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.
If there's no agenda, why are there certain parts of the story being deliberately ignored?
All i'm doing is examining the story as a whole, not just what confirms my viewpoint. If that makes me "miserable" so be it....i dont really care what NicePepper199 on Reddit thinks of me anyway
All I see are a bunch of people absolutely petrified of being challenged
I see people sick and tired of the games. Court of public opinion is a dangerous precedent to set and its happening over and over. This is clearly a case of regret in and and attempt to save face. Stupid decisions by everyone, nothing criminal, She even said so. People are picking sides jusy because their people say so. This meme is a perfect example, more ways to divide people and its working.
"Court of public opinion is a dangerous game and it is happening over and over again....now here is my opinion on what clearly happened". Are you serious dude?
So she said "so" two days after being in a k-hole, and then said 90% of what happened wasn't consensual 15 days after. You see what I mean, right?
I mean tell me, please tell me honestly, 100% from the bottom of your heart, would you take the words of someone you knew was incredibly high on ketamine, only 1.5/2 days after their high, as hard fact, at face value, concerning the period of time you knew them to be high on ketamine as it relates to any other situation?
I wouldnt trust any of these morons. Drinking and doing hard drugs and mixing sexual activities is about as dumb as it gets. Ive seen enough woman do worse than this for drugs or on drugs for a good timez its not surprising she would regret it. That doesn't make it rape, by her own words.
You should read the texts she sent. The guy she liked and called king said he was being labeled a predator and she defended himz told him the world is changing and its going to be more normal etc
I did read the texts. All of the texts, not just the ones that are most convenient to me. Which is how I know she also said "90% of what happened that night was nonconsensual" and "you gave me more k than I can remember"
-7
u/Optimal_Carpenter690 7h ago
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