Larry Nassar's Crimes

Larry Nassar was convicted for decades of serial sexual abuse. Here's what his crimes tell us about how society sees women and girls

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is pridgett Assembly and you're listening to stuff
mom never told you. Now today we have to give
a trigger warning and because we're going to be discussing
the absolutely intense case of Olympic gymnast doctor Larry Nasser.

(00:29):
So if that's going to be something that's tough for
you to listen to, just know that's what we're talking
about today. Now you probably have seen what happened with
this case. It's one that I think really illustrates the
magnitude to which someone can go on abusing women and
girls for a very very long time with very very

(00:50):
little consequence. I mean, one of the biggest questions for
this case, which we'll get into, is how many people
seem to apparently have been complicit it and allowing this
to continue, which the question now is what level of
complicity is criminal exactly. A lot of people have been
comparing it to the Penn State Jerry Sandusky situation, which,

(01:12):
interestingly enough, I saw a lot of journalists and folks
on Twitter asking when this thing was just sort of
bubbling up and people weren't really talking about it that much.
The Penn State situation was such a huge story and
scandal as it should have been. Why did it take
so long for this to gather steam. Why did this
story which had been out there for a while, why

(01:33):
was it not a similar thing? It also just puts
another thing on the list of things that enraged me
about how much higher education is failing women. Oh, absolutely, absolutely,
when you think about the fact that very likely, you know,
a college, Michigan State University was letting these women and
girls be abused without really doing a lot to stop it.

(01:55):
When you think about that, it really I mean, you
send someone to a doctor to help them, to take
care of them, and if they were knowingly putting these
girls in harm's way, it's just you really look at
the university and you say, what do you do? How
did you let this continue? So wait, let's take a
step backwards. Let's review sort of baseline of the case.
What happened? Why did this make the news so dramatically?

(02:15):
So basically, here's what went down. Nasser was the team
doctor for USA Gymnastics, and through four Olympic Games he
treated hopeful young gymnasts and gold medal winners alike. He
treated people that you probably have heard of if you
follow gymnastics at all, I'm talking folks like Gabby Douglas, MICHAELA. Moroney,
Ali Riceman, So he was really dealing with some of
the biggest athletes in the world. He also worked for

(02:37):
Michigan State University from n to twenty sixteen as an
associate professor and served as the gymnastics and Women's crew
team physician. So basically, under the guise of medical treatments,
he had been digitally penetrating women and girls under his
care for quite some time. So they would go in for,
you know, to get medical help, and he would put

(02:59):
his finger in side of them and tell them it
was some sort of a special treatment to to realign,
you know, their body, right. And part of what made
this so enraging is the fact that he was a
very well known and beloved doctor in the community. Right,
So what's scary about this is this is a person
who used his power and his sort of persuasive persona

(03:22):
to befriend people, make people feel like they could trust him,
to use his position of power as a medical professional
to completely violate the medical professions code of ethics of
doing no harm. Absolutely. There's this podcast it's very very
popular in the gymnastics community called gym castic And he's
actually in an episode of that podcast that I listened

(03:43):
to in preparation for this episode, and you really see
that he presented himself as the good guy right the community.
He was beloved by this community, and in a sport
that is so focused on women person themselves to their
physical limits, he very likely gained their trust by presenting
himself as someone who cared about their physicality, someone who

(04:06):
talked about their mental health and emotional health. And listen
to that podcast, you know it's it's so creepy after
the facts, so I do now you can recommend listening
to it because it's so creepy. But you see the
way that he used that to gain trust. You see
the way that he used that to sort of gain
that status that we give doctors in our communities. Yes,
and back in November, he pled guilty to ten charges

(04:29):
of molestation and in a separate case, was found guilty
of having more than thirty seven thousand images and videos
of child pornography found on his computer. So this guy
is a world class creep Yes, honestly is it? So
these allegations weren't really taken seriously until August, when former

(04:52):
gymnast Rachel den Hollander became the first person that foul
a criminal complaint against him. And what's so enraging is
that it took until sixteen to bring this guy to
court for these charges after he's been doing this since nineteen,
he admits, And there were so many opportunities to take action,

(05:14):
and all of the governing organizations that he was involved
with failed to do so despite concerns and complaints. So
back in nine seven or mid a gymnast alleges that
she complained to the m s U gymnastics coach Kathy Klages,
saying that she was concerned at the time about NASA's treatments.

(05:34):
Klages discouraged her from filling a formal complaint and informed
Nasser of the conversation, basically going straight to the guy
who she's trying to report. And this person who's reporting
is a teenager at the time, who are then coach
dissuades from reporting, right, So the power dynamic there is
something to take into consideration. A teenage child says there's

(05:56):
something wrong here, her coach goes to the person she's
reporting tattles on her, which is a totally wrong thing
to do. I want to talk about a violation of trust,
and then discourages her from making any kind of formal
complaint instead of maybe listening. You see that time and
time again in this case, for several years in n
and again in two thousand, an M s U softball

(06:17):
player told three athletic trainers that he sexually inappropriately touched
her during a medical treatment. She alleges that those trainers
dismissed her concerns, and one of them even said that
she should feel grateful to be treated by such a
world class doctor, an Olympic doctor who quote knew what
he was doing. Basically, don't question anyone. And you know what,
I've been a part of sports leagues throughout my childhood

(06:40):
and teenage years in college years, and that kind of
blind obedience is drilled into players in a way that
sets that kind of arena up for sexual predators to
get away with it for years, and it's it's totally wrong.
It's totally wrong. I really see so many intersections that
allowed this to fester for so long. I think part

(07:00):
of it is what you're talking about, where they just
drill in that these people know what they're doing. I
think part of it is that the elevated place we
give medical professionals. I also think it's part of it
is not taking the complaints and the pain of women
and girls seriously, because these athletes did exactly what you're
supposed to do in this situation. But you know, they
did everything right, they did nothing wrong, and yet their

(07:22):
concerns were dismissed again and again and again. And I
think you see that so often in situations like this. Yeah,
it's it's just a total failure of chain of command
to it. It reminds me of sexual assault in the
military in a way where soldiers are expected to fall
in line and obedience is expected, and if you have
a problem with a superior the avenues for reporting those

(07:46):
problems are extremely hard to come by, and there's a
total failure when it comes to the chain of command
for holding people in positions of power accountable. Well, talk
about a failure of a chain of command. Inen The
Ingham County Prosecutor's Office actually investigated this doctor after there
was a flurry of complaints, and they found that his
treatments were quote medically sound, And it just enrages me

(08:09):
that they supposedly looked into this and they just found
nothing wrong. The fact that this man was not even
using a gloved finger to insert his finger inside of
people without getting their consent, without another person in the
room injured hamstring. Um, No, like, no, you know what
I mean, that's there's no, it's not like her vagina

(08:31):
was broken. Exactly exactly do you come in for like
a headache and he says I need to do this.
It doesn't make any sense. Um. It also needs to
be said that one of the people involved in that investigation,
Stuart Dudding's, actually resigned himself in March for his own
sexual misconduct allegations. So it's just really just creeps the
whole way down and it's really enraging. And what's incredible

(08:53):
is that rage was clearly put on display this past
month when beyond the actual criminal lawsuits and him being
found guilty after pleading guilty to all of these charges,
this past month we saw a flurry of viral attention
brought to this case because of the sentencing, which is

(09:16):
where this story really gets interesting. We'll be right back
after this quick break to break it down, and we're back,
and I think we can all agree that this person,
Larry Nasser, was troublingly allowed to continue lusting women and

(09:37):
girls and abusing his power as a medical professional, and
that's disgusting and abhorrent and he should be punished for it.
I think we can all agree on that. Yeah, hopefully
there's not anybody out I mean, maybe other creeps, but
hopefully most reasonable non creeps. I think we can all agree.
What gets interesting, however, is how this sentencing went down.

(10:00):
Isn't that right, Bridget That is an interesting development in
this story. So this was a situation where many of
us watched the sentencing happened live on television, and I
definitely watched it with bated breath, and you really can't
help but highlight how it was really a powerful, powerful
thing to watch. You had these victims getting up and

(10:22):
reading these impact statements about what happened to them. And
in fact, The Daily the podcast by the New York Times,
did a really good job of running through some of
these powerful testimonies, which is what brought this case into
the mainstream. By the way, it's not the fifty some
oddcounts of child molestation that brought this case into everybody's

(10:42):
collective consciousness. It was the fact that the judge presiding
over the sentencing process, Judge rose Marie Aquilina allowed victims
open opportunities, open mic basically, the opportunity to come make
a statement that it helps explain to you, the judge,
what kind of impact this person's crime has had on

(11:04):
their lives. And the Daily did a really great rundown
of what a relatively historically new phenomenon that is. And
I want to first play a few of the impact
statements which have been so moving and so heartbreaking, but
so important in the era of me too, of getting
this point across of why this was so horrific. I

(11:25):
was eleven years old when I first went to see Larry.
I was seven years old. I was only twelve. I
had been as patient since I was eight years old.
The pain you have caused me mentally and emotionally is unexplainable.
And I was taught that it is not okay for
anyone to touch you down there unless it's a doctor,
and you were a world renowned doctor. I mean, the

(11:45):
reality is that the reason this case is so newsworthy
right now, beyond the horrific nature of how long this
total criminal creep was allowed to continue harming women and girls,
is the fact that this is unprecedented amount of victim
impact testimony that was not only delivered in the courtroom

(12:06):
but also publicized on television. Yeah, I mean you actually
even saw his lawyer and Larry himself saying, it's not
okay that I have to listen to this amount of
victim's impact statements. This is too much. It's psychologically damaging. Which, interestingly,
that statement from Larry was read aloud in the courtroom

(12:27):
by the presiding judge, to the laughter of folks in
the courtroom. Because, of course, his pain in this instance,
his psychological torture pales in comparison to the damage he's done.
But it was a very interesting public shaming of this person,
which is understandable and rightful, but from a do process standpoint,

(12:49):
it's it's an interesting development. So here's his letter as
read by the judge. Everything wrong. They feel that is awful. Hell,

(13:10):
hath no fury like a woman scorned by the way
that portion of the letter. People gasped when they heard that,
because it's such a I mean what, it's such an
ignorant demonstration that he has nocking concept of the damage
he's actually done and somehow is still justifying his behavior
like it's somehow the seven year old girl's fault, like

(13:30):
she's a woman scorned and that justifies what he did. Yeah,
calling I hadn't even I hadn't even zeroed in on
that part of how horrible that is, to say, calling
a seven year old, a thirteen year old or fourteen
year old that you abused a quote woman scorned, That
is really next level and it really demonstrates that he

(13:51):
doesn't understand that he could hear story after story after
story of how damaging this was and still say I
don't think it was that bad. The media twisted it, Yeah,
And honestly, what's interesting is that poured gasoline on this fire.
Right that enraged everyone even further, I think, which added

(14:12):
to the long list of people who were ready and
willing to give their testimony, give their impact statements, and
accelerated the attention that this was getting. Everyone was cheering
for this guy to go down in flames, understandably. What's
interesting is that later on in sentencing he did give
another statement that accepted responsibility, and he had sort of

(14:32):
come around, or at least maybe his attorney talked to
him into writing a better statement, because he really changed
his tune. You know, he went from saying, this is
psychologically tortuous for me to listen to these victim impact
statements too. I understand your pain. I should pay for
my crimes. I'm sorry for what I did. But only
after I think the media attention became even more intense.

(14:54):
And this judge was very interestingly emphatic in how she
decided to preside over her courtroom. Wasn't shame, she was
Judge Aquilina. She really had no regard for this man.
You could tell that she found it as enraging as
the rest of us watching at home. She was as
piste as we felt in this situation, and she didn't

(15:18):
she really didn't hold back to a point to which
I almost don't think we see very often. I don't
think we see judges. Is that Yeah, I don't think
we do. But then then then that's what gives me pause.
I think a lot of us wouldn't say this out
loud because we want to see this guy go down
and flames, myself included. But she's the judge, right, She's

(15:39):
the judge who's determining sentencing. She's supposed to be. You know,
what is that that um, that statue Lady Justice who's
beding weighing the scales of justice or whatever. And she's
up there saying, you know, good for you, you, sister survivors.
This is a really important process in your healing process.

(16:01):
She's sort of verbally coaching the women who came up
to give victim impact statements, which is cool, Like she's saying,
this is part of your healing process. You're a survivor,
you're not a victim. Take your power back on your voice,
all of which I agree with. And then she's laughing
as she reads this, I'll be it ridiculous statement from
Larry Nasser, And you're just like, is that the person

(16:23):
that's sentencing this person is she's supposed to be that
flagrant lee. On one side of this issue, I can
completely understand where you're coming from. I had some really
conflicting feelings about this. On the one hand, I was like, Rara,
you tell them this is our moment. And then I

(16:45):
remember a friend of mine said, you know, your little mislefty,
look at you like championing the criminal justice system. Look
at you watching this gleefully waiting for this guy to
go down. Shouldn't you be advocating for the criminal justice
system to be more neutral. I thought, yeah, but I don't.
I'm not it was it's hard. It's hard to reconcile.

(17:08):
It really is hard to reconcile. I don't understand this
queasy feeling that I get. You know. On the one hand,
I'm gleefully watching this, and I was so ra rod
if he followed the stuff I've never told you Twitter.
I was retweeting everything like yes, yes, yes, yes, And
then I took a step back and thought, wait, what
am I actually celebrating here? Like is it okay to

(17:29):
watch this? I don't know, I know what I I
totally understand what you're coming from. And I think the
feeling stems from how overdo this justice was right? There
were so many opportunities for this to be solved, for
this justice to be delivered earlier, for hundreds of women
and girls to be spared, and so this is long overdue,

(17:51):
not to mention historically overdue, because so many child molesters
and predators of sexual assault against women and girls especially,
but sexual assault in general, have gone unpunished. So it
was this sort of cathartic collective moment for when our
culture is saying, you know what, we're actually listening to
women victims now, So let's come down on this guy

(18:13):
as a symbol of the hashtag met moment that we
find ourselves in. But honestly, the whole concept of victim
impact statements has never been used this way before, and
for anybody who cares about equal justice under the law,
this raises some concerning questions. One thing that's really important
to keep in mind is that victims role in sentencing

(18:38):
has long been a debate in the legal community. These
cases are typically the state versus or the people versus
some predator in this regard, and so our country has
been wrestling with the role that victims should play in
seeking justice without necessarily creating an environment that seems prejudice

(19:00):
show against more and higher and more severe sentencing. So
back in seven, the Supreme Court weighed in on how
victims should be involved in the sentencing part of the
due process that our our justice system carries out. So
in this case Booth versus Maryland, the victims were saying,

(19:23):
we're left out of the process altogether. We want to
be able to make victim impact statements at sentencing, and
the case was specifically focused on sentencing that included the
death penalty, and I want to throw it to The
New York Times excellent podcast called The Daily from January
twenty five that features a really interesting interview with Emily Baslon,

(19:43):
who covers legal issues for the New York Times magazine.
Versus Supreme Court said, no, when a judge is deciding
whether to sentence someone to death, they are not allowed
to hear about the effect the murder has had on
family members. It was overturned at some point, right. That's
we hold at the eighth amend that erects no automatic
bar prohibiting a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact

(20:07):
evidence relating to the victims personal characteristics. And in this
later decision, what the court says is the hearing from
victims helps educate the judge who's meeting out the sentence
about what the harm of the crime has been. The
point that they're making is that they should not be
able to hear from folks who were not there for
the crime, that that has no relevance on guilt or

(20:29):
innocent in the court of law. And also they're unpacking
our historical discomfort with the injection of raw emotion and
impact directly from victims and survivors themselves. Yeah, and that's
the thing. Obviously, emotion is part of this. I mean,
I almost don't even know where how I feel about

(20:50):
this feelings, but you know, obviously this is an emotional crime,
and I don't think we can pretend that emotions have
no place in the court. Well, it does depend on
your philosophy around sentencing. Think about mandatory minimum sentences. That
takes all the power out of the judge to be

(21:10):
considered of unique levels of impact that someone's crime has
had on them. And the question is where what is
the role of the judge in sentencing. Should it be, oh,
you're guilty of fifty six crimes, You're gonna get X
numbers of years because of that. Is it a simple
equation or is it let's listen to the robust emotional
impact that a hundred and fifty women plus come forward

(21:31):
to discuss and share with the cord to then give
the judge more of a sort of understanding of how
much damage this person has done. See in this case,
I actually think that's exactly what was happening. I think
that the unprecedented amount of victims impact statements that we
heard in the courtroom in this case was to demonstrate

(21:53):
just how many victims there were and just how long
this abuse went on for, and the magnitude and sheer
skille of Naser's crimes. I think it was meant to
paint that portrait so that anyone watching would have no
misunderstanding about how serious what he did was and how
long it spanned for, and how many victims he created.

(22:16):
And I get that, I get it too, But where's
the tension then, because we could think of a million
other examples in which trial by public opinion would influence
a judge, perhaps not rightfully so right if I if
you know, if every sentencing was publicized live for all

(22:37):
of the world to see, it would be a matter
of who has the most compelling victim impact statements to
bring someone down, you know, like this can also be abused.
And I hate saying that, And I don't want to
be the due process person here because I think this
guy should burn in hell, quite frankly, and I think
the victims who came forward did so bravely and courageously

(22:57):
and powerfully. Um. But it was weird. It was weird
to see a judge at sentencing saying things like I
wouldn't send my dogs to you to Dr Nasser. You know,
it's just it's uncomfortable. I don't know why. I don't know.
I wonder if I'm gonna get I know I'm gonna
get so much for saying this, But where is the

(23:18):
line with due process in this case? Yeah, Emily, I'm
so conflicted about this, and I totally totally hear you.
One of my biggest pet peeves as someone who cares
a lot about the criminal justice system and how that works,
is that when she was in courtroom, she said, our
constitution does not allow for cruel unusual punishment. If it did,

(23:40):
I have to say, I might allow what he did
to all those beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood.
I would allow someone or many people to do what
he did to others. And that's really not okay with me, right.
Sexual assault in prison is not a joke. It is
not some I mean, we it is a joke because
you know, we watch TV and movies. Don't drop the

(24:00):
soap is you know, supposed to be a ha ha line.
But our criminal justice system and our prison industry is
really really messed up. I don't think it's funny and honestly,
bridget We're not alone in this. Diana Moskovitz at Deadspin wrote,
even Larry Nasser does not deserve to be raped in prison,
and it's sort of underscores the conflicted feelings that a

(24:22):
lot of us have watching this, thinking, yeah, he should
definitely go to prison forever um, but she would be
Should we be relishing in the live sentencing process that's
turning into a courtroom performance? Yeah? I know the judge
took a lot of flak for her, you know, style

(24:42):
Claire in that courtroom, but I actually did love that.
To her critics, she basically was like, Oh, you guys
should watch me in court every day. I'm like this
every day. Cameras are no cameras. This is who I am.
So part of me was like, hey, dear girl, at
least she's being consistent. But it does it does raise
questions about do pro says and you know, what are
the ramifications of having a courtroom conversation like that, or

(25:07):
having our criminal justice system pushed to the limit in
this way, Like we might see a backlash on victim
impact statements or some other dramatic things might happen right
before you record a podcast about this particular subject, which
we'll talk about when we come back from this quick break.

(25:32):
And we are back and we're talking through the very
dramatic sentencing and case regarding Larry Master and his disgusting
long term abuse of women and girls in gymnastics. And
right before we started recording today's episode, we got some
more news. We noticed that he was trending on Twitter again.

(25:52):
So what heavened? So basically, right as we sat down
to record today's episode, we noticed he was trending. And
the reason why he's ending is because he's back in
court today and the father of three of his victims
basically physically tried to attack him in the courtroom. He
lunged at him, he had to be held down. He
asked the judge as part of sentencing if he could

(26:14):
be granted a few minutes alone with Nasser in a
locked room, and the judge was like, no, that's not
how this works. But clearly this is an emotional situation.
And you know the fact that a father had to
be restrained in a courtroom from physically attacking this monster.
I mean, really, it's it's really something well I understand it, right,

(26:36):
I feel like every parent out there is like, yeah,
you know who also understands it, that judge, because when
asked if she was going to be holding this father
in contempt of court, she said absolutely not Again, I
understand it. It's interesting and yet at the same time,
this is exactly the kind of victim impact statement that
the Supreme Court previously back in seven said was not

(26:57):
allowed because the risk we wrong from having people give
impact statements who weren't even directly impacted, who weren't even there,
like family members, might create some kind of prejudicial situation
that could increase the severity of sentencing. And when that
is the norm, could that be a problem. I hate

(27:19):
this because this is one of those times where my
lefty pie in the sky ideals are really challenged, because,
you know, I found myself watching this stuff. When I
saw the video of this dad attacking Larry. How was
it good for him? Right when I saw the video
of the judge bringing the SmackDown on him, I thought,

(27:39):
good for her? You tell him, sis, go get him.
I'm not someone who is a huge champion of our
criminal justice system, and it just makes me think, where
does this feeling inside come from? Where I'm gleefully rooting
for all of these machinations of our justice system to
operate in a way that in other circumstances I might

(28:02):
not be so gleeful. Well, that's the thing. I understand
where our glee comes from. In this very specific case,
and in a lot of cases where justice is long overdue,
the concern is legal precedent. I hate to be the
spoiler of all things feminists. I really am not trying
to make that my niche on this podcast, are I swear?

(28:27):
I mean, is this something that could be problematic for
future cases that aren't dis cut and dry, that don't
have someone pleading guilty on all of these crimes and
who's long overdue for a severe punishment. I mean, I
don't know. Yeah, I think I just have to accept
that I'm someone who advocates for due process and really
really wants our criminal justice system to be fair and unbiased.

(28:51):
I just like it when sexual abusers get what's get
what's coming. I think I think it's like I have
to just accept that my primate brain or whatever, it's
just something that feels right, it's a discer have to
accept that it's attention and that I can't escape it,
and I just I think, like a lot of people watching,
we're in this moment of me too, this reckoning where

(29:12):
it feels like for so long we've been saying things.
I mean, these women and girls have been speaking up
for literal decades since nine nothing was done, and I
just feel like I can't pretend like the weight of that.
But it doesn't feel good, some cathartic moment of finally
he's getting his and I have to just except that.
I yeah, I mean I have to accept it. Well,

(29:34):
you're relishing in that pent uprage, which is totally the
moment we have right now, and I get it. I
validate that. I recognize and respect that, and I also
want to validate and recognize and respect for those who
are looking at this saying I too feel a little
conflicted over it. It's okay to care about the process
and want to see this guy go down and and

(29:55):
get his you know, get what's coming. Um, I think
you hit the nail on the head. You can hold
separate opinions at once. You can say he was a
monster and deserves to die in prison. It's not okay
for a judge to make jokes about him being raped
in prison. Perhaps this unprecedented use of victims impact statements.
While powerful and I applaud them, you know, wholeheartedly, perhaps

(30:18):
it's fair to ask questions about what that means for
the criminal justice system. I think all of those things
can exist at once, and they have to, and I
think it's an important discussion for us to be okay having.
I do not want to be in a silo of
feminist purity tests where the only right answer is blindly
falling in line with supporting women without having the ability

(30:42):
to question what kind of precedent the sets up. And
it's not an easy position to take, but I want
to validate that position for a lot of us who
are feeling a little conflicted over what's happening right now,
because you can believe in due process and believe that
women have been long overdue and getting real justice. So honestly,

(31:02):
I want to throw it to the listeners. I want
to know what you think. I'm sure y'all will tell
us all about it on Twitter, and I'm actually very
curious because I don't think it's a black and white conversation.
I do think there's room for tension and room for questions,
and I just want to hear what folks thought. Yeah, so,
please get in touch with us at mom Stuff Podcast
on Twitter, Stuff Mom Never Told You on Instagram, and

(31:25):
our inbox is always open at mom Stuff at how
stuff works dot com