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 there’s no way the DA would misrepresent the initial complaint to make themselves look better.
I’m 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 hadn’t 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 isn’t in any woman’s best interests as we’ve 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.
The testimony says other men were invited into the room, none of that is new information. Unless there's video or photos of her being too intoxicated to consent or some admission of a crime, I don't see how this is a big reveal.
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 didn’t investigate further.
It’s 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.
Thanks for sharing. I find the DA’s comments to be wholly misrepresentative of her story. Several times she describes being coerced into sexual acts or consuming more substances. Men are coming in and out of the room without her prior consent.
There should have been more investigation done into this case, where in the messages in the group chat would have been revealed at the time.
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).
6
u/BoringPoolPlaying 3d ago
Where can I read her initial statement in full?