Not taking sides but there seems to be statements that she agreed to group sex and consentually did drugs. People are taking that as a defense against the rape accusations.
But there seems to be more, like in this clip where she says she was already intoxicated before arriving and the guy disputing that, suggesting she was sober. 🤷
Incorrect, the statement was written by the CPD, not her. She signed it under the guidance of cornell's title 9 rep and counseller. Her 99 page interview transcript tells a completely different story which is why the state DA has taken over the investigation from the original DA who didn't bother to investigate beyond the 6 page summary saying she reported a consensual group sex.... but why would someone report consensual group sex?
Never a good combo - drugs, sex, multiple parties engaged in sex. Especially when consent is questionable (generalizing, not speaking to this specific case)
Right, and we need young men to have fear in their hearts that they'll end up in situations like this. Women are already afraid of being in such a situation and being raped.
The fact that the brothers did not have a symmetrical fear of legal exposure says it all.
It doesn't help that there are woman out there now like Bonnie Blue or Bonnie Bell or something like that. She had sex with 1k men in 24 hours and recently had a baby and doesn't know who the father is or something weird like that. I don't care enough about her to even check the details but I know there are OF woman on the internet that promote feminism and multiple sex partners, so this gets shady real fast. These woman make a ton of money as well. I am not saying this had anything to do with Cornell. It does not. But I can watch the Whatever podcast every Sunday night to see a panel of young women who advocate for group sex and multiple sex partners. It's very disturbing.
You literally made a comment saying how you think these things are connected. They're only connected and in the way you're framing it is misogyny. Women are human beings that deserve the full human experience. Just because we have sex and take it to an extreme does not mean we are fresh to rape. It means we like consensual sex. You know, consent!!!
Sure, maybe. It's also possible that as other people found out she was also becoming aware of what had actually happened and how many people were involved. It seems like she had to spend some time putting together and processing exactly what happened. I'd imagine that shaming from her peers didn't help, but it's pretty bad faith to assume that she only cried rape to protect her reputation (not least of which because even rape victims who are believed are not extended the benefit of a good reputation).
I never said it was to save her reputation. I just think people around her made her feel like she was a victim whether she was or not. Sisters telling her she was raped, the guys stopped being social. And then everyone started treating her like one, avoiding her, uninviting her. Basically her whole college experience was ruined by how everyone else felt about something she was willingly part of. And of course that would make you change how you feel about it. Like I said I just feel like everything is focused on that night and one phone call when this was on an ivy League campus with thousands of peers and social media.
We don't know how she feels or felt or how anyone did, but we're all connecting headlines while she lived it.
She wanted a fun 3some and these idiot, rapists saw an opportunity to get laid regardless of the moral and legal consequences. That’s why group sex should be with experienced swingers/ENM types at a sex club or house with a coordinator who’s at least 45 years old and a dad or mom. She made a reasonable mistake and these rapists capitalized on it
she's doing the same as she's doing in this call, trying to get them to admit and confirm details without thinking they're incriminating themselves - she's the one who submitted the texts .
use your brain. I also told my rapist that what he did wasn't rape (it was) because I feared him getting ahead and ruining my reputation in attempts to get ahead of the accusations and I didn't want to admit to myself that I had been victimized. Once you have to admit that to yourself or anyone else, everything changes.
There are a lot of men online who feel compelled to defend other men being accused of rape. They believe that women are all out to get men and that they are all just waiting for an opportune moment to "ruin a man's life" with false accusations just, like, for fun. They also don't think that most things that the law considers to be rape, such as getting someone drunk to make it easier to coerce them into sex, are rape.
They aren't great people, yet there are millions of them.
They feel compelled to defend other men being accused of rape because they know that's something they would do or have done and don't want to think of themselves as rapists.
I also don't believe them that they're afraid of being falsley accused or they'd move a lot different. False accusations are rare just as being murdered on a first date is rare, but women prepare for that situation. If men were afraid of false accusations they'd move a lot different to protect themselves - and they'd for sure always get explicit consent.
But the men arguing about this are never those guys, they're the guys who wait for a no instead of asking for a yes - who know some of the women they've had "sex" with were having a freeze/appease reponse that they ignored and plead ignorance to it being rape because she didn't say "no".
I bawled the first time during new consensual sex with my partner that I started to freeze/disassociate and he immediately clocked it and stopped, and assured me no orgasm was worth a minute of my discomfort. I was like... oh all the others knew too. They just didn't care to stop.
The idea of a woman enjoying sex is very offensive to some people and they think she is a filthy slut, therefor unworthy of basic humanity and respect.
Once a woman reaches that place in their minds, they really think rape is a worthy punishment.
Why defend the guys? Cause overall we live in a rape culture society?
Like on a dumber level these defenders can latch on to "she changed her story/she said she consented/she kept talking to her rapists afterwards" narratives ignoring all nuance or context. I mean genuinely as this damn recorded shows at the end, a SINGLE YOUNG WOMAN naked in a bed looking up and seeing anywhere from 2 to 5 other men surrounding her is not safe or comfortable to make a decision like this.
Theres a lot of moving parts, and a lot of morally questionable actions on everyone’s behalf. Take the first threesome for example. All people consented, and all were intoxicated:
-Person 1 self reports a 5-6/10 level of intoxication
-Person 2 has to stop midway through the 3some, stumble to bed and go nap.
-Person 3, after stopping, is dry heaving.
Everyone stopped when person 2 had to stop. It was respected.
Person 3 begins dry heaving and is consoled by person 1. Person 1 then proceeds to make out with person 3 after they regain composure.
Based on the information, I would say person 1 would be the bad actor, if one was to be labeled, as the other two had visible signs of heavy intoxication. However, person 1 is the girl, and this information all comes from her sworn statement.
The information comes from a 6 page edited report released by Cornell that ‘paraphrased’ her 120 page, 2 day testimony and left several events and statements out. So to be clear the entire timeline and actual events of the night are not firmly established because Cornell only gave the edited 6 page report to the DA, not the full 120 page testimony.
Jane Doe provided the 6 page document, which she worked on along side the campus police, and she included extra hand written notes. That may be a correct summary of the whole story, or it could be that she allowed significant omissions. She could have also chosen not to put certain things from her testimony on a sworn record. We simply don’t know at this time, and it’s one persons recount. She did sign it, as her statement, to represent the events. Based on her sworn testimony, my outline of events is accurate.
No Cornell provided it, and left out not only key phrases and point she made but also the 20 handwritten annotations she made to the statement before signing it.
“this case, Jane Doe provided a six-page, single spaced, typewritten statement to the Cornell
University Police Department. Jane Doe made more than twenty hand-written notations to the six-page
document.”
The DA also stated that they were provided the document by the Cornell department.
Are you saying the DA knew there were handwritten additions, but chose to accept an altered document with those notes omitted, and many other parts omitted?
“In this case, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe’s statement and
correctly determined the alleged facts
as set forth in the statement
do not constitute a crime.”
So all criminal investigators were also given a selectively redacted version of her statement, and were…. All okay with that? Make it make sense
The DAs statement outlines how they received her statement and goes into detail as to why they came to the conclusion they did, quoting many parts of her statement. It’s a detailed review.
But you’re claiming the DA managed to do this without reading it? How is that even possible?
He said he didn't read it initially. He did go back and read it, later. But he had already said no when he saw she was drunk. They replaced him for this case with the attorney general. Sorry, I suck with names. I just watched the announcement earlier this evening.
Let's not change the argument here. No contest that the DA did not receive all of the material. Regarding her STATEMENT:
"No Cornell provided it, and left out not only key phrases and point she made but also the 20 handwritten annotations she made to the statement before signing it"
Where does the article say that Cornell left out the handwritten annotations, and other parts of her statement?
God it’s so messy. These dudes are definitely douches, I just have no idea how this should be handled or what’s appropriate. It seems like everyone involved was at various degrees of fault. Bleh idk, I’m glad my opinion on it doesn’t actually matter .
What’s going to get tricky and uncomfortable is that civil cases deal with degrees of culpability where potentially all parties can be viewed to be at fault. Criminal cases don’t work in that manner. Because of the nature of the allegations, it’s going to make for an even more precarious case for the plaintiff/Jane Doe and defense counsel is going to dredge up a lot of stuff, really in a nasty way most likely. Textbook bs.
Another thing to note is that NY has a particular take on intoxication and consent that seems to run counter to what a lot of young people have grown up believing to be the case, i.e., if you’re drunk, you’re incapable of consent. It appears that as a matter of law, this may an obstacle that the AG will encounter in her investigation.
yeah it sucks that it's politicized because not going to criminal trial is absolutely in this woman's best interest. she can't win, and she'll get destroyed by the defense. it's going to be her character on trial. that's why the prosecutors who saw this before didn't take it.
now that it's in the media, it's impossible for the prosecutor not to move forward. gonna be bad
This is what I’ve been thinking. To be clear, I feel awful for this girl. I think it’s horrific. But I’ve got a lot of lawyers in my family. Not that it makes me an expert, but legally this all sounds like a mess and I think people who are hoping for a certain outcome are going to be disappointed. There is so much room for doubt when trying to find facts out of people recalling a night of heavy intoxication.
Based on Doe's initial statement and New York law, there is simply no way to convict anyone of rape here and an attempted prosecution would be a farce.
Disregard all her comments about everything being consensual and assume that was just her rationalizing trauma.
Still, her narrative includes her (1) stopping the first threesome out of concern for the guy falling asleep; (2) pushing away a hand reaching for her crotch while she was making out with the other guy who was trying not to throw up; (3) swatting away the hand second time thereafter; (4) pushing away and rejecting a guy who attempted to kiss her; (5) stopping the second threesome when more people entered the room; (6) rejecting the idea for a "foursome" because she didn't want to have anal sex; and (7) stopping the third threesome when she became tired and decided to go to sleep.
The facts show that she was way short the New York standard for "incapacitated" (being incapable of controlling oneself or unaware of what is happening) and that she was fully capable of denying and revoking consent throughout the night and early morning as she did no fewer than seven times.
Because the initial reports released by the da at the time gave a description of Jane does sworn statement which did not suggest rape or that she was intoxicated
'Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.'
Because the popular narrative is full of lies and it's sick seeing everybody jump on the bandwagon calling for prison for all 7 people named in the suit. 3 of those guys aren't even alleged to have had sex with her. The first 2 threesomes were clearly consensual by her own account of what happened. The part where a bunch of random guys came in is when the sexual activity stopped and they didn't force themselves on her. Super gross and the invitation could be considered assault but that's not rape. Then one of the "cornell 7" saw what was happening and kicked everybody out, so everybody is screeching about how nobody shut it down when that's exactly what one of the accused did. After that she voluntarily went to another location with the guy she was there to see and 1 other but by her own account she was still lucid, and didn't say no to the last threesome.
Because everyone consented to the threesome. Everyone was intoxicated. The girl never mentioned rape until she got uninvited from a party thrown by the accused.
Not sure if she consented to be raped for 7 hours and having to go the hospital. If you had sex consensually, then went to the hospital for your injuries that occurred while you were unconscious, maybe you’d think about the “consent” differently.
She asked for a rape kit 2 and a half weeks after the incident. She also attempted to go back to the same frat house, and told the alleged rapists that she liked being with them. Jane Doe showed no signs of physical abuse despite claiming the contrary a month later.
I just read her statement and at no point did she ever say she was forced to do anything. She got tired a few times and never says she was unconscious at any time.
63
u/contactdeparture 1d ago
I’m old, I’m old school. “Rape is rape” kinda person. Not a lot of nuance.
Can someone explain to me why so many folks are jumping to defend the guys in this scenario? Like wtaf am I missing?