New allegations from Kapler's time in LA

[flyers19rw]

Back when Pete Rose was with the Phillies, he was covered in an article by one of the paper's writers in a discussion about ST. I can't recall who the writer was or if it was the Inky or the Daily News. In it he said the worst thing about ST was the number of paternity suits that the players had laid against them. It was a real pain regardless of the fact that they almost always were unfounded. Basically these pregnant girls were looking for some money. It was cheaper for the player/club to throw some money at them to go away than it would have been to go to court and fight the charges. AIR the number was around $5K which was basically in the nuisance suit category. Rose said the he, and other vets, warned the ST newbies to be as careful as possible with this issue.
I'm not saying that this is the case here since there seems to be some video that makes it more than a he said-she said thing. However it might account for the manner in which the Dodgers/Kapler handled things.

[julio]

The extent to which people think a woman would make up a story like this is far, far out of proportion to the number of instances where that's actually the case. Talk of due process or being more concerned about the reputation and livelihood of a pro athlete over the safety of a woman just tends to obfuscate things, IMO. But that's sports.

That's not only sports, unfortunately. That's American culture.

[phillychuck]

z, A couple of minor points...

1) "The extent to which people think a woman would make up a story like this is far, far out of proportion to the number of instances where that's actually the case."

There is no way any of us knows enough about these kind of cases to make that assertion confidently. We don't keep stats on this kind of thing, at least stats that are meaningful...which cases are similar enough to this one to count in the statistics? What counts as making up a story? Exaggerating? False memory? Traumatic mis-recollections?And how do we know the "extent to which people think" anything?

When I read an accusation, my first response as a scientist and a skeptic by nature is to think, "Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the other side of the story is? What data don't I have? What data will come out later?" I think it's pretty natural on a message board to immediately react with the "there may be another side of the story" response, since the initial publication is usually pretty pro-alleged-victim-accusatory in tone.

2) Due process is everything. Just pray you're not accused of something and people decide you don't deserve due process. We fought a revolution to guarantee, among other things, due process. And reputation is also nearly everything, except when it's not your own reputation. Then, I guess, it's inconsequential.

3) No one is devaluing the "safety" of a woman. The incident is over, the woman is now, presumably, safe from any interaction with those other women or those players.

4) It's easy to Monday-morning-quarterback decision-making. If what Kapler says in his letter is true I don't really see how he should have handled it differently. Going to the police is not what the girl or her grandmother requested. The two girls involved in the assault were not employees of the Dodgers.

5) I guess we agree that this news chips away at his job security. I guess we differ on whether or not, at this point, it should.

[allentown]

I agree with this as well. Accusations must be backed by either evidence of guilt or freely-given confession of guilt. We had a local judicial candidate 25 years ago (he was elected and subsequently re-elected) who as part of the candidate's election forum on our local PBS station was asked "shouldn't court rooms be designed to be less intimidating to the accuser?" His answer was, to paraphrase, "No, it's good that they are intimidating, because almost all defendants are guilty -- the police wouldn't arrest them if they weren't guilty." Now, I can accept, at least in this community at that time, that police were 95% sure that they had a strong case when they arrested a person and that they were correct in that assessment 95% of the time. But... that still left 10% of those defendants who were innocent. That's why we don't just lock people up for 20 years, because the police arrested them (and why bail should be easier), why we have an actual trial, in which adequate evidence of guilt must be presented and the defense attorney is allowed to challenge that evidence. And still, in the most scrutinized and carefully presented cases, capital murder cases, DNA evidence continues to identify cases of wrongful conviction.

I don't know what percentage of women who make charges of sexual assault (which this girl did not actually do at the time Kapler needed to act) are making false accusations, but think it reasonable that my 95%/95% assumptions are valid and possibly conservative, meaning at least 10% of those accused are innocent. Thus an accusation isn't sufficient to establish guilt, actual evidence or a freely-given confession is required. Emmitt Till is long dead, because a white woman falsely accused him and a racist society demanded his death.

It's easy to complain that demanding proof, rather than mere accusation, will allow rapists and sexual assaulters to escape punishment, but that is not IMHO a reason to abandon our system of justice. Some say things to the effect of "a woman just wouldn't lie about something like this", but there have been high profile cases proving that this isn't true. At least some percentage of women are at least mistaken. Scientific studies have shown that eye-witness testimony, regarded as a gold standard in court, is very flawed. I've experienced this myself, being queried by an attorney about the details of an auto accident I witnessed a month and a half prior -- REALLY embarrassing.

I watched the Senate hearing on the Kavanaugh confirmation. I thought Professor Ford was totally sincere and that Kavanaugh was iffy because of the way he ducked almost all of the questions from the Democratic senators. It seemed to me that from Kavanaugh's own calendar we had the time and place that any assault would have taken place. I was disappointed that the Republican senators and the administration severely circumscribed the FBI re-investigation, such that this possibility wasn't even investigated. Still, decades after the event, a possible crime which wasn't reported to police at the time and wasn't communicated to the accusers close friends contemporaneously, it is not surprising that there was no evidence to be had. With no evidence or corroboration, no guilt could (or should) be attached to Kavanaugh and the nomination 'should' go forward. Really, this is a reason that we have statutes of limitation. It is next to impossible either to prove or to defend against an accusation decades later, especially when the crime wasn't contemporaneously reported and the accused totally denies the charge. This was a she says vs he says and he says. It's a shame if Kavanaugh was actually guilty and still gets the SC seat, but fairness dictates that. I think skepticism is naturally higher when the accuser is silent for decades and raises the accusation only after the accused runs for president/ is nominated for SC or comes into a ton of money.

[Austinfan]

My problem with Kavanaugh was his lying about his drinking (and some evidence that he lied about his role in the Bush White House in certain matters). Whether an assault actually occurred is unknown, and it's very possible, given the evidence of his heavy drinking, that he couldn't remember. What bothered me was his self-righteousness and evasivenss when it's obvious he was an abusive drinker (through law school) and he tried to brush it off instead of admitting, like many people, especially in that era, he behaved badly. I don't think what you did thirty years ago should ruin your life, but lying about it is a red flag for any lawyer.

The so-called assault has not been detailed, you have a drunk girl, being "assaulted" by two drunk women of fairly similar age (I presume), something that's a rare occurrence. She didn't need medical attention, and anyone in real life would not want the police involved (gee, young lady, you're 17 and you were drinking at a party . . . let's send you over to social services, the two women could face felony charges, the ball players serving minors and buying alcohol (if they were under 21).

The sexual assault claim didn't pop up until well after the fact, and after Kapler tried to resolve the incident. I think the Dodgers handled it correctly given what they knew, there was no real harm done, and making it a police matter could harm all involved (a police record is not something to be taken lightly, and we're probably dealing with kids with limited financial resources).

And no lawyer should believe a victim per se, the whole point of not blaming the victim is a very different matter, that involves an attitude that if you went into the room (or wore that tight dress) you were "asking for it" and have only yourself to blame. That is, a sexual assault can be excused by the victim's behavior. That extends to taking a victim's accusation seriously, i.e., worthy of investigation, irregardless of the circumstances of the victim. The key word is investigation, not assumption of guilt.

Lawyers and judges and journalists should be skeptical of all witnesses, including the alleged victim, until the facts are in. As the Washington Mall incident shows, the rush to judge is ill considered. Or the Duke Lacrosse team incident.

[el-pietro]

Its not just American culture. There was a high profile rape case involving international rugby players in Belfast last year. They were eventually declared not guilty but the evidence was unclear. I think it came down to the fact that the rugby players believed it to be consensual and the woman involved said otherwise and it was effectively impossible to prove.

On top of that the discourse around the case was horrible. Basically it was this thread magnified and played out across all media in Ireland and the UK for months.

There was a similar case several years ago in the UK around a professional footballer who was convicted but successfully appealed. In both cases there was no question that sex was involved and it came down to his word versus hers and the truth is likely somewhere in between. Again the discussion on forums like this one and in the media was disgusting. Victim blaming, questioning whether the victim is in it for money or if they brought it on themselves came up time and time again.

In Ireland we have laws that prevent the reporting the names of individuals involved in sexual assault cases, which are in place to protect the victims, but also the accused, though when its high profile enough the names always get out. A very famous Irish Mixed Martial Arts Champion apparently has a similar case coming up but his name has not been reported in the media yet.

We should never accept the accusation 100% as we don't know all the evidence, but we should equally not make the victim feel they are not believed and we shouldn't jump to find holes in their story. Several of the posts in this thread are exactly that, looking for reasons not to believe her and we don't even know who she is. Maybe its because we want to protect Kapler. Maybe its because we are conditioned to side with men over women in these situations. Possibly because we can identify more closely with the accused and want to defend them because if we were accused of something similar we think/know we would be innocent.

When it comes to this case I think Kap probably acted appropriately, or very close to 100% appropriately. He probably should have alerted the police but if the victim and her grandmother asked him not to then hes in a difficult position.

[DougLindsay]

Slam piece by the WaPo as a Harper decision nears. Late Hail Mary by the Nats.

[zambonir]

lol I'm sure Ted Lerner and Jeff Bezos cooked it up together.

The truth is, no one seems to care all that much. My guess is there will still be some protests, come spring, and a donation/public service component by Kapler at some point down the line. But this Brookover column feels like the work of someone who kind of wants to rip Kapler and the Phillies, but isn't actually willing to do it. It reads more like a "new analysis" than an opinion.

Phillies supporting Gabe Kapler amid speculation he covered up 2015 incident...

(That's not to say that if Marcus Hayes or someone like Eskin still decides to call for Kapler's job that they'd be doing so for the right reasons.)

[flyers19rw]

Glendale Police report provides more details on reported assault involving...

If true, this doesn't look good for Kapler. Offering hush money is not a good thing.

[allentown]

This should be a very simple matter for MLB to resolve, if it has any interest in doing so. The article says that hush money was offered by e-mail, presumably on Kapler's Dodgers' laptop. MLB can demand that the Dodgers provide the pertinent e-mails. Either they include an offer of hush money as the article says or they don't, as Kapler says. If the hush money offer is there, then Kapler is in trouble, if it isn't, then this whole thing about Kapler's/Dodger's misconduct is vastly overblown. Evidence counts and the evidence should be findable.

[zambonir]

Is Nick Francona a whistleblower or just disgruntled?

MLB has known about all these incidents since 2017 and it sounds like they already consider them a non-issue. Which is very unfortunate, but consistent with baseball culture. They have closed ranks around their people, which does not include any victims, or Nick Francona.

As for whether the Dodgers violated policy in failing to report the three sexually-related allegations Francona brought to their attention, MLB issued another statement last week: “[T]he Dodgers and Gabe Kapler did their best to act appropriately given the facts known to them at the time. As is often the case, the allegations related to the incidents have changed over time. Moreover, some of the purported facts about these three incidents come from an individual without first hand knowledge of the underlying incidents and with questionable motivations.”

The money thing isn't new information, it's just that Kapler claims they asked for it and they claim he offered it. The victim also asked SI to pay her for an interview (which they would not do). That still doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or that the Dodgers handled it right but it's unlikely more is going to come of this, legally or within MLB.

Two more damning passages in the SI story:

For failing to meet expectations, the players involved in the hotel room incident were not conventionally punished; rather, according to internal Dodgers emails and texts, Kapler required them to undergo training for “being a good teammate.” Specifically, the players were assigned to write essays about Dodgers history, take nature walks, practice yoga and meditation, clean the team’s weight room and watch motivational videos.

And, after the other incident (the one involving the housekeeper), a scout complained to Francona about the offending player being released.

The scout remained unswayed, all the more so when the player was signed to a minor league contract by another organization. Referencing the Dodgers’ Dominican Summer League team, he responded: “He could have pitched in the DSL. We definitely have at least 2/3 rapists on that team.”

[fish]

An offer of hush money to cover for a couple of low-level nobodies seems unlikely.

[allentown]

The money thing isn't new information, it's just that Kapler claims they asked for it and they claim he offered it.

Although the word 'money' appears in both descriptions of the circumstances, the difference is stark: either Kapler offered hush money to cover up what he felt was a serious crime (which suggests the Dodgers may have known of a sexual assault allegation at the time and were buying their way out of trouble) or the grandmother was trying to shake down the Dodgers for money, in which case she was the bad actor (between the two of them; obviously the young players shouldn't have had alcohol and given it to a minor girl -- if they were suggested to play in that season's DSL, the offending player may have only been 17 himself).

[zambonir]

The thing where Kapler suggested the most Kapleresque of penance does tend to back up his assertion (which is also confirmed by all accounts) that he was not aware of sexual assault at the time. Also no real reason he would offer hush money. It's hard to know what the real timeline is here but it appears Kapler's contact with the grandmother took place before police were involved, and before the girl told anyone it was sexual assault.

I still think the whole thing is awful and reflects badly on everyone on the baseball side of things. The fact that a poor elderly woman and a confused, troubled teenage girl asked for money doesn't mean she was any less victimized. It does not make her a "bad actor." And even the Dodgers never thought she was making anything up.

It seems the Dodgers main defense at this point is that MLB's policy was not quite finalized/in force at the time of these incidents. But as long as there are no real consequences, "boys will be boys" culture will remain, and domestic violence and sexual assault will still be "adversity" for a player to overcome if they actually get caught and punished. The victim doesn't get an equal voice.

[allentown]

I didn't say the victim was a bad actor. I said that if the grandmother tried to extort money from the Dodgers that the grandmother was a bad actor.

The victim did get a voice. She spoke to Kapler and he followed the course she wanted him to follow. Her story was that two women friends (from which I take that these two women were older than either the girl or the players) brought the girl uninvited to the party, that the two women, not the players, physically assaulted her, and that one of the players gave her alcohol. So... the players weren't accused of either physical or sexual assault when the girl spoke to Kapler. If that's true and Kapler didn't make an offer of hush money, then I don't have a problem with Kapler's actions.

Yes, the Dodgers don't think the girl made things up. I don't think she did either. She also didn't tell the Dodgers that she was sexually assaulted.

Since MLB has already investigated and basically said 'nothing to see here', I don't foresee repercussions from MLB for Dodgers or Kapler and certainly not for Phillies.

On another note, I can't imagine a Phillies scout saying that 2/3 of one of our DSL teams consisted of rapists. Either that's the Dodger's secret for getting talent cheaper or that scout is an idiot.

[andyb]

An offer of hush money to cover for a couple of low-level nobodies seems unlikely

The article says one player was released, but the other was promoted through the Dodgers system and is now on a major league roster (implying not the Dodgers). So it is likely the second player was at least seen as a prospect, maybe top 30 in their system.

[Lawman]

"An Unacceptable Lack of Judgment": Gabe Kapler and the Dodgers Must Be Held...

[tom81]

The ringers hatchet job on Kapler is unfair and out of line in my opinion. The young woman was a victim but Kapler may have been a victim of blackmail/extortion too. We don't know enough to call for his firing based upon what we know. The ringer didn't even mention Kapler's claim that both the grandmother and young woman didn't want him to “turn [the victim] in”.

[Dirk41]

The ringer didn't even mention Kapler's claim that both the grandmother and young woman didn't want him to “turn [the victim] in”.

And this is to be believed why?

[tom81]

It is a claim, as are other claims made in this case. Believe what you want but respectable journalists general print all sides of a story to provide fair coverage and let their readers decide what to believe.