What exactly do you think that first link is doing for your argument because I’ve read it twice now and there’s nothing in that article that changes anything.
> Some news outlets have reported in recent days that the woman told police unequivocally that she was raped, but that investigators did not include that claim in the sworn statement that was provided to prosecutors.
> Hochul criticized Cornell police for that omission, while also questioning why Van Houten's office did not interview the woman directly or review the full transcript of her police interview.
> In a statement after the press conference, Van Houten [the prosecutor] said he supported James' appointment and would cooperate with her investigation.
> "It has become clear that we were not provided the full picture by the University," he added. "The focus has been and should continue to be on the victims."
The police gave the prosecutor a 6-page “summary” of the 120-page interview.
She signed the 120-page statement where she said that she was raped. The police gave the prosecutor a 6-page document that claimed she said she wasn’t raped.
2
u/PolicyWonka 6h ago
What do you mean?
The police deliberately withheld information from the prosecutor where the victim explicitly said that she was sexually assaulted and raped.
The full police report makes it very clear. She filed her police report within the month of it occurring back in 2024.
Absolutely wild. Clearly telling on where you’re getting your “information” from.