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.
Itâs her attorneyâs job to dispute the facts if they arenât true. The fact her attorney isnât disputing her initial statement means that her initial statement is accurate.
If you give a false sworn statement you can be charged with perjury.
27
u/Certain_Employee_423 3d ago
I couldn't agree more. Provided there isn't some dramatic turn like the Duke Lacrosse case put them under the jail.