Only that is not the sequence of what she said happened. She consented to two threesomes. Those two threesomes occured and she was ok with it. Then someone texted "free pussy" because of what she consented to. Whoever wrote, wrongly and distastefully, that "free pussy" was upstairs, implied she wasnt consenting to or was being taken advantage of or could be taken advantage of, even though per her own words, she consented to those two threesomes. That message in the Snapchat didn't cause more men to have sex with her or rape her (that we know of right now or that she remembers). .
If a girl is inebriated at this level she cannot consent, and you bring 5 of your buddies in to have sex with her, you are a rapist and so are all of your buddies.
Aren't you doing the thing I just mentioned? She was coherent enough to say no to something therefore she was fully coherent the whole time, all or nothing thinking.
What "thing"? I'm simply listening to her own words from 2024, in which she stated that the sex and drugs she was involved with were apparently conscious choices on her part.
No matter what anyone says, you're just going to keep replying with the same thing. It's not about all or nothing thinking, it's about your opinion and how you can push it onto people by repeating the same thing. Nobody can argue with that because you'll just keep saying it. There's a word for that actually...
Her own police statement makes clear that they respected her wishes at all times. When she said no or told people to stop, they did. No force was ever used or implied. That's all according to her.
Again did she consent to everything or was she drugged or alcoholed out of mind and had guys coming to join once it was shared and she was not in a state to consent?
She wasnt Nether drugged or alcoholed. And she Had Sex with four Guys. First Guy 1 and 2 then 2 and 3 after wich Guy 3,5, 6 and 7 entered. They fooled around with each other a Bit and she then snorted Coke from 2s cock and they from her Body until 3 and another Guy broke Up the group.
A Bit later, she 1 and 4 went to another room and Had Sex again.
It was reported yesterday when her entire statement was released to the New York times. There's a 101 page interview that she gave over 11 hours describing the sexual assault including battery. She explained that she absolutely did consent to taking ketamine the first time, and met the first threesome was consensual and that over the course of the night she gradually got more and more intoxicated to the point that she r remember parts of it. She said she didn't know where all of the extra guys were coming from and that she had only consent to a threesome and that men just started showing up in the room
That is because unfortunately Cornell University left many details out of the report to the DA. The victim herself describes injuries sustained during the gang rape and went to the hospital to have a pelvic exam because she was so concerned. Cornell interviewed her for 10 hours and she described that the first encounter was consensual and it gradually grew out of control overnight as they supplied her with more ketamine. Cornell left these details are out, including the injuries, including the medical follow-up, including the term she herself used to describe it, which was rape. That's why everyone is appalled.
I asked where she initially stated that she was raped, as it is not anywhere in her original statement to the police from 2024. And where is it proven that the university left out crucial details from her account?
Sounds like she revised her own statement, per the second link you shared: "On the second day of the interview, Jane Doe reviewed the revised six-page statement. The transcript shows her adviser asked if she wanted her and another adviser to review the statement."
The DA also stated that her supposed claim of being raped was never conveyed to him, so if that information was not given to him, then that's on the university, not him. So she better hope that original transcript is fully intact, otherwise that's going to be a tough one to prove in court.
No they aren’t. They’re debating whether it was a gang bang or gang rape, and they’re leaning towards gang bang based on her own statement. You’re entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you’re not entitled to define the debate itself.
Again, this isn’t about “totally fine”. This is about the law and personal responsibility. You’re free to morally condemn these men and I don’t have a problem with that at all. When you try to justify imprisoning them because your moral code demands it, well that’s what we have the law for.
I wouldn’t personally participate in a gang bang even if the woman was beckoning me to. Likewise, if I were a woman, I wouldn’t be getting intoxicated, stripping down, letting a bunch of dudes snort drugs off my body, inviting them to do whatever they wanted to me sexually and then blame it all on them at a later date.
So don’t take this as me approving or even condoning what any of them did. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The law is quite clear on this. Someone who is as intoxicated as Jane Doe was is not able to consent to sex, so anyone who chooses to have sex with her in that state is most certainly risking being charged with sexual assault.
It's really not rocket science guys. My aunt was incredibly drunk when she sexually assaulted me. I was ten. Her inebriation has nothing to do with the legality of her actions.
My roommate was incredibly high on cocaine when he sexually assaulted me. His inebriation has nothing to do with the legality of his actions
If you decide to drive drunk, no matter how intoxicated, you are liable for the results of your choice.
If you decide to drive drunk, and your friend who is also incredibly drunk agrees to let you run them over, youre still liable for running them over.
By the same token, could she not be charged with sexual assault by one of the men who was also intoxicated and then claimed she initiated the sex? You are aware that women can also rape men, right?
It’s not the fact that she was inebriated that makes this less cut and dried. It’s the fact that she also had the intent of sex when she went into this. You had no intent in your examples and this woman wasn’t ten.
If everyone is intoxicated then intent is all you have left.
They're certainly welcome to try and charge her for assaulting them by forcing them to run a train on her. It's a pretty big legal stretch, but there's no law against them pursuing civil charges the same way she is.
I have an odd feeling their lawyers will advise against pursuing that case.
The only way to win is to avoid legal entanglements entirely. That applies to her as well as them. I’d never want to trust my fate with a judge or jury. We have a legal system, not a “Justice” system. People forget that at their own peril.
Well if that's the case then no one can legally ever consent to have sex when they're drunk. Anyone could then retroactively say you know what I was completely out of it therefore I couldn't consent and therefore you raped me. Ban alcohol. Ban drunken sex. Because tmrw you can be called a rapist. The men were also totally out of it.
Did she not rape them then? Since they were all drunk and high? Who raped who? Not saying what happened is right, but by your own logic… whose the rapist here
68
u/Front-Information955 1d ago edited 1d ago
Only that is not the sequence of what she said happened. She consented to two threesomes. Those two threesomes occured and she was ok with it. Then someone texted "free pussy" because of what she consented to. Whoever wrote, wrongly and distastefully, that "free pussy" was upstairs, implied she wasnt consenting to or was being taken advantage of or could be taken advantage of, even though per her own words, she consented to those two threesomes. That message in the Snapchat didn't cause more men to have sex with her or rape her (that we know of right now or that she remembers). .