You’ve probably seen the documentary Tell Them You Love Me by now. Or maybe you just remember the headlines from a few years back about a Rutgers professor, a non-verbal man, and a "love story" that the state of New Jersey officially labeled as rape. It’s a case that feels like a glitch in the matrix of ethics, disability rights, and common sense.
The story centers on Anna Stubblefield and Derrick Johnson.
At the time the story broke, Anna was a high-flying academic. She was the chair of the philosophy department at Rutgers-Newark. She specialized in ethics and disability studies. Derrick, on the other hand, was a man with cerebral palsy who had been non-verbal his entire life. His family—specifically his mother Daisy and brother John—had spent decades caring for him, interpreting his needs through his eyes and slight physical cues.
Then came the "breakthrough" that changed everything.
The Illusion of a Voice
John Johnson was actually a student in one of Anna’s classes. He heard her talk about facilitated communication (FC) and thought, Maybe this is it. Maybe my brother has a voice we just haven’t heard yet. Facilitated communication is basically a technique where a "facilitator" supports the hand or arm of a person with a disability while they type on a keyboard. The theory is that the person has the mental capacity but lacks the motor control to hit the keys.
But there's a catch. A massive one.
Decades of scientific study have shown that it's almost always the facilitator—consciously or not—who is doing the typing. It’s the "Ouija board effect." You think the spirit is moving the planchette, but it’s just your own hand.
Anna started working with Derrick. Suddenly, according to her, Derrick wasn't just "there"—he was a genius. He was typing complex thoughts about philosophy. He was auditing college courses. He was telling her things he’d never told his family in thirty years.
Honestly, the Johnsons wanted to believe it. Who wouldn't? They saw their brother and son "blossoming." But the fantasy hit a brick wall when Anna told them she and Derrick were in love. And that they had been having sex.
When Ethics Go Out the Window
This is where the story gets really dark. Anna Stubblefield didn't just claim they were in a relationship; she claimed Derrick had consented through the keyboard.
Think about that for a second.
She was the one holding his hand. She was the one "enabling" the words. And she was the one saying those words gave her permission to have a physical relationship with a man who, by all medical and legal accounts, had the cognitive capacity of a toddler.
💡 You might also like: Stephen Miller White Supremacist Allegations: What Most People Get Wrong
In 2011, she dropped the bombshell on Daisy and John. She told them she was leaving her husband for Derrick. She even showed up at their house uninvited, claiming her future was with him. The family was horrified. They didn't see a romance; they saw a predator who had used a "sham" communication method to exploit a vulnerable man.
They went to the police.
The Legal Rollercoaster
The first trial in 2015 was a media circus. The prosecution’s argument was simple: Derrick could not consent. Experts testified that his intellectual disability was profound. They argued that the "typing" was 100% Anna.
The jury agreed. She was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 12 years.
But then, the law got complicated.
In 2017, an appeals court threw out the conviction. Why? Not because they thought she was innocent, but because they felt the trial judge shouldn't have completely blocked the defense from talking about facilitated communication. They ruled she had a right to at least try to explain why she believed he was consenting, even if the method was scientifically bunk.
Rather than go through a second high-profile trial, Anna took a deal in 2018. She pleaded guilty to a lesser charge—third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact. She was sentenced to time served (about two years) and released.
Why This Case Still Matters in 2026
The dust has mostly settled on the legal side, but the ethical questions are still screaming.
Derrick Johnson is still living with his family. He doesn't use a keyboard anymore. He doesn't type about philosophy. He lives the life he had before Anna Stubblefield entered it, minus the trauma of the "relationship" and the legal battle that followed.
Basically, the case exposed a massive rift in how we view disability:
- The "Presumption of Competence" argument: Some advocates argue we should always assume someone is "in there" until proven otherwise.
- The Protection argument: Most experts argue that "presuming competence" shouldn't mean ignoring physical and cognitive realities to the point where you allow potential abuse.
Anna’s defense was built on the idea that she was "liberating" Derrick. But the family’s perspective was that she was erasing him. She replaced the real Derrick—the man who communicated with his eyes and his presence—with a version of him that just happened to agree with everything she wanted.
Key Takeaways and Lessons
If there’s anything to learn from the saga of Anna Stubblefield and Derrick Johnson, it’s that "good intentions" are a terrible excuse for bypassing consent.
- Trust the Science on FC: Facilitated communication has been debunked by the American Psychological Association, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and countless others. If someone needs a physical "nudge" to speak, the person nudging is the one talking.
- Consent is Not a "Maybe": In the eyes of the law, and basic human ethics, if you are the one facilitating the "yes," it isn't a "yes."
- Listen to Families: The Johnsons knew Derrick. They loved him for who he was. Anna loved him for who she imagined him to be.
If you’re following this case because of the recent documentaries, the most important thing to remember is that Derrick’s voice wasn't found through a keyboard—it was always there in his relationship with his family. True advocacy means supporting people in their actual reality, not creating a fantasy that suits our own needs.
You can find the full court transcripts and the various medical evaluations online if you want to see the specific evidence used to debunk the "typing" sessions during the trial. Most of it comes down to simple "blind" tests where Derrick was shown an object that Anna couldn't see; he could never type what the object was unless she saw it too.
To stay informed on disability rights and ethical communication practices, look into the guidelines provided by the ASHA (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) regarding Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC). Unlike FC, legitimate AAC methods focus on the individual’s independent ability to communicate without a "facilitator" controlling their movements.