Skip to content

Johan Santana's rape accusor files a civil suit

Aug 11, 2010, 9:44 AM EDT

You’ll recall that, last fall, Johan Santana was accused of rape. You’ll also recall that the police investigated, found the accuser’s statements “to be inconsistent with that of other witnesses” and declined to file charges.  Now, predictably, Santana’s accuser has filed a civil suit in Florida.

According to the Daily News, the plaintiff claims that Santana “tore off her clothes” and “assaulted her even though she begged and pleaded with him to stop.”  She also claims that Santana impregnated her but that she subsequently had a miscarriage.

I’m not going delve into the . . .biology of all of this, but at least part of those claims seem inconsistent with the alleged victim’s statement in the police report. And at the very least there is some purple prose in the complaint compared to the way she described the events to police.  Of course, this is pretty routine when it comes to a civil complaint.

As most of you know, there is a difference in burden of proof between a civil case and a criminal one, so it is legally possible that evidence which would not support a finding of criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could support a finding of civil liability to a preponderance of the evidence. But it’s also the case that if a prosecutor didn’t even bother trying to indict a guy that there was way, way less evidence available than one usually sees in such a case. Because, after all, the indictment standard is less than the standard required to convict someone.

Like I said when we first discussed this, none of us really knows what happened, and one makes broad, conclusory statements about alleged sexual assaults at one’s peril.  But based on what we know, however, there doesn’t appear to be a ton of legal merit to this complaint, and my guess is that it goes away fairly quickly and fairly quietly.

  1. Simon DelMonte - Aug 11, 2010 at 10:06 AM

    Does anything happen in New York that goes away quickly and quietly? (I say this as a New Yorker, too.)

  2. Old Gator - Aug 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM

    People don’t get all that excited about where mosques get built up there because, as New Yorkers never get tired of reminding us, it’s such a cosmopolitan, sophisticated and accepting sort of place. Not so Macondo, of course. If someone decided to put up an Islamic Center at Hurricane Andrew’s landfall site, all hell would break loose.

  3. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 AM

    Yes the “Imperialistic” world trade towers were brought down in the name of Islam with how many people in them, and there will now be a mosque on that very site. I’d say mission accomplished wouldn’t you? Not that I am against it all, it just goes to show how pussified this country has become. You see, had the US dropped a building with that many people in it in an Islamic country, then so much as implied a Christian church be erected at the site. The entire world would have proof of our intention to destroy islam. I just don’t see the point of wanting one there, or allowing one there, but that’s just me.
    Oh yeah, rape is bad, Mmmmkay children. So is mari-juana, mmmkay… Santana will toss her some $$$$ and it’ll all go quietly.

  4. Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM

    I love how 19 people suddenly represent a billion, and the appropriate reaction is to reduce ourselves to the level of those who we claim to be better than.

  5. murd - Aug 11, 2010 at 12:26 PM

    Shut up

  6. John_Michael - Aug 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM

    it just goes to show how pussified this country has become
    I’m assuming that translates to something like, ‘the right wing ignorant talking heads, who claim to be Constitutional protectors, will shred that same beloved document to deprive citizens of private property, freedom of assemply, expression and speech?

  7. Old Gator - Aug 11, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    Personally, I love how native born heart-n-soul New Yawkers like, uh, Sarah Palin got right into this whole mosque thing. Mexicans in Arizona. Muslims in New York. Gays anywhere. It’s fun to watch her slither from scapegoat to scapegoat like some sort of pit viper whose range has expanded northward with global warming.
    But all that notwithstanding, for the first time I actually admire that tinpot plutocrat Bloomberg for sticking up for the rights of American Muslims to build their mosque – which was proposed, by the way, as an act of atonement, a center of peace and healing and commiseration, complete with an interfaith sanctuary, and not as a “victory mosque” as the right wing thugs, bigots and droolers have been flat out lying that it’s supposed to be – anywhere that building codes permit it, just like – and follow this, right wing dimwits everywhere, it’s subtle stuff – just like any other religion in America. There’s a little, admittedly often inconvenient, document called the Constitution that guarantees that, just as it permits some of you evangelical morons to pasrade around with “God Hates Fags” or “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” placards, or worse, with LeBron James Heat jerseys at Progressive (giggle) Field.

  8. Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    Stunning retort, sir.

  9. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM

    No, not really. You see, unlike many people who talk politics and pick a side to stand by come hell or high water, I do not. I’m one of the few Americans who have come to accept reality. The reality that our entire political circus is counterproductive and the only people who can possibly benefit from any policy implemented by either side are politicians themselves. Now when it comes to the whole building a mosque on ground zero as an olive branch is laughable. Because to most of the people who did lose loved ones there it’s no more than a slap in the face. But as usual some of your more vocal Americans will swear it’s racist to keep ground zero as a memorial to those killed, and not a memorial to a man who’s religious offspring brought the building down in the first place, all in his name. Sure they were fanatics, but does that change who’s name was being chanted as planes smashed through our glass bubble of false security? It doesn’t, it does insult though ,which may or may not be the intention.

  10. Old Gator - Aug 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    And eloquent in its brevity, no?

  11. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    Mannnnnn, I can’t stand that lady. If she takes one more political office, I’m outta here! It’ll be proof that we deserve whatever we get. When will we stop electing the lesser of two evils? Or the lesser of two idiots? I don’t get it. And Gator, to label people trying to block building a mosque on ground zero as bigots, thugs, or droolers ,is kind of unfair. I mean, it went like this. “All praise allah” smash! So it’s a little more complicated than what you imply. “Racism” is kinda where you’re leaning with this and I don’t feel that’s the case at all. You have to come to accept that it’s an ongoing war that was brought to us under the guise of religion. And to celebrate that very religion on the site where 3000 perished in the name of Allah is pretty blatantly nonsympathetic to those people. All I’m saying ,and i’m not saying they should or shouldn’t block it, is Don’t jump on the hatewagon because pelosi tells you you should. Unless she’s referring to Sara Palin of course.

  12. Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    I lost loved ones on 9/11. And the real slap in the face to me is people using their deaths as an excuse to piss all over our ideals.

  13. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 1:57 PM

    who’s ideals?

  14. Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:05 PM

    You might want to try reading the First Amendment some time.

  15. Old Gator - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM

    Johnny,whereas I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the political circus in this country, if you had a nickel for every lunatic who marched off to slaughter innocents while chanting the name of God or Jesus, you’d be dickering with Bill Gates’ real estate agent on the price of his castle in Seattle. Shall the two thousand years of atrocities perpetrated by the religious offspring of Jesus be debited to him? Please. That’s totally irrelevant. And the idea of the mosque up the street from ground zero – not in or on its property – as an act of atonement makes perfect sense. No one I know of has called the memorialization of the dead of the WTC – hundreds of whom were Muslims, incidentally – “racist.” You don’t need straw men to argue this issue.
    What has happened, though, is that by challenging the constitutional guarantees that all faiths would be treated equally and accorded equal rights, those who opposed this mosque have created a constitutional challenge that this Muslim congregation won even on behalf of those who revile them, and on behalf of you and of me as well. The court that approved it did so with the full knowledge that there was absolutely no basis in law to deny it, and let’s hope there never is such a basis in law. If there were, it would be solid evidence that we had given up our most important birthright. Whether they can see through the fog of rhetoric or not, the people who are most vociferously condemning that congregation just had a victory won for their own rights of religious freedom.
    Since the mosque is in no way meant as an insult, those who insist on treating it as one are manufacturing the insult and imposing it upon themselves out of their own pain, fear or bigotry – and the ones who are exploiting those emotions for their own opportunistic reasons, like the quitmeister former governor Tundra Trash, are as despicable in their way as any fanatic or lunatic if not moreso. Seems to me that if the faith that claims to be founded on forgiveness and love – but which is now being used as an excuse to persecute Islam just as the bombers used Islam as an excuse to strike against the west – wanted to prove itself, it would be extending an olive branch of its own to the Muslim congregation building that mosque and reaffirming the collective membership of all faiths in the human family.

  16. Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:22 PM

    So much more eloquent than I could have ever hoped to state it. Thank you, Old Gator.

  17. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM

    I thought the first ammendment was a right, not an Ideal. And that right is just trampled on by a ton of people anymore. And i’m not the one doing the trampling.

  18. Jonny5 - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    You see, I agree with you. Also know that many people who aren’t racist, drooling, neocons will not. My point is let’s not villify these people with the hateful one sided retoric that says “agree with me or you are ____” . That’s really my only point here. The largest reason for the failure of our political process is our stance that says “you are with me or against me” which is way off base once election time is over. Like I said, “counterproductive”. I just can’t point to a group of people and say “you are _____ because we don’t agree” (unless they’re Nazi’s or something). And to be honest, I don’t see how a mosque is atonement. I also don’t see how they need to atone for 9/11. As you said it was the wingnuts who did it. I was just taken back by the labeling of those against the mosque going up. Some of them are probably deserving of it, others are just angry, and rightfully so. And true to every stage of history, Religion is a devisive tool used against that Family you bring up. And true to human nature we have turned politics into religion.

  19. Old Gator - Aug 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

    No arguments with any of that, J5. The wingnuts and thugs I was referring to are precisely those, like the Moose Turd Queen, who seek out wounds in the body politic just to infect them further.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2492)
  2. D. Span (2333)
  3. G. Stanton (2269)
  4. Y. Puig (2238)
  5. J. Fernandez (2193)
  1. B. Crawford (2047)
  2. G. Springer (2011)
  3. M. Sano (1810)
  4. M. Teixeira (1808)
  5. J. Hamilton (1733)