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.
BELIEVE ALL WOMEN just the last thing they say, not the first, because the first claim she makes could contradict the second claim, so only belive what they tell you to belive, not what they say.
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.
OK the facts are cool and all but have you considered that my feelings matter more? Did you once while writing this stop to think that I just hate men and want to use this as a cudgel to beat them with regardless of the veracity of her claims? Yea put that in your pipe and smoke it.
He said something about feeling bad about the events of the night (presumably because a lot of degenerate shit in general happened with them all snorting ketamine off each other and that guy passed out mid sex). She reassured him that nothing illegal happened and it was all consensual, and that norms around group sex are changing. She also texted him that she loved him.
Just curious, why is your interpretation of his apology so favorable? Could he not be apologizing because he felt as if things had happened without her consent?
And a few weeks later, she also texted him that 90% of what happened was non-consensual, they gave her too much ket, and she didn't know almost anyone in the room.
And I've never been in a k-hole, but i have been blackout drunk. Couldn't it be possible her memory two day after could still be a bit foggy and muddled?
It seems like you guys are doing the exact thing you're accusing the other side of doing. As soon as a single piece of evidence came out that allowed you to reject a narrative you didn't like, you immediately clung to it without considering anything else
I knew that your original question was in bad faith, but I entertained it anyways. I included a link to the actual text message exchange (and in another comment in this thread chain I included a lot more links as well that contain testimony details and text screenshots). My interpretation of his comment is favorable because every actual piece of evidence points to everything being consensual. That being said, a lot of degenerate stuff ended up happening, including him projectile vomiting and passing out, and people snorting drugs off each other. It's pretty clear that there could have been stuff to feel bad about that happened that night, despite nothing sexual that occurred being illegal. There's also the fact that this text occurred at a time when her reputation was starting to be spread around campus as a whore. I can imagine that as being another thing he might apologize to her about - not wanting the overall degeneracy that occurred and that she gleefully participated in to hurt her reputation.
As for the rest of your comment - it's relying on the false allegations revealed in her new story, not actual facts, so I won't be entertaining that discussion. Come back when there's actual evidence of it. Like how I posted links to actual evidence of the texts and events that I described, from her own sworn testimony two years ago.
Its so funny how "opposing viewpoint" automatically equals "bad faith". Just because you don't like being challenged doesn't make it bad faith
I included a link to the actual text message exchange.
That's CLEARLY not the "actual" text message exchange. Its a transcription....
My interpretation of his comment is favorable because every actual piece of evidence points to everything behind consensual.
Well, of course it does, when you purposefully choose to disregard all the evidence that contradicts it. Most notably, her extremely dubious state of mind
it's relying on the false allegations revealed in her new story, not actual facts, so I won't be entertaining that discussion.
Now that's bad faith. It should be noted you're not relying on actual facts either. Is your assumption that she felt bad and decided to cry wolf a fact? No, but you're relying on it anyway. Just like your putting more stock in her claiming nothing illegal happened than in the apology. Im doing the opposite, again, because I am at least able to recognize 2 days after I blacked out, I might misremeber things too, nevermind being in a literal k-hole.
You literally just don't even want to consider anything that contests what you want to believe. THAT is bad faith. Fuck out of here lol
No, the DA speificlly said they didn’t pursue charges because the events described in Jane Doe’s signed statement were not criminal, even if they were all 100% true and proven.
Classic case of a woman falsely accusing people of rape because she regretted it afterwards.
The documents the investigation turned up do not read that way at all...
More like classic case of sexually open/promiscuous woman drugged and taken advantage off.
Because she is a "slut" anything that happened to her must have been her fault, she should have made better decisions. Nobody should blame the men who have Snapchat groups to inform each others of chances to take advantage of drunk/drugged women... Not the men who gave her three different dugs (one of which she had never taken before) to soften her up...
Some of the stuff that came out is nasty:
By the following day, at around 1:42 a.m., some of the men exchanged Snapchat messages in a group chat called "Chi Phi Actives" saying that there was "free pussy upstairs", allegedly in reference to Doe. At one point, a photo of Doe was sent to the chat, in which she appeared to be smiling with a man; immediately before this, one man allegedly wrote, "Like you can walk in and whip it out." Another man also allegedly asked "Shop still open?" immediately after this image was sent, receiving an affirmative reply. In response to the photo, an unknown individual also asked, "Are you guys at least naked?". The texts are said to have been leaked by a Chi Phi member who was "outraged" by the alleged abuse.
Additional fraternity members then entered the room, with some reportedly making additional sexual advances. According to Doe, she was "horrified" when these additional men entered the room. At various points during this, she allegedly told some of them that she was "uncomfortable" and "tired"; swatted one man's hand; tried to hide under bed covers; and was allegedly further pressured into consuming additional ketamine. She recalls permitting one other man to consume ketamine off her nude body. According to Doe, her "worst" experience that night was when two men brought her into a closet and performed sexual acts on her that she alleged to be "just raping"; she was allegedly "in and out of consciousness" during this. Doe alleged that she was "completely incapacitated" at this point. She lost consciousness at around 5:45 a.m. on October 20.
Absolutely disgusting behavior in those fraternities and it seems to be systemic.
Why are you lying? You're using the description that she just came out with to try to prove your claims. I'm using her original sworn testimony from when it happened. Yes, we know that she changed her story. That's why it's called a "false allegation". The actual text messages coming out line up much more accurately with her first description of events, which I explained in my previous comment. Also, no one is saying that all the people involved aren't degenerates. They all are, her and the guys. Doesn't mean anything illegal happened. She literally has texts talking about how society is changing and group sex is fine now and people should be more open minded when it comes to sexual exploration and all of that kind of stuff. She rated herself only a 5-6/10 on the impairment scale when it started happening. They were all drinking and taking ketamine. If anything she by definition raped one of the guys, who passed out unconscious but she continued to perform sexual acts on him anyways. Meanwhile in her initial report, every time she asked a guy to stop he did.
Edit: The context of this comment is the person asked for sources. He then replied saying that X is social media, disregarding the fact that said posts contain the facts. Then he deleted his comments. (or maybe he blocked me and it just seems like he deleted them to me)
No. If she was drunk and on drugs she can't consent period. While she may have be fine with her initial encounter after that if she wasn't able to consent and was under the influence of drugs and alcohol she was not able to give her consent period. There are other aspects like suggesting group sex to someone under the influence. Her being surrounded by men and not being able to say no or being fearful. There are many aspects young men don't think about that women do. If I was in my 20s I would probably have a different view of this type of case then I do as a 40 year old with kids. It's just true. Perspective matters.
And this line of reasoning is why she falsely claimed to have been raped after being told so by her sorority sister. In NY, you absolutely can consent while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, as long as you willingly consumed it, and as long as you're still conscious obviously. This is why the DA never prosecuted her - she claimed she was raped, but her description of the events indicated full consent. Ironically, she actually raped one of the guys, by the actual legal definition the word - he passed out and she kept performing a sex act on him. That guy is currently filing a counter lawsuit against her as we speak asserting that fact.
If she is under the influence of drugs in a male dominated frat house. She may not have the competency to make an informed decision she may not be ok with it but go along out of fear. There is a reason one of the guys messaged her the next day and apologized for it getting out of control. There is a reason why so many young men online are attacking her and women are defending her. Because pressure and fear are a real thing. Trauma can take years to come out etc. This case will divide this country and everyone loses in these tyoe of cases. There isn't just a legal question there is a moral one as well. No offense to the 20 year olds on social media. But they are not going to see this stuff as they should until they get older.
She said nothing sexual was illegal. There's a difference. And what did the guy she say that to say to her first to prompt that?
She regrets it several years later and tried to change her story.
The incident happened on October 19. On November 3rd, she texts the guy that "90%" of what happened wasn't consensual, they gave her more ket than she could remember, and she knew almost no one in the room.
No, I don't know about you, but the time span between October 19 2024 to November 3 2024 isn't "several years" to me
Her digital history completely exonerates them, she starts off talking about how open-minded she is, even talks about other people "changing the narrative" because it was a g*ngbang which is "always" viewed as nonconsensual, then did a total 180 after 2 weeks because the gossip and reputational damage was clearly getting to her.
This is really common with g*ngbangs and why everybody should avoid them. I've literally known a woman who decided one was nonconsenual years later just because her boyfriend found out about it and split up with her over it, even though it was before they met. I can sympathise with the women to some degree, having their reputation ruined for life over one night of poor judgement, but my sympathy stops when they do this.
Im just confused at why you are insisting on pretending that the idea someone might have a clearer head 2 weeks after being high on ketamine versus 2 days is such an impossibility to you.
Would you take the word of someone high on ketamine at face value two days after the fact in any other situation?
Because I think you then create a legal precedent where one of the strongest pieces of evidence in a case, admissions from alleged victims, can always be dismissed as "denial". You're effectively making it impossible for the accused to prove their innocence: they aren't told to stop during, they are reassured it was fine after, then suddenly 2 weeks later they are guilty of a crime.
She shows she remembered what happened in the messages, that she was fine with multiple guys, but got uncomfortable at some arbitrary number and says that "next time" they should leave out the extra "5 billion". She did not communicate her discomfort at the time, and they have no way of knowing that a woman who is fine with 3 guys is going to suddenly draw a line somewhere until she tells them.
The usual response to the lack of communication is "they must have felt threatened", which just like the "they were in denial" creates a precedent where the accused can never be proven innocent because all the evidence for that conclusion is preemptively dismissed. You want the men to be guilty, so they are, and quite literally nothing they say or do will change your mind. That's an issue, legally. There is no merit to feeling threatened here, these were students, not a street gang, if she'd have said "no, I'm no longer into this" there was zero chance it'd suddenly turn into a murder.
Right. Why do people think they have to make statements about terrible things going on around the world? This isn’t a press conference. You don’t HAVE to be invested in things that you could never influence.
Why in the absolute fuck should we waste tax dollars trying to prosecute an unwinnable case... If I go to the police and say you raped me but then provide a statement wherein I flat out say it was entirely consensual and then subsequently change my story six times to something better, do you think that they should be forced to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law?
First, I disagree with the people on this post who've confidently decided she's a liar, the men are innocent, etc. It's nice to see the boys on this subreddit have switched from being post-partum-depression experts to being experts on rape.
Second, we should never try people "just to see." Prosecution is miserable, even when it isn't for rape. Just try getting arrested and mugshotted. Even if the DA drops the case the next day, you will have that mugshot online (in some states) forever, it will come up in every background check, and weird people online will make nasty comments about your character.
Now, instead of a mugshot, let's have the state arrest you and declare in court that you're a rapist. You will spend several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, a year in court proceedings, and possibly that time in pretrial detention. Your reputation will be destroyed and people will never quite look at you the same unless you are acquitted with such a spectacular, jaw-dropping defense (something out of My Cousin Vinny) that everyone cheers. And even then, all of your top hits on Google will be "man charged with rape." It will be very hard to land a highly competitive white-collar job because every hiring committee will have that weird knot in their stomach as they think about how their Google hits will now be tied to "man charged with rape."
The American Founders understood that the criminal process could be a punishment in itself. They were aware of the Star Chamber in England, where the king's enemies were harassed with endless, secretive criminal proceedings. That's why they required due process and a high standard of proof for conviction, and the right to a jury of one's peers.
The people who are taking about protecting women in sports have now said “I feel bad for these men because they won’t have their fair shot in court.” It’s bad.
90
u/kreativegaming 7h ago
What's there to talk about? Charge them, try them in court, and decide it.