Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Roger Lancaster]

Having played through the podcast, I'm struck by the fact that neither Caruana nor Chirila qualify their comments by "if guilty" but instead take it for granted that that's so. That's very straightforward, and at one level I applaud them for it, but Ramirez's lawyer is surely going to argue that its publication is prejudicial to his client's interests and should be taken down at once. I recommend viewing it while it remains where it is.

[Matt Bridgeman]

If it came to it I’d imagine his lawyers would go for the Weinstein-style defence that’s failed twice now;

‘Weinstein’s defence has argued the witnesses either fabricated their stories or had consensual sexual relationships with Weinstein, and said there is no forensic evidence to support any of the allegations.’

[Roger Lancaster]

If it came to it I’d imagine his lawyers would go for the Weinstein-style defence that’s failed twice now;

‘Weinstein’s defence has argued the witnesses either fabricated their stories or had consensual sexual relationships with Weinstein, and said there is no forensic evidence to support any of the allegations.’

Well, yes. I don't want to under-estimate the inventiveness of lawyers but is there any other remotely plausible line of defence ? (Of course, if a defence team can uncover, say, texts from victim A to her best friend suggesting consensuality, this begins to look rather more promising).

[LawrenceCooper]

https://new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-f ... estigation

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The primary focus of this investigation was to determine when US Chess had knowledge of the various allegations and what responsive actions US Chess took. The third party, independent investigation is complete, and, based on the information received, the third party concluded that the US Chess response was timely and appropriate regarding the reports it received about Ramirez’s conduct."

Anybody know who the "third party" is or are?

[Roger Lancaster]

"The primary focus of this investigation was to determine when US Chess had knowledge of the various allegations and what responsive actions US Chess took. The third party, independent investigation is complete, and, based on the information received, the third party concluded that the US Chess response was timely and appropriate regarding the reports it received about Ramirez’s conduct."

Anybody know who the "third party" is or are?

No, but I'd venture a guess that an unpublished report undertaken by an unidentified party isn't going to satisfy everyone.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I used the gift of email yesterday to ask the USCF if they would publish any details, and who did the report. Rather to my surprise, they replied today.

"Thank you for writing. We will not be publishing the report. As indicated in the statement you referenced:

"The investigation report will not be released due to the confidential nature of the witness statements."

The investigation was undertaken by an independent law firm retained specifically for this purpose."

[LawrenceCooper]

https://lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZ ... he-silence

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Lichess taking action and that cannot be ignored. It will be interesting to see what Chess.com do now.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

To add context, article is titled "Breaking the Silence" and opens "Lichess will no longer cooperate with the US Chess Federation and the Saint Louis Chess Club".

It is a long article (including a comprehensive timeline) and is worth reading carefully.

[Kirk Gornall]

This news article appeared on chess.com today. I wonder what the response will be from the ECF, if there is any. It is a sad state of affairs.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/chevann ... t-misogyny

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I wonder what the response will be from the ECF, if there is any."

I think the answer is in the question, whether it relates to inappropriate sexual behaviour, theft, fraud or violence.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

The comments section on that article is nuts.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The comments section on that article is nuts."

By normal standards it is, but it's entirely normal for that site (and most internet fora). However the comments sometimes emulate WS Gilbert, and "you'll find a grain or two of truth amongst the chaff".

[NickFaulks]

Around 3.00 there is " if you do send it into like the English Chess Federation it doesn't get looked into properly". I presume Sabrina would not make such a claim without knowledge of some specific case where that has happened, and I am sure that there are people within the ECF who would be very interested to see her evidence and would take it seriously. Otherwise, there wouldn't seem to be much they can do.