Sacred Heart Student Pleads Guilty To False Rape Allegations Against Two College Football Players [Updated]

Yovino told police that she was at a Sacred Heart football club party off-campus in Bridgeport when two men took her into a bathroom and sexually assaulted her.  The two players were threatened with disciplinary action by the university and had to withdraw as students.

105 thoughts on “Sacred Heart Student Pleads Guilty To False Rape Allegations Against Two College Football Players [Updated]”

  1. That is not justice. Justice would be if she served the same sentence the football players would have if convicted. Then, when she gets out, she should have to register in a database for proven false rape accusers as a requirement of parole. The players should also sue her for their lost education and pro football chances lost.

    These women are predators. This is a slap in the face to every real rape victim out there. When people doubt the word of a real victim, this is why.

    This is also why the mere word of the alleged victim should be insufficient. It needs to be backed up with something, even if it’s character witnesses that she’s never told a lie in her life.

    Gender does not confer or remove virtue.

    She viciously attacked those men. If justice is not served she may victimize other men.

    1. In order to qualify for parole, she should have to give speeches on high school and college campuses about false rape accusations being a sex crime, too.

  2. the double standard continues

    “Bill Clinton has female journalist kicked out”

    “Mr. Clinton had a female journalist kicked out of his book signing with James Patterson. Not surprising that Bill didn’t want to face anyone who would ask the tough questions about him harassing women, abusing women, and raping women. There is no telling how many folks have been “offed” due to the Clintons as well.”

  3. My concern is on how to prevent drunk sex hookups that become regrettable sex hookups, and some small % of these escalate into false rape claims. Extreme alcohol inebriation is known to do two things which set the stage: 1) the drunkards’ socially-learned inhibitions go on strike as the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) checks out, leading to lascivious, primate instinctual pursuit of sex, and 2) memory formation drops out well before passing out, enough time for sexual activity to take place with no recollection. Some years ago, lawmakers in the liberal states decided to address this conundrum by redefining a drunken state as incapable of offering consent — but without defining any objective, measurable threshold for “too drunk to consent” (other than unconsciousness). This lame attempt violates the principle that the threshold between legal and illegal behavior must be a bright line understood by the average person. If these legislators had any guts, they would have attached a blood-alcohol-content (BAC) level defining “unable to consent”, and such an practical innovation would have made stupor drunk hookup sex as deterrable as has been done with drunk driving.

    That said, the colleges (including military academies) could easily adopt Safe Drinking policies that permit recreational imbibing up to, say. 0.06% BAC. Going beyond that level would be a violation of the Safe Drinking standard. Consequences could then pile up, among them, that the college will not accept sexual assault cases from students who were willfully violating the Safe Drinking standard at the time of the incident.

    This would communicate to students that the college is determined to provide a safe environment for young people to relax, socialize and pursue healthy sex lives. The essence of the Safe Drinking Standard is to promote responsible decisionmaking, and to rope off hedonistic abandon as outside the norm of acceptable behavior.

    1. There seems to be the attitude that advocating personal responsibility paints a scarlet letter. You can tell people to look both ways before crossing the street, and still feel sympathy if someone does not, and gets hit by a car.

      When I went to frat parties, or other college parties, I went with a group of girls. We kept an eye on each other and counted heads. Don’t drink the punch – it’s so sweet you cannot tell how much alcohol is in it and easily over imbibe. Don’t accept invitations to go upstairs to “see my fish tank” or whatever else is up there. The #1 rule was not to get drunk.

      It doesn’t make good sense for a grown man or woman to lose control by getting drunk. Then they cannot handle situations or take care of themselves. Tipsy is fine, but sloppy drunk is just making yourself helpless, especially when you are out in public. Drunk guys become targets, too, for anything ranging from fights, ex-girlfriends coming on to them, them making midnight phone calls to ex-girlfriends, DUIs, muggings, or whatever.

      It’s not only your higher reasoning that goes out the window when you are drunk; so does your self respect.

  4. JT:

    “Nikki Yovino, 19, has struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid prison after pleading guilty to making false rape allegations against two Sacred Heart University football players. “
    Avoid prison? Not what the article says:

    “Under the plea bargain, Yovino will be sentenced Aug. 23 to three years, suspended after she serves one year in prison and followed by three years’ probation.
    “You understand you will be serving one year in jail?” the judge asked her.
    “Yes,” Yovino said, nodding”

    1. Yes. She avoided a felony conviction, but did not competently avoid prison. It is well past time that these cases are prosecuted. False rape claims seem to have become epidemic on college campuses, with no real way for the accused to defend themselves.

      1. And you’re right about college rape inanity. In Richmond, we had a coed disavow consent midway through the coital act and the male student was summarily punished for not stopping soon enough.

    2. mespo – JT may be riding on the technicality between jail and prison. Jail is for offenses up to 1 year, prison for offenses over one year. So, yes, she avoided prison, but she is doing jail time.

        1. mespo – still, it is a big difference if you are the one doing the time. 😉

            1. mespo – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. 😉

            2. That is similar to withholding medical care to an obese older patient who wants attention for his self-inflicted maladies.

              “I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses. And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.”


              1. ” similar to withholding medical care to an obese older patient who wants attention for his self-inflicted maladies.”

                Nope. The obvious distinction is that the obese patient never intended to hurt anyone and, yes, intent still matters. That he did it to himself shouldn’t disqualify him from our compassion. Yovino-lita here wanted to ruin lives for her own sexual purposes. We can ration out the bare minimum compassion on her.

                1. “never intended to hurt anyone”


                  When this gluttonous, slothful, prideful beta male gets to be this size, everyone pays since medical costs and reimbursement schedules are calculated on a collective basis. Even if this pig were a strictly cash pay basis, which he himself couldnt afford given his body mass index of 40, costs would still be administered based on population utilization.

                  In a different time, girls having adulterous sex and people eating to their gluttonous passions would have been shamed and eventually fallen out of our pupulation due to natural selection. Today we collectively enable these slothful parasites by making excuses for them

                  1. Darren, I think you have a satisfactory candidate for banning here.

                  2. Gerry, it’s great living rent free in your head. A little cavernous but no brain to take up needless space. BTW anytime you wanna drop the cloak of cowardice, let me know.

    3. If Connecticut is like New York, she’ll serve 8 months in the county jail unless the sheriff in question strips her of her good behavior time.

  5. “To every survivor of sexual assault…You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.”
    ~Hillary Clinton and Obama’s DOE

    “He who asserts must prove.”
    ~ Roman legal maxim and foundation of law for centuries

    1. I would love for her to say that on camera to Juanita Brodderick’s face.

    2. Is the Latin quote ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’ a Roman maxim, or is it Norman?

  6. She should do the same time the two men would have had to do if they did indeed rape her. The issue is not one of a determination of consensual sex over rape. Those decisions are made by a judge and/or jury based on investigation and testimony. A girl who allows herself to engage in sex because she is drunk or on drugs can be seen either way. The workings of the court can vary. However, for someone to outright lie in order to gain something and this resulting in two men going to prison, and/or being tagged as sexual predators, along with all the rest of the stigma is absolutely inexcusable. The justice system has failed here.

    1. You’re missing the fact that (1) the men did not go to prison, and (2) were not tagged as sexual predators, and (3) were not defamed, as we don’t even know their names. What they actually did was take a drunk female into a restroom to have public sex. So they did not commit a crime, but at the same time, they are lacking in morals, and thus do not belong at a Catholic university. Let them go to a public college. The female should not serve a sentence for rape, as she did not rape anyone. She should serve a sentence for filing a false police report and then recanting the false accusation. Which she has agreed to, as part of a plea deal which the District Attorney, which was approved by the Judge.

      1. they are lacking in morals, and thus do not belong at a Catholic university.

        It’s not a research institution. ‘University’ is a misnomer.

        ‘Catholic’ almost certainly is as well. There are very few soi-disant Catholic schools for which that affiliation shapes curriculum or disciplinary practice. Sacred Heart’s founding bishop was a stupid and irresponsible man and the college was one of the few founded under the understanding that it would not be staffed by religious orders. Sacred Heart is not on the Cardinal Newman Society’s list of approved institutions. Among the red flags are the presence of a woman’s studies program, the SJW courses necessary to major in sociology or social work, and the award of an honorary degree and the graduation speaker’s berth to a known advocate of legal abortion. They’d only invoke their ‘Catholic identity’ if they were trying to put one over on you.

        1. “Catholic’ almost certainly is as well”

          seeing that no one would ever mistake you for reflecting behaviors of a practicing Catholic, your point is hollow

          1. What are ‘the behaviors of a practicing Catholic’ in your mind? Keeping Hallmark in business?

              1. Francis’ airline magisterium won’t interest anyone who seeks to learn and follow the teachings of the Church.

                  1. Your other post on this thread was an attack on a 60 year old man’s jowls. Now you’re calling me a pos. You stay classy. And clueless.

        2. NII: So what is the motive for these Catholic-in-name-only colleges continuing to claim a Catholic identity? Is there some tax benefit that would not be available to a non-religious private college? I believe with Georgetown, they suddenly claimed to be Catholic when the federal government insisted that their employee health insurance cover family planning. So with them it was financial, but other than that, I fail to see the point. It’s not like claiming to be Catholic gives them academic prestige…..

          1. Motive? Inertia explains many things. That aside, it’s part of their branding.

      2. Tin:

        You raise some good points. They did not go to prison, but they easily could have. Frightening close call. Same thing with their near escape from being registered sex offenders. #3 I do not know. What do you think the chances are that no one knew who was accused, or who dropped out because of it? In the age of social media, anything, like an accusation, posted on the internet is forever. I also don’t know what became of their education. Were they able to transfer to a good school, with a rape accusation over their heads? Did they drop out of college altogether while they fought this? Did they join another school and did they join another football team? This was supposed to be a period of time in which they laid down memories they will look back fondly when they are in their golden years. This might have long lasting, permanent damage to their future, especially if they did not get into a different college. Even if they missed a year or two, that puts them behind competitively, and they will have to explain the gap to prospective employers.

        “Why did you take a two year break from school, and then switch schools?” “Because we were arrested for rape and luckily the lady recanted.” “Were there witnesses to prove it didn’t happen?” “Well, no, but she changed her testimony…” That’s not what anyone would want to happen in their job interviews.

        They suffered damages.

        I see your point about filing false police reports. I am curious if someone files a false report accusing someone of murder, is all that happens that they get convicted of filling the false report? Is there no enhancement? That does not seem like justice, especially with the exponential increase in fraudulent rape accusations. I differentiate these from accusations that merely cannot be proven.

        If there is no deterrent, it will keep increasing. Plus, where are the justice for men in this situation or, God forbid, those who serve time before the truth comes out?

  7. Yet again, the girl’s discount. You can never figure who is worse, prosecutors or judges.

  8. She’s young and dumb – should have to serve time by picking up trash on campus wearing a pussy hat and a large sign stating “I lied about being raped” Public shaming would be much more effective, draw more attention and hopefully prevent others from doing this. Maybe also speak to local high schools – a real life teaching lesson.

    Locking her up costs the taxpayers and renders her invisible given the fast newz cycle.

    1. She’s young and dumb

      No, she’s conniving and malicious. You live in a college town, you see ‘young and dumb’ every day. ‘Young and dumb’ is three-sheets-to-the-wind at 3 o’clock in the morning and uttering silly screams, not hatching schemes to get innocents tossed in prison.

      1. Amen. Enough of the “I only tried to ruin lives because I’m young and dumb” defense. How’d you like to be the object of her affections whom she said motivated this rape fantasy? Run boy! Run fast!

      2. Young and dumb is also when you were willing to drive from Spokane to State Line, Idaho to get beer because the drinking age there was 19. Old and wise is when you have your spouse get it for you.

      3. NIS – yes, she is most certainly “conniving and malicious” but also young and dumb.

        My point is that locking her up is not a deterrent. Hell, she’ll probably write a screenplay while lounging at the county jail and get it produced by Netflix!

        Putting her out on display in public would be much more useful in preventing others to make false accusations. And save $$ – who is going to pay for her jail vaca?

        1. We can prove she’s young, conniving and malicious. Dumb requires a head exploration non of us can make. Based on the evidence, I think she’s more Lady MacBeth than Don Henley’s Bubble-headed bleach blonde.

          1. Mespo – IMO she’s dumb because she thought she’d get away with it.

        2. ‘Young’ and ‘dumb’ are not salient descriptors and you made use of them to minimize her culpability. Of course locking her up is a deterrent, just not a failsafe one. Only a fool or a fraud would assert otherwise.

        3. Autumn – you can’t argue with Americans about locking people up. They know it’s the best thing to do. Also, you aren’t allowed to make mistakes while you are young in the US either. By the way, nobody is mentally ill. They are all criminals. It has got to be that way because locking all those people up helps the lawyers to pay off their student loans.

          1. 1. Only a modest sliver of the income stream traveling to the legal profession arises from the practice of criminal law. The vast majority of attorneys in that field are civil servants.

            2. There are criminals, there are damaged and insane people, and there are both. The number of truly damaged people does not exceed 3% of the population, and most of them aren’t running afoul of the law except for minor public order offenses. Even those who are damaged are commonly capable of moral choice.

            1. 3 percent? If that’s the excuse you need to keep locking people up, i say go for it! I’m sure there’s no better way to spend that tax money.

        4. Autumn – I like the idea of her earning parole through agreeing to give speeches on high school and college campuses about lying about rape and its consequences.

          However, with the exponential rise in these cases, they need to start serving jail time.

          In the 1700s, they used to make an example of pirates. They would tie them to a pier or pole at low tide and let them slowly drown as the tide came in. Then they would leave the bodies there until the sea creatures and waves finally disintegrated them from their bonds. They served as a grim reminder not to prey upon others.

          Our society is less morbid and cruel, and for that I am glad. However, we can still use jail sentences combined with public speaking to make an example to other students who may not realize what will happen if they get caught. In addition, she needs to speak about what the terrible fate her victims would have suffered if she had succeeded with her crime.

      4. NII – not only was it a spur of the moment lie; she kept up with it. I do not know if she came clean on her own, or if she was caught lying. I am curious what the boys’ fate hinged upon – her conscience or detective work.

        It seems like she has a total lack of empathy for her victims and selfish disregard for their fate. Her dating life was more important than their freedom.

    2. I like your idea, Autumn. Would be much more effective.

      1. Foxtrot, i agree, but the people on this blog don’t want effective. They want to put people behind bars.

  9. Thomas Auzinger, it does indeed make it more difficult for a woman who was really assaulted to get justice.

    1. Independent Bob:

      “Thomas Auzinger, it does indeed make it more difficult for a woman who was really assaulted to get justice.”

      So does due process instead of the presumption of guilt as womyn’s advocates want. Justice is really hard. Everybody gets it — not just the alleged victim. Alleged victim.

  10. News reports say she agreed to a year in jail as part of a plea deal. That’s an appropriate sentence for a teen-age, first time offender who admitted to the lie when challenged by the police.

    1. TIN – is one year in jail the appropriate sentence for a rapist? No, and hell no!!! She deserves the same sentence the men would have gotten had they been convicted. That is the only way to stop this false accusation crap.

  11. Crazy woman. Belongs in a mental institution. People gotta take more time to get to know each other before getting intimate. It’s part of being smart. But there’s no test for that.

    1. There’s no indication she has auditory hallucinations or fancies she’s under FBI surveillance. Jared Loughner belongs in an institution (an in an isolation cell if that’s what it takes). This woman belongs in jail.

        1. There is no indication she’s addled by any discrete problem which vitiates moral responsibility. She’s only ‘sick’ in a metaphorical sense. She isn’t demented, she isn’t of superlatively low intelligence, she has no discernible history of schizophreniform problems. ‘Mentally ill’ is a troublesome concept to begin with; you’re making a nonsense use of the term.

  12. Another little snowflake who grew up being told she could do no wrong and still believes it. However, this article from two days ago states she’s getting up to one year in jail (where she’ll have numerous opportunities for ménage à trois activities) followed by three on probation. That’s a long time for this little harlot to keep her entitled nose clean.

    From the article: “Yovino drummed her fingers on the table in front of her as Messina [the judge] read out loud the arrest warrant affidavit in the case.” If I were the judge, I’d throw in another year just for the sake of arrogance.

    1. Another little snowflake who grew up being told she could do no wrong and still believes it.

      Doubtful she was ever told that. More likely she was rebuked only when her mother was out of sorts and imbibed a great deal of media discourse and schoolteacher discourse about how men qua men are to blame for everything wrong in the world and how women qua women have it so very hard. She may have gotten that from her mother as well.

  13. The vast majority of rape accusations are valid. A minority are false. It is these false accusations that make life for legitimate victims hard. The kneejerk reaction with a rape accusation is “but is it true”, and because some accusers lie, true accusers struggle for their credibility. I think the solution is not to scrutinize every single legitimate rape victim to the point that getting justice is making the injury worse, but to reduce the number of false accusations by doing exactly what this article says: impose draconian sanctions for such false accusations. Then the number of false accusations will also drop and true victims will have easier access to justice.

    1. It is these false accusations that make life for legitimate victims hard.

      Lying little twat tries to send two innocent men to prison, wimmin hardest hit.

    2. Thomas:
      The statistical figures for false rape claims range from 2% to 47% so statistics help not at all. Due process helps a lot since at some point everybody lies. Yes even those claiming the victim uniform.

  14. The girl should do as much time as the two men would have done for the rape. She should also be expelled from school.

    1. The young men should be re-admitted with a letter of apology from the Dean of Students. Of course, that would require an admission of error by college employees, something they never do unless the injured party is in one of higher ed’s approved mascot groups.

      1. DSS – I am sure the men have a nice lawsuit filed against the girl and the school. This should pay their way through their Ph.Ds, without having to play football.

        1. Those two meathead cretins certainly are no princes either. On a jury, I’d give them enough for a good sex addict therapy class. About $2,000.00 each oughta do it.

          1. Likely no, but being a prince isn’t part of their contractual understanding with the school. The school has co-ed dormitories, fraternities, an association of homosexual students, and promotes sodomitical practices and subcultures through institutional agencies:


            If they toss this pair out for banging a slut in a restroom, they’re making a decision based on taste, not morals.

            1. “If they toss this pair out for banging a slut in a restroom, they’re making a decision based on taste, not morals.”


              Good taste actually. Moral policing at colleges died years ago to the detriment of the moral.

          2. I’d give them $1.00 each, which their lawyer will promptly confiscate. Did they think that group sex in a restroom with a drunk teen was going to end well? They’re all idiots.

            1. Did they think that group sex in a restroom with a drunk teen was going to end well?

              Waal, how often does that sort of misbehavior lead to trunped up criminal charges?

              1. With the college he said / she said cases, alcohol is virtually always the factor, and we don’t hear about them unless there are criminal or admistrative charges. If a male chooses to have sex with a drunk female, he can expect to have to prove that although under the influence of alcohol, she was still able to give consent, and that her ability to legally consent continued from the time she said “yes,” until the sex act was complete. So the jurry will have to determine whether she was tipsy, sloshed, semi-conscious, blacked out or somewhere in between. Like with the Brock Turner Stanford case, where she was sober enough to voluntarily leave the party with him and walk part-way across the campus, but then the alcohol caught up with her and she passed out on the lawn. (Thus invalidating her previous consent.) All in all, it’s a game of Russian Roulette for the male.

                1. You didn’t answer my question.

                  There’s a distinction between doing something that scummy and doing something that’s imprudent or dangerous. Some activities are both.

                  1. I don’t know what the stats are on drunken sex leading to trumped up criminal charges. I am aware of quite a number of incidents where drunken sex leads to criminal and/or administrative charges, or in VA, several co-eds murdered in the past few years. In MD, a 15 y/o high school girl agreed to have sex with her boyfriend, age 19, in the school restroom. He notified a friend, age 23, and they both engaged in a variety of sex acts with the girl on the restroom floor and by holding her over the toilet. She told school counselors that she thought she was going to have sex with someone she thought was her boyfriend. She did not agree to group sex with him and a stranger. Rockville, MD has a questionable policy of allowing persons in the U.S. illegally to attend public high school up to age 25. The D.A. decided not to prosecute because he thought that because the girl agreed to have sex with someone she thought was her BF, that the jury would think she agreed to have sex with everyone who showed up. I don’t think juries are that stupid. In any event, both men were deported last year, although they’re probably back by now, enrolled in a high school in a sanctuary city near you.

        2. Paying a lawyer to prepare and file a lawsuit against an indigent isn’t the best idea. This girl will be in jail for a year, and will be lucky to be hired by Taco Bell when she gets out, as no employer is going to want someone around who files false accusations.

          1. The school compelled these two to leave. The school isn’t indigent.

            1. I rather expect that the school was required by federal Dept of Education regulations to put them on leave once serious criminal charges were filed. And I don’t believe that the girl’s intention was to send them to prison. I think she is a ditz and a complete narcissist who, as she told the police, made up the story to get sympathy from another man she was interested in, and she really didn’t think or care about the consequences to the men she accused. While her actions were vile with respect to those falsely accused, it doesn’t appear that harming them was her intent, it was instead a byproduct of her narcissism.

              1. You’re making excuses for her.

                I wouldn’t make a habit of calling other people idiots.

                1. I’m not making excuses for her, but neither am I demonizing her and exonerating them.

                  1. They’re not guilty of a crime. Nor has anyone identified any disciplinary infraction (though one may be found in the student handbook, dollars to doughnuts its a rule that’s not enforced). They engaged in vulgar and immoral behavior.

                    Who is ‘demonizing’ her? She committed a crime and behaved maliciously, and anyone’s single best guess is that she intended to do precisely what she did. (She also banged two football players in a frat bathroom). No need to call in terms of art from psychiatry. Even when used correctly, that confounds more than it illuminates.

                    1. I believe it is demonizing her to suggest, as some have, that she be sentenced to serve the same sentenced as the men would have, had they actually been convicted of rape and false imprisonment. What would that be, about 30 years? She did none of those things, and should be sentenced to what the law provides for the crime she actually committed: filing a false police report.

                  2. Tin, you must demonize her….that’s what Nutcha is insuf wants.

                    1. What you call ‘demonizing’ ordinary people call ‘regarding her as a true agent and accountable for what she does and does not do’.

              2. I rather expect that the school was required by federal Dept of Education regulations to put them on leave once serious criminal charges were filed.

                1. They were never indicted. The case fell apart 3 months after she made her complaint, coincident with the end of the intercession. There was no need for them to lose more than the one semester which was underway when the complaint was filed, even were there any requirement they be suspended absent official charges being filed.

                2. They were told they were dismissed from the football team and their scholarships revoked before there had been any intramural disciplinary hearing. (The PR people for the school are now denying their scholarships were revoked).

                1. You’ve apparently done some “outside reading” on this news item. I haven’t.

              3. Who cates about her intent? Lock ‘er up! Right, Nutcha is insuf? It’s the American way!!! And it has been so successful in the past….and all the bad guys are behind bars and no one needs mental health care!

                1. She acted intentionally and deliberately. There is no indication that she was other than intentional, meaning that her conduct could have been called reckless (ignored a risk a reasonable person would not have) or criminally negligent (failed to perceive a risk an ordinary person would have perceived).

                  I’m not in the business of selling the services of psychiatrists or their dependents and hangers-on and nothing in the news articles indicates she’s anything worse than what Fuller Torrey has called ‘worried well’. See Torrey: such people need counseling, not therapy, and counseling is a department of education, not medicine. (Personally, I’m not persuaded she would benefit from counseling, either, but it’s not my trade).

          2. TIN – you go after the parents’ homeowners policy. It is an intentional tort. And you wrap the school in, they have the deepest pockets.

            1. PSS: Except I believe she was an adult (18 years old) at the time she made the false charges, so her parents are likely off the hook. We are living in a time of prolonged adolescence, where people are technically adults but they still act and are treated as children. If they are white, anyway. Minorities, especially those who commit violent crimes, are often charged as adults, even as young as 14.

              1. TIN – as a college student, her official residence is her parent’s home. Arizona even has a statute to that effect and I am sure other states do as well. Homeowners insurance and the school are the best bet. Now that the girl has pled guilty, the civil trial will be a slam dunk. I hear the school is already backing-and-hoeing.

Comments are closed.