Posted on 10/26/2016 12:36:35 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Anna Stubblefield was a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University when she fell in love with D.J., the brother of one of her students.
The romantic feelings welled up in her sometime in 2010, less than a year after she started working with him. The two read books, drank wine, even wrote an essay together that D.J. presented at a conference in Philadelphia, Stubblefield said.
Stubblefield, who was married with two children, said her emotions ran so strong that she was willing to leave her family behind to be with him.
"I'm in love with you the whole way," she told D.J. at one point, as reported by the New York Times.
Stubblefield said she had sex with D.J. in 2011 on the floor of her office on Rutgers campus in Newark, N.J. When they finished, she claimed D.J. told her: "I feel alive for the first time in my life."
It was an incredible assertion. D.J. likely could not have even have grasped what was happening, much less reciprocated Stubblefield's feelings.
D.J., now 35, has cerebral palsy. Years before Stubblefield came into his life, a state doctor found that he had the mental capacity of a toddler, unable to carry out "preschool-level tasks," according to the Times. He is five feet tall, non-verbal and can only walk if someone is there to balance him.
Stubblefield, 46, had convinced D.J.'s family that she could help him speak by using "facilitated communication," a widely-discredited method of teaching people with mental disabilities how to type messages.
It took many months, but D.J.'s mother and brother eventually came to believe it was all a sham.
In 2011, when Stubblefield confessed that she was in love with D.J., they pursued a criminal case.
A year ago, she was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, the same crime used to charge violent rapists. A judge sentenced her to 12 years in prison.
Now, she's facing another punishment: $4 million in damages.
A judge in Essex County, N.J., has ordered Stubblefield to pay $2 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages to D.J. and his family in the civil case stemming from the assault, NJ.com reported Tuesday.
"My clients are victims of a horrible predator, and they're wonderful people," Charles S. Lorber, an attorney for the family, told NJ.com, adding that the defendant had "basically conceded the case."
"She's got 12 years to think about it, and the judgment is good for 20," he said.
A former attorney for Stubblefield told NJ.com that she represented herself in the lawsuit when the judgment came down.
Stubblefield, who once chaired the Rutgers philosophy department, was the subject of a deeply-reported New York Times Magazine piece last year that detailed how she met D.J. through his brother Wesley and slowly became obsessed with him.
Wesley, identified only by his middle name, was taking one of Stubblefield's classes when she showed a film about a non-verbal girl who learned to type through facilitated communication and eventually went to college. Wesley told Stubblefield about D.J. and she offered to help, according to the Times.
In the months that followed, Stubblefield purported that she had tapped some buried intellect in D.J., saying that with her hand guiding him he could type in complete sentences, express complex thoughts, and even read at a savant level.
As Stubblefield's obsession grew, so did the family's skepticism. When she finally admitted to Wesley and D.J.'s mother that she was in love with him, they told her to leave them alone. Police got involved, and she was charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault shortly thereafter.
At trial, Stubblefield argued she didn't rape D.J., saying the sex was consensual, according to NJ.com.
"He wouldn't let me do anything that he didn't want me to do," she testified.
A jury disagreed, finding that D.J. was unable to give consent because of his mental capacity. Jurors convicted Stubblefield after less than three hours of deliberations.
At sentencing, a judge said her actions were "a perfect example of a predator preying." D.J.'s brother fought back tears during the proceedings, according to the AP.
"She raped my brother," Wesley said. "She tried to supplant his life with some version of life she thought was better."
Wouldn’t a woman raping a man require arousal on his part, and if so mean he was willing?
The victim wasn’t a man per se, but rather a toddler wearing an adult body. Age of consent is not cut and dried past the age of 18, mental ability factors in a nd becomes primary age determining factor.
But the question is, will she still be allowed to vote for Crooked?
Will she still get to vote for Hillary?
Of course but only 9 times. The felony convictions causes her to lose one of her votes.
I worked at a facility while in collage and I think this assertion is probably wrong. Clients regularly engaged themselves in self stimulation and grabbed the girls working on the floor. Clients not able to self stimulate became aroused during bathing and cleaning during depends change. Most clients where I worked were not ambulatory. In cottages where clients were able to communicate they would ask for sex often and touch with intent to stimulate.
Would she be “not guilty” if she was pretty, or does the man’s mental impairment affect this factor?
Yes but in the law being nuts excuses you from the punishment of the evil you did.
You cant say shes nuts or she skates. This predisposition to want women to be nuts by people because we cannot handle the reality of women being evil is destroying justice in our country.
Every evil person has reasons for being evil. That is just explanation. With women its used as excuses to get them lesser sentences or off the hook completely. It just has to stop.
This is a very biased story. There is a lot more to it. Follow the money.
“...in the law being nuts excuses you from the punishment of the evil you did.”
If her lawyer is asserting some kind insanity defense, then, no way, Jose. She’s guilty. I meant just that, if I were sitting across the table from you, I’d tell you I’d think she is crazy AND evil.
(And I agree that no one, male or female, should escape a guilty verdict for violent crimes on account of flimsy psychological excuses. Real legal insanity is, at it should be a very high bar for a defense lawyer to meet.)
Tagline
In most of the situations of women’s having sex with men or boys under illegal conditions, the issue is “resolved” by saying the man/boy was physically gratified. Often there’s a psychological element introduced regarding the woman’s appearance. Why is this not another, “It’s against the law but ... *snicker*” situation?
(Please note that I am attacking the reasoning behind the, “He enjoyed it,” “defense”, rather than the law.)
OH, good one!
First, arousal does not mean consent Otherwise Dr. Kinsey's pedophiles had "consent" from infants.
Second, female-on-male rape does not require male arousal. She could be sticking things up his anus.
Sorry for the filthy details.
Incredibly true.
Puts paid to virtually all of modern philosophy.
Well said. The only reason Hillary has a chance is the false moral pedestal upon which feminism has installed women as an entire sex. It’s got to go - it’s destroying the world.
Yep. She wanted to get off and used the physiological erection she no doubt personally stimulated to do it. End of story. He couldn't stop her, is the only reason she did it. Rape, period. And pathetic at that.
I disagree. I think it's more important that Hillary is "The Democrat Candidate" than that she is "A Woman." The Democrat Candidate starts out with about 48% of the popular vote, even if he's a fried egg on toast.
I agree, but where does that leave the "hot" teacher with a 14-year-old boy?
"Just good clean fun"?
"Did him a favor"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.