Justine Gubar
ESPN
Re: Segment on Frostee Rucker
Inside the Lines

Dear Justine:

As you suggested, I have now reviewed a tape of ESPN’s “Behind the Line� segment on Frostee Rucker. While I am sure there was an attempt to make the program fair and balanced, it unfortunately was just the opposite.

One thing struck me immediately upon viewing the tape. First, there was no opportunity given for a representative of Frostee to respond to any of the allegations, none of which I might remind you have resulted in convictions involving violence of any kind. While I understand your claim that by contacting the Cincinnati Bengals you somehow accomplished the goal of giving both sides an opportunity to be heard, you of course accomplished just the opposite.

You failed to contact any of the parties who you had to know would have direct contact with Frostee, including myself, his agents, his family, or Frostee himself. You ignored the fact that as Frostee’s attorney, I was the one representative who could competently present his side, while still allowing the attorney for Joelle’s family every chance to state his case. The only protocol in cases such as this should be to get the truth from both sides -- not to satisfy some vague practice of contacting the team in order to reach the player. That should not suffice in cases where criminal charges are pending. Now, to the substance of the facts that were presented on your program:

The first case, of course (in Tustin), ended with a verdict of not guilty, which should have ended your inquiry. To give voice to an alleged victim who the court has found not credible does a disservice to your program and the public. What good is a court of law, where cross-examination and a full exploration of the facts occurs, when a verdict exonerating the accused is then ignored by the media. At the very least, Frostee’s acquittal should have been emphasized, and not just mentioned in passing as if the ruling was clearly in error.

In addition, the program clearly suggested that the not guilty verdict was likely the result of letters sent to the court in support of Frostee, and that somehow his standing as an athlete affected the outcome. (That is hard to believe, considering the fact that Frostee was only 13 at the time, and hardly a household name.) Of course, what you also failed to mention was that such letters are never admissible as evidence at any trial, and therefore could not possibly have affected the not guilty verdict. Thus, it is clear that Frostee’s exoneration could only have been the result of a lack of proof, not any influence a 13-year-old might have on the court.

In addition, Frostee’s version of the events in Tustin (which the judge obviously accepted as more credible than that of the accuser) was clearly stated in the police reports, which you obviously reviewed. However, that version was never mentioned, despite the not guilty verdict validating its accuracy. Rather, you took great care to present a poignant moment where the alleged victim talks about how difficult it is to walk around the pool area where the alleged incident occurred. Again, since neither you nor I were there, the not guilty verdict should have been the deciding factor in determining the truth. Obviously, however, ESPN has little faith in our judicial system or respect for its verdicts.

As far as the second incident is concerned, which resulted in a misdemeanor harassment conviction, a careful review of the police reports and written statements by the victim, witnesses and accused, reveals the following facts that your "expose" failed to mention.

1. The primary allegation of the alleged victim was that Frostee forced himself upon her, when she had no intention or desire to engage in sexual relations with him. As such, she admittedly maintained throughout her initial interviews with the police that she had no interest whatsoever in Frostee romantically, and that she had made that abundantly clear to him, despite his constant overtures. Of course, this claim of no prior sexual contact between them was flatly contradicted by Jamal Hall, who clearly stated that he was actually present during one of the times when sexual intercourse (consensual) was occurring, and was also present when a second incident likely occurred. No mention of this was made at all by your interviewer, or by Jeremy Schapp

2. When the alleged victim was later confronted with the statement of Jamal Hall, she continued to deny that such a prior sexual relationship existed, but did so in a way that resulted in the interviewing officer reporting as follows:

"When I told her that JAMAL was providing me with exact dates that she and FROSTEE had intercourse I noted that she blushed bright red in the face. She continued to deny that they had been sexual other than the assault."

More importantly, there follows a hand written statement, clearly by the alleged victim, in which she finally admits to having had sexual intercourse with Frostee on at least two prior occasions, but not wanting to admit it because, "I was embarrassed and ashamed because I didn't want to hurt my boyfriend.�

The second occasion, she claims was by force, although obviously never reported. (This force allegation was directly contradicted by Jamal Hall’s account.) How relevant it would have been to your story if these facts had been brought out, and if the victim had been confronted with them, for better or worse, by the interviewer. How would she have explained lying to the police about her prior sexual relationship with Frostee, and how might that fact have affected the final outcome, when it eventually became known to the prosecution. But then, that would have been a fair and balanced approach, designed to get at the real truth, something with which ESPN was obviously not that concerned

It is clear that a balanced, objective examination of the facts was not ESPN's primary motive in airing the piece. Remember, these admissions from the Colorado complainant came after she had emphatically claimed, over and over, that she had never slept with Frostee before the alleged rape. Now we know why the resulting reduction to a misdemeanor charge of harassment was at the "victim's request�, as the police report states.

3. Why, when the current victim, Joelle, claimed touchingly that she had no desire to injure Frostee’s career, and just "wants him to get help", was she not confronted with the fact that her attorney sent out a packet of police reports of Frostee’s prior alleged misconduct (which you and I also have) to every NFL team before the draft, and specifically to the Bengals after his selection on the third round. If that was not designed to injure his career and potential bargaining power in obtaining a fair contract, then I do not know what is. However, she was never asked to explain her answer.

4. As you know, Joelle waited almost six months before reporting the alleged assault, and then produced photographs taken from a cell phone that are dated sometime in November, over three months after the alleged assault (the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office is still trying to explain that discrepancy.) We also have uncovered in our own investigation evidence that severely questions Joelle’s credibility and account of the events; and establishes that it was she who initiated arguments and acted irrationally around Frostee, not the other way around. I would have been happy to expound on that for your segment, but of course was never even contacted.

5. While the program did mention that Frostee had filed a restraining order against Joelle in September, it was glossed over with the comment that he was just “putting the blame on her�. However, had you bothered to review the restraining order you would have learned that it contained serious allegations against Joelle by Frostee, reported to the USC Police, that clearly presented a motive for her to retaliate with her charges in this case. Unfortunately, your program did not bother to raise that point.

Finally, let me say that ESPN has every right to present whatever it wants during its programming. However, when it endeavors to present this programming as a fair and balanced journalistic examination of a serious subject, it should remember that truth and integrity are as important as ratings.

In essence, you presented a one-sided segment on a young man who has never been convicted of any assaultive conduct whatsoever, and who will likely be acquitted of the most recent charges. Unlike the young women who appeared, we believe in trying serious matters such as this in the courtroom and not in the media. That is the only forum where the truth can be ascertained through the presentation of evidence by both sides, and where witnesses are subject to cross-examination, and their accusations not simply accepted as true because they are made. That is why Frostee was acquitted in the first case in Tustin, as he would have been in Colorado had that case proceeded to trial. While you found it appropriate to uncritically present the views of these three women, and Joelle’s attorney (and don’t you wonder why she needs an attorney at all), you made no effort to contact Frostee’s counsel. As a result, one has to question your real motives, and whether a fair and balanced presentation was even considered.

I remain available to present Frostee’s rebuttal to the false and misleading accusations made on your program, and trust that when Frostee is exonerated of any criminal conduct in this case, that you will give it the same attention and air time that you did when allowing the false allegations to be made in the first place (without any rebuttal or independent investigation). I know you told me that you thoroughly investigated the facts before presenting them on the air, but the above information calls that claim into serious question.

I would appreciate it if you would make this letter available to Jeremy Schapp, as I have always respected his work and his ethics, and strongly believe he would have appreciated knowing the other side before participating in the segment.

Sincerely,