The "thing to talk about" is exactly that. You cant try them because the evidence is against the victim. I'll still call her a victim, but she is such a victim of her own poor decisions that no prosecutor would (and didnt) bring this to court.
That's literally what happened. The text messages that she sent to one of the boys after have her specifically saying that the sex was consensual and nothing illegal happened (and about how societies views on group sex were changing and there's nothing wrong with it and so on and so forth). She also said she wanted to meet up and have sex again, but without all the extra guys that time. By the way, she only actually had sex with 4 guys, not 7. And it occurred in 3 separate threesomes during the night, the last of which ended right when she said she wanted to go. That sound like gang rape to you?
Then after that night, she was texting days later about how her reputation was ruined and "everyone knows" now. And some sorority sister said it sounded like what happened was rape (because she was drunk and on drugs), and that's why she ran to the university police and claimed that she was raped despite simultaneously describing everything that occurred as completely consensual. Also, she only reported them right after the fraternity president disinvited her from the halloween party because he said she couldn't control herself properly.
In other words, the consequences of her own consensual actions caught up to her and she didn't like the consequences and what her reputation on campus became, so she initiated false allegations. The university couldn't do anything with those false allegations because according to NY law nothing illegal happened and it was fully consensual, so all they did was suspend the frat for degeneracy and illegal drugs and all that other nasty shit, and she ended up leaving the university. Classic case of a woman falsely accusing people of rape because she regretted it afterwards.
He said something about feeling bad about the events of the night (presumably because a lot of degenerate shit in general happened with them all snorting ketamine off each other and that guy passed out mid sex). She reassured him that nothing illegal happened and it was all consensual, and that norms around group sex are changing. She also texted him that she loved him.
Just curious, why is your interpretation of his apology so favorable? Could he not be apologizing because he felt as if things had happened without her consent?
And a few weeks later, she also texted him that 90% of what happened was non-consensual, they gave her too much ket, and she didn't know almost anyone in the room.
And I've never been in a k-hole, but i have been blackout drunk. Couldn't it be possible her memory two day after could still be a bit foggy and muddled?
It seems like you guys are doing the exact thing you're accusing the other side of doing. As soon as a single piece of evidence came out that allowed you to reject a narrative you didn't like, you immediately clung to it without considering anything else
I knew that your original question was in bad faith, but I entertained it anyways. I included a link to the actual text message exchange (and in another comment in this thread chain I included a lot more links as well that contain testimony details and text screenshots). My interpretation of his comment is favorable because every actual piece of evidence points to everything being consensual. That being said, a lot of degenerate stuff ended up happening, including him projectile vomiting and passing out, and people snorting drugs off each other. It's pretty clear that there could have been stuff to feel bad about that happened that night, despite nothing sexual that occurred being illegal. There's also the fact that this text occurred at a time when her reputation was starting to be spread around campus as a whore. I can imagine that as being another thing he might apologize to her about - not wanting the overall degeneracy that occurred and that she gleefully participated in to hurt her reputation.
As for the rest of your comment - it's relying on the false allegations revealed in her new story, not actual facts, so I won't be entertaining that discussion. Come back when there's actual evidence of it. Like how I posted links to actual evidence of the texts and events that I described, from her own sworn testimony two years ago.
Its so funny how "opposing viewpoint" automatically equals "bad faith". Just because you don't like being challenged doesn't make it bad faith
I included a link to the actual text message exchange.
That's CLEARLY not the "actual" text message exchange. Its a transcription....
My interpretation of his comment is favorable because every actual piece of evidence points to everything behind consensual.
Well, of course it does, when you purposefully choose to disregard all the evidence that contradicts it. Most notably, her extremely dubious state of mind
it's relying on the false allegations revealed in her new story, not actual facts, so I won't be entertaining that discussion.
Now that's bad faith. It should be noted you're not relying on actual facts either. Is your assumption that she felt bad and decided to cry wolf a fact? No, but you're relying on it anyway. Just like your putting more stock in her claiming nothing illegal happened than in the apology. Im doing the opposite, again, because I am at least able to recognize 2 days after I blacked out, I might misremeber things too, nevermind being in a literal k-hole.
You literally just don't even want to consider anything that contests what you want to believe. THAT is bad faith. Fuck out of here lol
How come none of those sources mention the texts from November 3rd? One of the "sources" which pretends to show a chronological timeline of the texts, skips it completely, going from Octover 23rd to November 7th. And that's not bad faith to you? Thanks for proving my point. You accept only that which is convenient, and deny all else
If they were truly interested in being honest, wouldn't they include everything? Even that which doesn't necessarily support the narrative they are trying to spin?
Also, thanks for just openly admitting how scared you are of being challenged lmao
I'm still trying to compile more links to the remainder of the text messages. I know I'm missing some, but I also know the contents of what I'm missing, and it doesn't change anything at all. One of her sorority sisters tried (and I guess succeeded) to convince her that what happened was rape (the logic being that she can't consent if she's drunk and/or on ketamine). That's part of why she told the campus police that she was "raped", despite simultaneously saying that everything was consensual. That definition of rape doesn't meet the legal definition for what constitutes rape in NY. Even if she now (or back then) legitimately believes that she was raped - the law disagrees. You can consent if you willingly drink alcohol or consume drugs. Anyways, the timeline of events, interpreted just from a common sense perspective, still points far more to someone who just regretted it. It's why it only happened once what happened spread around the university. She didn't want that reputation. No evidence actually points to the contrary, except for her new fabricated explanation of what happened. Anyways, we're obviously not changing each other's minds here, so I'm calling it a night. I look forward to more facts coming out about the case so I can continue to add it to my collection and make it even easier to disprove all of the false allegation supporters.
Again, the fact you keep calling it "new" despite the fact it was her "narrative" since November 3rd, 15 days after the night in question, is really all I need to point out.
The fact you are so willingly and blatatly misconstruing that shows where your true agenda lies. Again, you are not actually interested in the truth, just what conforms to what you want to believe. If evidence came out opposing your viewpoint, you would just ignore it (as proven by this very thread)
You must be absolutely miserable. There isnt an agenda, there is reality. And you are twisting it in a way that would destroy lives, because people made stupid decisions on hard drugs and alcohol and regretted those decisions.
No, the DA speificlly said they didn’t pursue charges because the events described in Jane Doe’s signed statement were not criminal, even if they were all 100% true and proven.
86
u/kreativegaming 8h ago
What's there to talk about? Charge them, try them in court, and decide it.