A tragic rush in Lizzy Seeberg case to accuse Notre Dame footballer of rape is all wrong
Posted on Friday, November 26, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
9 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Is Rory McIlroy a spoiled brat and just an overgrown child? - Antics during the U.S. Open leave his maturity very much in question
- Was Notre Dame’s Everett Golson caught cheating at exams leading to suspension? Quarterback statement hints at major integrity issue and harsh punishment does also
- Orb should win Preakness easily, Oxbow up for second
- Could Celtic boss Neil Lennon be next manager at Manchester United? - His European exploits, especially defeating Barcelona may put him in frame
- Orb has what it takes to win Triple Crown in 2013 - Kentucky Derby winner has breeding, connections and talent
Archives
Notre Dame is between a rock and a hard place on the suicide of Lizzy Seeberg, pictured, the young woman who took her life after allegedly being assaulted by a Notre Dame player.
She was known to suffer from depression.
Many websites and newspapers have been critical of Notre Dame for continuing to suit up the player and not benching him for the season.
That sounds like lynch law to me and I have one sentence for those who want to see it happen --Remember the Duke lacrosse team.
That was a famous case where three players were convicted in the court of public opinion of raping a black girl .
Turned out the entire affair was a hoax.
On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent.
Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."
A tragic rush to accuse sounds like a similar accusation in this case.
I'm not saying that the Seeberg case will turn out the same way, but I respect Notre Dame authorities for seeking the whole truth before they destroy another young life with what may be unjustified innuendo.
The player himself will no doubt be questioned and evidence from all available sources will be weighed up. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to play football for Notre Dame until such time as he is proven guilty or admits to the offense.
Until then university authorities are completely correct to stay silent.
A young woman has died intragic circumstances. We must find out the truth of what happened to ensure fair play for everyone concerned.
9 Comments
See all comments
seamusmoore | Dec 22, 2010, 11:32 AM EST
Let me get this right: the ND Police Dept knew on September 1 that the allegation against the football player was that he touched her breast without consent and he should have been suspended for this prior to any investigation.
There was never a rape allegation in this case as anyone who did the slighest bit of research, such as reading the St Joe Prosecutor's statement the day after the original Cicago Trib article (11/21/10), would know.
Anne1982 It was Lizzy Seberg's parents who broke privacy on this. If you knew anything about Notre Dame, they have not been hesitant to discipline athletes who violate rules/break laws: Kyle McAlarney, Will Yeatman or the four football players expelled from the school back in 2002 on a rape allegation. According to the NDPD police report, there was a sexual assault on campus the same week, perhaps that case took priority over a touching without consent allegation, which is not a felony as you state occurred.
Report abuse
SouthBendNative | Dec 22, 2010, 08:29 AM EST
Anne, you want the authorities to identify the player even though there is no proof he committed a crime? What Stalinist country are you from? If/when they have evidence, at that time it would be appropriate to identify him. IF there were solid evidence, his name would be known.
Report abuse
SouthBendNative | Dec 22, 2010, 08:26 AM EST
Sean, you have got it right. Left Tackle is out of his tree. ND has acted appropriately and with deliberation. I have no doubt that the player may have gotten a bit to free with Ms Seeberg, but he did not rape her as even her written commentary stated.
What leftist tackle is saying is that it was correct for Duke to cancel the lacrosse season based upon false accusations. In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Duke acted irresponsibly and Leftist Tackle lauds them. He accuses ND of covering this situation up, when the facts confirm the opposite.
Report abuse
ndrick2009 | Dec 21, 2010, 03:32 AM EST
The county prosecutors office has already commented on how good the investigation was, so I guess that would mean Notre Dame, the Police, the Prosecutor all conspired, as to the player having some history, there is no sexual assault history, but there is lots of history by the accuser.
Report abuse
LeftTackle | Dec 17, 2010, 10:16 PM EST
Notre Dame was not "stuck between a rock and a hard place," as you suggest. They were stuck between the right and the wrong thing to do, and the chose the wrong thing. Take your case in point... When the Duke lacrosse players (who, as court documents show, were racist and homophobic) were accused of rape, Duke University put out a statement indicating that sexual assault was a serious offense (regardless of guilt or innocence) and immediately turned turned the matter over to local authorities indicating they would cooperate fully, and perhaps most importantly, transparently. The University recognized that, regardless of whether or not a crime was committed, the conduct of the lacrosse team was unbecoming of a Duke student, and therefore warranted disciplinary action, which was immediately taken. Action was immediately taken because it was the RIGHT thing to do. Action was immediately taken to protect the university student population and to *send a message* that actions have consequences. Consequences both privately within the institution and within a court of law.
Unlike Duke, Notre Dame covered up the incident and chose to cross their fingers, letting the player continue with the season and effectively condoning his actions. It's abhorrent, disgraceful, and sickening. This incident has the familiar Catholic Cover-up and Disguise feel to it, and your blog entry rings with a similar tone: blame the victim and don't stop until the dust clears. Does the text message that his friend sent saying "don't mess with the Notre Dame football team" sound to you like someone being hunted by a lynch mob? No... it sounds like the lynchers themselves.
Report abuse
msymsed | Dec 17, 2010, 07:33 PM EST
This footballer has a HISTORY of this behavior and Notre Dame is more concerned about their precious football team than it was over the life of a young girl. I hope they never have another winning season again.
Report abuse
ThurmanMurman | Dec 01, 2010, 05:47 PM EST
Something about this article is just insincere and excruciating ...
Maybe it's the exploitation of the Duke Lacrosse Rape case when in fact the case didn't make it to court; the accused barely spent time in jail; "court of public opinion" means nothing.
Maybe it's that the author attempts to manipulate readers by "remembering" the Duke case but not Saint John Lacrosse Case. Or the OC Rape Case. Or that Catholic institutions cover up sex scandles. Or that people bend over backwards to protect athletes.
Maybe it's how the author noted the dead girl suffered from depression. He didn't note depression is used against women in rape cases to prove she's just "crazy," or if she's pictured smiling, then she must be lying about being depressed - lose-lose. Maybe because Dr. O'Shea was quick to note her depression but failed to question why she received no assistance that may have prevented her death if she was depressed enough to kill herself to begin with.
Maybe it's because he inexplicably tied the "entitlement" to play a sport to the LEGAL presumption of innocence when in fact they have nothing to do with each other. Maybe it's because nobody said he isn't entitled to the presumption of innocence but we are allowed to have an opinion. Maybe because he neglected to note the only recourse this girl had was the campus police, not the ACTUAL police, and we should keep in mind where the interests of authorities may be.
Maybe because this poor girl killed herself after accusing an athlete of rape, yet the author has the gall to characterize a non-existent rush to judgement as "tragic." Maybe because this unnamed athlete has a pre-emptive strike against something "tragic" launched on his behalf, yet this girl's suicide isn't "tragic" enough for the author to be balanced and hold himself to the standards he expects of everybody else...
Report abuse
Anne1982 | Dec 01, 2010, 04:37 PM EST
The federal privacy law ? So the victim is dead and we know a lot of things about her but by all means, don't identify the player.
I think that it is fine not to rush to judgement, but when such judgement appears to be perfectly timed for the football schedule, it's difficult to say that the police are not dragging their feet. Since when is a suspected abuser given the gift of privacy? Not in any other town in this country, would a young man I assume is over 18, be accused of sexual assault and his name not released because of privacy. I sincerely hope for the proper and just resolution of this case. It just isn't right to let anyone accused of a felony be allowed to have privacy. He has rights, to an attorney, to be silent, that's it.
Report abuse
seamusmoore | Nov 27, 2010, 10:54 AM EST
The player already HAS been questioned, the matter HAS been investigated and a report ISSUED to the St Joseph County Prosecutor's office about two weeks ago. The University's silence on the matter is more a function of complying with Federal student privacy laws which limit what it can say publicly, particularly with regard to identifying a player. Suspending the player prior to the conclusion of the investigation would have effectively revealed his identity.
Report abuse
Report abuse