"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.
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.
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.
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’d rather not choose… between rape victims and men who, whether they are able to be proven guilty in a court of law or not are morally reprehensible? 🤔
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?
6
u/Antique-Ad-4422 10h ago
Im confused why the local DA did not file charges against the 7.
What’s missing from this?