Starwood gave drunken man her room key, resulting in assault

[sjuhawk_jd]

http://gma.yahoo.com/woman-claims-hotel-gave-drunken-man-her-room-221452428--abc-news.html

 

[Ridewithme38]

He would have to have known her FULL name, room number and other personal information for him to have convinced the front desk staff to give him a copy of the key...the odds of him being able to guess those things, while visually impaired without her telling him are very very slim and why would a women give a man her room number?

Best i stay out of this thread....

 

[DavidnRobin]

This is the SVO TS forum - not SPG hotels - seems better placed in the Starwood forum on FlyerTalk. There are 1000s of Starwood owned properties. If this happened at an SVO TS resort (like the theft at WPORV) - then perhaps of interest, but unclear why this is relevant here?

 

[Passepartout]

I side with Ride on this one. There is no way the guy could have gotten the information needed to get a key from the desk except from the 'victim.' And why was her deadbolt and/or chainlock not in place? Obviously the drunken guy used some deception to gain access, but there appears to have been some complacency on the part of the woman.

Ms Allred's tactic of going first to the 'court of public opinion' instead of to authorities is questionable at best- and shady law practice at worst.

Jim

 

[SueDonJ]

Wow. It's as dangerous to prematurely exonerate the accused as it is to blindly believe the victim without knowing all the facts in cases like this. The Starwood official says they are investigating to find out exactly how/if this happened - maybe we should hold off on judgment until the facts are in. (Although in the abstract I don't understand at all how a woman giving a man her name during a meeting between them early in an evening equates to an invitation for him to come by later and assault her. )

FWIW, I can see how a front-desk employee could be convinced by somebody to release a room key when it may not be warranted. I'm not saying that's what happened here because I just don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that one desk clerk out of the millions who exist could make such a mistake.

(This is another of those rare threads that you see the title on the main page and can't help but stop and read it. If this happened at a Marriott hotel and the woman's suit was against the Marriott-equivalent of "Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide," I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned here on the TUG Marriott board.)

 

[jont]

all the more reason why I'm glad my wife employs the nighttime lock, deadbolt, when we're all in the room for the night.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Wow. It's as dangerous to prematurely exonerate the accused as it is to blindly believe the victim without knowing all the facts in cases like this. The Starwood official says they are investigating to find out exactly how/if this happened - maybe we should hold off on judgment until the facts are in.

I think you are blindly believing the victim in the below quote

(Although in the abstract I don't understand at all how a woman giving a man her name during a meeting between them early in an evening equates to an invitation for him to come by later and assault her. )

The question i would ask, to counterpoint yours would be..Since when is a women giving her full name, room number, inviting him up and waiting for him in bed....Considered "Assault"? Given the information provided, it seems like a women who got caught in an indiscretion and decided, after the fact that she regretted it....This happens in more 'sexual assault' cases then you would think

 

[LisaRex]

I, personally, have a neighbor whose co-worker and friend of over 20 years, was recently arrested for sexual assault involving a minor following a very similar occurence.

The friend, who I'll call him Bob, had traveled to Florida on business. Bob and 2 of his co-workers decided to make a long weekend out of it instead of returning home with their other colleagues, but didn't want to pay to stay at the hotel where their meeting was being held -- which I believe was a Ritz. So they checked out of that hotel and into a new hotel. They proceeded to go out and get all plastered. Upon returning to the hotel, Bob went to his room and tried to get in. The key wouldn't work. So he returned to the front desk, told them his room number, and told them that his key wasn't working. They gave him a new one. Though he claims not to remember this part, he apparently returned to his room, found it to be chain locked, and busted through it into the room. He proceeded to get undressed down to his boxers, and crawl into bed.

Unbeknowst to him (according to him), there were two children in the room, including an older child who, in a complete state of terror, made her way to an adjoining room where her parents were sleeping. She told them that a strange man had burst into their room and was in bed with the 9 year old sister. The parents ran into the room to find exactly that scenario. They chased him out of the room, called the front desk, who called the police. The police ended up arresting him. Upon being questioned, the 9 year old claimed that Bob had touched her inappropriately. He is now (or was, as of the relaying of this story) in jail awaiting trial on a multitude of offenses, including sexual assualt on a minor. IIRC, he is looking at a possible 20 years in jail.

Turns out that when he went to the front desk, he'd given them his room number from the Ritz. He'd had that room number emblazoned on his brain, and that is why his key didn't work. Either the front desk clerk didn't ask for his id at all, or he looked at the id but didn't establish that the room number that Bob had given him matched the room number assigned to him. In either event, their oversight is indefensible.

The parents have sued not only the man personally, but his company, the hotel and even IIRC the Ritz. Bob, of course, was also fired. The co-workers who stayed behind to party with him were fired, and even the boss who had returned home, was fired.

My friend, Ed, is torn between sympathy for his friend of 20+ years, who he swears would never harm a child, and the family whose vacation was ruined by finding a strange man in their daughter's bed. Ed is a father and can only imagine their horror. He also sympathizes with the people who suffered collateral damage by being merely associated with Bob.

So for those who are convinced that this could never happen, it can and does.

(Now, whether this woman was as traumatized as she claims, is a completely different story.)

 

[presley]

This happened in Finland. Things are different in different countries. It will be interesting to find out if she filed criminal charges, or if she just opted to go after the money.

 

[DeniseM]

Ride - I hope you are never on Jury duty, because they way you prejudge every situation without knowing ANY of the facts is downright scary!

 

[Ridewithme38]

Ride - I hope you are never on Jury duty, because they way you prejudge every situation without knowing ANY of the facts is downright scary!

I tend to always been the dissenting opinion...i hope i don't ever serve Jury Duty either, the case will never end or end in a hung jury!

I know people who were charge with 'sexual assault' because of an angry ex-girlfriend or a one night stand, who never would or could 'assault' anyone

 

[SueDonJ]

I think you are blindly believing the victim in the below quote ...

The question i would ask, to counterpoint yours would be..Since when is a women giving her full name, room number, inviting him up and waiting for him in bed....Considered "Assault"? Given the information provided, it seems like a women who got caught in an indiscretion and decided, after the fact that she regretted it....This happens in more 'sexual assault' cases then you would think

I have no idea (and neither do you) what information she gave to him during their meeting early in the evening and I have no idea (and neither do you) if she invited him to her room and waited for him in bed. You're assuming that the desk clerk followed protocol and thus, the woman must have invited the man to her room, engaged in a little hanky-panky with him, and then decided after that she regretted her decision and lied to cover up her consent.

You could be correct with your extreme version of the events that the woman was a consensual partner in a tryst that she later regretted; the other correct extreme version could be that the desk-clerk was a total screw-up and the woman gave just enough information to the man during their meeting earlier in the evening for him to convince the clerk later to give him her room key. Or any version of the events that falls in between those two could be correct.

But it seemed to me that a couple of you were only too willing to accept that the ONLY possible scenario that could have transpired here is the one that completely exonerates the accused attacker, and you both based it on the assumption that she MUST have given her name and other info to the man she later accused of attacking her. I disagree with your assumption that this particular event could not have transpired any other way, but I have no idea how it did and so I can't say if she or he is innocent.

The only thing I do know, and the reason why I used "in the abstract" when I wrote it, is that a woman giving her name to a man - or any other info that he could use to gain access to her - does not equate in any way, shape or form EVER to an invitation for that man to attack her. What you're saying is the equivalent of "she asked for it." No woman asks for a sexual attack. Any woman can agree to a consensual tryst, but no woman asks to be raped. Rape is not a consensual tryst gone bad, it's a completely unwanted indefensible violent attack.

 

[jarta]

"Allred said the case is representative of a bigger problem than a personal assault, because women, particularly businesswoman, have a right to feel safe when traveling and staying at well known hotels."

Of course, the right to feel safe exists for all guests - male and female - in all hotels. Sounds like a screw-up and Starwood will end up paying (if only to avoid further bad publicity).

But, is it a bigger problem than a mere personal assault? Allred has a way of overstating the importance of her client's claims as a vehicle to advertise her own services, IMO.

Still, this occurrence should not have happened if standard protocol of verifying identity and number of persons in the room had been followed - especially in the way it has been described. ... eom

 

[Ridewithme38]

The only thing I do know, and the reason why I used "in the abstract" when I wrote it, is that a woman giving her name to a man - or any other info that he could use to gain access to her - does not equate in any way, shape or form EVER to an invitation for that man to attack her. What you're saying is the equivalent of "she asked for it." No woman asks for a sexual attack. Any woman can agree to a consensual tryst, but no woman asks to be raped. Rape is not a consensual tryst gone bad, it's a completely unwanted indefensible violent attack.

This is true, a women giving her name, Room number and other personal information isn't an invitation to 'attack' her....But there is no evidence that this women was 'attacked' in any way, shape or form, just her word, which has as much value as his, just because a women claims to have been sexual assaulted doesn't mean it is what actually happened...There are and should be questions on both sides of the case

I present this side because in 99% of cases where a women 'claims' sexual assault, the man is immediately treated as guilty and his life is essentially over, even in the majority of cases where it ends up being a false allegation, the accused still end up 'guilty in the eyes of society'...This is wrong and needs to be corrected...I don't KNOW that the man is innocent but i KNOW, legally, until he has been proven guilty by a jury of his peers he should be deemed innocent

 

[SueDonJ]

I tend to always been the dissenting opinion...i hope i don't ever serve Jury Duty either, the case will never end or end in a hung jury!

I know people who were charge with 'sexual assault' because of an angry ex-girlfriend or a one night stand, who never would or could 'assault' anyone

Every time you get involved in threads like this you always end up defending your position by saying that you know people who were wrongly accused of a related action. If that's the only requirement necessary to completely exonerate an accused, hell, every accused person should be found not guilty! Wrongful accusations are a sad but fairly common occurrence. Just because one person may have been wrongly accused, it doesn't mean that every other person accused of a similar action is also innocent! Sometimes, after all the facts are in, the bad guy really does turn out to be the bad guy! It's okay to not immediately jump to a guilty verdict, to allow a presumption of innocence - that's how our system is supposed to work. What you do, which is to immediately exonerate an accused by setting your mind without benefit of the facts to the one and only scenario which would lead to a not guilty verdict, isn't the way our system is supposed to work. Not anywhere close.

If ever you get on a jury, I hope that you don't look at it as a game that needs players on both sides. Juror service requires that you reach a guilty/not guilty verdict only after all the facts are in. It doesn't require that you make up your own set of facts prior to the evidence being introduced, and make your decision based on your version of the facts and your desire to always be the dissenting opinion.

 

[LisaRex]

I present this side because in 99% of cases where a women 'claims' sexual assault, the man is immediately treated as guilty and his life is essentially over, even in the majority of cases where it ends up being a false allegation, the accused still end up 'guilty in the eyes of society'...

73.65% of all statistics are completely made up.

 

[SueDonJ]

This is true, a women giving her name, Room number and other personal information isn't an invitation to 'attack' her....But there is no evidence that this women was 'attacked' in any way, shape or form, just her word, which has as much value as his, just because a women claims to have been sexual assaulted doesn't mean it is what actually happened...There are and should be questions on both sides of the case

Are you now singing a different tune from your first post? In that one you made it perfectly clear that you did not believe at all the version of the events that was reported in that article. Now you're saying that there are questions and we should be open to all possibilities?

I present this side because in 99% of cases where a women 'claims' sexual assault, the man is immediately treated as guilty and his life is essentially over, even in the majority of cases where it ends up being a false allegation, the accused still end up 'guilty in the eyes of society'...This is wrong and needs to be corrected...I don't KNOW that the man is innocent but i KNOW, legally, until he has been proven guilty by a jury of his peers he should be deemed innocent

Sure, we owe him - and all others accused - the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. But why do you find it necessary to discredit the accuser in order to reach that presumption?

 

[sjuhawk_jd]

This is the SVO TS forum - not SPG hotels - seems better placed in the Starwood forum on FlyerTalk. There are 1000s of Starwood owned properties. If this happened at an SVO TS resort (like the theft at WPORV) - then perhaps of interest, but unclear why this is relevant here?

David, just read post #8 from Lisa. How in the world we would have known about such juicy (but unfortunate) story unless I started this thread somewhat inappropriately in this forum

 

[Beefnot]

For most part, I agree with SueDonJ for once. Not enough info yet to take sides. And even if the alleged attacker was given the key by the front desk, we don't know how much information he gave to the front desk to get it or if the info was readily proffered by the alleged victim. I also know of con artists who are experts at sneakily eliciting key information during conversations for the purpose of deceit.

 

[Beefnot]

Maybe this thread belongs in TUG Lounge?

 

[SueDonJ]

I, personally, have a neighbor whose co-worker and friend of over 20 years, was recently arrested for sexual assault involving a minor following a very similar occurence. ...

That's heart-breaking. Obviously our system needs to be set up in such a way that there is absolutely no lenience given to a sexual predator. But this story illustrates just how much those requirements can lead to a person's life being ruined by not allowing leniency where it may be warranted. Granted, this man wasn't exactly the smartest banana in the bunch, but it appears he's only guilty of stupidity and not sexual assault. Very sad.

 

[SueDonJ]

For most part, I agree with SueDonJ for once. ...

Whoa. That never happens!

 

[Ridewithme38]

Sure, we owe him - and all others accused - the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. But why do you find it necessary to discredit the accuser in order to reach that presumption?

The accuser has already discredited him by accusing him of such a sick and disgusting crime...Personally, i believe(Though know it'll never happen)that if false allegations are proven in cases like this...The same sentence that would have been put against the accused should be set against those that made the false allegation....i think it is WAY too common for women to falsely accuse men of this and there should be MAJOR consequences to this behavior...When charges like this come up the FIRST thing people should be thinking is...."What does she have to gain from this false allegation"

 

[pedro47]

This is a very strange story and sad story.

 

[LisaRex]

When charges like this come up the FIRST thing people should be thinking is...."What does she have to gain from this false allegation"

Um, no. Our first thought should always be, "I'd like to hear the facts before casting judgment on either party."