Goddard told nine. She pixelated Jane Doe's entire body and hit publish. Goddard slowly pieced together the horrors of what happened that night by meticulously trawling the social media accounts of all players on the Steubenville High School football team. She saved dozens of Twitter and Instagram posts, where male students openly mocked and encouraged the rape of Jane Doe.
And I was shocked by how much information was still up online. Goddard's blog became a kind of online town square for Steubenville's 19, residents. At its peak, Goddard's blog was getting 20, visits a day. But not everyone was happy about Goddard's determination to go public with the town's secrets, which soon attracted the attention of The New York Times. Mays and Richmond were two football heroes in a town where residents flocked to watch them play every Friday night.
Defenders of Mays, Richmond and others argued Jane Doe had gone along with everything that night. A lot of people had seen and known about the Jane Doe photo, including adults and parents, but no one appeared outraged, Goddard said.
They were using my blog as a place to discuss it. Amid rumours that a cover up was underway, the case drew the attention of hacking collective Anonymous. A fan website for the Steubenville football team was hacked. Anonymous set up a WikiLeaks style site called The Steubenville Files , where nude photos of other alleged victims, compromised emails and other information was dumped. At the time, a fellow pupil tweeted, 'If they're getting "raped" and don't resist then to me it's not rape.
I feel bad for her but still. Another recorded a video in which he laughed and joked about the rape with other kids. After her parents discovered what was happening on social media, they pressed charges and police were able to use the digital footprint of the night to convict Mays and Richmond. One witness told police that Richmond took a video of Mays digitally penetrating the victim from behind, while she lay on the ground apparently not moving.
She later woke up in the basement of a house she didn't know, and with no memory of the night before. It was only when photographs and videos began circulating on social media that she became aware of what had happened. The case drew international attention because of the role of social media publicizing the assault, and initial allegations of a cover-up by local authorities and frustration that more football players weren't charged, including some who witnessed the assaults.
Richmond and Mays were both convicted of rape, and were sentenced to two years in a juvenile detention institution. Mays faced an additional charge of the use and dissemination of nude images of a minor.
He received the same sentence for that to run consecutively, which is why he was in prison for longer than Richmond. Both men were convicted to one year in prison for the rape of the victim, while Mayes received another year for dissemination of nude images of a minor.
Channel 4 viewers were left shocked by the sentence, with one deeming it 'disgraceful' ,. But the ending of the Channel 4 documentary shocked viewers, as it was revealed both men have since been released from prison and are now playing football for colleges in the US. Richmond was released from prison in January and attended colleges in West Virginia and Pennsylvania before transferring to Youngstown State in the fall of as a sophomore. Meanwhile Mays was released in , and has since gone on to play college football.
Viewers of the Channel 4 programme were horrified by the case, and took to Twitter to share their thoughts. Viewers on social media were left stunned by the lenient sentencing and took to Twitter to share their horror.
One deemed the sentence disgraceful, writing:'The sentence is a joke. Another commented: '2 years!? How demeaning for the poor girl. That's all her humilation was worth. The Steubenville case changed how Americans talk about rape In August , a girl from West Virginia went to a party in Steubenville with some football players from Steubenville High School.
Next Up In Identities. Delivered Fridays. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email required. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page. The Latest. How a simple solution slashed child mortality in rural Kenyan villages By Dylan Matthews.
Why Biden has disappointed on immigration By German Lopez. Hating work is having a moment By Rani Molla. Judge Thomas Lipps is expected, after another long day of emotional testimony from the football coach and more, to announce a verdict on Sunday. Update: The defense has rested and closing arguments are underway.
Judge Lipps may make his ruling tonight. Update No. Central time. Richmond's attorney, Walter Madison, said that "the whole world was watching" but that the state had not presented enough evidence to prove rape — he repeated that not of Richmond's DNA had been found on the victim's blanket, shorts, or the couch where two of the sex acts allegedly occurs, and that the "substance" found on the victim could not be confirmed.
Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter said the evidence was "overwhelming" and, regarding the victim, that "the things that made her an imperfect witnes Hemmeter continued: "This case isn't about a YouTube video.
This case isn't about social media. This case isn't about Big Red football. This case is about a year-old girl who was taken advantage of, toyed with, and humiliated, and it's time to the people who did that to her are held responsible.
The divergent arguments were in stark contrast: The defense insisted that "we'll never know what happened that night" while the prosecution said "we'll never know how much" she drank and that "we'll never know" whether she was drugged. The assault that allegedly happened in between the drinking and the next morning, well, that's up to the judge.
Juvenile court in Ohio does not have a jury. Stay tuned for updates in the morning. Correction : An earlier version of this piece confused identifiers when referring to the before the "took care of her" line.
It was the defendants who told the victim she was a hassle, and not the other way around.
0コメント