Lawsuit: Perles covered up Nassar rape in 1992

Submitted by yossarians tree on

Holy crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/09/11/ex-msu-athletes-suit-alleges-nassar-raped-her-perles-covered-up/1265053002/

UESWolverine

September 11th, 2018 at 12:57 PM ^

I ALWAYS wear my Michigan gear after a loss. After App State, after Oregon, after ND, whatever. We ain't going anywhere, I'm not ashamed of my school on or off the field. 

“When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing” 
― Bo Schembechler

ijohnb

September 11th, 2018 at 12:46 PM ^

Not based on this suit, civil suit not a criminal complaint.

I am also not entirely sure what he would be charged with, possibly accessory after the fact (a little bit of a stretch) or endangerment (it does not sound like she was a minor though).  There are also statute of limitations problems.  Obstruction in the AG investigation could be possible, depending on what he has said or not said thus far.

jamesjosephharbaugh

September 11th, 2018 at 12:49 PM ^

indeed she was a minor.  

The plaintiff, California resident Erika Davis, alleges that she went to see Nassar and was sexually abused and raped by him in 1992 when she was 17 and had injured herself while on a scholarship at MSU.

I'd be surprised if Perleman was guilty of any crimes that haven't passed their statute of limitations though.  

Steves_Wolverines

September 11th, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^

I don't know anything about the law, but since this is a discussion board, and I'm just some random dude, I'll make a smart comment about something I know nothing about:

I assume there is some sort of statute of limitations for some stupid reason. And he's a powerful figure in east lansing, so two strikes against something actually happening to him. 

BlueinLansing

September 11th, 2018 at 2:09 PM ^

There actually isn't statute of limitations on rape cases in Michigan.  However there is usually very little in the way of evidence beyond he said/ she said so tremendously difficult to prosecute and convict old cases like this one.  / usually would take a confession.

 

Thats why its so amazing a video of this alleged incident may exist.

 

 

Blue and Joe

September 11th, 2018 at 12:41 PM ^

One question: WHY?!

Why the hell did so many people at MSU cover up for this scumbag? Just get rid of him and move on with your life. He could not have been THAT good of a doctor. Jesus.

yossarians tree

September 11th, 2018 at 12:47 PM ^

Putting my Michigan fandom aside, I always thought Perles was a thug and a piece of shit even to MSU. When he was having successful teams it seems like every offseason he jerked the university around by flirting with the NFL so he could squeeze more money out of them. How they have let him have anything to do with running that university for so long is beyond comprehension.

robpollard

September 11th, 2018 at 12:50 PM ^

Easy -- sexual assault was not taken seriously at that time.

I have no idea your age, but up until about the mid-2000s, sexual assault (except, perhaps of kids, though often not even then) was more treated as a "Jeez, would you stop doing that?" as opposed to a significant crime frequently enabled by the culture of an institution or group (the latter of which would take a ton of effort to change).

That's not to say rapes weren't prosecuted, but the focus was more on strangers (e.g., some "thugs" sneaking up behind a women and attacking her while jogging) rather than personal, family, workplace, academic, sports or religious settings.

Heck, it wasn't even until the #metoo movement became more prominent about a year ago that some long, long time serious scum bags got taken down.

robpollard

September 11th, 2018 at 1:08 PM ^

"...would have been taken seriously by any authorities not interested in covering up the rape."

Aye, there's the rub -- the whole point is that entire huge swathes of police, administrators, politicians etc *WERE* interested in covering it up. It was just another embarrassing incident to sweep away; they thought they could get away with it, and for decades, they did.

There were far less likely in 1992 to have women in positions of power (not that they can't be complicit as well -- see Kathy Klages) and, more importantly, the larger culture had not shifted towards being more sympathetic to potential victims and listening seriously to their stories -- videotaped or not, there would have been excuses ('She was asking for it' ; 'What was she wearing' ; 'Why didn't she stop it') etc.

The Mad Hatter

September 11th, 2018 at 1:16 PM ^

We're just going to have to disagree.  No doubt the culture has shifted away from victim blaming and the definition of sexual assault has been expanded (both positive things), but Jesus Christ.  A doctor drugged a teenage girl.  Then raped her.  On camera.

If there was no camera involved I agree that he would have argued it was consensual and would have probably been believed.

robpollard

September 11th, 2018 at 1:27 PM ^

Yes, we will have to disagree.

Something certainly could have happened in terms of job firings and arrests, but there are numerous instances of sexual assaults and discussion of sexual assaults caught on tape, where what seems to be clear & convincing evidence, is explained away. 

But my larger point is even if the tape clearly & unequivocally showed a rape, Perles & co knew they could get away with it in 1992 -- once they had the tape, there was no Ronan Farrow for this young woman to go to, and no large sympathetic audience that would put public pressure on the police & the trustees to do anything. That change has been a very recent development.