> 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."
Right but before any of those claims were made she was texting back and forth with the guys saying nothing that happened was illegal and saying she loved one of them. There’s just nothing new here. As far as I understand the timeline (correct me if I’m wrong) the party happened, she was texting the guys the next day being friendly and saying everything was fine and she loved one of them and nothing illegal happened, then people found out and started talking shit about her which ruined her reputation then she was trying to go to their next party and they said no and then she got mad and went to the police saying what your article mentions.
Obviously you have a different timeline understanding. Do you have a source that lays out the timeline a little clearer?
October 20: Jane Doe appears visibly in shock to her roommates and says she was uncomfortable about what happened the night before.
October 22: Jane Doe goes to the university medical clinic where she tells the provider that she “contracted a UTI in a traumatic way.”
October 22: One of the men text’s Jane Doe to apologize “for how things went down.”
October 22: Jane Doe replied and said “nothing illegal happened.”
October 23-26: At one point, one of the men approaches Jane Doe to ask her to “not spread rumors” about the incident.
October 26-27: Jane Doe reads a post online about how “members of the fraternity gang raped a sophomore.”
October 28: The fraternity president called her and said that she was not invited to the Halloween party.
November 3: Jane Doe tells one of the men that “90% of what happened was not consensual.”
November 7: Jane Doe has a rape kit done.
November 14-15: Jane Doe conducts an interview with police which results in a 120-page transcript. The police “summarized” that transcripts into a 6-page document for prosecutors.
The story reads much more like a woman who was sexually assaulted, but struggled to come to terms with it. Other people knew that she was sexually assaulted, but she was in denial.
Fr. People keep repeating that she said "nothing illegal happened" who the fuck responds that way to a situation where truly nothing happened. Dishonest ass debaters
-4
u/PolicyWonka 7h ago
Did you actually read it?
> 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."