Melissa Schuman Case

Fact Check 

MSRD02 

It is a sad reality for sexual assault victims that those who disclose are often subjected to abuse by the offender and the offenders supporters. As high profile individuals the Breakers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse. The Breakers have also been targeted by a large number of women claiming to be sexual abuse victims on one hand while enthusiastically embracing rape culture on the other. 

In response to these issues, and to spare Melissa and her supporters the tedium of having to repeatedly respond to complete drivel, I have created a fact check document to address the issues for once and for all. This reference document will be updated as required. Unless specifically stated all words are my own. 

I am happy to answer any reasonable questions. In the event a Carter supporter or other concerned party wishes to dispute any statement please note that unsubstantiated theories, hearsay and conclusions offered in the absence of any reasonable consideration and or evidence are considered abusive to Melissa and unhelpful to the discussion at hand.  

Claim One

 

The Police cleared Nick Carter of wrong doing and declined to charge him because he is innocent.

False

 

The Police could not charge Nick Carter because the complaint fell outside of the statute of limitations. This is clearly stated in multiple media publications.

 

This is a matter of objective fact and not subjective. Any claims that the Police did not pursue charges for any other reason are wholly unsupported by fact. 

The fact the case did not proceed on procedural grounds in no way supports any contention that Nick Carter is innocent or that Melissa's Schuman's case has issues with veracity. 

Claim Two

Melissa Schuman performed oral sex on Nick Carter so that confers consent.

False

Wrong in fact and substance. Melissa Schuman did not perform oral sex on Nick Carter. Proper scrutiny of Melissa's statement shows that Melissa Schuman never states that she carried out the act. Melissa states he first asked and then demanded oral sex. In the face of her refusals he placed her hand on his penis.

 

Melissa tried to manually gratify him with her hand, again against her will, in the hope of ending the assault and avoiding being raped. This did not work as Nick Carter then went on to rape her. I expect he had every intention of doing so no matter what Melissa did. 

Even if Melissa had of performed the act, it would have been a sexual violation of her person and the result of fear. Such an act would have occurred in the absence of consent. Nick Carter was in fact sexually violating Melissa and any sexual act that resulted from the abuse occurred in the absence of any consent, implied or otherwise. 

 

Claim Three

There are emails between Melissa and Nick Carter of a sexual nature. 

False

These emails do not exist. Claims of their existence are entirely false. 

Claim Four

It can not be proven Nick Carter raped Melissa Schuman because there is no DNA evidence. 

False

DNA evidence does not apply to this case. DNA evidence would apply if the question of whether sexual acts took place was a matter of dispute.

 

In this case Nick Carter is claiming he had consensual sex with Melissa so the question of whether sex took place or not is answered in the affirmative by Nick Carter. 

The pivotal question in the matter is whether Melissa gave her consent for the sexual acts that took place. DNA evidence has nothing to offer when it comes to this consideration. Therefore DNA evidence or the lack thereof is not relevant to any material consideration. 

Claim Five 

Melissa made accusations against Nick Lachey of 98 Degrees.

False

Melissa has not made any accusations against Nick Lachey and any claims to the contrary are entirely false. 

Claim Six 

There is a discrepancy in Melissa's statement. Melissa is saying she did not tell anyone in her disclosure but the record shows she told various people after the assault. This amounts to a material lie which damages her credibility. 

False 

These arguments are based on an entirely false premise in that the original statement is being applied outside of the intentions of the author Melissa Schuman. Melissa sought to disclose the rape and described her feelings, thoughts and reactions to the best of her recollection. 

The reasoning I applied in Part 1 and Part 2 was solely concerned with determining whether the disclosure showed clear and compelling evidence of primary and secondary damage and I firmly believe those tests have been met. 

Neither Melissa's statement nor the articles I wrote to examine it apply any reasoning to or provide any information on the events that took place between the first private disclosure and the final public disclosure. 

These matters will be fully addressed in Part 3.