Fraternity Gang Rape in Georgia 1962

In addition to the brutal crime of gang rape, the pack leader drugged the 21 year old woman after he lured her to his off-campus apartment. He was not a stranger, and it was not unusual to have small gatherings at someone's apt. Many fraternity brothers, maybe a dozen, were involved. She can identify 7 of these men, all students at that "little" engineering school in Atlanta, Georgia, 1962.

Problem is she repressed the memories for 43 years (until 2005), having only flashbacks, due to being drugged and severely traumatized. What can be done, and under the statutes of limitations, would the blocked memories be considered in the time frame? In otherwords, to her, it's a if the rape occurred "3" years ago. She has hundreds of images pertaining to the crime (before, during, and after), and her account of what happened that night has not deviated.

Quote:

---

Quoting Georgia Girl

---

In addition to the brutal crime of gang rape, the pack leader drugged the 21 year old woman after he lured her to his off-campus apartment. He was not a stranger, and it was not unusual to have small gatherings at someone's apt. Many fraternity brothers, maybe a dozen, were involved. She can identify 7 of these men, all students at that "little" engineering school in Atlanta, Georgia, 1962.

Problem is she repressed the memories for 43 years (until 2005), having only flashbacks, due to being drugged and severely traumatized. What can be done, and under the statutes of limitations, would the blocked memories be considered in the time frame? In otherwords, to her, it's a if the rape occurred "3" years ago. She has hundreds of images pertaining to the crime (before, during, and after), and her account of what happened that night has not deviated.

---

Since the victim was an adult at the time of the crime, most of the special allowances for tolling the civil statute of limitations won't apply (the overwhelming number of them are applicable to crimes committed against minors). Even the special tolling citing disability is tested as "whether the individual, being of unsound mind, could not manage the ordinary affairs of their life." Walker v. Brannan, 243 Ga. App. 235; 533 S.E.2d 129 (2000). So unless she has not been able to function, hold a job, pay her bills, have a family, etc., or has spent a considerable amount of time under some sort of documented supervisory psychiatric care, she won't likely be considered to have been "disabled" enough to meet that tolling. Some states like Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, and South Dakota have special allowances for this (holding that repressed memory or post-traumatic stress disorder constitutes "insanity" sufficient to toll the limitations period), but Georgia, from my research, does not - however, I'm NOT an attorney and she can, and should, check with an attorney who specializes in such civil cases in Georgia. She should be aware however that under a civil case, most types of evidence including everything from personal journals to usually protected therapist records can obtained by the defense, that a huge majority of such cases are lengthy and expensive to pursue, that even with a "win" the losers often don't have the means to pay any judgement, AND that the unfortunate truth is that a huge number of such cases don't end well for the plaintiff - leaving them more frustrated, unvalidated, and broker than when they started. And, winning a civil suit often does NOT provide the many levels of relief that rape victims hope for, and so it is generally recommended that civil law suits should NOT be contemplated by persons who are not already in very well established therapy.

As for the criminal SOL, under Georgia laws, the statute of limitations for forcible rape is 15 years after the offense is committed. Georgia DOES have VERY broad laws that WILL allow for criminal prosecution of certain crimes even decades after the crime was committed, BUT those instances require that DNA evidence was collected at the time and that enough of that DNA evidence is still in existance for the accused/attorney of the accused to conduct their own tests. If this rape was never reported, or medical care or treatment was never sought or administered back when it occurred (where the crime would have been documented, either with a rape kit/collection swab, or a blood sample that could have indicated toxicology), I'm afraid there is little for a prosecutor to go on 43 years after the fact.

There WAS legislation introduced that WOULD HAVE extend the SOL for rape to be "none" - but it didn't pass back in 2003, so CURRENT SOL is:


O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1 (2008)

§ 17-3-1. Limitation on prosecutions -- Generally


(a) A prosecution for murder may be commenced at any time.

(b) Prosecution for other crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment must be commenced within seven years after the commission of the crime except as provided by subsection (c.1) of this Code section; provided, however, that prosecution for the crime of forcible rape must be commenced within 15 years after the commission of the crime.

(c) Prosecution for felonies other than those specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c.1) of this Code section must be commenced within four years after the commission of the crime, provided that prosecution for felonies committed against victims who are at the time of the commission of the offense under the age of 18 years must be commenced within seven years after the commission of the crime.

(c.1) A prosecution for the following offenses may be commenced at any time when deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence is used to establish the identity of the accused:

(1) Armed robbery, as defined in Code Section 16-8-41;
(2) Kidnapping, as defined in Code Section 16-5-40;
(3) Rape, as defined in Code Section 16-6-1;
(4) Aggravated child molestation, as defined in Code Section 16-6-4;
(5) Aggravated sodomy, as defined in Code Section 16-6-2; or
(6) Aggravated sexual battery, as defined in Code Section 16-6-22.2;


While there certainly HAVE been cases where repressed memory HAS been a factor in pursuing criminal charges, there have been an infantismal number of cases where the prosecution succeeded on such testomony alone (i.e. with NO other cooborating evidence or testimony). Defense attorneys have a ball with these cases because a majority of experts in the mental health field (everyone from Elizabeth Loftus to Richard Ofshe to the University of Minnesota to Christopher Barden, and many others - all renowned experts on victimology and repressed memory - as well as the National Association for Consumer Protection in Mental Health Practices - consistantly hold that testimony based on repressed memory doesn't meet criteria for credible scientific theory and thus should not be presented to a jury. This shouldn't be interpreted as them meaning that repression doesn't exist - only that using such in court is akin to using polygraph tests; something that some people put more stock in than others, and that even experts in the field can't agree on, so while it might be useful in an investigation, such stuff usually doesn't make it into evidence or testimony in open court. That the longest psychiatric malpractice trial in U.S. history (occurred in St. Paul, MN) centered around a psychotherapist trying to recover "repressed memories" only makes courts, and particularly prosecutors even MORE reluctant to approach such cases WITHOUT independent evidence/testimony from someone OTHER than the victim (which of course is doubly difficult in sex crimes cases, just by their very nature).

Cases like Borawick vs. Shay 68 F.3rd 597 (2d Cir. 1995), have fought to get certain testimony on repressed memories, particularly those documented under hypnosis INTO courts (with support from many victim services organizations, typically citing Daubert), but with mixed results and little true success; and even the APA and the AMA typically limit their support (and yes, there is SOME) to cases where the victim was a child, not an adult. Of course the only way to know for sure if the case can or would be pursued in the criminal arena is to start the process by filing a police report, or at least speaking with a sex crimes detective to get their "take" on it before launching into the traumatic ordeal that the extensive interviewing for filing a formal report would put her through.

Catherine NeSmith, AARDVARC
Re: Fraternity Gang Rape

Thanks for an indepth answer, including court references, which led to numerous other sites. I truly appreciate your reply.

I'd like for you to read the blog. It's not so much a "woe is me" victim story. It's more about the power of recovered memories, strength and determination. Many of the details have been withheld (saved for later) because there's always the possibility that a formal complaint could be filed against the perpetrator.

True, as you stated, "Georgia DOES have VERY broad laws that WILL allow for criminal prosecution of certain crimes even decades after the crime was committed.". You continue, ".... BUT those instances require that DNA evidence ...". Maybe not! A well known Atlanta attorney, after hearing most ALL the details of 3 separate crimes perpetrated by rapist Jim Dickinson, said he could file a complainst against him. However, the attorney warned, "I can tell you what they'll do is answer with a "cease and desist". At that point he apparently detected a lack of commitment on my part, so the case never materialized. Foolishly, I didn't recognize that he had offered me an opportunity to take the first step and get the ball rolling. I may contact him again.

Corroboration among witnesses is possible, but these witnesses are also perpetrators. Persuading them to tell the truth and testify against Dickinson would be a difficult hurdle. Additionally, there is another woman, who was also drugged by Dickinson.

I'm familiar with Loftus and have read [some] of her work. None of her experiments are similar to my own experience of repression and recovered memories. And my memories were not recovered in therapy. They were triggered by a specific event, which I'd like to share with you ... not in this forum of course.

The section on Special Victims on the aardvarc site offers excellent information. Here's something to ponder (no answer necessary):

Why is it perceived that a 21 year old woman is any less victimized by rape than a child would be? Why is rape considered more emotionally damaging to a child (most state laws reflect this belief) ? If a woman is drugged and brutally gang raped by perhaps a dozen men, the emotional trauma inflicted is every bit as damaging as child molestation. So why hasn't Georgia eliminated the statute of limitations for rape?

Does the State of Georgia believe that a 21 year old woman back in 1962 was supposed to be wiser, regardless of a sheltered environment with little knowledge of life beyond ther safe parameters of family and friends? Is she to blame for her vulnerability -- her inability to recognize that someone in her inner circle could be so evil?


Thanks again for your reply. Hoping to communicate with you further.

at 21 you are an adult. Under 21, obviously a minor. We, as a society, believe, and rightfully so, that minors deserve special protections, escpecially since they are not able to represent themselves but depend on others (parents, guardians) to represent them. This has led to many situations where the guardians did not act properly and as such, we have allowed the minor come adult to persue actions against others for actions perpetrated while a minor and under the control of others.

as an adult, you do not have these limitations that we have placed upon minors. Therefore we must put a limitation somewhere and the age of majority is it.

Bottom line in your situation; chances of a criminal prosecution, let alone a conviction, would be minimal, at best, even if allowed by a lenient SoL.

Not meaning to trivialize your injuries. I am closely related to a person who has experienced a situation even more horrific than yours so I do have sympathy for your situation. As with this other person, I just do not believe chasing the perpetrators down and attempting to have them prosecuted will result in any healing. Rape is such a horrible action but seeking belated justice is often merely a disguised attempt at revenge. Revenge does not heal. It can even cause more damage, especially if the action does not result in conviction.

I am far less qualified than aardvarc to speak on the matter so I will merely quote her statement I believe is so pertinent:

Quote:

---

Of course the only way to know for sure if the case can or would be pursued in the criminal arena is to start the process by filing a police report, or at least speaking with a sex crimes detective to get their "take" on it before launching into the traumatic ordeal that the extensive interviewing for filing a formal report would put her through.

---

The initial investigation would be only the beginning of the ordeal, if the state persues the action.

Proceed with caution. You may be causing yourself more grief and angst by traveling down this road rather than one that takes you towards acceptance of the facts and putting this behind you.

Best of luck in your healing, whichever way you go.

JK, thanks for the input. In so many words, you are suggesting that I put the ordeal behind me and get on with my life. Many people would agree with you. The emotions of hate and revenge are powerful and destructive, but I find it impossible to sit around and do "nothing". I want people to know his true character and the secret he shared with a handful of frat brothers -- a secret that would cement their lifelong friendship --- it's called "bonding".

There are degrees of brutality when it comes to rape, and mine was horribly brutal. The perpetrators have all been notified, but none are talking. Having anyone convicted is not a priority. My only priority is to EXPOSE THE MAN WHO SET UP THE GANG RAPE by publicizing his crimes and making him as uncomfortable as I possibly can. When I accomplish that, I will feel a sense of validation.
Thanks again for commenting.

You can click the link below, or google the blog (key words):
Fraternity Gang Rape GA Tech 1962

Quote:

---

Quoting Georgia Girl

---

[B]
Why is it perceived that a 21 year old woman is any less victimized by rape than a child would be? Why is rape considered more emotionally damaging to a child (most state laws reflect this belief) ?

---

I just have a few minutes this morning (sigh...another domestic violence homicide here in lovely Central Florida, so there goes my weekend), so this will be a short answer...

Your question is a perfectly understandable one. I don't think the intent of any legislation or policy around rape crimes is intended to address the "level" of victimization (although, in reality it most certainly FEELS that way, to victims, victim's friends and family, and advocates alike). Special groups like children and the elderly receive different (enhanced) treatment because each has special qualities that make them easier targets, so the "goal", if you will, of providing enhanced penalties is to - in reality - make them less attractive targets. I don't think anyone could argue that a 21 year old is any LESS victimized emotionally, physically, spiritually, or at any other level - however, an adult personality has VERY different capacity to understand the events, to understand the dynamics of victimization, and has a much broader range of access to services (including self-services) to help them through the events; whereas a child is at the mercy of a adult to provide access to those services or even to initially report the crime in most cases. Also, at the psychological level, a 21 year old is already relatively complete in the process of personality formation, while a child is still in the process (obviously the younger the child, the less developed they are emotionally). Consensus among victims of any sex crime seem to be almost unanimous that the physicality of the events (sans any perminant physical injury) pales in comparision to the emotional and mental anguish which can last many years and at some level follows most victims their entire lives, whether that lasting impact is in the forefront or in a more subdued manner. So I guess the real "politically incorrect" answer is that adult victims got to become adults, then had to deal with the traumatic event (but have the advantages of having formed a functional personality as a baseline first), while child victims never had a chance to develop normally (which is why SO many people victimized as children have so many problems at so many levels throughout life, even if they've really forgotten or never understood the nature of their victimization from so long ago). This is also the basis as to why child victims (or adults who were victimized as children yet are now remembering or seeking help) receive such drastically different treatments than those persons victimized as an adult - because of the level of personality development (particularly cognitive skills and coping mechanisms) of the victim at the time of the crime.

More later if anyone wants to discuss....

I would like to know if there are any scientific studies validating the existence of repressed memories?

Seniorjudge, I found the following info a few days ago:

Dodds v. Johnson — civil settlement in October 1998 in one of the first recovered memory cases in South Dakota. Sister verifies plaintiff's recovered memories; mother was also going to testify in plaintiff's favor. Defendant offered to settle after the jury was selected.

Lund v. Giesen (Scott County, Minnesota) Case No. 97-19193. Civil settlement immediately after Judge Rex. Stacey ruled (2/16/99) to allow recovered memory testimony. The perpetrator admitted as to some of the acts in deposition

[Brown, Scheflin and Whitfield, Recovered Memories: The Current Weight of the Evidence in Science and in the Court published in the Journal of Psychiatry and Law, Vol. 26, 1998-9. Back issues of this journal can be ordered for $14.00 by calling (914)-279-0362.The authors, review 68 studies all of which demonstrate that amnesia for child sexual abuse is a consistent finding across all 68 studies.]

"The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness" quote by Judith Herman, M.D.

Having recovered my own repressed memories, I can tell you that repression definitely exists. Repression is not the same as "forgetting". I never forgot the incident; otherwise, I would never have experienced the "images" (flashbacks) for all those years. The memories were triggered by a specific event, and they did not "re-appear" all at once. I cannot explain the process, but I can tell you this: if I were being dishonest, I would have tons of back-tracking to do in order to keep the lies straight. You don't need a script if you're telling the truth.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I would like to know if there are any scientific studies validating the existence of repressed memories?

---

There have been literally hundreds of such studies - however, most of them are very specific to traumas occurring in childhood (the exception being several studies by the Dept. of Vet Affairs specifically related to combat-related PTSD and by Harvard's Psych Dept., focusing on generalized PTSD).

Part of the problem is in the terminology - "repressed memory" issues tend to almost always fall under the umbrella of a form of psychological "self-defense" to childhood-based traumas, while the adult umbrella encompasses related (yet unique) issues specifically leaning towards altered cognitive processing such as "selective processing", "autobiographical memory", "directed forgetting", "psychogenic amnesia", or "incomplete encoding" - all of which often do have a traumatic accompanying event, but which can also be seen in very common events such as uncomfortable social situations.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I would like to know if there are any scientific studies validating the existence of repressed memories?

---

As aardvarc's post suggests, it depends on how we define "repressed memories". There is a concept of "robust repression", where the memory is supposedly completely repressed for a period of years (or decades) then suddenly comes back in photographic detail. There's plenty of evidence that such memories can be manufactured by bad therapists (iatrogenic creation of memory), self-hypnosis, reading poorly crafted "self-help" books that encourage you to "remember" past trauma even if you have no actual memories when you start that process, etc. But there is no evidence that robust repression actually exists as a psychological phenomenon.

But there are a broad range of dissociative disorders, particularly associated with childhood abuse, which can interfere with the way people process abuse and recall incidents of abuse. There are also medications (a/k/a "date rape drugs") that can interfere both with memory formation and with recall. You're not going to create a case of "robust repression" with a date rape drug, but you certainly can create a context where the memory is clouded or pretty much inaccessible until something triggers recall, and suddenly that druggy veil is lifted and the memories come pouring back. I've heard of that happening with GHB.

There's also the perspective of memory of traumatic events in light of Johari's Window. Any person at any time can only imprint into memory that which they are consciously or unconsiously aware of - there will always be the pane in the window that the individual cannot or does not know, as well as information about the event in the pane that no one knows - in other words, no matter how explicit any individual's memory of an event might be, and how well that memory can be acessed, that individual only has their own perspective of the event itself (everything from their point of view, to their understanding of the events in light of cultural, racial, gender, age, and similar orientations). As any police officer can tell you, 100 people can witness the same event, but their recall of that event, from the immediate to some far time in the future can and usually does vary drastically from one person to another. This case is likely to hear the same thing since there were multiple perpetrators (which ones knew about the drugging, which didn't, etc.).

Quote:

---

But there is no evidence that robust repression actually exists as a psychological phenomenon.

---

Which is exactly why the APA proports that it is impossible to tell if a repressed memory (as used in the context of the OP's post) is a true or false one. The down side to this, from a victim's standpoint, is that since the APA (and the ICD, internationally), and even MORE importantly/specifically the DSM-V, don't specifically support such phenemona, they remain classified to most individuals (particularly to delighted defense attorneys) as "theories" instead of more concrete (and case-winning) concepts such as a "diagnosis", or well defined "syndrome" might be.

There is nothing so complex in the universe as the workings of the human mind, thus, many such cases get the "brush off" or non-support because in the concrete world of the criminal courtroom, a prosecutor really has to "teach" a jury of lay persons about such etherial concepts in a period of a few days or weeks (while even Ph.D.'s with decades of research and experience can't agree on the issue), AND get that jury to accept one or more of the "pro-victim" aspects of such - while the defense only needs to say "hey, even the revered DSM-V doesn't jibe with the prosecution's arguement, the APA is the authority and even THEY don't support it, AND then march in any of hundreds of psych expert witnesses who will tell the jury that the prosecution's case isn't supported by any unified theory in the field (because one doesn't exist). Easy to see why such cases aren't pursued when the vast nature of this obstacle is taken into account (again, sans something OTHER than the victim's testimony, like a confession or physical evidence or cooberating testimony).

Back on point, in relation to the OP's initial inquiry and subsequent commentary, if the goal of pursuing this in a legal arena is exposure of the individuals concerned (for whatever value the victim/plaintiff puts on that exposure), the criminal case approach is mute at this point, even if the individuals in question walked up to the DA and confessed, as the SOL limitations and the varied tollings have either expired or don't apply due to the very specific requirements which are not met in this case.


Quoting the OP:

Quote:

---

A well known Atlanta attorney, after hearing most ALL the details of 3 separate crimes perpetrated by rapist Jim Dickinson, said he could file a complainst against him. However, the attorney warned, "I can tell you what they'll do is answer with a "cease and desist". At that point he apparently detected a lack of commitment on my part, so the case never materialized. Foolishly, I didn't recognize that he had offered me an opportunity to take the first step and get the ball rolling. I may contact him again.

---

As for a possible civil case, if we are ONLY addressing the incident of 40+ years ago with this specific victim, the defense is absolute. Certainly any attorney could FILE such a case, and yes, of course the defense would file the C&D. At least at that point you've got something in the public record that X plaintiff filed a case against A,B,& C defendants. But that's about as far as it's likely to get - it likely won't even get far enough in a court room for the plaintiff's/victim's attorney to stand up and make the allegation in open court and on the record. If there's an attorney with a way around the C&D, more power to them, and if the OP feels this would be worth the time, money, and effort as part of her process for dealing with the events, that's something only the OP can weigh. But even in the best case scenario, let's assume that it gets all the way in front of a judge, and the cause for the action is made part of the record. That's STILL not a verdict for the plaintiff/victim, and "exposure", by whatever means, after the case is dismissed could have the former plaintiff/victim becoming a defendant in an action by any or all of the accused. Just because I file a case saying that Joe has three eyes, that doesn't mean I am free from liability if I engage in a directed campaign to let everyone in the world know that I filed a case accusing Joe of having three eyes. So my advice to the OP, BEFORE taking formal steps to filing such a case would be to speak with an attorney specializing in libel/slander issues - otherwise the outcome could be to get all dressed up with no place to go, euphamistically.

As for the other crimes committed by the same perp, filing of civil or criminal cases against him would again be dependent on the facts of those particular cases and the willingness of those victims to participate. Maybe one of them would be worth pursuing and the OP COULD potentially be called, but there are LOTS of ways for civil or criminal defenses to fight this (putting us back to my initial statement that formal participation by the OP has potential to be more damaging and frustrating than helpful, particularly if no conviction or judgement ensues, and in light of possible dire consequences of "the exposure plan").