The military continues to demonstrate how inept they are at handling sexual assault, this time at the US Naval Academy

A female US Naval Academy midshipman testified for the first time last Wednesday explaining what happened at an off campus party where she alleges she was sexually assaulted by three fellow midshipmen. The three men, Tra’ves Bush, Eric Graham, and Joshua Tate, are accused of assaulting her on April 14, 2012. The female midshipman described waking up with few memories of the previous night and with back pain. She claims she was disheveled and didn’t know what had happened. She testified that later that day, Tate told her she had sex with him and Graham. According to Ali Weinberg at NBC News, she said:

“’He was like, ‘What? You don’t remember?’ she said. ‘He told me that we had sex and he was going to have to refresh my memory.’”

“’He was laughing,’ she added, ‘then I was like, ‘I don’t want to hear anymore.’”

I wanted to share her words and hopefully, those who read this blog will be able to empathize with how terrifying it is to wake up and not know what happened to you and know that other people are enjoying your pain and discomfort. But to continue with the story…The female midshipman was drinking heavily the day of her attack, and she was under the legal drinking age at the time. The off campus party was held at the “Football House” and was a “Togas and Yogas” theme with hundreds of people present.

According to the female midshipman, her memory fades in and out over the course of the evening. She remembers dancing and sitting on a bed with Bush standing over her. She noted she and Bush ended a causal sexual relationship recently. During cross-examination, Bush’s defense counsel asked her if they had sex, and she said she couldn’t remember, but he had told Naval Criminal investigative Service (NCIS) had sex. The female midshipman said she later remembered being in a car with Tate, Graham, and another classmate, where she repeatedly said, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” But she remembered nothing else of the car ride; the next thing she remembered was falling asleep on a couch inside the house. The following day she woke up, another Navy football player was cleaning up the house, she told him her back hurt, and they had eventually consensual sex. He suggested she get a ride back to the Academy with his friends in the car she recognized from the night before. Inside the car, she noticed an empty condom wrapper.

The woman wanted to figure out what happened the night before so she sent Tate a text inviting him over to fill her in. She noticed references on social media about an unnamed woman. After Tate arrived, the conversation shown above occurred, and she asked him if she had sex with Graham. He responded that she had been “too turnt up,” and said she had sex with Graham. She told Tate she didn’t want to hear anymore, but didn’t make him leave her room. They both checked social media, during which she saw he had tweeted, “’The train tickets were on the low,’ suggesting, the woman said, that she was ‘easy to drive a train through,’ meaning to have sex with multiple partners one right after the other.”

Of course, being social media, rumors started flying, and the following Wednesday, the woman broke down and went to the Brigade Medical Unit on campus and explained to an employee she had sex over the weekend, without a condom, and didn’t know who her partner(s) were. The alleged victim was reluctant to come forward for several reasons claiming she didn’t want to disappoint her mother or make a big deal out of it. She said, “I guess I just didn’t have the courage.”

However, once she found out NCIS was targeting people she knew were not involved she made her first sworn statement in September 2012. She held back information and told the NCIS she didn’t want to cooperate completely. In January 2013, she made the decision to fully cooperate via wiretapped conversations, one of which includes Tate indirectly acknowledging they had sex that night in April.

Bush’s lawyer, Andrew Weinstein has suggested the woman’s behavior in the bedroom with Bush was flirtatious and that their previous encounters had been consensual. Since I seem to have to remind everyone today, having sex with someone once or even a hundred times doesn’t give them a right to your body always. If she was intoxicated or refused sex, then it was rape even if they had consensual sex before. I'm not sure why it is so hard to ask permission, but apparently it is. Weinstein also brought up the alleged victim’s prescription for anti-nausea drug promethazine, which could have been in her system the night of the attack. It can have side effects such as dizziness and muscle stiffness. Weinstein concluded by saying the woman may face perjury charges for neglecting to correct an erroneous point in the NCIS sworn statement about a diagnosis after her visit to the Brigade Medical Unit. She told NCIS she hadn’t received a diagnosis, but she had a positive diagnoses, but of what we don’t know yet. The final NCIS statement asserted the woman hadn’t been diagnosed with anything, but that isn’t what she told NCIS; she told the two midshipmen that she hadn’t been diagnosed with anything. However, she didn’t correct that detail when the statement was submitted.

Bush’s lawyer, Andrew Weinstein, has questioned the motivation of the alleged victim’s private lawyer, Susan Burke who has been vocal on sexual assaults in the military. He accuses her of taking the case for publicity. 

This case is pretty high profile given President Obama’s remarks about sexual misconduct in the military and of course the public scrutiny of the handling of sexual misconduct in the military. The military believes sexual assault have jumped up 37% in 2012 to roughly 26,000 cases, but I think that is a conservative figure. Also, the likelihood that these sexual assaults just started to occur is unlikely however, people may be more receptive to reporting them. Of course, most sexual assaults in civilian life go unreported. Congress has several pieces of legislation working their way around to deal with the reporting and prosecution structure of sexual military code violations. Obviously, cases like this one and well all of them, draw negative public attention.

However, up to this point this is a case, right? Things are sketchy, and we don’t know what really happened. I’m not asserting guilt here. Though I’m inclined to believe the alleged victim given what I know about the case and the shaky, victim blaming defenses I’ve heard. Additionally, the hyper masculine culture that the military (all aspects of it) employ breed sexual violence and violence in general.  So what it my problem? Oh the US Naval Academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael H. Miller. According to Annys Shin, a lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Baltimore “alleges that Miller made it clear in comments to returning midshipmen that the administration was unhappy about the negative publicity the case had received.”

Burke asserts that Miller made it difficult for her client to come forward with the sexual assault allegations, did nothing to protect her client from harassment from other midshipmen, or punish the accused for comments their allegedly made on social media about the alleged sexual encounters with her client. The complaint alleges Miller is showing bias by forcing the alleged victim to endure long and hostile cross-examination during an Article 32 hearing, which is the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. Miller agreed to charge the three men in June 2013 based on the recommendations by Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials. Miller is also tasked with deciding whether the case will go to court-martial based on the evidence gathered during the Article 32 hearing.

Some of the questions that are generating concern include those focusing on questions about the alleged victims attire, how she danced, and how she performs oral sex. Burke argues that the “invasive and scathing tone of the cross-examination ‘rose to the level of abuse.’”

Ok kids, a few things that strike me as things we should all know, but let’s go over them:

1. Sexual history with someone (or anyone at any time in history) doesn’t give them (or anyone else) a right to your body. Partners can sexually assault their partners. In this case the casual relationship between the alleged victim and one of the accused was over before the assault. This is irrelevant.
2. The alleged victim’s clothing and behavior do not matter. They are not relevant except if she gave consent. Otherwise these are victim blaming tactics, and they should have no place in a court room or anywhere. This is irrelevant.
3. The “witnesses,” I’m not aware of anyone witnessing sexual acts between the alleged victim or the accused. So anyone testifying about the alleged victim’s behavior has an opinion and to quote Salt-N-Pepper, “opinions are like asshole, and everybody’s got one,” but unless they witnessed the acts they aren't witnesses to anything other than character or worse they didn't intervene in a sexual assault. This is irrelevant.
4. Victims of sexual assault and other trauma are usually reluctant to come forward. This often hurts their cases. However, we also know most sexual assaults aren't reported because of shame, self-blame (can’t imagine in our culture where that would come from), fear, etc. So it comes down to the Article 32 hearing and if they believe the alleged victim’s story and explanation of her reluctance to come forward and participate fully in the investigation. This is unfortunately relevant.
5. The agenda of the alleged victim’s lawyer. I can’t say what I make of this. I’d be surprised if you could find a lawyer in the Mid-Atlantic without an opinion on sexual assault in the military right now. It is a hot topic. If this lawyer is coaching her client, though no evidence suggests this that might be grounds for disbarment because she’d be supporting perjury. If the alleged victim’s lawyer has an opinion, well then this is irrelevant.