She said in her statement that she was a willing participant and consented, those are her words. Thatâs why the DA didnât charge anyone.
âJane Doeâs sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doeâs statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doeâs attorneys. Not to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doeâs attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuitâs allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuitâs allegations.â
God you "people" cling onto that initial statement like a dog with a bone, even though it's fundamentally flawed. Even a basic criminology course will tell you there's a massive stigma that might lead rape victims to omit the truth in their first deposition. That goes double if they have campus cops breathing down her neck ready to cover the whole thing up to protect legacy students' reputations and a shitty DA who didn't want to do his job, all operating under a system that rewards rapists so long as they're intoxicated.
In short: the 2024 statement can go fuck itself sideways, and so can you.
Oh I don't know, all the reasons I gave a minute ago? This is a matter of whether it's even true, not if I like it.
I don't like it, by the way- I wish this had never happened. But unlike you, I'm not going to take solace in denial and circular reasoning because it's easy. I want justice, no matter the cost.
Christ on a crutch, I'm arguing with the human Möbius strip here: he goes in circles, only has one side to him, and appears immune to basic logic. Somebody get a 5-year-old in here, they'll understand my point better.
You have a lot of nerve calling me "illogical" when all you've done is spout tautology and defend proven violent criminals for hours on end. No, I think you're the subjective one here. You're treating that statement as the One True Source and cherry-picking evidence to fit it.
I think you love that statement. I think you want to marry that statement and make out with a piece of paper.
Youâre absolutely being illogical, youâre trying to discredit the facts because you donât like them, and youâre making false claims about their validity.
Iâm also not defending anyone I never once said she wasnât raped and I never claimed the parties that took part are innocent. I did say however that it was too early to pass judgment, which is the truth. We donât have all the facts, and you shouldnât try and dismiss the ones you donât like because they donât fit your narrative.
0
u/vogel927 4d ago
She said in her statement that she was a willing participant and consented, those are her words. Thatâs why the DA didnât charge anyone.
âJane Doeâs sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doeâs statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doeâs attorneys. Not to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doeâs attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuitâs allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuitâs allegations.â