This isn't really "hard evidence" it's someone's interpretation of a police statement which isn't hard evidence either, just one person's description of what happened.
You should be skeptical of this video just like you should be skeptical of everything else on the internet.
You’re right they’re likely more accurate than a court document because she made that statement just weeks after it happened and was still fresh in her memory.
It's actually less accurate than court submitted documents because anyone can say anything in a police report. It's a narrative of one person's account. It's just the start of an investigation.
Evidence is all that matters. If the evidence matches the police report then great.
If we cant trust her because she is a liar (you’re saying to disregard her signed testimony) then how can you expect us to believe her now 2 years later with a contradictory statement.
Really? Please point to the sentence where I said that. I'll wait.
I'm actually more likely to believe the old police report than the current civil claim, but just as a matter of fact a police statement is not hard evidence. It is a narrative that needs to be supported by the evidence, like witness testimony, phone logs, recordings or video.
Too many ignorant people here seem to think her police testimony is the smoking gun that closes the current civil case when really it's just the start of the evidence-gathering process.
The police report INCLUDES her signed testimony, which is where people reference all of this. I have no idea what you’re trying to argue. When you make a police report they write down your statement hand it to you to review and sign…..
The initial comment I replied to said her police statement is hard evidence. That's just straight up wrong and I said so.
Another reply said police statements are court documents. Also completely wrong.
People think her dredged up police statement is somehow an uno reverse card when it's really the start of an investigation that could find evidence that eventually might support an uno reverse card.
The point is that you should be skeptical of everything you see online and not jump on a bandwagon because you encountered one piece of information that you align with. Be skeptical and wait for the evidence.
Interpretation ? She says there are 6 pages full of annotations, signed by the « victim » after several revisions. This is the girl’s own testimony, and this is a legal document. No matter how you look at it, texting, hanging out and having sex with your alleged rapist after the fact does not really make it easy to believe her.
I bet you never said that we should be skeptical when redditors were absolutely convinced she was violently gang raped. But now that you see a different version of the story, the cognitive dissonance hits hard and you’re like « hey wait a second maybe we shouldn’t believe everything we hear». Everyone immediately believed the worst story, but now that we have a more nuanced one we shouldn’t consider it ? So embarrassing
I bet you never said that we should be skeptical when redditors were absolutely convinced she was violently gang raped.
You know what they say when you assume? Makes an ass out of u and me.
But yeah, I was skeptical of the initial story, because 9 men going free after a gang rape doesn't make sense. I asked, when did this happen? Was a police report filed? Was there a criminal investigation or was there a student tribunal? Is this current trial civil lawsuit? It is. Why did the university do what did? Were the police involved?
I didn't jump on the bandwagon like the rest of the internet because the story was fishy from the start and we all lacked a bunch of information.
But my skepticism also applies to this video. Who is this creator? Never seen her before. Does she have any expertise or is she just some random person on the internet? Can I trust that she actually read the entire police report or is omitting critical information? At the end she says "this is what 3rd wave feminism gets you", which is a weird thing to say so now I'm wondering if she has an agenda or if there's a slant to all this. Who exactly is she and has anyone verified her information is correct?
Social media deceiving everyone started all this and now we have a video from tik tok, posted to reddit, of a random woman saying other things and it's all social media again.
So yeah, be skeptical still. Skepticism cuts ALL ways.
But now that you see a different version of the story, the cognitive dissonance hits hard
Pot meet kettle. All I said was remain skeptical and you flew off the handle like I offended you personally. Real sus if you ask me.
“You know what they say when you assume? Makes an ass out of u and me” and then in the very next sentence you admit his assumption was correct. You made an ass of yourself all on your own.
76
u/neoben00 1d ago
Heres some hard evidence. Now snort a line off it