, and the topic is about how she is being blamed for it by the defendants in her lawsuit.

Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradictory.

A man also being involved does not suddenly make the woman not involved.


If the topic is about sexual abuse perpetrated by a female and a male, then the fact that society reacts differently to sexual abuse perpetrated by females still comes into play, just like it would if the male was not involved at all.

To try and get that subject banned from being discussed in this thread on those grounds is patently absurd and I question the motives of anyone that tries to do so.

 

[This is The End]

@OnlyTellsTruths: He's complaining because I have said recently on the forum we are biased to be less concerned with and/or minimise violence and abuse perpetrated by women.

Well, that is weird because #1 it is true, and #2, AFAIK, we are not supposed to stalk fellow members with their arguments from one thread into another thread.

 

[Mason]

Completely not tracking here...

It's okay to bring a lawsuit against someone involving allowing an environment that may have lead to rape, but it's not okay to defend yourself against such charges? I mean, until the day of court, is the default position that the accused is guilty, the accuser is guiltless, and any statement from the accused to the contrary is simply more evidence that they're just bad people?

The district apologized for the verbage and line of defense over a month ago, btw. The article covering the apology links directly from the OP's link. Lots of research into the defendant's evil defense, no further research into, or mention of, their apology. Makes me wonder if the op is actually interested in honest examination of the case or if we're all just supposed to go "Yeah! What an evil bunch of bad people. What a terrible world we live in!".

 

[Checkmite]

The district apologized for the verbage and line of defense over a month ago, btw. The article covering the apology links directly from the OP's link. Lots of research into the defendant's evil defense, no further research into, or mention of, their apology. Makes me wonder if the op is actually interested in honest examination of the case or if we're all just supposed to go "Yeah! What an evil bunch of bad people. What a terrible world we live in!".

Is what you're calling an apology covered in this article, the part that begins with "We certainly empathize with Ms. Cunnane and did not intend to cause her further distress in filing our formal Answer to her Complaint. However..."

Because that's not an apology.

Of course anyone is allowed to offer any defense whenever they are sued for anything. Nobody's suggesting that the school should not have been allowed to use the defense they're using. People are just remarking about how pedo-apologist that particular choice of defense is.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The case and the OP are about the school district's defense of itself. It has nothing to do with whether women get off more lightly or if complaints against women are taken seriously. This is no where in the article and no where in evidence in any other articles on this topic.

The woman perp is in jail. Edx even acknowledges that he misread the article and to his credit then addressed the OP and the issue Travis raised.

Originally Posted by Edx
@OnlyTellsTruths: He's complaining because I have said recently on the forum we are biased to be less concerned with and/or minimise violence and abuse perpetrated by women.

No, I'm complaining that you brought your favorite topic to a new thread where it clearly doesn't apply. There are ample opportunities for you to bang your drum in other threads. Your affection for this topic does not need to permeate every thread and your misapplication of your theory in this case was pretty obvious.

Now, if anyone wants to discuss the actual case (thanks, Mason and thanks, Edx), the issue is that the "defense" attorneys, even knowing they were taking an unpopular route, have stated that their duty is to vigorously defend their client and that they'd be remiss if they didn't throw this possibility out there. As Mason noted, they even apologized for it, which I find a little strange and a lot off-putting. Between the lines, if one were a cynic, one might read that they know there's nothing to it, but "Hey, we're lawyers, this is the kind of **** we do, man!"

Since there are two other suits out there against the district and the principal players, I think the issue simply becomes how many times and to whom were incidents reported and what actions were or were not taken. How did the case get out, how was the prosecution of the case brought to bear, etc...

 

[Mason]

Is what you're calling an apology covered in this article, the part that begins with "We certainly empathize with Ms. Cunnane and did not intend to cause her further distress in filing our formal Answer to her Complaint. However..."

Because that's not an apology.

Was thinking more of this article http://www.contracostatimes.com/new...torneys-apologize-sex-abuse-victim?source=pkg which begins with

"MORAGA -- School district trustees on Wednesday apologized to a former student for saying in legal papers that she may have borne some responsibility for the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of former teachers"

and continues on to say

"All of that wording has been removed from the district response, board Vice President Charles MacNulty announced afterthe trustees finished a four-hour special closed session meeting Wednesday. "The governing board and its attorneys, Stubbs and Leone, apologize to Ms. Cunnane for any anxiety or distress caused by the inclusion of this defense in its response to her pleading," he said."

which links from this article http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21906364/moraga-school-district-child-sex-abuse-victim-was which is in the OP, which is as I described in my first post. If there was some confusion about my statement of a link from a link, my apologies.

I just find it disappointing that you, the OP, and others went through the trouble to scour through the articles linked in the OP to show the evils of the defendant, but didn't bother to look at the date and wonder if there had been an update to the story in the month since those original quotes. There have been updates, and they link directly from the article in the OP, but it seems like we'd rather focus a strong hatred on an easy target and sensationalize it, instead of looking just a little deeper to see if that hatred is truly warranted.

That mindset, I can get from the clowns behind me at the convenience store. I read JREF for a better calibre of discussion.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Was thinking more of this article http://www.contracostatimes.com/new...torneys-apologize-sex-abuse-victim?source=pkg which begins with


and continues on to say



which links from this article http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21906364/moraga-school-district-child-sex-abuse-victim-was which is in the OP, which is as I described in my first post. If there was some confusion about my statement of a link from a link, my apologies.

I just find it disappointing that you, the OP, and others went through the trouble to scour through the articles linked in the OP to show the evils of the defendant, but didn't bother to look at the date and wonder if there had been an update to the story in the month since those original quotes. There have been updates, and they link directly from the article in the OP, but it seems like we'd rather focus a strong hatred on an easy target and sensationalize it, instead of looking just a little deeper to see if that hatred is truly warranted.

That mindset, I can get from the clowns behind me at the convenience store. I read JREF for a better calibre of discussion.

Well, I did try to google for updates yesterday, but my browser has been sucky (ever since I installed some stupid ghost wizard) and it kept leading back to the first article I'd clicked. (I know that I should log off and back on, but I didn't do that - my bad.)

Thanks for the update. Non story, then?

 

[Morrigan]

Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradictory.

A man also being involved does not suddenly make the woman not involved.

I didn't say that. I said Edx was off-topic.

If the topic is about sexual abuse perpetrated by a female and a male, then the fact that society reacts differently to sexual abuse perpetrated by females still comes into play,

Except the OP isn't about that. At all.

To try and get that subject banned from being discussed in this thread on those grounds is patently absurd and I question the motives of anyone that tries to do so.

Erm... what....? Edx is the one who always brings up that subject of discussion in every thread remotely linked to sexual issues of any kind. It's his pet topic, but that doesn't mean we should indulge him every time.

The case and the OP are about the school district's defense of itself. It has nothing to do with whether women get off more lightly or if complaints against women are taken seriously. This is no where in the article and no where in evidence in any other articles on this topic.

The woman perp is in jail. Edx even acknowledges that he misread the article and to his credit then addressed the OP and the issue Travis raised.

No, I'm complaining that you brought your favorite topic to a new thread where it clearly doesn't apply. There are ample opportunities for you to bang your drum in other threads. Your affection for this topic does not need to permeate every thread and your misapplication of your theory in this case was pretty obvious.

This.

Was thinking more of this article [...]

I just find it disappointing that you, the OP, and others went through the trouble to scour through the articles linked in the OP to show the evils of the defendant, but didn't bother to look at the date and wonder if there had been an update to the story in the month since those original quotes. There have been updates, and they link directly from the article in the OP, but it seems like we'd rather focus a strong hatred on an easy target and sensationalize it, instead of looking just a little deeper to see if that hatred is truly warranted.

That mindset, I can get from the clowns behind me at the convenience store. I read JREF for a better calibre of discussion.

Or maybe, just maybe, we think that these apologies are not good enough? Obviously they'd apologize when they realized everyone got outraged, so I don't think their apology is worth anything; that they even said those things in the first place is just mind-boggling.

 

[Mason]

Or maybe, just maybe, we think that these apologies are not good enough? Obviously they'd apologize when they realized everyone got outraged, so I don't think their apology is worth anything; that they even said those things in the first place is just mind-boggling.

The idea that someone should be villanized for exploring all possible defenses when accused of allowing a rape to happen is mind boggling. The idea that the defendant was bullied by the media and popular opinion into dropping a possible defense, and we're okay with that, is mind boggling. The idea that they had to apologize for hurting the feelings of the person who is blaming them for her rape is mind boggling.

The accuser's attorney has expressed that he's glad the defense has dropped that line of defense. Dropping a possible line of defense and restructuring your defense likely means an overall a weaker case, even if only slightly. The board has lost face to the public, which will hurt them for years because of the coverage of this comment, and the accuser has gained incredible amounts of sympathy from the incident, but none of that is good enough.

So, what defense should a person/group of people be allowed to use when accused of allowing a rape to happen? What should be the appropriate reparations if their defense makes their accuser sad?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The school district's attorney said Thursday that the language used as part of its legal stance was appropriate and necessary at the start of such a civil case with significant financial ramifications. The response did not specify how Cunnane was "negligent" or "responsible" for the abuse.

Reinforces my belief that some lawyers, while believing they are obligated to defend their clients regardless of the facts, are the scum of the Earth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
So, what defense should a person/group of people be allowed to use when accused of allowing a rape to happen? What should be the appropriate reparations if their defense makes their accuser sad?

If the evidence is clear the crime occurred, the accused, in this case the school district, should negotiate a settlement.

If the school district believes the crime did not occur, then the defense should be based on the facts the district believes to have really been the case. Claiming a child was responsible suggests to me the district hired an incompetent attorney who believes any defense, regardless of the obvious facts (aka the kid was in middle school!!!!!!!!!!), is the way to go with the case.

 

[Mason]

If the evidence is clear the crime occurred, the accused, in this case the school district, should negotiate a settlement.

If the school district believes the crime did not occur, then the defense should be based on the facts the district believes to have really been the case. Claiming a child was responsible suggests to me the district hired an incompetent attorney who believes any defense, regardless of the obvious facts (aka the kid was in middle school!!!!!!!!!!), is the way to go with the case.

Pretty much, yeah. The attorney, if I read correctly, had submitted this same defense in a previous case, and that school board also issued an apology to the victim, after the apology from this case was issued. Probably copy-paste error, or other such incompetence, when compiling his defense. Or maybe he's just scum, heh.

Reinforces my belief that some lawyers, while believing they are obligated to defend their clients regardless of the facts, are the scum of the Earth.

But we must still allow the accused a proper defense, no matter how distasteful we find his position.

 

[Checkmite]

I just find it disappointing that you, the OP, and others went through the trouble to scour through the articles linked in the OP to show the evils of the defendant, but didn't bother to look at the date and wonder if there had been an update to the story in the month since those original quotes. There have been updates, and they link directly from the article in the OP, but it seems like we'd rather focus a strong hatred on an easy target and sensationalize it, instead of looking just a little deeper to see if that hatred is truly warranted.

That mindset, I can get from the clowns behind me at the convenience store. I read JREF for a better calibre of discussion.

It was hardly scouring; it was the entire subject of those articles. It's a good thing that they apologized; but I'm mystified that you were "disappointed" by the reactions of people who were not aware of this apology. The initial language was horrific and insensitive on its face, and it's not "sensationalism" to point out how repugnant it was. The chosen defense most definitely did deserve what you refer to as the "hatred" that was directed towards it.

 

[kerikiwi]

@OnlyTellsTruths: He's complaining because I have said recently on the forum we are biased to be less concerned with and/or minimise violence and abuse perpetrated by women. I happened to read the article wrong and thought there was only Julie Correa. Research into perceptions of sexual abuse carried out by women shows that this would explain the actions of the school district. Since there is apparently also a man involved I dont know why they are acting the way they are especially when we're living in a climate where schools and colleges are more likely to be oversensitive to sexual harassment and rape, than to actually blame a young teen girl like this. Its almost the reverse of whats normal as I see it.

Even if your reading were, in fact, correct, the sex of the teacher involved is irrelevant to the fact that the victim is being blamed.

 

[Caper]

I know she was molested... but as always with these cases, the amount of money being asked for compensation is mind blowing. 15 million... that's alot of cash.

 

[Checkmite]

The idea that someone should be villanized for exploring all possible defenses when accused of allowing a rape to happen is mind boggling.

Possible defenses, nobody has a problem with. But it's not possible for a middle school student to be responsible for his or her abuse/rape at the hands of adult teachers. That's not a possible defense in the context of the case being alleged.

 

[kerikiwi]

Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradictory.

A man also being involved does not suddenly make the woman not involved.


If the topic is about sexual abuse perpetrated by a female and a male, then the fact that society reacts differently to sexual abuse perpetrated by females still comes into play, just like it would if the male was not involved at all.

To try and get that subject banned from being discussed in this thread on those grounds is patently absurd and I question the motives of anyone that tries to do so.

You are wrong.
Read again. The topic is the blaming of the victim. It has nothing to do with the sex of the offender.
Your dragging in the sex of the offender is the patently absurd thing

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pretty much, yeah. The attorney, if I read correctly, had submitted this same defense in a previous case, and that school board also issued an apology to the victim, after the apology from this case was issued. Probably copy-paste error, or other such incompetence, when compiling his defense. Or maybe he's just scum, heh.



But we must still allow the accused a proper defense, no matter how distasteful we find his position.

I'm not one that believes a dishonest defense is a proper defense.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not one that believes a dishonest defense is a proper defense.

Well, that's their defense of their defense, so to speak... that a lawyer is morally (always funny to see some lawyers using that word, "morally") obligated to provide the best possible defense. Unfortunately, they confused quality with quantity this time and were just throwing out crap and hoping they could get some traction with it. It backfired, and think that the school district better be heavily insured and better get this settled.

Do we know if this is the insurance company's lawyers or lawyers for the City/District? I can't see a good insurance attorney being thick enough to throw up such a defense unless he had some goods to peddle. Most insurance companies go into court only as last recourse; they generally tend to favor settling and getting things over and done with and quieted down.

 

[gumboot]

The idea that someone should be villanized for exploring all possible defenses when accused of allowing a rape to happen is mind boggling. The idea that the defendant was bullied by the media and popular opinion into dropping a possible defense, and we're okay with that, is mind boggling. The idea that they had to apologize for hurting the feelings of the person who is blaming them for her rape is mind boggling.

Why? I don't find it the least bit mind-boggling. Their defense is totally senseless.

So, what defense should a person/group of people be allowed to use when accused of allowing a rape to happen?

One based in fact would be a good start. You do understand that the rape has been established as factual, yes? That the person responsible has been convicted and imprisoned?

To base a defense on the argument that the victim is responsible for the rape is essentially to dispute the fact that a rape happened at all.

The only vaguely reasonable defense I can come up with is to argue that the school does not permit its staff to rape people, that a staff member violated that trust and was imprisoned for it, and that the school can't be held accountable for the actions of an individual criminal teacher.

To try instead to argue that the victim (who was a 12 year old girl at the time, let's not forget) somehow caused her own rape is beyond disgraceful.

 

[gumboot]

I know she was molested... but as always with these cases, the amount of money being asked for compensation is mind blowing. 15 million... that's alot of cash.

Bear in mind that's between three of them.

 

[Caper]

Bear in mind that's between three of them.

yeah I guess... and legal fees it drops a lot more. It always sucks getting raped or molested.... but sucks far more if you get raped or molested by someone who is broke.

 

[Checkmite]

There are any number of possible defenses, If the school wanted to try, as a defense, claiming that it indeed never happened, or at least didn't happen the way the plaintiff claimed, that's a possible defense - difficult to swing, considering that the criminal courts put someone away for committing the crime, maybe - but at least possible in theory.

If they want to try, as a defense, to claim that they're not liable for the actions of their teachers which are contrary to school policies and the law, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they're not liable because they had no way of knowing or preventing what happened, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they did act completely properly in every possible way regarding the situation, that they had every conceivable rule in place that could've been made, or things of this nature - that's at least possible.

And those are things I just thought up right now. There's probably any number of more possibilities.

But it is not possible, as a defense, that if the (at the time middle school student) actually was molested/raped, it was her own fault, or that it was the result of her own negligence or carelessness. That's something that simply cannot be true.

 

[gumboot]

yeah I guess... and legal fees it drops a lot more. It always sucks getting raped or molested.... but sucks far more if you get raped or molested by someone who is broke.

Keep in mind they're not suing the person that molested them. They're suing the school because they allege the school was aware that abuse was happening, and rather than act to prevent it, actually covered it up, allowing it to continue to happen.

If true, that's a pretty massive violation of their fundamental duty of care to their students, and a hefty price tag is probably justified. In fact, really I think the authorities should be investigating the school district for criminal behaviour (again, assuming there's any real meat to the "evidence" this media outlet has uncovered).

 

[gumboot]

There are any number of possible defenses, If the school wanted to try, as a defense, claiming that it indeed never happened, or at least didn't happen the way the plaintiff claimed, that's a possible defense - difficult to swing, considering that the criminal courts put someone away for committing the crime, maybe - but at least possible in theory.

If they want to try, as a defense, to claim that they're not liable for the actions of their teachers which are contrary to school policies and the law, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they're not liable because they had no way of knowing or preventing what happened, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they did act completely properly in every possible way regarding the situation, that they had every conceivable rule in place that could've been made, or things of this nature - that's at least possible.

And those are things I just thought up right now. There's probably any number of more possibilities.

But it is not possible, as a defense, that if the (at the time middle school student) actually was molested/raped, it was her own fault, or that it was the result of her own negligence or carelessness. That's something that simply cannot be true.

Exactly.

 

[Checkmite]

I know she was molested... but as always with these cases, the amount of money being asked for compensation is mind blowing. 15 million... that's alot of cash.

If she has a lawyer that's any better than the one who drafted that initial defense, she already knows she'll never be awarded that much money. A lawyer friend of mine says he can't remember the last time he heard about someone with a multi-million-dollar claim actually getting the full amount they asked for.

There could be a couple of different issues in play here. I'll give you one: maybe the high claim is an attempt to price the school district out of the "settlement" pot. If the plaintiffs are not interested in a settlement (which could for instance include a legally-binding agreement never to discuss the matter in public, ever again) but instead are set on bringing it to civil court where the proceedings will be part of the public record, they can set a claim so high that the school board will never be able to offer it (or something close to it) in exchange for a silent settlement. I think if you set a claim low enough that a defendant is able to offer the whole amount out-of-court and you reject it, that can be considered bad faith and might impact a judge's decision in court later (I could be wrong).

 

[tyr_13]

There are any number of possible defenses, If the school wanted to try, as a defense, claiming that it indeed never happened, or at least didn't happen the way the plaintiff claimed, that's a possible defense - difficult to swing, considering that the criminal courts put someone away for committing the crime, maybe - but at least possible in theory.

If they want to try, as a defense, to claim that they're not liable for the actions of their teachers which are contrary to school policies and the law, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they're not liable because they had no way of knowing or preventing what happened, that's at least possible.

If they want to try, as a defense, to contend that they did act completely properly in every possible way regarding the situation, that they had every conceivable rule in place that could've been made, or things of this nature - that's at least possible.

And those are things I just thought up right now. There's probably any number of more possibilities.

But it is not possible, as a defense, that if the (at the time middle school student) actually was molested/raped, it was her own fault, or that it was the result of her own negligence or carelessness. That's something that simply cannot be true.

It becomes even more confusing when the argument is that their attempted cover up of the event and subsequent actions were justified by the negligence and carelessness of a twelve year old.

At no point does it get even closer to being a valid argument. Every layer of detail makes it less so. It's like pealing a rotten onion from the inside out, getting more rotten and rotten as you peal outward. Also the onion covered up the rape of children... at least twice.