John Grisham Writes About Seccuro Case?

I am a long time Grisham fan having read several of his previous books. His newest novel is "The Associate" and it was published over a year ago. The central theme of the book is blackmail. A shadowy, underworld figure presents the protagonist with a damning video which implicates two of his former fraternity brothers in the sexual assault of a young woman at a fraternity house. The woman is depicted by the brothers as a promiscuous drug user. The video shows her nearly passed out as sex commences -- although everyone appears to be blasted out of their minds not just her. She screams "Rape!", but the facts and evidence do not support her claim and the police let all the alleged rapists go. The woman drops out of school and the incident appears to be over. Years have passed and she is now working for a high-powered publicity seeking "victims rights" attorney (a la Gloria Allred) who smells blood in the water and wants nothing more than to squeeze money out of these young men and their wealthy families. Neither is aware of the video, but the protagonist recognizes how this video in the wrong hands could destroy his future legal career even if he had nothing to do with the alleged assault. For reasons that really make no sense to me, but make for good fiction, the protagonist decides he must do the evil bidding of the underworld figure instead of alerting authorities. The Duke Lacrosse case is mentioned in the novel as a possible parallel, but the facts look like something nearer to my interests.

One of the brothers, who is a wealthy playboy, sometime movie actor and constantly relapsing drug addict and alcoholic, joins a 12 step program and finally admits his powerlessness to the twin demons of rum and cocaine. He decides to make a list of all the people he's harmed. Initially, the list only contains family members who have financed his frequent visits to rehab, but eventually, the young girl who claimed she'd been raped makes the cut. He decides he must go to see her and ask for her forgiveness. I won't give out more of the plot other than to say that things do not end up well for him. In fact, I'd say the expression "no good deed goes unpunished" would fit his situation quite nicely. Sounds a lot like another man who took his 12 step vows seriously and decided to make amends, doesn't it?

Throughout the novel, we are led to believe that the woman is probably lying. My take was she went into college intoxicated with the freedom of youth. No longer under the thumb of mom and dad she lived life in the fast lane and then something happened that night and she decided that having meaningless sex with "hot" fraternity boys was not the way she intended to live her life.

Obviously, the girl in the novel does not fit Seccuro precisely. Seccuro was allegedly a virgin and was not known to be a serial drug user. But the way in which the girl in the novel holds tenaciously to the idea that she must exact a pound of flesh from this boy fits Seccuro very well. The fact that Seccuro seems unwilling to accept any part of the repentent Beebe's apology unless it is coupled with a pound of flesh is indicative of the attitude of the young woman in the novel.

This book isn't Grisham's best, but the subject matter made the reading more enjoyable.

Prosecutor Says Liz Not Drugged?

One of Liz Seccuro's key claims about her sexual assault in 1984 is that she consumed a mysterious green drink provided to her by a UVA fraternity member at Phi Kappa Psi. Allegedly, he called it the "house special" and it was in addition to the two beers she had consumed earlier in the evening. Soon after consuming the beverage, she claims she felt as if her body was immobile. Today, she still claims she was drugged.

This added an ominous tone to the case. I wondered if it was possible that a hypnotic drug had been mixed into the drink even though such drugs were not in common use in 1984. It really troubled me for some time. I knew that some fraternity members were taking advantage of women who were under the influence of alcohol, but this charge was far more serious. It indicated a concerted effort to sexually abuse women.

But after reading several articles about the assault, I discovered a surprising bit of information buried in one of the courtroom testimonies. An attorney for the prosecution admitted in open court that the mysterious concoction Seccuro drank was not drugged. It appears it was a mixture of Everclear (grain alcohol) and some flavorings. Hardly a sinister combination. It did start me on the path toward doubting Liz Seccuro's version of events. And today, I still struggle with this question:

Why does Liz Securro continue to claim she was drugged when the prosecutor contradicted her in open court?

The article in question is below:

"[Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Claude] Worrell said in court today that the ongoing investigation has revealed the punch contained not a date rape drug, but grain alcohol, and that Seccuro, then an inexperienced, underage drinker, was unaware of the effects the punch would have on her."
http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2006/11/14/bombshell-dropped-as-beebe-pleads/

Why I am interested in the Liz Seccuro / William Beebe Case

Since 2001, 21 individuals wrongfully convicted in Dallas County of serious felonies were exonerated based on DNA evidence. Some sat on death row. Others languished in maximum security facilities for over 20 years. Most if not all were convicted based on eyewitness testimony which is now known to be notoriously unreliable.

I am interested in this case because Liz has taken a set of facts which are not in dispute (i.e., Beebe sexually assaulted her) and morphed them into a menagerie of allegations of conspiracy, gang rape, voyeurism, and the use of date rape drugs.

Notice that she doesn't even mention that no one has ever proven that gang rape occurred or that date rape drugs were in play. She speaks about those allegations as if they are facts.
When pressed, the shadowy figures suddenly become obscured by grand jury protections. As far as I know, no other felony indictments were handed down other than for Beebe. It even appears to me Beebe's attorneys used the allegations of conspiracy to get a lighter sentence knowing that there was nothing there.

After sentencing, Beebe's attorney denied that Beebe had participated in a gang rape. (http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/15/beebe-gets-18-months-in-1984-battery/)

There is nothing in Beebe's letters which indicates anyone else is to blame but Beebe. Liz's testimony is she had attempted to get into a room where she believed a friend was passed out and get her purse to leave the party, but she was returned to Beebe's room forcibly by two men.

After several years of looking for evidence of a gang rape, the police have been unsuccessful, yet Liz refers to the rape as a gang rape. She also states that she was drugged.

So, at the core, the reason Liz's case intrigues and concerns me is that she's created a situation where she can't be questioned because some portion of her version of the facts is correct.

We have seen how society can get swept up in irrational furvor -- for example, the rash of child sex abuse and Satanic cult abuse cases in the 1980s. Most have ended up to be utterly false.

Liz, who appears to be from the same political persuasion as I am, could probably appreciate how the Bush Administration issued lots of false and misleading claims to get us into the Iraq War and then to subsequently terrorize Muslims both in the US and abroad. We know our frailty as humans is when we go beyond what can be proven and allow ourselves to fall back into irrational behavior.

I don't mind if people hate me for questioning some aspects of the Beebe-Seccuro case, but at least understand why I hold my beliefs. It is not out of a desire to see Liz revictimized, but out of a desire to ensure innocent people are not ensnared when the facts of the case are blown in a more salacious direction.

That's why I am curious to understand what facts have been established because gang rape and date rape drugs are, from a careful reading of the facts, merely suppositions which have not been substantiated. They may have happened, but they seem to be in the realm of faith and not reason.