Scott Bennett discussion thread

[Pretty Funky]

It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.

To be honest, she deserves a fortune, doesn't get more clean cut then "raped in the hallway on camera".  Hell the place may go bankrupt, who would ever stay there again?p

Sorry to bring this up, but could Brian or the promotor be sued or counter sued in a case like this? Completely different situation but I remember The Who settled with the victims families after the Cincinnati tragedy in 79.

[SamMcK]

It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.

To be honest, she deserves a fortune, doesn't get more clean cut then "raped in the hallway on camera".  Hell the place may go bankrupt, who would ever stay there again?p

Sorry to bring this up, but could Brian or the promotor be sued or counter sued in a case like this? Completely different situation but I remember The Who settled with the victims families after the Cincinnati tragedy in 79.

I'm pretty certain thats not likely in any circumstances, especially since as it doesn't seem plausible that any of them knew until after the situation had already happened. If so, Brian's band could also counter-sue for slander against the group.

(To make some levity of a very dark situation, it wouldn't be a Beach Boys thread unless we brought up suing or counter suing!)

[Pretty Funky]

True, but in The Who case, they didn't know either.

Beach Boys and lawyers.....Yikes!

[The Heartical Don]

It is a tragedy.

Personally I don't feel any inclination to portray Scott Bennett as a 'monster' now. Or state something like: we never really knew him, did we? These expressions don't really represent my own view on human beings.

Yes, Scott fell from grace here. He transgressed. Many, if not all people are vulnerable in moral things, one way or another. Everyone can suffer a mental lapsus, experience some kind of situation where various bad things work against one.

And Scott has been sentenced.

For me, there is no reason to depict him as a terrible (habitual?) criminal, nor to get too involved in issues like: did he do this before?

And yes, I do seriously commiserate with the young lady who is the victim. Hearing what had truly happened must have been the shock of a lifetime. But I see hope for her: apparently she has no recollection whatsoever of the event itself. That offers a perspective for her future, since, from what I know, there is very little chance that she will have retained traumatic memories (in the form of, say, 'film clips' in her mind, or recollections of bodily sensations, feelings of total helplessness) - so I hope that there will be no post-traumatic stress disorder for her. Yes, she does have the a posteriori accounts of it all - but these thankfully usually get processed in a more rational way.

(Sorry if all this sounds very rational, but I really want to take a bit of distance on this issue.)

Taking things together: I used the word 'tragedy', I think that is an apt description of a situation like this. Apparently much alcohol was involved, so it's even harder to make out what was on Scott's mind than it would have been, had he been sober. I have the impression that he acted out of character, and did not really play out something he had precisely planned beforehand (I mean: he would certainly have been aware of the enormous risks he would be taking, in that particular environment, no?).

It's one of those occasions where there are only losers, I think.

[adamghost]

Something's really been bothering me ever since this news broke, and it nagged at me enough to get up in the middle of the night and post about it.  I was reluctant to say anything because it could be so easily misconstrued as minimizing or excusing a terrible crime.  But I follow criminal cases from time to time and I also know a thing or two about how media shapes narrative - my background besides being a musician was working in newspapers, and in law offices.  And something's bugging me here.

First, I in no way condone the behavior and Scott was convicted in a court of law and that's that, at least pending appeal.  

But what's disturbing to me is how the damning the article seems to be, but when you read it very carefully (I did not catch on to this until the third reading), it's nearly entirely derived from police's and prosecuting attorneys' interpretation of what they're seeing on a video tape (the girl does not remember the encounter).  It's very carefully constructed to make Scott's behavior look as bad as possible.  Police said Scott "appear(ed) to be in complete control of his faculties" - but they can't know that, and it's a convenient assumption for them.  The video was characterized "very disturbing" - by the prosecuting attorney.  Scott dumped the girl "like a sack of trash" - again in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney.  Note also that the article counters the assertion that Scott had a sexual encounter with the girl in the room by saying that the woman's underwear was found in his room and DNA was found on her body.  It seems damning, but if you think about it, nothing about those facts actually make Scott a liar, since there's no question something happened in the hallway.  Just putting them together makes it sound like they do.

Now, look.  I've had many a drunken stupid debauched night on the road, so the 1 a.m. drunken return to the hotel room is all too easy to visualize - and what Scott did was unquestionably way over the line, stupid, and wrong.  So I am not in any way condoning the behavior or minimizing the trauma of rape or what the girl I'm sure felt the next day.  If you listen to my song "1 and 4" you'll know exactly how I feel about the topic.  But I also have strong feelings about how easily people can be ruined by a concerted media campaign and how quickly we all form opinions based on information that, when you look at it carefully, is designed to make us feel a certain way.

Scott without question showed spectacularly bad judgment and crossed lines he should have known better to cross even by the kindest reading of the facts at hand.  However, I'm very troubled as well by how the article comes across as totally damning when it's really just vary carefully constructed to give that impression.  To the extent Scott's side of the story is represented, it's by one quote from the attorney that sounds extremely flippant - but that's the one quote the reporter chose to put in the story.  I doubt that's all she said.

Scott may indeed be a monster and a total sexual predator.  I've never seen that side of him, myself, but everyone has a dark side, and the darker it is the better it's hidden.  However, I'm uncomfortable jumping to that conclusion based on this article, which is just very, very sneaky in how it portrays the case.  The fact that he was a visiting musician in a conservative part of the country means that he likely would get absolutely no sympathetic hearing at all if there were exculpatory factors in the case.  I'm sure some were presented at trial (or else why would they have gone to trail in the first place? If Scott was as dead to rights as portrayed here, one would have expected him to have pleaded out), but I'm not seeing them in this article.

What Scott has been convicted of is terrible.  I'm in no way trying to minimize it.  Just having followed various criminal stories and seeing how this kind of thing often plays out, and also having worked both inside the law and newspaper business, the set of facts that led to his arrest and conviction may not be quite as gross or clear-cut as they are made out to sound.  The way the article is written and the sources it favors give me serious pause.  Other than a couple of third hand things (which themselves may well have been spin on Scott's part), I don't know what Scott's side of the story is...but I'm tolerably sure it's not represented in this article.

I trust that everyone will understand that I'm not shilling for Scott -- who I barely know -- or trying to be an apologist for rape.  Just out of basic fairness, I just don't think it's right to make Scott out as the next Jeffrey Dahmer.  There's a reason this is shocking - past a certain point this absolutely heinous behavior does not seem to track what we know of the man.  Based on a very careful reading of the article, there might well be a reason for that.

It's a tragedy.  That much is for sure.

[Alan Smith]

It's one of those occasions where there are only losers, I think.

Yep. 

If only for these words 6 pages ago.

Cheers, THD - A

[The Heartical Don]

@ Adamghost -

thank you for writing. Obviously, we started from different vantage points (Me, I went by the story so far, since it is all we have to go by - you took the story itself and examined it critically.)

But somehow, esp. re: what you wrote in your conclusion, we arrived at similarities in our thinking about it. And that in itself is good, IMHO.

[Emily]

Without the room and the "sack of trash" and other editorializing, it's still awful and predatory and rape.

[Heywood]

I didnt want to appear to be defending or excusing anything but i thought exactly the same Adam when i read it the second or third time. Quite a few assumptions stated as facts.

Yes. Its still awful, predatory and rape.

[Emily]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

[The Heartical Don]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

Hi Emily -

I don't think that anyone here has been trying to make it all seem less tragic than it actually was, or exculpate Scott Bennett as to having done something bad. That wasn't my point, nor that of others (I think). I wanted to emphasize that with what we do know, we actually know not that much. Well, I am speaking for myself: I don't have the slightest idea about what was going through Scott's mind, save (probably) for my strong belief that he, IMHO an intelligent, sensitive man, can't possibly have been in his normal state of being when he did what he did, given the enormous risks that would have been so obvious to any clear-headed person in those surroundings (well, risks... I'd even go so far as to say that someone in a normal state would know that he'd have a 100% chance of being found out, given today's video observation techniques).

That is what puzzles me the most, in fact. That is why I used words like lapsus, he may have been aware regarding the events, and hence have a recollection of these, but at the same time he may not have had any capacity for sound judgment.

Perhaps one or another psychological assessment will be made, and perhaps even made public.

[Emily]

I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.

[Cliff1000uk]

Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

Yep, I will be at the Bristol gig

I'll be at the Bristol gig plus I'll be at the soundcheck/meet and greet beforehand. Obviously, I won't be mentioning this to anyone there but I think the guys have a job to do and have already played a number of gigs without Scott so I don't think it is going to affect their performance.
I'm still pretty speechless over this and my first thoughts will always be with the victim. I've spoken to Scott, like many of us here, over the years and he has always been generous with his time with the fans. Unfortunately, over the same years, I've also heard comments about behaviour on tour.
Ultimately, regardless of Scott's CV, the albums and songs he has written/co-written, the people he has let down (let's not forget his wife in all this), a young lady has had her life changed for the considerable worse.

[SamMcK]

I think all of us are still trying to wrap our heads around this foul situation. While Its true that perhaps some of our posts could be characterised as 'overreacting', (as well as the article) there is still no real way of excusing his actions. He may not be a 'monster', but he has still hugely let down his friends, family, fans and especially the victim. Some of us have friends or family who may have been in these types of situations, which makes it particularly hard to forgive. Especially considering the DNA and video evidence that has surfaced.

[The Heartical Don]

I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.

Thanks for your comment, Emily, much appreciated -

I think all of us think alike when it comes down to the seriousness of Scott's actions. In my opinion, 'minimizing the crime' is: somehow belittling the impact it has on the victim. I don't assume that any SSnet member is doing precisely this.

In extreme fashion, belittling would amount to the unforgiveable (silent) advice to the woman: get over it, or something like that. No one in their right mind thinks like this.

As I said: my interest is with Scott's state of mind. He may have been overcome with serious impulsivity, which can temporarily but totally obliterate one's feelings and calm considerations. In fact for the moment I guess it's the only viable explanation. Which doesn't take one iota away from the pain of the victim.

That's why I said: a situation with only losers. Somehow I feel that Scott's there in his cell now, suffering from deep guilt and regret.

[Lee Marshall]

I don't see the crime being minimized by Adam.  I think his perception of the article makes sense and bears REAL consideration.  The way the story is 'told' is 100% damning.  Next to murder how could anyone have less respect or more contempt for another human being than that which Scott apparently had for the victim here?

IF the proof and the facts of the case are as cut and dried as they've been presented in the 'story'...it would be a waste of time and money to appeal.  Yet...an appeal seems to be planned.

I wonder how, in the name of anything rite or wholly, did they managed to keep this so stone cold quiet...and since 2014?

No matter how this eventually plays out two things seem to ring true.  There is a victim and while being abandoned and totally vulnerable she is not at fault in any way.  And Scott will likely never have a meaningful spot to occupy in the music business ever again.  At least that's the way I'm seeing it 22 hours in.

[Angua]

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

It's impossible to fully understand what happened from the scant information given.  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.  Considering how much we don't know, speculation is futile and ridiculous.  Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.  What we do know is that this is nothing whatever to do with Scott as a professional musician nor the responsibility of Brian or his management.  It is a very sad tale and one which I think we would be better to stop telling and certainly to stop fabricating.  I certainly intend to.

[Cool Cool Water]

Shocked as I met Scott at many VIP Brian Wilson concerts some years back.

[Ang Jones]

Many years ago I did jury duty. We were told that we MUST NOT discuss the case outside of the court, the reason being that we would be given advice and therefore influenced by those who had not heard all of the evidence.

None of us has seen the footage nor I'm assuming heard the evidence in full. To express sympathy for those hurt by this is understandable and commendable and also to examine the articles closely to make sure our views are not being manipulated by the media. I commend the posts of Heartical Don and Adamghost but like them, I am not condoning what was done. At best, it was the worst kind of sexual opportunism even if somehow Scott Bennet believed the woman was compliant. I completely agree that there are only losers here and that it is tragic. I hope the victim recovers fully from the experience.

[Amy B.]

I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.

I agree with everything here, Emily. It seems like some people find Scott to be likable, so they're looking for ways to...not excuse his behavior, but find an explanation for it. It happens a lot with the public figures we've seen accused of bad behavior. Woody Allen is still making films, Bill Cosby still has his defenders, etc. "He's a really good guy, so he didn't do this. The accuser is just trying to get attention." With Scott, we have the evidence on video that he did do it, so it must have been that he wasn't in his right mind? Even if he was a bit drunk, you just don't go after a 21-year-old who is completely, out of her mind drunk. Even if she seemed to consent, which we don't know if she did. And you don't do it in a hallway, and you don't leave her in the hallway. Yes, I know the article was editorializing, but he DID leave her in the hallway, and in my mind, that's treating a human being like trash. At the very minimum, it's humiliating for her.

As for the victim hopefully being able to better deal with it because she has no memory of it, well, I don't know. Imagine that you (whether you are a man or a woman) went in for surgery, and when you woke up you found out that the surgeon had sexually assaulted you in some way while you were under. It's a complete violation, and I imagine it would haunt you forever.

As for the "1 in 5" statistic being inaccurate, maybe that's the case. But many, many rapes also go unreported.

So while the article was sensationalizing a bit, the facts that were included and are irrefutable are horrifying. Frankly, I don't care that his career is ruined. I feel terrible for his wife, his friends, and the band members who have to deal with this after working with him for years. And particularly for the victim.

[Amy B.]

OK. I will try to stop talking about this. I just get really angry about this sort of stuff.

[SMiLE Brian]

This is a difficult topic, all range of input is needed!

[ruskalupagus]

Very disappointing and disgusting. I was at that show, very sickening.

[SMiLE Brian]

Damn shame man...

[Rocky Raccoon]

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/crime/keyboardist-brian-wilson-raped-woman-oklahoma-concert-article-1.2628569

How gross and irresponsible, he should be ashamed of himself.

EDIT: I missed the existing thread.  Feel free to merge.