# David Daniels & Husband Arrested on Sexual Assault Charges



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/6899...charges?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=classical

Damn...

Sorry if there is a thread on this. I couldn't find one.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Dang, that lawyer's quote is rough. Good to see accusations like these being taken seriously.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

more of this MeeToo tihsllub coming from America. Dramatic police arrests based on mere claims, media witch hunts, parasites trying to cannibalize on famous and rich people with fake accusations etc.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Jacck said:


> more of this MeeToo tihsllub coming from America. Dramatic police arrests based on mere claims, media witch hunts, parasites trying to cannibalize on famous and rich people with fake accusations etc.


Oh come off it. A singer has multiple people accuse him of sexual assault and your default assumption is that it's cynical bandwagoning? At least let the trial run its course before being so dismissive.

I shan't say any more because this really isn't the place for a #metoo discussion. But at the very least let's not jump to substantive conclusions in either direction, guilty or innocent.

EDIT: the "I shan't say any more" bit was a lie! I'M A FAILURE!!!!!


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

JoeSaunders said:


> Oh come off it. A singer has multiple people accuse him of sexual assault and your default assumption is that it's cynical bandwagoning? At least let the trial run its course before being so dismissive.


Agree 1000%. No assumptions should be made at this point.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JoeSaunders said:


> Oh come off it. A singer has multiple people accuse him of sexual assault and your default assumption is that it's cynical bandwagoning? At least let the trial run its course before being so dismissive.
> 
> I shan't say any more because this really isn't the place for a #metoo discussion. But at the very least let's not jump to substantive conclusions in either direction, guilty or innocent.


Yes, that is my default assumption and my default attitude to all such cases, where a victim has been accused of "sexual assault" that allegedly happened a long time in the past and the accuser has no real evidence to substantiate his claim. I am cynical in these matters. But let's not start another argument about this, we already had one. I believe that the media should be forbidden to report any names in such cases, until clearly proven guilty by court. Not by mob.

I am on the side of all those who really suffered sexual assault, all cases of rape, violence, forced sex, or abuse of power. But I am really sceptical, when rich and famous people are being accused of those things by random people. But I will not say any more on this. None of us knows the details of this particular case, so all we have are our "default assumptions"


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Jacck said:


> more of this MeeToo tihsllub coming from America. Dramatic police arrests based on mere claims, media witch hunts, parasites trying to cannibalize on famous and rich people with fake accusations etc.


Interesting point. Can you please point me in the direction of all the high profile Me Too accusations that have been proven to be false? Is the correct number of such incidents close to zero perhaps?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

JoeSaunders said:


> I shan't say any more because this really isn't the place for a #metoo discussion.


Looks like that horse is out of the barn!


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

howlingfantods said:


> Interesting point. Can you please point me in the direction of all the high profile Me Too accusations that have been proven to be false?


In virtually all "me too" cases, it's pretty tough, if not impossible, to *prove* the accusations false.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Jacck said:


> But I am really sceptical, when rich and famous people are being accused of those things by random people. But I will not say any more on this. None of us knows the details of this particular case, so all we have are our "default assumptions"


He's not a random person. He's a person who made a complaint to the police 8 years ago, sought medical attention, and discussed this with his therapist. He clearly did try to make something of it years ago, and found resistance.

I would also be terrified to bring forward such a claim, especially since so many people are skeptical and want famous and talented people to still be their (unproblematic) heroes. And when rich people are able to afford better lawyers. Or at least more cruel ones. And on that point, there's no fame to gained from accusing someone famous and powerful. Doing so unfortunately opens one up to harassment, not to mention having to go through all that trauma again in public.

This is exactly how the powerful prey on people. They know that the system is set up to benefit them. This is why abuse goes down, rather than up.

I don't know what happened in this case, but it does not look good.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> In virtually all "me too" cases, it's pretty tough, if not impossible, to *prove* the accusations false.


That's a totally fair point, but it's a huge leap to go from "it's difficult to establish absolute truth in such cases" to Jacck's "MeToo is all spurious media witch hunts driven by grifters trying to victimize poor innocent rich&famous folks".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No one should make a judgment based solely on an accusation or a report of it, and unless there is an actual public interest being served, a person should not be named in the media solely because someone has accused him of something. There is no public need to know in most cases of accused sexual misconduct until - and unless - persuasive evidence of guilt is presented. Two accusations by unknown individuals is not persuasive evidence. 

I consider this tabloid journalism, gossip dignified as news. I don't like seeing it here.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> No one should make a judgment based solely on an accusation or a report of it, and unless there is an actual public interest being served, a person should not be named in the media solely because someone has accused him of something. There is no public need to know in most cases of accused sexual misconduct until - and unless - persuasive evidence of guilt is presented. Two accusations by unknown individuals is not persuasive evidence.
> 
> I consider this tabloid journalism, gossip dignified as news. I don't like seeing it here.


^pretty much sums up my thoughts


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No one should make a judgment based solely on an accusation or a report of it, and unless there is an actual public interest being served, a person should not be named in the media solely because someone has accused him of something. There is no public need to know in most cases of accused sexual misconduct until - and unless - persuasive evidence of guilt is presented. Two accusations by unknown individuals is not persuasive evidence.
> 
> I consider this tabloid journalism, gossip dignified as news. I don't like seeing it here.


If there are people going around drugging and raping people, especially if they're in a position of responsibility over the types of young people that fit the profile of their alleged victims, publicizing it seems highly relevant to public interests. They were arrested and are awaiting extradition to face charges. That's highly reportable hard news, not tabloid journalism.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> There is no public need to know in most cases of accused sexual misconduct until - and unless - persuasive evidence of guilt is presented.


I promised I wouldn't post on this again but **** it, this thread is gaining traction and I'm a rampant liar - fight me!

Anywho, in cases of high-profile sexual misconduct there is an obvious reason to publicise, which is that - given how difficult it can be to report such crimes - reporting them publicly can alert others who've suffered similar abuses that they can more comfortably report them with less fear of reprisal, and more importantly, legal action. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to allow this, but in a world of significant power differentials and corruption (and also because of the way the legal system works) it's important that the accused is named. In the case of high-profile sex offenders, we literally wouldn't be able to form a plausible verdict of guilt unless the others who came out of the woodwork as a result of a public announcement did their stint in the witness stand.

My point is that it's not "persuasive evidence of guilt" that should be required before publicising (side note: how do you legally define that?). If that were the standard many sex offence inquiries would never even get started. On an individual basis, UK entertainer Jimmy Saville's purported abuses might have seemed legally explicable - but once you publicise the investigation and, consequently, learn that _hundreds _of people have similar stories, the same does not hold.

The entertainment industry is full of predatory criminals and anonymity does nothing but advantage them.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

This accusation came in August. A second accusation, from a former student, was reported in October.

The news now is not that there are accusations. The news is that he (and his husband) were arrested, which means law enforcement is actually following up on these charges (this time), which suggests they think they are credible. If the arrests were based merely on accusation why didn't they happen in August?

And I believe that the arrest of a high profile, active performing artist can count as news, especially as it may impact their performing and/or recording schedule.

This however is sort of an edge case; Daniels has not officially retired even though he has no upcoming performances, per his website. Operabase only shows him in _Orlando_ at San Francisco Opera, but the email announcing he was removed from the production came in November. Apparently he was also supposed to perform with the Detroit Symphony this coming April, but he has been replaced there, too. He has also been on leave as a professor at the University of Michigan since August.

The University of Michigan, San Francisco Opera, Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and the Houston Police Department, all of which have access to more information than we do have acted on these accusations. This does not mean that he is guilty, but I am glad the case is being treated seriously.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

I can think of a few male opera singers who could take advantage of me, but the difference here is that I am a ho and am willing.. I hope if this guy was raped he can find justice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JoeSaunders said:


> I promised I wouldn't post on this again but **** it, this thread is gaining traction and I'm a rampant liar - fight me!
> 
> Anywho, in cases of high-profile sexual misconduct there is an obvious reason to publicise, which is that - given how difficult it can be to report such crimes - reporting them publicly can alert others who've suffered similar abuses that they can more comfortably report them with less fear of reprisal, and more importantly, legal action. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to allow this, but in a world of significant power differentials and corruption (and also because of the way the legal system works) it's important that the accused is named. In the case of high-profile sex offenders, we literally wouldn't be able to form a plausible verdict of guilt unless the others who came out of the woodwork as a result of a public announcement did their stint in the witness stand.
> 
> ...


I see the value of reporting for the sake of giving others the courage to come forward. I also see how such reporting could give others bearing grudges the idea that some offense or fancied offense against them could be redefined by current standards and seen as actionable.

The area of sexual behavior is not well-defined, either morally or legally, and people have widely differing ideas about the seriousness of different actions. It seems the fashion at present to dump a ton of bricks on people for any sexual behavior that's felt to be inappropriate, and if I want a ton of bricks dumped on you it seems all I have to do is make an exaggerated display offendedness to get you fired from your job and ruin your reputation. I might even go farther and make stuff up - and who will blame me if no one can prove me wrong?

I'm still fuming about senator Franken being turfed out for stealing a kiss during a comedy routine and taking a silly photograph. Granted, if the Daniels accusations are true he _should_ be turfed out.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't have enough information to say what did/didn't happen, but something people should take note of:
Part of the issue here is that false rape allegations comprise a much larger percentage than the 2% believed by the public. according to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2016), about 5.2% of cases are confirmed false under further investigation. Keep in mind this is only confirmed false allegations and only ones with enough of a case for legal action to be taken, so the real number is probably a lot higher than that.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I see the value of reporting for the sake of giving others the courage to come forward. I also see how such reporting could give others bearing grudges the idea that some offense or fancied offense against them could be redefined by current standards and seen as actionable.
> 
> The area of sexual behavior is not well-defined, either morally or legally, and people have widely differing ideas about the seriousness of different actions. It seems the fashion at present to dump a ton of bricks on people for any sexual behavior that's felt to be inappropriate, and if I want a ton of bricks dumped on you it seems all I have to do is make an exaggerated display offendedness to get you fired from your job and ruin your reputation. I might even go farther and make stuff up - and who will blame me if no one can prove me wrong?
> 
> I'm still fuming about senator Franken being turfed out for stealing a kiss during a comedy routine and taking a silly photograph. Granted, if the Daniels accusations are true he _should_ be turfed out.


The allegations here is that they did Cosby-style rapes--drugged a drink without the recipients' knowledge and then proceeded to rape them, to the point of bleeding. There is not a lot of grey area about intent and consent here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> The allegations here is that they did Cosby-style rapes--drugged a drink without the recipients' knowledge and then proceeded to rape them, to the point of bleeding. There is not a lot of grey area about intent and consent here.


Yes, it is a serious allegation. No argument about that.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> The allegations here is that they did Cosby-style rapes--drugged a drink without the recipients' knowledge and then proceeded to rape them, to the point of bleeding. There is not a lot of grey area about intent and consent here.


fair enough. still, I think the argument Woodduck is trying to make (and certainly one I support) is that the bar for publicizing allegations is set too low in terms of how much evidence is available before the floodgates of public opinion and hysteria are opened up.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> fair enough. still, I think the argument Woodduck is trying to make (and certainly one I support) is that the bar for publicizing allegations is set too low in terms of how much evidence is available before the floodgates of public opinion and hysteria are opened up.


It's just that I feel that our culture has become very angry and vengeful. Some people are horrible and obviously deserve severe punishment (and don't always get it). But when people have apparently lived good, useful lives but something bad turns up in their past, or they say something offensive in a careless moment, I'm sometimes more appalled at the self-righteous piling-on that occurs in the media than I am by the reported offense.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting that this couple was married by Ruth Bader Ginsburg....


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It's just that I feel that our culture has become very angry and vengeful. Some people are horrible and obviously deserve severe punishment (and don't always get it). But when people have apparently lived good, useful lives but something bad turns up in their past, or they say something offensive in a careless moment, I'm sometimes more appalled at the self-righteous piling-on that occurs in the media than I am by the reported offense.


Have you read Thomas Hardy's *The Mayor of Casterbridge*? I think it has always been thus, only today the media has the internet to help them.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> It's just that I feel that our culture has become very angry and vengeful. Some people are horrible and obviously deserve severe punishment (and don't always get it). But when people have apparently lived good, useful lives but something bad turns up in their past, or they say something offensive in a careless moment, I'm sometimes more appalled at the self-righteous piling-on that occurs in the media than I am by the reported offense.


It's hard to NOT be angry and vengeful when you see the scars that sexual abuse leaves on its victims. Working in medicine I see them every week.....

And to clarify, I am not in favor of mob mentality and setting the torch to anyone with the smallest accusation, but sexual predators have abused positions of power far too long.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Sonata said:


> It's hard to NOT be angry and vengeful when you see the scars that sexual abuse leaves on its victims. Working in medicine I see them every week.....
> 
> And to clarify, I am not in favor of mob mentality and setting the torch to anyone with the smallest accusation, but sexual predators have abused positions of power far too long.


Then imo, the solution is still to wait until they're a little more information before allowing the media to foment outrage.

fwiw, I'm by no means a David Daniels fan. If anything I've toyed with the idea that countertenors are popular precisely because popular culture is increasingly afraid/contemptuous of masculinity, so my bias is in the opposite direction.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Then imo, the solution is still to wait until they're a little more information before allowing the media to foment outrage.


In the US, the media are "allowed" to publish pretty much anything they please. You can sue them after the fact, but prior restraint became a dead issue with the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers case back in the days of the Vietnam unpleasantness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> I've toyed with the idea that countertenors are popular precisely because popular culture is increasingly afraid/contemptuous of masculinity, so my bias is in the opposite direction.


Toying with the idea is fine, but I don't think there's anything to it. Low "masculine" male voices - Bing Crosby, Perry Como, Andy Williams, etc. - were crowded out in the 1950s and 1960s when popular music became teenage music and male singers took to wearing bowl haircuts and whining "yeah yeah yeah" in that wretched quasi-falsetto. What popular culture became increasingly contemptuous of wasn't masculinity but adulthood.

Countertenors have nothing to do with that. They're simply a product of the early music revival. Don't worry about them. Worry when the next castrato appears.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

KenOC said:


> In the US, the media are "allowed" to publish pretty much anything they please. You can sue them after the fact, but prior restraint became a dead issue with the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers case back in the days of the Vietnam unpleasantness.


I didn't mean "allow" in the legal sense (that's just silly, especially given I'm a strong supporter of The Constitution). "Allow" in this case is in the sense of allowing someone to cause you to react.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> Then i*mo, the solution is still to wait until they're a little more information before allowing the media to foment outrage. *
> 
> fwiw, I'm by no means a David Daniels fan. If anything I've toyed with the idea that countertenors are popular precisely because popular culture is increasingly afraid/contemptuous of masculinity, so my bias is in the opposite direction.


True, but I thought a previous poster stated in this case they HAVE waited?


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Sonata said:


> True, but I thought a previous poster stated in this case they HAVE waited?


that's good at least (I guess it makes sense. opera connoisseurs as a whole tend to be a lot less hysterical than the general public)


----------



## Hugo9000 (Aug 6, 2018)

Daniels has been indicted, pretrial set for September. Interesting to compare the comments of some here to their reactions to the unsworn allegations of one named person and a number of anonymous people against Placido Domingo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hugo9000 said:


> Daniels has been indicted, pretrial set for September. Interesting to compare the comments of some here to their reactions to the unsworn allegations of one named person and a number of anonymous people against Placido Domingo.


No one here has commented on Daniels since his indictment. Moreover, "the unsworn allegations of one named person and a number of anonymous people" does not do justice to the extensive, detailed accusations brought against Domingo and supported by a large number of people. See the OP and post #114: Placido Domingo accused of sexual harassment


----------



## Hugo9000 (Aug 6, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No one here has commented on Daniels since his indictment. Moreover, "the unsworn allegations of one named person and a number of anonymous people" does not do justice to the extensive, detailed accusations brought against Domingo and supported by a large number of people. See the OP and post #114: Placido Domingo accused of sexual harassment


My comments regarding the Domingo story were merely in contrast to the Daniels case. The report has come out, I realize that people will discuss it. I was pointing out what looks like hypocrisy in the way you objected to discussions regarding Daniels' arrest report, while you didn't voice any objection to any issues in the harassment allegations against Domingo.

This thread was not started based on rumors, it was started with a link to a news report of an actual arrest and serious criminal charges.

Please consider your remark earlier in this thread:


Woodduck said:


> No one should make a judgment based solely on an accusation or a report of it, and unless there is an actual public interest being served, a person should not be named in the media solely because someone has accused him of something. There is no public need to know in most cases of accused sexual misconduct until - and unless - persuasive evidence of guilt is presented. Two accusations by unknown individuals is not persuasive evidence.
> 
> I consider this tabloid journalism, gossip dignified as news. I don't like seeing it here.


In what world is reporting an arrest on felony sexual assault charges "tabloid journalism" and "gossip dignified as news" as you put it? "Unknown" individuals? Did you read the link with the report of the arrest? The two accusers were both named. They provided official, sworn statements, and exposed themselves to criminal penalties for perjury by doing so (as well as potential civil action by the accused). The accusation of one of the men was considered credible enough in a criminal investigation to result in charges and an arrest, with extradition sought at the time of the article linked when this thread was started.

*You objected in Daniels' case to "unknown" individuals*, which is dishonest of you if you actually read the linked news report, as _they were named_. And now you write about accusations against Domingo that are supported by "a large number of people" but you neglect to point out that all but one of them are actually "unknown" and anonymous, and their anonymity will be shielded by the press, as upheld by court precedent. The accusers and witnesses in the Daniels case are on the legal record in the case of the rape charge, and on the record in the official University of Michigan investigation in that separate misconduct issue (briefly alluded to at the time of the report linked at the start of this thread, but made public last week since the investigation's conclusion). It may turn out that the accusers and witnesses against Mr. Domingo will go public, and they may turn out to be credible, but as it stands, the story in the AP is closer to "tabloid journalism" and "gossip dignified as news" than the news report at the start of this thread, which reported an _actual arrest_, with named accusers. *An arrest is news*, even if the underlying charge proves to be unfounded or is dropped or the person is eventually acquitted. As I'm sure you're aware, these charges are difficult to prove, and it is repeatedly reported that the majority of rape cases never result in charges, let alone an arrest or trial, let alone a conviction.

I wonder why you wouldn't simply admit that it was not gossip or tabloid journalism to report on an arrest, and for members of the forum to discuss that arrest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hugo9000 said:


> My comments regarding the Domingo story were merely in contrast to the Daniels case. The report has come out, I realize that people will discuss it. I was pointing out what looks like hypocrisy in the way you objected to discussions regarding Daniels' arrest report, while you didn't voice any objection to any issues in the harassment allegations against Domingo.
> 
> This thread was not started based on rumors, it was started with a link to a news report of an actual arrest and serious criminal charges.
> 
> ...


I'm really not impressed with your findings of "hypocrisy" on my, or anyone's, part, so you can spare yourself, and others, displays of virtue.

I have little sympathy for those who wish to salivate over the personal faults of distinguished musicians and engage in righteous posturing. My initial reaction to the report on Daniels was based on a cursory glance at it. I had no desire to delve into it further. Similarly, I'm not interested in further juicy details of the Domingo case. It would seem that the misdeeds of both men are pretty well corroborated. I'm content to leave it at that - and, incidentally, to go on enjoying their work.


----------

