44 Comments

1. Paul -Indiana:

This event has nothing to do with the Air Marshall program. It’s a straightforward case of rape.

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:57 am 2. Gilligan:

So the issue seems to be “Is drunk sex = rape?”

The British authorities and Ms Jacobsen seem to believe the answer is yes. At least in the case of US air marshals.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:04 am 3. Peter the Bubblehead:

It’s hard to tell from the tone of this article;

Does the author believe JGB, the air marshal in question, is being railroaded? Or that the Air Marshal Service is loaded full of potential law breakers high on the power provided by their badge?

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:10 am 4. Brownie:

Gilligan, it’s not “is drunk sex=rape” but is passed-out, comotose drunk=rape and I think that the answer is: yes.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:20 am 5. Guilt:

While I’m certainly appalled if the alleged behavior is true, I would like to comment on the “guilty by being male” tone of the article’s author.

“Four of these air marshals felt the correct thing to do was to let two of their colleagues escort the woman to her room.”

Of course, I would have felt it the correct thing to do. A drunk woman escorted to her room by two sworn officers of the law. Maybe there’s more (unstated by the author regarding the events) behind that statement…but why is that sentence even in the article? As if a man escorting a woman to ensure nothing happens to her is automatically something other men should have known was wrong?

If you think that men, by the very fact that they’re men, are sexual predators waiting to happen, then I can see the implied tone. However, men don’t think that way about themselves or their co-workers.

If the woman was 10 milligrams from fatal, then I also wouldn’t think it totally unreasonable that someone (although with ulterior motives) might have suggested that he standby to make sure she didn’t go into cardiac arrest, or drown in her vomit, or fall off the bed and break her neck. I guess the rest of a marshals should have known that men are guilty first, and innocent & honorable second. Yes 75 minutes is a long time, but they may not have been checking their watches…because, it probably didn’t occur to them that men, are always evil.

Certainly wanting to check on the well-being of someone later is completely out of line, and should have tipped off the other evil, lecherous marshals that something was amiss.

Yes, in 20-20 hindsight, it would have been better to have notified the hotel staff (ah, female staff), or contact some other female in authority.

Of course, the article is only the tip of an iceberg of facts, and I’d like to think there are more (unstated) facts in the author’s knowledge that has biased this reporting. But, as written here, the author seems to want to convict the other marshals for failure to realize that men (as a gender) can’t be trusted.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:28 am 6. Clayton E. Cramer:

So the issue seems to be “Is drunk sex = rape?”

No, the issue is “Is passed out sex = rape?” And the answer under American law (and almost certainly under British law) is “Yes.” Passed out means No.

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:44 am 7. Paul A'Barge:

I’ve been following this case, behind the scenes, for over a year.

That’s not much of a life.

What’s with the morbid fascination? And why are you not following all the other false accusations of rape?

Oh, and why is not the Air Marshall innocent until proven guilty? Is guilty until proven innocent the new feminist standard?

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:45 am 8. Lifeofthemind:

It stresses my ability to accept the implications of what Annie Jacobsen implies about conduct of the accused Air Marshall that she also implies that it was misconduct on the part of the 4 officers who remained in the bar because they allowed the woman to be escorted to her room by two law enforcement officers. What more protection would Ms Jacobsen believe to be needed, an escort by the Brigade of Guards? Whether the officer who accompanied the young woman with the accused and then departed did anything wrong by not ensuring that his colleague did not return later is possible but unlikely. Certainly I would hope that proving such in the absence of any evidence that he was part of some conspiracy should be very hard.

When joined with the Italian judgement in the renditions case this could be seen as an act of lawfare against American efforts to defend itself in the War on Terror.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:10 am 9. Joe:

$1.25 million is that much compared to what top legal talent gets in the US.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:11 am 10. Truth:

Paul, yes it does. It is a case of rape BY a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER and with the apparent collusion of other law enforcement officers. It goes to the question of the character and vetting of the Air Marshall service, to the issue of cover-up over the period of a year the case was in process, to the responsibilities of the other marshalls, etc. etc. Hardly “straightforward” at all. And Gilligan, of course its rape: Rape is defined as non-consentual sex and, if in this case the reporting was done by the hotel workers because they saw marks on the woman, clearly some violence was involved, too. Anyone who is so drunk they’re a few percentage points short of being DEAD druk literally is hardly consentual, and the other issue is whether the five marshalls were encouraging the woman to get drunk, then, in effect, serving her up to their colleague. The case is disgusting, troubling re. the Air Marshall service, and, when that service didnt’ do its own investigation and separate those involved from the force or at least suspend them until the legalities played out, it engaged in a coverup…and we ALL know where those wind up, politically speaking.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:47 am 11. Michael E. Lopez, Esq.:

I am in total agreement with Guilt. I have personally been left alone with females who have passed out drunk in order to make sure, as Guilt pointed out, that they do not drown in their own vomit. There’s nothing unreasonable about leaving someone with the intoxicated person in that situation unless you have REASON to suspect that the person left to supervise might take advantage of the situation.

In the absence of such a reason — and the article utterly fails to provide one — one should *applaud* the other Air Marshals for their concern.

And one should also drop the *offending* Air Marshal (if guilty) into a small pit filled with foul liquid and darkness, there to contemplate his actions for a dozen years.

Nov 5, 2009 - 6:58 am 12. Sean LA:

In the UK, it is settled law that a woman can retroactively withdraw consent to sex if she was drunk at the time. The twist here seems to be that the woman herself seems to offer no opinion on whether she gave (drunken) consent, so nonconsent is being imputed from bruises.

The lesson for guys – do not have sex with drunken women, regardless of consent. In the UK, she does not even have to claim that she didn’t consent, she only has to say that she would not have if she were sober.

Never have sex with a woman with bruises on her body, nor have sex in any way that could leave a bruise, unless you are willing to pay with years of your life. If she so much as stumbles against the nightstand, best to flee while you can.

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:05 am 13. James S.:

You make allegations that the other Marshalls should have suspected their fellow officer of rape. Why should they have suspected that? If a buddy of mine left the group for 75 minutes I’d probably be concerned, but if he came back and said something along the lines of “I met _____, and we talked for an hour” I probably wouldn’t think anything of it. He could have been talking to the elevator operator or the cute lady behind the reception desk. He could have stopped and watched something interesting on TV. Most people don’t suspect their friends of being rapists. I also want to know how they figured out her alcohol level. If this guy did it, they should reopen the Tower and lock him in the bottom. However, what you have presented here is holey enough to be declared a relic by the pope. I would like to see justice done if a crime was committed. What I don’t want to see is our law enforcement officers railroaded for doing the right thing.

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:26 am 14. Gilligan:

It is established that she was blacked out (she does not remember the events) but not that she was passed out.

From entirely too much experience with drunks, I know that they are entirely capable of doing and saying things that they claim to have no recollection of despite being on their feet and capable of speech. There is also the issue of the time that it takes for alcohol to move from the stomach to the bloodstream. It is quite possible that a drunk woman said words giving consent but that some time later, as the liquor she had already consumed raised her BAC she passed out, possibly during or after coitus, and eventually was at an almost fatal blood alcohol level.

Since British law allows retroactive withdrawal of consent, it makes sense to stay away from drunk women there. Since people who drink that much on a regular basis tend to screw up their own lives and the lives of everybody they come in contact with, it makes sense to stay away from them anywhere. However, I really do not share the sympathy that so many others seem to have for someone who made the choice to inebriate herself.

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:37 am 15. Paul -Indiana:

#10. If a Priest molests a person, do you condemn all priests? The officer was not on duty, using his authority to force his will on the lady. It’s simple, but regrettable, rape.

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:12 am 16. Joe:

Where is the actual evidence of rape? Or even sexual congress? All I see are allegations with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

The most troubling claim is that the woman was “ten milligrams short of fatal amount.” This is pure fabrication; without a blood test at that moment, there is absolutely no way to know what her blood alcohol level was and it’s impossible to know what a fatal amount is for a person.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:02 am 17. jvon:

I am very curious about the “marks on her arms” and how these are evidence of rape.

As for what he was doing alone with her, he might have been holding her hair while she threw up repeatedly for all we know. That could well be what he told his colleagues when he went down to the bar, and he may well have gone back up to check on her again.

Again, there may be more to this story (and presumably is since charges have been filed) but nothing here looks damning to me.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:07 am 18. EnemyoftheState:

#10 and #15: First off, although the standard is “innocent until proven guilty” I agree that there’s enough proof here that the guilty bunghole deserves the worst penalty they throw at him.

Technically he WAS “off duty” but law enforcement officers are never really off duty. Theoretically they are chosen, vetted and trained to a higher standard than the average citizen. The phrase “to serve and protect” that you see on a lot of cop cars, is not just a cute slogan, it’s their standard.

I don’t believe his colleagues participated in getting the young woman drunk for the benefit of the bad apple. The laws of probability scream against 6 bad apples randomly coming together at the same time and place like that. I hope they thought he was looking after her safety and welfare.

If he had been sincerely visiting her to check on her safety, and felt sexually attracted to her, he would have been a lot smarter to have brought along a female hotel staff member as a chaperon. Instead, he’s going to jail where he can be the rapee for many years, but he’s sullied the reputation of the air marshals service who are protecting us from being in the next 9/11 when we fly.

As for the drunken young woman? The one who sat with a group of men she had never met before and drank a near-fatal amount of alcohol? Sorry miss, no sympathy from me. You should thank your “higher power” that you’re still alive. You’re probably a nice person who could have a wonderful future. Drop in on an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and just listen to the folks there. Come back for a few meetings. It may save you from yourself.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:32 am 19. Real Deal:

I’ve got to call the author on this one. Granted all the facts may not have been shared at this time, but with the current information provided I have some doubts.

First, different people react differently to alcohol, while the woman in question may have been heavily intoxicated it is plain assumption on the part of the author and the prosecution that she was unconscious during the encounter. She may have blacked out, but I’ve seen people get drunk and do stuff that they later claimed they didn’t remember and they seemed very drunk but weren’t passed out or comatose.

Second, how does marks on her arms indicate rape? Wat proof or evidence did they have that the man in question made them? She’s in the military, bruises could have been a result of training or some other activity.

Third, when was the “10mg short of fatal” BAC reading taken? It takes time for alcohol to hit the blood stream, she also could have consumed more alcohol in her room after the encounter. There is no time frame for the reading so there is also no way to judge whether or not she was “out of it” or not when the sexual encounter occurred.

Fourth, the misandrist spouting of the author are worrisome. How are the other men responsible for the actions of the accused? It seems the author considers every man she meets a rapist and believes everyone else should as well. Granted, not letting yourself be in a compromising or dangerous position with people you don’t know well enough to to absolutely trust is just plain common sense. Getting that drunk certainly doesn’t qualify for common sense, especially if you’re alone. Nobody deserves to be raped no matter what, however the woman in question deliberately put herself in a compromised state where any number of bad things could happen to her. It is not the responsibility of the other Air Marshals to do any more than they did which was see the woman back to her room. If it had been six dentists would the author be hailing the end of dentistry as a practice?

Finally this is the actions of one man, it is a normal case of rape and from the information presented his position as an Air Marshal had little to do with the crime. Now if he had specifically used his identity as an Air Marshal to gain access to her room or move her to a secluded location then there is a bit of an issue, however that issue then lies with one individual’s abuse of position and not the Federal Air Marshals as a whole.

Nov 5, 2009 - 9:57 am 20. blackwell:

If nothing else, it shows the overhyped Air marshall program is populated by people with as much idea of their job as admiral kimmel.

Air Marshalls drinking in bars the night before their flights as armed protectors is unacceptable-no matter how “sure” they are that they’ll be fine the next morning.

Six of these “undercover” agents–together in the same bar at the same hotel- show they have learned little -if anything- from the CIA rendition escapade in Rome (ordering tons of drinks, flashing credit cards) or even their own snafu when originally ordered to wear suits or sport jackets and to board first-which was a dead giveaway to who they were. Any cabdriver, nurse, plumber or street cop would have more sense than whoever is running this program.

The dufus who went back and is now charged may have been pretty blitzed himself, but that is no excuse. He is lucky he’s being tried in a highly civilized country.

#18, sorry but its not the woman’s fault she drank too much with 6 friendly guys, was helped to her room, and evidently assaulted later. She’s evidently not even the one pressing the charge. If he is convicted, I hope they throw the book at him.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:19 am 21. Delia:

What’s the appeal of having ‘consensual sex’ with someone who is so sloppy drunk they blackout the whole event the next day?

I mean, THAT IS bloody INEBRIATED!

Help out here, guys.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:30 am 22. Kirk Parker:

blackwell (#20), what’s with the gratuitous slur on Adm Kimmel?

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:55 am 23. Real Deal:

What’s the appeal of having ‘consensual sex’ with someone who is so sloppy drunk they blackout the whole event the next day?

Dunno personally. I learned as a young man not to get intimate with a girl/woman for the first time when she has even had one drink. If you’ve already had sex and are involved that’s one thing, but never a first encounter. Also I find sloppy drunks annoying no matter what sex they are, if you’re old enough to drink you should be old enough to know your limits. Anyone who doesn’t figure that out in about a year (depending on how much exposure you have) shouldn’t drink.

That however brings me to another point, why is there a double standard for men and women when it comes to being under the influence and sex? Why is a female “not responsible” for any poor choices while the man is? This guy could have been inebriated too, which for a Air Marshall who has to work the next day is unacceptable, and may have due to impaired judgment accepted the woman’s (possible) invitation to have sex, possibly sex of a rough nature. We don’t know.

This could merely be a case of two inebriated people making bad decisions, leaving aside the secondary issues of the man in question’s professional conduct. Or it could be a flat out case of a man using a woman’s unconscious state to rape her, in that case they need to end him as they should all rapists of a violent and predatory stripe.

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:30 am 24. Bear:

I’m sorry I wasted my time reading this non-article

Nov 5, 2009 - 11:43 am 25. Federale:

A highly paid outside lawyer? Why not a Crown Prosecution Service attorney? No complaint from the woman? Sounds like another Al Sharpton Duke Lacrosse cases. How many men would be in jail if it was a crime to have sex with a woman who was drunk?

Nov 5, 2009 - 12:04 pm 26. robotech master:

So I read the piece and for someone who has been following this story for a whole year you offer no proof that even sex happened let alone rape.

Being that false rape claims are very very common(close to 50%)… the fact that the supposed “victim” doesn’t even remember having sex nor do you offer any proof in this piece.

Its pretty safe to say this is a complete joke.

Maybe the next time you decide to write a story you’ll include some FACTS to back up this whole list of one sided and what appears to be very sexist “article”.

Nov 5, 2009 - 1:09 pm 27. Blackwell:

22: gratuitous? I don’t mean to offend anyone, but is he not (along with general short) nearly the best example of someone who did not know what his job was? The fleet asleep; all lined up; no war footing to speak of; Did he not remember the war exercise in 1937–carrier raid on Pearl Harbor? Am I out of line?

Nov 5, 2009 - 2:04 pm 28. Molonlabe:

It sounds to me that the air marshal higher ups tried to cover this rape.

Nov 5, 2009 - 4:04 pm 29. lefroy:

#8:

“When joined with the Italian judgement in the renditions case this could be seen as an act of lawfare against American efforts to defend itself in the War on Terror.”

Oh please. A man is on trial for rape in a country whose criminal justice system is as good as any other in the world, even – gasp – that of the United States, hard though that might be to accept.

The version you got here is one person’s opinionated account of what she read in the newspaper. There is no reason to think that it is an accurate or comprehensive summary of the evidence or the law involved. It provides no basis for your preposterous comment, or any other judgment upon the fairness or otherwise of this trial, or the accused’s guilt. And yes, they have the presumption of innocence in the UK (hey, it went west across the Atlantic BTW, not the other direction).

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:21 pm 30. 8 My Foot:

Yeah. With things the way they are nowdays, I question this “I was too drunk to know” as a defense crap. You’re a woman who’s stupid enough to get drunk with a bunch of guys, you’re not too stupid to realize what is going to happen.
Too many women cry rape who are merely women who regret it afterwards. I’d like to see more evidence that she was unconscious. Until then, she’s a liar.

Nov 5, 2009 - 7:58 pm 31. George Bruce:

What I want to know is if the man was intoxicated also, and if so, when will charges be filed against the woman?

Think about it. If sex while one party is very intoxicated is rape, what do you do if both parties are very intoxicated? Charge them both? Why charge the man only?

Nov 5, 2009 - 8:04 pm 32. Birmingham Escorts Services:

Blog is such a nice one..i really enjoyed it reading the whole paragraph.

Nov 6, 2009 - 2:59 am 33. Tom Kimmel:

Good question Kirk. For those interested in facts about Admiral Kimmel see my website at:
http://www.pearlharbor911attacks.com. Blackwell, I am available to answer any question on the subject you may have.
Regards, Tom Kimmel

see #22. Kirk Parker:”blackwell (#20), what’s with the gratuitous slur on Adm Kimmel?”

Nov 6, 2009 - 4:04 am 34. mary:

It was rape and the air marshall should have known different, what because he was high profile he thought he could get away with it….Gosh and they look after our passengers too an forth from USA….??????? she has a good job, ok so she got drunk and those guys should have respected her…..So don’t go on about this crap about crying rape….u men think u can win it all…BULL BULL

Nov 6, 2009 - 10:26 am 35. Real Deal:

Mary what evidence do you possess that allows you to conclusively determine that a rape occurred? Or are you going on the “women are always the innocent victim and are never responsible for their bad decisions” feminist ideology?

You also obviously have poor reading comprehension, so how can you actually determine any facts at all from the article?

1) There were no “guys” involved but rather one “guy” is accused of rape, not the group.

2) As for the group of Air Marshals as a whole what more “respect” do you think they should have exhibited beyond making sure a very inebriated woman got back to her room safely? That is what the five other Air Marshals believed they did. What reason would they have to believe one of their own, a law enforcement officer, would rape her short of him expressing he intended to do so?

3) What does her job have anything to do with it? It doesn’t matter if she were a prostitute, a nun or anything in between, rape is wrong. Do you for some reason connect a woman’s profession to her deserving rape mary? Do you believe that a female CEO is somehow less deserving of rape than say the woman who cleans houses?

4) The evidence presented so far does not conclusively show rape, only the possibility that there was a rape. Innocent before proven guilty remember?

5) Neither misogyny or misandry are helpful in reaching a sound determination, in other words don’t jump to conclusions based upon your own personal feelings.

Nov 6, 2009 - 11:13 am 36. 8 My Foot:

Real Deal,
Mary’s response is the reason I feel the way I do. Women accuse men of “It’s never rape, is it, it’s always the woman’s fault” yet they play the game of “I’m closing my mind. If she said it was rape, it was rape”. Notice how she went off the deep end, probably didn’t even read the article. Just saw that someone was accused of rape and that was it.

Nov 6, 2009 - 1:40 pm 37. kochevnik:

30 US Senators legalized gangrape last month. Torture was legalized under Bush. So what is the point of this article? Granted she wasn’t dumped in a container. This is merely an everyday, ordinary event for republicans. No different than cruising for some chocolate dip in a public restroom stall, or bombing some defenseless small country into oblivion.

Nov 6, 2009 - 5:57 pm 38. robotech master:

To 37. kochevnik

You really know nothing about history or facts do you?

Torture was legalized under the Geneva Conventions . They setup the guideline in which torture was not legal but also when torture was legal. Anyone with a basic understanding of history knows this… it is also why their were many Geneva Conventions signed and many other laws enacted because torture was legalized under the Geneva Conventions.

Nov 6, 2009 - 10:26 pm 39. lovesheriff:

I think that some of these comments are regarding this man as innocent bit no one has picked up on him still having a bit 5 months later, i mean come on how un-truw is this comment and also why would he want to hide her knickers in his room, sounds very gulity to me, i hope justice will be done.
on a separate note it would be interesting to get this case updated as we would all like the facts,

Nov 7, 2009 - 12:49 am 40. kochevnik:

38@robotech master:

No I don’t know many facts. Just many more than you. In addition to the Geneva Conventions, the US has signed an anti-torture treaty and has it’s own war crimes law.

You are one sick puppy advocating torture and rape. You listen to marching band music much? Practice the goosestep in your free time?

Nov 7, 2009 - 2:30 am 41. robotech master:

To 40. kochevnik

You really are a complete idiot aren’t you… first have you read any of these “anti-torture” treaties… in the form that the US signed…
Do you understand that just because the US signs a treaty does not mean we are bond by it…

I know fools like you want to overthrow the constitution and replace it with a UN/world government but take some time to understand that the US do not bow to the UN and doing so would violate the constitution.

Also I’ll point out that I am right wing and you are left wing thus the only person who is likely practicing their goose stepping is you.

Nov 7, 2009 - 12:12 pm 42. ZD:

First, how about the claim that the woman claimed rape only after she missed her flight to the States for her job with the Navy. In essence, that she claimed rape in order to save her job. If we’re going to talk about claims we should talk about them all – it’s called fairness. Journalists are supposed to know something about this. Or so I’ve been told, all evidence to the contrary.

Second, even if it is true the FAM raped her (if he did he should fry) – how is that an indictment of the agency? FBI agents have been found guilty of treason, (selling info to the Russians), murder ( for the Mafia, no less), etc. yet no one seems to be calling for the abolition of the Feebies. Why does this incident, if true, call into question the survival of the FAMS, Ms. Jacobson?

Nov 8, 2009 - 9:26 am 43. Gilligan:

I am curious about how the determination of blood alcohol content was made. The newspaper report is that she woke up the next day having missed her flight. If she woke up, her blood alcohol content would be much lower than the near fatal level described. Is there some kind of alcohol metabolite test that was made? I suppose such a thing is possible, although I have never heard of such a test before. If such a test was done, how accurate does it tend to be?

Or is that estimate of her near fatal blood alcohol level based on some other factor such as the woman’s body weight and the number of drinks thought to be consumed and assuming that she did not vomit some of them up in her room. Or did the prosecuting attorney just make the numbers up out of thin air?

Nov 8, 2009 - 2:28 pm 44. Hmmmm..:

Not Guilty on rape

Nov 29, 2009 - 6:18 pm