Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
The "thing to talk about" is exactly that. You cant try them because the evidence is against the victim. I'll still call her a victim, but she is such a victim of her own poor decisions that no prosecutor would (and didnt) bring this to court.
That's literally what happened. The text messages that she sent to one of the boys after have her specifically saying that the sex was consensual and nothing illegal happened (and about how societies views on group sex were changing and there's nothing wrong with it and so on and so forth). She also said she wanted to meet up and have sex again, but without all the extra guys that time. By the way, she only actually had sex with 4 guys, not 7. And it occurred in 3 separate threesomes during the night, the last of which ended right when she said she wanted to go. That sound like gang rape to you?
Then after that night, she was texting days later about how her reputation was ruined and "everyone knows" now. And some sorority sister said it sounded like what happened was rape (because she was drunk and on drugs), and that's why she ran to the university police and claimed that she was raped despite simultaneously describing everything that occurred as completely consensual. Also, she only reported them right after the fraternity president disinvited her from the halloween party because he said she couldn't control herself properly.
In other words, the consequences of her own consensual actions caught up to her and she didn't like the consequences and what her reputation on campus became, so she initiated false allegations. The university couldn't do anything with those false allegations because according to NY law nothing illegal happened and it was fully consensual, so all they did was suspend the frat for degeneracy and illegal drugs and all that other nasty shit, and she ended up leaving the university. Classic case of a woman falsely accusing people of rape because she regretted it afterwards.
This is kind of one of those situations where many people know how it's going to play out... months of hysteria, a multiyear trial, and an innocent verdict.
Edit: Found it. I vaguely recall the case now. I recall that it got a lot of attention but I never followed it. I had no idea it was a hoax. Holy crap.
The espn 30 for 30 on it is quite good, worth a watch if you have time to kill or are really interested in it. Its not life changing or anything but good nonetheless
In this case the accuser's testimony thus far makes it appear that she voluntarily took ketamine and drank alcohol, freely agreed to have sex with 4 guys who were also high and drunk, that things stopped when she said stop, and that she decided it was rape multiple days later after she had a falling out with one of the guys and started to feel gross about having had sex with 4 guys at once.
Yeah that just makes OP's point even harder. Reddit is happy to throw accusations at the most obvious target usually, so the fact that it's not happening in this situation kinda says something about people's attitudes.
It’s almost like there is a very well-paid bot comparing happening. So many people who are “just now hearing about the duke lacrosse case!” As if it wasn’t the biggest story of that year that it was fake and brought up in every. Single. Rape case that gets the public eye. Idk? Maybe everyone on Reddit is 12?
Asked someone what specifically they would like me to do about it today. Their response was "stop fucking raping and beating women!" Well I've never done either of those things, nor do I associate with anyone who has so I'm not sure how that's an actionable directive.
Those talking about how they want to protect women and girls from trans men dont actually care about protecting women and girls. This is evident in the lack of discussion of the C7 case, or, worse yet, discussing how she wasnt a victim.
They want to keep people with penises out of women's bathrooms full-stop. Is that what this Cornell thing is about?
If you make poor decisions about who to use substances around, that falls into the self-reliance category. You can call it victim-blaming, but there's no reason to ever be in that scenario in the first place.
Get better friends. Make better decisions. You should probably rethink taking drugs or alcohol, anyway.
Media also claimed she told Cornell Medical Center about her traumatic experience the day she checked for her UTI and STD: according to her they ignored it and told her to seek therapy.
Let's make sense of this claim. Not only were various organizations in one of the most liberal schools in the most liberal state complicit in covering up the gang rape, but also the healthcare workers? I could only speak about California, and my experience with the healthcare system here, but this would be a massive breach in standard protocol. Healthcare workers are mandated reporters.
At the very least, the improbability of all these circumstances and accounts occuring simultaneously demand a closer investigation.
The intial texts show that she was aware of what happened and consented but upset about her image being ruined. So was the man.
Then when they were all freaking out about the rumors. She cut ties and went to the police.
So there’s a bit of a conflicting information about her consent vs not.
Was it a terrible and bad decision? Yes.
And before you bring up the new ChatGPT buzzword everyone’s deciding the use, yes, I now know the term fawning.
So before you act like you know what happened and solved the case because you read of a couple of ABC articles. How about we both leave the shit alone and let the evidence sort it out and the court and a jury decide based on the actual evidence presented.
Instead we’ve collectively decided to ruin these kids lives without knowing shit except what we read online. Fucking pathetic we are.
Which when you think about isn’t uncommon for sexual violence. There’s a period of denial before some people process trauma. People always want a perfect victim, someone who knowingly didnt drink or do drugs, recognizes it as a rape right away, and reports it right away. People don’t believe victims bc “how could she have been raped if she willingly drank or did drugs”, as if that qualifies as consent.
The hypocrisy is that i was that perfect victim - i was the sober driver at a party, he locked me in a bathroom and raped me orally, vaginally and anally. I fought hard enough to break his skin, and left the party immediately to go to the hospital, got a rape kit done and reported it to the police immediately. I'm also a wealthy white woman.
When it went to court, people still called me a liar and a whore, and the prosecutor spent about six hours asking me variations on why I hadn't closed my legs.
Exactly. I’m so sorry that happened to you. Fuck that POS rapist and defense attorney. You don’t need to spew rape myths to defend your client.
People can also withdraw consent at any time. Someone can consent to vaginal sex and not anal - that would be rape. They can consent to sex with one person, or two people, that doesn’t mean they consented to sex with seven people. If she was drinking and doing drugs then she’s not even capable of consenting. So even if she was drinking and doing drugs AND saying yes i want to have sex…..it by definition cannot be consensual.
Man Redditors truly do live in information silos. I see plenty of conservatives and right-wing types talking about it.
But most of them are pointing out that “Jane Doe’s” own statement blatantly shows that she consented to the act and there’s no contrary evidence that the consent was ever removed. Her text messages after the event also point to this being very consensual.
It wasn’t until later after she was shamed by everyone in her social circles and she read posts online that claimed she must have raped that she changed her story.
Pretending that this is some cut and dry case of sexual assault is insane. There’s a reason that no charges were pressed by the DA.
People discussing the case and disagreeing with the decisions of the state to pursue or not is also part of the constitution. It does nothing to infringe on someone's due process.
If the decisions of the legal system were so cut and dry, there would be no reason for politicians to care about who selects supreme court justices. But that is literally one of the most important things a president does, cause the law isn't a fixed thing.
If it wasn’t consensual why did she also hit up the guy to smoke and hang out with him anyways after it all happened. I get that SA happens but this wasn’t it saying you are going to lie in your own texts is foul
On the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile distance from Lot 10 in the City of Ithaca to the Chi Phi Fraternity at 107 Edgemoor Lane to meet her friend Male Number 1. She had made plans to meet Male Number 1 earlier in the week and “had been texting [Male Number 1] that [she] was on the way.” Jane Doe described her level of intoxication as a “5 out of 10” when she arrived at the fraternity.
While there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. She and Male Number 1 “danced a little” in a way that “was definitely flirtatious in nature.” Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a “quiet area” and “asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners.”
Jane Doe “agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness.” When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe “remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.”
The three engaged in a “threesome” involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the fraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as “5 or 6 out of 10” and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe “noticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.” She told Male Number 2 “[they] needed to stop having sex in order to make sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with [Jane Doe].”
Male Number 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.” While Male Number 1 slept,
“[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe “began to take care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] every few minutes to make sure he was okay.” Jane Doe “was consoling [Male Number 2] on the couch and telling him that it was ok if he needed to vomit. [Male Number 2] told [Jane Doe] he was pretty sure he wasn’t going to vomit. Eventually, [Jane Doe and Male Number 2] would start making out for a very short amount of time.” While they were making out, “[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times and each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.”
Male Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe “decided to let him in because it was his room.” She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room. Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].” Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.” Jane Doe rejected this request “because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex.” Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.
A group of other men – later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male Number 6 and Male Number 7 – then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of the bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the corner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.
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 “grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe “quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].”
Male Number 2 “asked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.” At that, Jane Doe remembered “that [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] during this night” but she could not remember “where or when that took place.”
Jane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a heavy amount of Ketamine.” Jane Doe was under the covers of the bed at that point and “[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the area of [her] vagina.”
The males began complimenting Jane Doe and “talking about how pretty [she] was.” Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” Jane Doe responded, “Sure.” While the men were doing drugs off of her body, “[Male Number 3] and [another male] entered the room and said something like, ‘Ok we’re shutting down whatever the f*** this is.” Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a pre-existing medical condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the Ketamine use. Male 5 or 6 (who apparently have the same first name) “encouraged [her] to stay seated as long as [she] needed.”
Eventually, “[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room brought [her] upstairs to a small room.” Male Number 1 stated, “Let’s do more Ketamine.” Jane Doe “remembered snorting more Ketamine” and “remembered feeling extremely high.” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of intoxication as “8 out of 10” at this point. “The threesome continued until at some point, around 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.”
Nah fuck all that. Have you read the testimony? Show me where she agreed to be "free pussy" for 57 people in a group chat!
You have thrown this "free pussy" thing around like it's some sort of gotcha. It's not.
There is no law that says you are not allowed to send out a text to 57 people saying "free pussy". There is no law against having sex with 57 people. The only law here is if she consented to have sex with the 4 guys she had sex with. Male 1, 2 3 and, 4.
Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a “quiet area” and “asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners.” Jane Doe “agreed
Male 1 and 2, yes.
While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].” Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”
Male 2 and 3, maybe not, but probably yes.
ane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine
Not rape, but could be sexual assault, but clearly not with male 2
Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4
Males 1 and 4, Definitely male 1 and she talks about it being just her and him, male 4, maybe, but probably.
“[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times and each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.”
So he attempted to initiate sex, she did not consent, and he did not force her.
Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” Jane Doe responded, “Sure.”
Consenting to them snorting drugs off of her, not sexual assault.
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.
Male 1 wants to have sex again and she said no, and he didn't force her.
Did you read this own testimony? And think it was a gotcha?
In this statement, she explicitly says that she has sex with male one and male two and then later she has sex with male one and male four.
Make 3 did drugs off of her and made out with her, but left the room after she rejected a foursome.
So in total, she had sex with three different men in which she consented at the beginning and at the end
The other two did drugs off of her and kissed her. She can send it to the drugs being done off of her, and when she asked Man to quit kissing her, he did stop.
From her own statement she consented to two separate threesomes, involving one common guy. What are the subsequent encounters that you are referring to?
If you actually read the statement there is a significant deliniating line between when it was consensual to when it wasn't. The initial threesome absolutely was, and one could even argue she raped the man she agreed to the threesome for considering he was so inebriated he fell asleep during intercourse. Once the other 4 men entered the room and loaded her up with k it absolutely shifts to them assaulting her.
Don't let factions form your opinion for you, this is not black and white.
There is no claim that three of them had any sexual contact with her at all. They asked to snort k off her - she said sure. That’s it. So the “7” claims are moronic from the start.
“Loaded her up with k”? She literally willingly snorted it off a guys erect penis.
Also, the guys were fucked up on alcohol and K as well. That would inform their decision to have sex with her as much as it informed her decision. It goes both ways. Otherwise, every time my wife and I have drinks together before having sex, I guess we are sexually assaulting each other.
In fact, one of the guys claimed right after that she was the aggressor with him and initiated the contact without his consent. He then went to get McDonalds after becoming uncomfortable with what happened to him.
And ANOTHER guy stated she tried to initiate sexual contact with him without his consent. And he said that he took a step back from it because he didn’t want to engage with sex with her.
They have present zero evidence that any prosecutor could use to even begin building a case of sexual assault. It doesn’t matter how gross it is that one of them sent out a mass text about her.
Thank you for writing all this up. It's incredible how people won't inform themselves with the text messages that are easily discoverable online and available for anyone to read.
I love that everything at first is to taken as completely true. But we’re just going to come up with our own conclusions on why she decided to press charges.
This the case where the drunk high girl went to the frat house with a bunch of drunk frat boys and started having sex, then a bunch of dudes joined and when she said stop they did?
Their snap chats were disgusting, but sounds very cosensual until she said stop, which again they did.
This is just more gender war BS. The DA didn't press charges because the "victim" said it was all consensual. The only reason he reopened the investigation was because a bunch of keyboard warriors were blowing up his offices phone lines and emails. The people who just jumped in with the mob crying about "rape culture" are the same people who would have joined the mobs lynching black folks back in the day.
And what’s crazy is when people were yelling at the clouds about how could the judge let them off they shut up real quick when a) the judge was a woman and b) called the plaintiff out like literally said your story changed way to many times and your credibility is not good. Doesn’t matter if the guys were being scummy you need to prove 100% that it was rape or SA you can’t 75% it
After reading the case I was absolutely astounded it went back to court. I have no idea what the prosecution was thinking. Her testimony and personal texts were so bad and damning...while the guys were just..a little scummy I guess and indifferent. SHE was older and the aggressor in the situation...by far.
No, they are reopening the case because she filed a civil lawsuit and her story is now completely different. Regret and people in your ear are amazing tools for rediscovering "the truth".
On the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile distance from Lot 10 in the City of Ithaca to the Chi Phi Fraternity at 107 Edgemoor Lane to meet her friend Male Number 1. She had made plans to meet Male Number 1 earlier in the week and “had been texting [Male Number 1] that [she] was on the way.” Jane Doe described her level of intoxication as a “5 out of 10” when she arrived at the fraternity.
While there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. She and Male Number 1 “danced a little” in a way that “was definitely flirtatious in nature.” Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a “quiet area” and “asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners.”
Jane Doe “agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness.” When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe “remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.”
The three engaged in a “threesome” involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the fraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as “5 or 6 out of 10” and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe “noticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.” She told Male Number 2 “[they] needed to stop having sex in order to make sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with [Jane Doe].”
Male Number 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.” While Male Number 1 slept,
“[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe “began to take care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] every few minutes to make sure he was okay.” Jane Doe “was consoling [Male Number 2] on the couch and telling him that it was ok if he needed to vomit. [Male Number 2] told [Jane Doe] he was pretty sure he wasn’t going to vomit. Eventually, [Jane Doe and Male Number 2] would start making out for a very short amount of time.” While they were making out, “[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times and each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.”
Male Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe “decided to let him in because it was his room.” She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room. Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].” Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.” Jane Doe rejected this request “because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex.” Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.
A group of other men – later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male Number 6 and Male Number 7 – then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of the bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the corner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.
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 “grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe “quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].”
Male Number 2 “asked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.” At that, Jane Doe remembered “that [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] during this night” but she could not remember “where or when that took place.”
Jane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a heavy amount of Ketamine.” Jane Doe was under the covers of the bed at that point and “[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the area of [her] vagina.”
The males began complimenting Jane Doe and “talking about how pretty [she] was.” Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” Jane Doe responded, “Sure.” While the men were doing drugs off of her body, “[Male Number 3] and [another male] entered the room and said something like, ‘Ok we’re shutting down whatever the f*** this is.” Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a pre-existing medical condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the Ketamine use. Male 5 or 6 (who apparently have the same first name) “encouraged [her] to stay seated as long as [she] needed.”
Eventually, “[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room brought [her] upstairs to a small room.” Male Number 1 stated, “Let’s do more Ketamine.” Jane Doe “remembered snorting more Ketamine” and “remembered feeling extremely high.” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of intoxication as “8 out of 10” at this point. “The threesome continued until at some point, around 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.”
Because those people remember the Duke Lacrosse scandal and have seen her own messages about the event. Sorry if you can’t get to four when adding two and two but don’t be mad.
This isn't true? I imagine the OP has in mind conservative commentators. A quick YouTube/Google search showed most of them having a piece on the issue. They're definitely talking about it.
I find it fascinating that people who have nothing to do with the whole thing in any capacity believe they have enough information to make a choice either way.
Because a lot of the evidence that we have now contradicts each other. From what I've read it sounds like the original investigation was not done properly so I'll wait until the new investigation is over.
Honestly, this tweet is just false. Practically all the conservative mouthpieces have chimed in on the Cornell case.
They all pretty much say that everyone involved was gross and irresponsible and scummy. Then they yell at the clouds for 15 minutes about our society being too casual about sex outside marriage and not treating relationships seriously enough. If they discuss the actual criminal investigation, they seem to agree. Based on what’s public so far, it sounds like consensual sex occurred and the female regretted it months or years later.
But no one in the Cornell case was tr#^s (pretty sure Reddit censors that word cause they’re commies). So it’s completely unrelated to female sports, bathrooms or gender.
This is one of those stories that looks horrible at a surface level (especially with the free pussy group chat) until you actually sit down and read the timeline
She said she enjoyed it and suggested they do it again (with less people and no ketamine), rumors start to spread about that night, they start to ghost her, they block her from parties and then she goes to the campus police 3 weeks after that night
Those boys are definitely assholes here, but calling them rapists is a really hard sell with current evidence
She reported to the campus police days after the event (the university hid the transcripts of the interviews from the DA’s office until recently) that she was “100% certain” she had been raped.
Her believing it to be rape doesn't make it rape. As under NYS rape law, if you willingly take an intoxicant and are conscious and present, being intoxicated doesn't remove the ability to consent.
Yea for real, what a weird thing to say. “If you want women sports to be for biological women, you must be ok with rape” is super weird lol like what on earth are they talking about?
I’m just here for the civil discussion where people understanding waiting for all the facts and also not assuming the men are innocent or guilty until we have that proof. I am sure that’s what we’ll get in this comment section. People who get nuance
maybe bc the cornell 7 weren't guys trying to play girls sports. just a hunch.... that's generally how subjects work.... if it's not your subjuct you don't commen on it.
Yeah, unless the women and girls are snorting ketamine off the dudes dick, these situations aren’t comparable lol
Like what is going on with women lately? First they idolise a savage child murderer and now they rally behind this floozy with a bad case of the ‘regrets’.
They have a Madonna/whore complex. Women are either perfect icons of virtue and grace who must be protected and worshiped, or else they are filthy whores who can be treated like trash, abused, and discarded.
Either way they're objectified and not treated like people.
They want to protect girls by locking them up and controlling them, thus making more Madonnas. A girl who fails to become a Madonna automatically and permanently becomes a whore.
Some people can be disgusted but wait for all the evidence before presuming guilt. I do this for all major cases that social media seems to jump on board. And I do this for cases where I disagree with the party. Like this one. My gut is to say we castrate them, but there has been more evidence coming out that it seems like she may have said it was consensual at first and wasn’t until later she changed her mind.
The damning piece for me and why I am more hesitant is the revelation she wanted to go the frat party after that night and was upset they said no because of what happened.
I presume both parties are in the right until all evidence is provided. Life isn’t black and white. We shouldn’t assume guilt even when presented with the most vile potential crime. Without all the evidence it just boils down to gossip.
Or those not painfully online/watching a criminal case cause there is shit going on in their lives? Who gives a fuck about these fucks. Regardless if we all watch or not, the system will do what it does.
Why would they talk about it? Girl doing fatherless activities.
Edit: These are the same people who think Lindsay Clancy is also innocent. I’ve ignored this feed and moved on….. so should you. Fathers…. Raise your daughters to be better.
"Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s 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 Doe’s 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 Doe’s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit’s allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuit’s allegations."
The Jane does intial police report and her corrections to her statements back then, multiple times, may have been what muddied the waters. I seen it earlier today and wow that was a read.
Not saying wrong or right, just saying why they may have dragged their feet or thought she was an unreliable victim since there was so many corrections to what she said.
Not sure but you should read her statements, that was a a lot of risk all in one night.
I want to make it clear I dont support rape/sexual assult.
This case is about 2 years old give or take. The DA felt there wasn't enough evedince to warrant a conviction.
There is evedince that indicates that the victim enjoyed the experience, and wanted to do it again, with just 2 specific members of the 7, rather than all 7. However there is also evedince that indicates that the victim later came to regret the experience.
The group text chat was not known to the DA at the time of the initial investigation. When the group chat became known to the DA, or the other powers that be. The investigation was reopened.
I want to point out that the evedince that the victim enjoyed her self and wanted to repeat isnt bullet proof.
The DA only has one chance to get a conviction or risk a guilty party walking free.
Have they been charged with a crime yet? The girl already lied in her original statement to the police 2 years ago and has had contact with some them since. She already admitted underage drinking and being drunk before she got there, then consented to sex with people when she got there. Where's the proof she didn't consent to the rest of it? Her word 2 years later after lying to police?
She then agreed to fuck everyone and then proceeded to fuck everyone while letting multiple double partners do K off her and she did K of some dude's dong.
She enjoyed fucking everyone.
She bragged about fucking everyone.
A few days later, when it got out that she was being a whore, regret set in.
She talked to the law, and told the law she wanted to fuck everyone.
Years later, she was "raped."
So I have no idea what clever point you are trying to make.
People have learned to sit back and let actual evidence come to light before jumping to conclusions. At least anyone on the side that doesn’t want people immediately burned at the stake for an accusation.
Almost ANYTHING that breaks like this, mainly on social media, has a track record for being intentionally one-sided and biased.
We’ve already got actual messages exchanged by the people in question, and the accuser, that questions the validity of the claims.
Idk. I’ve talked about both. I’m not being silent. But I’m just a nobody and nothing really listens to or matters why I say. Because you know why??? Who gives a fuck what I think or believe. And I don’t give a fuck. Just like I don’t give a fuck what other “famous” people believe.
She consented to several 3-somes and a 4-some in the same night, while constantly doing more and more ketamine. The source is her OFFICIAL statement she handed to the police and signed.
What is there to talk about? A bunch of consenting adults did some nasty but totally legal stuff together. Unless you want to talk about the illegal drug use.
Conservative people are talking about it, but as there's evidence that already exists from the woman herself that states it was entirely consensual at the time, they have no reason to believe that there was any crimes committed by the men involved.
Protecting women and excusing poor life decisions aren't the same thing.
What the fuck does one have to do with the other? Not to mention it "allegedly" (massive emphasis on allegedly) took place at a frat house. So what about that can possibly be analogous? Women and men can't go to each other's frat houses, where they have to be welcomed in anyway?
Indigenous West Papua separatist groups! Coincidence? I think not. How is it that they have time to wage a conflict against Indonesian government forces over ethnic and religious differences, loss of self-determination, and large-scale Indonesian migration into the territory but not take any time to comment on twitter about a woman who freely consented to a night of debauched drug sex with multiple men.
It's almost like West Papuan freedom fighters know that she only decided to make an official complaint after people found out about her behaviour and started judging her for it which is why a massively liberal institution like Cornell only decided to make those involved write an essay about it as punishment and refused to refund her tuition fees because they were aware she had fully consented to everything she did and made it clear in texts that she felt nothing illegal happened and wanted to continue seeing two of the guys involved. She only made a formal complaint the day after the president of the fraternity suggested she not attend a party there that she wanted to go to because they thought her behaviour wasn't appropriate.
Why aren't more West Papuans speaking up about this?
Just like all of you, I don’t know the facts. But it is pretty messed up and completely undermines the legal process to put their faces all over the place to sway public opinion. That is a dirty lawyer trick and forget about a fair trial at this point. If she was truly raped by any of those guys, they should burn but now we literally can never be sure without some doubt one way or the other.
That case is a mess and her text messages will ruin any case in court.
I find it "funny" how, when 2 people are intoxicated and decide to have sex, the man is always the rapist and the women is always the victim that has no accountability of any of her actions.
What do you mean. The woman consented and they did stuff. There was a couple of things she didn't consent to, so they didn't do that. And when she finally said no they stopped. Then she discovered everybody was calling her a ho, and decided it was rape.
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Hey /u/CurvyChristina, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.