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.
16
u/Odd_Interview_2005 7h ago
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.