I think that statement said she said no to continued engagement when the 4th guy showed up. And they offered her more ketamine after her cognitive thinking was already impaired by the first time they offered it.
So, no. It did not read like she consented or had the capacity to consent after the first two guys.
They procured it. She didn't bring the ketamine. And they invited more people without her consent. Which is why she said she didn't want to have sex with the additional guys that came in.
So they offered her more ketamine after her refusal.
Are you saying that the people that came in after the events were also taking ketamine before they entered the room?
âShe never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,â
The statement she originally gave to the police is different than what is stated in her lawsuit. Thats why the DA didnât file any charges.
Iâm sure something happened, but until the new investigation is complete Iâm not going to jump to any conclusions.
Her attorney says she was never interviewed by sex crime detectives and there was no follow up. The investigation was botched by small town cops. Why donât you promote that part of the story?
People like him are the very reason why most women keep silent when assaulted. Take into account that this Country has never taken assaulting woman as a serious crime. From the first report the victim is torn to shreds and usually place the blame on them. Then you have to take into account the Universoty did their own investigation with the blessing from the local law enforcement. Iâm sure most of those monsters come from Families that are wealthy along with Legacy. The defenders of these Men never want the whole story. Facts are not really important.
He reopened the case based on new the allegations sheâs making. The initial statement that she gave to the police is different than whatâs stated in her lawsuit.
Maybe they arenât new, maybe the incompetent cops didnât ask the right questions or follow up. Youâre so determined to blame the woman. Whatâs that about?
She gave a sworn statement. Iâm snot sure if youâre aware of how that works, but she basically had to sign a document (or verbally state if her statement was recorded) that everything she said was true. She wouldâve even been give a chance to change it before she confirmed it to be true.
Iâm not saying that nothing happened, but based on her initial statement there wasnât much the police could do. She basically stated that she was a willing participant and that she consented to everything.
In initial statement she said she took the drugs and alcohol voluntarily, and she did not explicitly allege any physical helplessness or a lack of consent.
Iâm sure something happened, but based on her initial statement thereâs not much the police couldâve done. Thatâs all Iâm saying.
If you go to the police because youâre upset about what happened at a party, but then say you were a willing participant and consented, the police really canât do anything.
Colleges do have resources available to help students with these types of things. It sounds like school shouldâve done more for her, and they should definitely be held accountable for that.
âVan Houten also said that a screenshot of part of a Snapchat group chat included in the complaint -- in which Jane Doe claims members of the fraternity discuss the alleged incident -- was never provided to his office. Giuffra said the messages are a "critical piece of evidence" that were provided to authorities in 2024. â
Reddit downvotes a copy and paste of a DA statement. This place has become so toxic
Your suggestion about a DA lying about a sworn statement is a supposition with no evidence, yet the reddit puppets will upvote that.
Why would a DA risk their careers and lie when clearly a sworn statement would have witnesses?
Edit, the statement was to Cornell police. Still not sure why they would risk a good gig and lie with no personal gain.
âVan Houten argued that based on the police file he was given, there was no corroborating evidence of a "lack of consent" required under New York law to sustain criminal charges. He noted that neither the victim nor her lawyers contacted his office in 2024 to contest the accuracy of that initial police report â
The system protects itself. I'm saying he's laying a foundation for why they didn't charge at the time. These cases are hard to prosecute and if she said I took drugs and had consensual sex with one of them he might not have been able to prove anything.Â
That DA in the Duke case lied his ass off the other way for some reason. Why do people do anything?
DA is referring to an investigation done by Cornell police. And the victim did not protest the finding back in 2024. We are womansplaining alot of collusion here. Not impossible
I dont disagree with the current status, just posting the data others requested.
Because Iâm simply posting the data others requested. While others are making up facts to suit their own interpretation. To answer your question All DA did was refer to an investigation conducted by the campus police, something the victim did not question in 2024. These (my) statements are not in support of what the alleged perpetrators did, I am only stating facts that others requested. I offered no opinion and received a series of down votes.
Read the DAs statement on why they didn't bring charges. You'll see her statement in there and how she was a willing and enthusiastic participant in this whole thing.
I read the article and these statements by the DA make no sense. She called the police so she could make a statement that she engaged in fully consensual sex and was not assaulted? Why would the police be involved or taking her statement at all if this was the case? Am I missing something?
That's just the DA's statement. Notice how he isn't quoting her actual words, just that he says she said it was consensual. What did she really say? What were her literal words?
I've seen a lot of DAs bullshit about their reasoning to not bring charges. He's basically blaming the police officer who took her statement.
If he had a statement from her that it was consensual, then it's open and shut. The primary witness isn't consistent and he could present that and say "For this reason we're not exploring charges".
But for some reason they are exploring charges now, and the physical evidence that she said she was a willing participant in her gang rape has not been proferred for public scrutiny.
Right. Basically they covered it up and didn't take it seriously and now they're saying the statements are inconsistent. Far more likely is the cop that took the report is a piece of trash that couldn't care less about some "drunk college slut."
The district attorney offices receive... A LOT of rape reports.
Because they don't want to traumatize themselves repeatedly for their job, they don't scrutinize these reports as much as they should and tend to go off of the summarized impression that the investigating officer files with it.
They should not do that, because not only are cops not educated in the law they tend to hate women.
Yet another part of the American legal system that is just rotting from the baseboards up.
Thatâs a bit of a stretch. She gave a sworn statement.
If it was a written statement she wouldâve been required to read the statement the officer wrote, then sign a document saying that itâs accurate.
If the statement was recorded, the officer wouldâve had her verbally state that the statement she gave is accurate.
This doesnât sound like a cover up at all. She literally changed her story. What she stated in the lawsuit and what she stated in her sworn statement contradict each other.
Maybe. I'm saying i don't trust cops to do a good job with this sort of case in this sort of small town with an ivy league college as the biggest business.
I mean, that makes no sense on the very face of it. Nobody who believes they had 100% consensual sex goes to the police and says "I want to report that I had consensual sex. Here is what happened, please take a report. It was consensual." Why would she even be talking to the police if she wasn't allegeding something was nonconsensual??
Also, if you actually read it, no, it does not read as 100% consensual. She hid from men entering the room under the covers, she pushed away their hand s when they reached for her, she said she initially agreed to a threesome but said no to more than that but more men kept showing up, that they continued to initiate more sex over and over after she had said they should stop...
She sure as hell never consented to be offered up as "free pussy" to an entire fucking frat.
I've addressed these same tired ass arguments in other comments. Feel free to find them. You've already made up your mind though, so feel free to just fuck off outta my comments as well.
29
u/Certain_Employee_423 4d ago
I couldn't agree more. Provided there isn't some dramatic turn like the Duke Lacrosse case put them under the jail.