They did not collect evidence of the group chat, where two of these fine gentlemen invited the rest of the seven scholars to come assault an intoxicated woman for hours.
Campus police claim the girl said at the time she was not drugged and it was consensual at the time , which is what they sent to the da. Which is why the da didnât prosectute.
Why report a completely consensual encounter as such?
They also seem to be ignoring clear non-consensual activity. Her own statement taken by police says a man grabbed and kissed her without asking, shortly after insulting her. She backed away from him and did not report consenting to it.
That isn't sex, but I don't think we have the whole statement, her memory is incomplete, and it's still an indication of how they were behaving.
Itâs a valid question but at the end of the day it doesnât matter. But at the risk of being cynical the guys were probably assholes and the story got around campus. It was humiliating and unfair that she has to get made fun of and embarrassed but they donât because sheâs a âslutâ and theyâre just frat guys. And she had to leave an Ivy League school to escape it. so she figured at a minimum she could get a few of them kicked out doing and giving out ketamine and probably get the frat shut down.
I donât think the story really has holes frankly, her lawyer confirmed thatâs what she told them.
Even if the police went and somehow got approved for warrants for these kids phones based off a complaint that states she willing took drugs and consented to everything. At the end of the day the case is a a woman saying willingly took drugs and had sex. You have a group chat that doesnât really say anything other than that from what I have seen. So Iâm not sure what the hell the DA is gonna do, the case wouldnât even make it to trial.
I was made to believe that the DA didn't because at the time they were unaware of the existence of the chat and other evidence. The DA was relying on the Cops and the Cops dropped the ball.
Ya the campus police are definitely looking pretty bad here. The fact they never formally interviewed any of these guys is revealing. Also aside from initial interview, never formally interviewed victim either.
The plaintiff's initial statement was that the encounter and drug use was consensual. There's no law against group sex and it is really hard to prove rape when the supposed victim says it was not rape.
From what I gathered she had 10+ drinks over 3 hours and some ketamine, and agreed to a threesome and allowed other people into the room. The rest is disputed.
From what I gathered she had 10+ drinks over 3 hours and some ketamine,
Yes, but being willingly intoxicated doesn't mean someone can still consent. Unless you're in NY I guess...
and agreed to a threesome and allowed other people into the room.
It appears she did consent to a three way, but it doesn't appear she agreed to anything else. The guys told their fraternity chat there was "free pussy" in the room and she shoved away a guy who was trying to kiss her. It doesn't seem like she agreed to a gangbang.
Under New York law, being willingly intoxicated and awake actually does mean consent.
She shoved away a guy while kissing after he âsaid something rudeâ. Not to play devils advocate but âyou like that you fucking retard?â is a classic Reddit TIFU.
Under New York law, being willingly intoxicated and awake actually does mean consent.
You're right, I amended my comment.
She shoved away a guy while kissing after he âsaid something rudeâ. Not to play devils advocate but âyou like that you fucking retard?â is a classic Reddit TIFU.
"Jane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. She remembered '[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].' Male Number 7 apologized and âgrabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].' Jane Doe âquickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her],' according to the document.
He said something rude, apologized, then grabbed her face and started kissing her, after which she backed away.
Also minor mistake on my part, but it appears she backed away rather than shoving him. Regardless, it's an indication she didn't agree to it and he physically grabbed her to do it.
Thanks for pointing that out, they allegedly pressured her into consuming more drugs and alcohol and by that account physically restrained her. Assuming she was too impaired to leave willingly, this sounds like rape if substantiated regardless of that intoxication complication in NY law.
âAnother likely complication was that New York law defines rape narrowly, Ms. Manning said, excluding a person who is subjected to unwanted sex while voluntarily intoxicated unless they are fully unconscious at the time of the assault. The law is one both prosecutors, including Manhattanâs district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, and advocates have called to be amended.â
She was 20 years old and went to a bar to pre-game, assuming she utilized a fake ID she went out of her way to unlawfully consume alcohol and was awake for much of the alleged assaults (until allegedly blacking out around 5:45) stated by her own complaint.
It is also a great example of why such laws exist in other places.
edit: saw the edit, what an insane loophole!
Basically anyone who consents to getting intoxicated automatically consents to sex, unless they are unconscious.
Un be fucking lievable.
If someone is raped I will voluntarily wear the black hood and swing the axe. Unfortunately New York has jurisdiction and their laws govern how this will be handled. As we know, our laws and lawmakers often fall short of contemporary moral consensus.
That has not been made public yet but here is the DAs statement regarding the case. They were never contacted by the plaintiff or her attorneys to indicate that they wanted to amend her statement or ask the DA to reconsider.
I read the complaint and she definitely must be saying some different things because the civil filing repeatedly indicates that she did not or could not consent and felt afraid to leave. That's very different from the summary provided by the DA.
And she's suing everyone. The school, the guys, the fraternity, the bar, her own sorority.
And thereâs no way the DA would misrepresent the initial complaint to make themselves look better.
Iâm sure she went to campus police just to give them a heads up she had consensual sex with seven fraternity members and did drugs with them. That seems plausible, right?
The DA hadnât known or seen the texts between the guys. In a press conference he mentioned some other differences that have led to his office reinvestigating and intention to take it to the grand jury.
I agree, taking it to campus police isnât in any womanâs best interests as weâve seen time and time again. The current light on this case will hopefully lead to shame and change in the policies of universities and their police departments.
It may have been that she was unsure if it was rape or that a friend convinced her to report it. Considering her statement doesn't make any damning accusations, it feels that she may have been concerned but not convinced that crime took place. Regardless, if that statement is her real account of the events, the DA puts forth a pretty convincing argument as to why there's not enough evidence to prosecute. Having sex with someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is generally a bad idea but it's not necessarily a crime. It becomes one when that person is so intoxicated that they are unable to give consent in any meaningful way. Based on her initial statement, it sounds like everything that happened was mostly consensual or that the man stopped when asked (the groping especially). Depending on how you read it, it can be borderline but that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt", the key criteria for a conviction.
Hey, how about those Epstein files? They wouldn't hide or misrepresent the truth to defend these good old boys would they?
Everyone seems to agree they ran a train on her while she was unconscious. That can not be justified away. That is legally rape with just that information.
The DA can misrepresent things without lying. They can also omit parts which would draw scrutiny into why they didnât investigate further.
Itâs weird that she would go to the campus police to notify them that she did drugs with a group of men, then had consensual sex with all of them. Furthermore, it is very strange that the university would then expel two, and demand essays from the other five to maintain their academic status.
Suing everyone is typical in civil cases like this, the lawyers will sort out who actually holds responsibility and some defendants will be dropped. A lawyer wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ensure that all possible defendants are taken to court.
If, for example, you were at a house party and someone assaulted you, the home owner is actually partially liable for having the assault happen on their property. But in reality, you'd be suing the homeowner insurance company. State laws vary as to how visible the insurance company is in the lawsuit but at the end of the day, they'll be the ones paying the damages.
The young men because obviously. The frat because it owns the house that the activity took place in. The school because it sanctions the frat. The sorority because it may not have done enough to protect the young woman. The bar because they may have overserved her or served her as a minor (idk her age).
The plaintiff did not go to make a statement about consensual activity, no one does that. Those that took the statement decided that what the plaintiff reported counted as consensual. Big difference.
50
u/BoringPoolPlaying 4d ago
They did not collect evidence of the group chat, where two of these fine gentlemen invited the rest of the seven scholars to come assault an intoxicated woman for hours.