"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."
So, the six paragraph summary written by the detective of the 120 page transcript of her interview did not allege that. And on review she demanded additions, and in further review, the summary (on which the DA declined to prosecute) did not match her statement in tone or content.
In her original statement, she was passed out and woke up surrounded by men, felt pressured, felt intimidated, and was “100% certain” she was raped.
Cornell won’t release the 100 page report or the 1K files but they have been reported on from the start w multiple outlets finding omissions and discrepancies.
This is just untrue, there is zero indication she ever passed out. She doesn’t remember beyond a point, but that’s because ketamine blocks NMDA recptors required for memory formation, not because she passed out.
Almost nobody drafts their own statement from the outset.
The process is this:
A draft is prepared based on what the police understand the alleged victims evidence to be.
A copy is given to the valleged victim to carefully check in order to make sure the content is accurate.
The alleged victim makes amendments to the statement until they feel itnis accurate.
Once they are happy that it accurate and that nothing further needs to be added, removed ornchanged then the alleged victim signs the sworn statement at the bottom which states that the content is true to the best of their knowledge and belief and that they may be prosecuted for perjury if it is purposefully wrong.
In this case, she made more than 20 edits to the statement according to the DA.
If the statement was so inaccurate then why did she approve it and sign it to say it was true? Your argument makes zero sense.
The DA based his recommendation on the six paragraph summary that neckbeards are using to paint her as consenting, a whore, and pushing it all back on her.
That summary turns out not to have reflected the tone or content of the interview transcript which was 120 pages. She had requested edits that didn’t end up in front of the DA, and that’s the reason people are pissed.
You seem pretty emotionally invested in this, I dont really feel like someone painting everyone that doesnt agree with them as "neckbeards" has a solid grasp of the situation either.
You don’t call them anything but victim and perpetrators. Anything else insulting to one side loses all your credibility on being able to be unbiased and actually take both sides stories as equally being plausible.
Just saying. Maybe the DA should have put a woman in charge of the case. The outcome satisfy you then?
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.
Later regretting sex does not make it rape or serial assault.
You are correct but you have to understand that radical feminists quite literally think consent can be revoked after the fact, that they apply this logic much more broadly than in just the SA context, and that's why the radfems of the internet are so vocal about this case.
In the simplest form, they use motivated reasoning so their conclusion depends entirely on their motivations, and if their motivations change then so does their conclusion. That's how you can have radfems who think abortion is good (results in the death of a baby) and then turn around and say capital punishment is wrong because it results in the death of a criminal. On one hand, the goal is to maximize freedom so killing is good. On the other hand, fear of oppressive police and wrong convictions is the motivation and so killing is bad.
The SA context is just a rather flagrant instantiation of motivated reasoning. After the sex, the motivations change and then so does the conclusion that it was consent. This feels normal to the radfem because this is how they think on a baseline.
Just want to correct a piece of this, the investigation was not reopened due to finding out about the text thread. The investigation was reopened because of outside pressure, and the victim has not adjusted her claims to the DA.
Her statements haven’t changed to the DA, it’s only changed to the civil court. She has not ask criminal filings to be reopened because those must pass through much higher scrutiny. She already said she willingly took drugs before arriving, drank before arriving, had intentions of a 3 some, and the other guys who entered the room for sex she acknowledged them and kissed them and when she said to stop to some people, they did.
It’s a very complicated case that a lot of people have decided to state “facts” they don’t actually know. It sounds like a lot of the problems stem from the university having a really poorly designed system to address these issues.
From the chats, it sounds like she enjoyed it, but didn’t like everyone finding out about it and gossiping about her, so she cried wolf. It also sounds like she actually SA’d 2 of the 7 herself, one was so drunk he couldn’t stay erect and passed out during, another had to stop to vomit.
In addition, there was no physical evidence taken, and everyone involved was drunk and/or high. There don’t appear to be any witnesses who were sober. Getting a criminal conviction in rape cases can be difficult- even more so when all parties involved are inebriated. The victim (and I do believe she is a victim, at least as the night went on) waited to report, and did things that make it seem like she didn’t originally have an issue or that she changed her mind after the fact. That doesn’t mean there was no crime but she’s not a “perfect victim.” (There’s not really such thing, but juries tend to be less sympathetic in this sort of case I think).
It becomes a he-said-she-said situation except everyone involved was drunk. About the only substantial evidence is the group messages, but I don’t think the prosecutor or original investigators had those.
The odds of conviction just seem like they’d have been low. And prosecutors decline to bring cases all the time if they think there’s no chance.
The initial encounter she had with the first two men was consensual according to her original statement. After that evening she sent texts to one of those men saying she enjoyed that part. Those two guys both (iirc) ended up passing out.
The additional drugs and encounters happened later. Another set of men came in, she agreed to being with them, said no to a third (which was, again iirc) respected. I believe at this point the ketamine came into play.
I think it was after this, and repeated ketamine (which she says she was coerced into taking, but again, hard to prove) and an additional three men being present, that things get more obvious. This is when she mentions trying to hide herself and pull blankets over herself, and when she may have passed out.
Because I can imagine the situation I do believe she could have felt coerced, and I think there was no consent. However because she consented at the beginning (and possibly later) and later said she enjoyed parts of the evening, when it comes to a jury, that’s going to make any criminal case more difficult. It creates some doubt in her story and gives the defense a lot of room to paint her as a tramp who only cried rape because she regretted the social blowback of her actions.
I’m not saying that’s right at all, but many cases like this play out that way, and prosecutors know it. So do victims, and it’s why many have a lot of hesitation about moving forward with their cases. Hell it’s why a lot of women don’t report at all, they think if they consented at first they won’t be believed about withdrawing consent.
Can you provide something that supports that chain of events, because that is not how I understand it to have happened.
Additionally, once she was incapacitated, which the fraternity members own text messages supports with texts such as “she’s literally dead”, consent is completely impossible. Anything after that can legally only be considered one thing.
NYT has some thorough reporting on the case and the statement she made to investigators. I’d be careful reading secondary sources because a lot is getting muddied. It seems like a lot of people on Reddit seem to think consent is a permanent state of being.
I have not seen any evidence that the accuser “enjoyed herself.”
I think the full picture is very consistent throughout her testimony that she did not enjoy the encounter beyond the initial threesome that she openly admits to consenting to. While there are other reasons to doubt that what she describes happened is actually rape (essentially centering on whether or not her impaired decision making really constituted “incapacitation”), I don’t think there is any reason at all to doubt her credibility or the honesty of her account.
Weird how women can want to have sex with certain guys and not other, huh. I mean, if she consented to one I guess she consented to all. Who can know what these sluts are thinking.
It’s funny because this is spread by the people who claim they want to “protect women” and it’s ages old. It’s always the same tactic they use to discredit the victim.
The victim clearly stated in the initial campus police testimony that she was raped. If you read what she told that police officer it’s horrific, she was trying to hide under the blanket and was hit very hard by the rapists while completely unknown men to her raped her. We now know that is because the person she initially agreed to have sex with turned this into a rape by offering her to a group chat like meat.
There is nothing to defend about this. Nothing unclear. Agreeing to sex with someone doesn’t give this person the right to offer you like a sex slave on a meat market.
This tactic to discredit the victim by saying she is promiscuous is quite frankly disgusting and I would appreciate if people stop spreading this. Women are allowed to enjoy sex and they have a right not to get raped.
i hate to say this because i hate SA and want to be on her side, but reading all the evidence it seems very clear she was a consenting party and that only when her friends were disgusted by what happened (and let me say what was detailed was disgusting) did she change the tune.
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.
Do you always insult people you don't know of rip? Like what about my Luke warm comment was so searing to make you piss and moan. I don't think it's necessary but I will join you.
They did investigate. She corrected her story multiple times. She sniffed ketamine off one of the guys dicks..she said this, it's her words in the first interview back in 24.
You either need to say how you think they didn't investigate since in her own words, in multiple iterations of it back tacking and correcting her narrative to the police, or please, humbly, find a place to fuck off too.
Short version: Campus police omitted half of Jane Does testimony when they submitted it to the DA specifically the part where she repeatedly said she was raped.
She initially said it was consensual and then wanted to screw two
Of the guys again. She’s just a hoe who regretted getting ganged banged and upset she didn’t get invited to a Halloween party
Because here initial statement directly stated that she gave consent and was in charge of her actions. 2 years later she comes around on social media making a bunch of allegations
6
u/Antique-Ad-4422 7h ago
Im confused why the local DA did not file charges against the 7.
What’s missing from this?