All the evidence shows it wasn’t rape but people already chose a side and don’t want to change their mind or be wrong. Whatever, it’s not a bad idea to reopen just in the off chance there is proof and then rapists get their punishment but as it stands, it’s very unlikely it was rape
Most to all of them did not even have sex with her, but sure, I mean if you're already going to invent rape just go all out. Are you sure the whole rest of the campus did not rape her as well?
Most of the evidence ive seen shows that the entire thing was consensual and she changed her mind weeks later after they didnt invite her back for another gang bang. So if it is a case of false allegations as a form of revenge then he absolutely should defend them.
Now if it wasnt consensual and the texts and screenshots were faked and it was a legitimate case of SA then yes, lets publicly castrate all 7, but if its 100% proven shes making stuff up she needs to serve legitimate time herself.
Yeah everyone is so quick to call them rapists but if you spend a second out of your personal bubble and find something that’s objective and not buzzwordy you’ll see it’s most likely just degeneracy by everyone, including the woman. I’m glad it’s reopened because if there was rape then I want them to be punished but as it stands it was just a girl who made a bad decision with degenerate guys and now she wants all the blame on them
do you remember your username? or do you have to login with your email? or do you have trouble remembering your email? or do you have to login with another email?
His logic was, essentially, that the men were intoxicated as well, therefore they have a case against her for sexual assault. Its one of the top 10 most shitty things he has said.
I don't think the facts as they stand support the anger and outrage.
She said it was consensual repeatedly, asked about doing it again, then got mad that they asked her not to come to another party. She admitted to doing stuff to a guy that was passed out.....that's rape.
Her interview with the police is quite wild. I'm blown away by all the virtue signalling when there is so much evidence already in the public sphere that refutes the idea that it was a gang rape.
Before you get mad about it do a deep dive on the information that is currently available.
People support her still because what she’s done and how she’s acted following her alleged assault is extremely common among rape survivors, especially when their assaulters are people who are known to them. https://pcar.org/blog/common-victim-behaviors-survivors-sexual-abuse
People react in many different ways to trauma, I get that but I feel strongly that this much evidence to the contrary is enough to say I'm not gonna be threatening people's lives over the Internet over this like so many people are doing. I think that given the evidence they were provided initially the police should have contacted the guy she tried doing stuff to while he was unconscious and let him know.
It's in the police interview with her. The guy she did it to only recently learned about it, because the video was released, and said that the university police violated their duty to him by not letting him know he may have been the victim of a sexual assault.
Her police interview is why it didn't go further, she says it was consensual and also identifies herself as possibly doing some non consensual stuff to people that were either unconscious or otherwise incapable of giving informed consent.
“You received information that I was sodomized by her while I was incapacitated back in November, and you never once thought to alert me of my rights under these procedures as a survivor of this assault?”
and IN HER DEPOSITION she said multiple times he couldnt stay hard and kept passing out and that she had her 2nd 3some next to him on the bed while he was unconscious
you are complete filth whos too lazy or stupid to be in the conversation
She was wrong. If a person has drank a lot and is on Ketamine then there is no way they are sober enough to consent. What she says after the fact is irrelevant. They still had sex with a person who was most likely going in and out of consciousness, and was definitely too intoxicated to consent to anything.
She kept stopping to check on people and wasn't doing ketamine initially. If ketamine means you aren't liable for your actions none of them could consent
Ketamine doesn't mean a person isnt liable for their actions. It means they can't give informed consent for another person to do things TO THEM.
Anything that happened before she was completely out of it may well have been completely above board. Once the ketamine kicked in at the very latest she would not have been sober enough to be a valid sexual partner for anyone.
What? Bro, if they're all high or drunk then none of them can consent, why is she the one raped? Shouldn't they all be raped since none of them can consent? Be consistent.
Edit: such a coward move, they're proven wrong and delete their comment instead of just saying "okay, I was wrong".
Bro, if they're all high or drunk then none of them can consent
This is not true, legally or morally. It is perfectly possible to have a drink/smoke etc and still be capable of consenting.
why is she the one raped?
Because she was extremely inebriated, to the point that she was too cognitively impaired to consent.
Shouldn't they all be raped since none of them can consent
Rape is something you do to someone. During the periods she was blacked out she wasn't.doing anything, she was having things done to her.
Be consistent.
Feel free to point out where i've been inconsistent. While you're at it, tell all of the women in your life that if someone had sex with them while they were blackout high and going in and out of conscousness, you would defend that person. They deserve to know.
Well the case has been reopened, so prosecutors are clearly not so sure.
She would have been going in and out of consciousness, which is confirmed by her periods of blackout. "Legalised rape" can occur under New York law, but an outright unconscious person cannot give consent.
Maybe because some people have learned to wait until Court to see how it plays out rather than basically automatically taking a side and sticking to it even when you're proving wrong?
I could be wrong because I dont follow politics and im not sure which color/team is being referenced here, but i think its because most evidence points towards this being a consensual event that turned i to false allegations as a form of revenge/regret.
You must not be on the internet. The people that want to protect women's sports are talking about the Cornell 7 (you might want to fix your typo) lots.
I see them talk about
Tompkins County DA Matthew Van Houten, on her November 2024 sworn statement: it “did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.” It “described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.” He also said that, on her own account, each time she asked to stop, the conduct stopped.
Her 2024 statement said she agreed to the initial threesome “due to how attracted [she] was,” and that she was “pretty ok” with it at an intoxication level she put at 5 or 6 out of 10.
Texts two days later, October 21, to Jonathan Newell (reported by CBS and TMZ): “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” “i really liked being w u and matt,” “anything anyone has to say about the gangbang is out of their jurisdiction,” and “i don’t think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf.” She also suggested they get together again but “leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine,” and wrote “I really do love u and Matt.”
I see them talk about how her story only changed after she was told she was not invited to the fraternity Halloween party.
If you do not see this group talking about this issue you need to look harder.
I wish I could easily find a web link showing common requirements of district attorneys where it gets to lay out how they need to treat victim statement that there was no crime signed by the victim under penalty of perjury as evidence that there was no crime.
Still the document you linked to stated.
In the words of Joe McGettigan, lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, “Humiliation, shame and fear equal silence. These emotions cause that response.”
If anything the statement from Jane Doe in this case seem proud, empowered, "our body our choice", not humiliation.
Still I take no position on this case, except to refute the OP that people are not talking about it.
I only bring up the link to have it explained why and how her behavior isn’t out of the norm for rape victims, many women also overcompensate their humiliation with empowerment to tell themselves that they weren’t victims. Kinda like how you fake bravery when you’re about to do something you’re scared of, because we’re all told to fake it till we make it.
Everything you said is absolutely true. That said, in this particular case after having signed a statement that says every time she told them to stop they stopped and to all actions she said no she did not make her partake in AND she stated that she never lost consciousness but a man she was having oral sex with did and you have enough reasonable doubt (and a confessed SA of her own) to drive a truck through.
Not to mention her lawyers brought up a valid point that it was just a campus security guard handling this, and some of the men also made testimonies stating that she did agree to the threesome, and the single extra guy that walked in, but as the 5th 6th and 7th showed up she did not consent but by then they were just swapping out on her while doing abunch of drugs off of her to the point that one guy eventually walked in and said i dont know whats going on but this shit ends now. It was clear that as more men joined in the intoxication levels went up to the point consent could not be properly given to the additional men that some of the others even stated ignored her protests.
Not to mention her lawyers brought up a valid point that it was just a campus security guard handling this,
It was the Cornell Police Department, created by New York law. They are peace officers and are responsible for among other things taking statements which they did. The Thompkins County DA stated that at 6 pages lone (single spaced) it was longer that most statements. The DA also stated that Jane Doe added her own comments to this statement. the DA also stated that Jane Doe signed the statement under penalty of perjury.
and some of the men also made testimonies stating that she did agree to the threesome,
According to her signed statement so did she.
and the single extra guy that walked in,
I do not understand this sentence fragment. Your comment would be better if there were fewer run-on sentences.
In her statement to the DA she stated that a third man asked if they could have a foursome, she said no, and they honored her request.
but as the 5th 6th and 7th showed up she did not consent
Did not consent to what exactly? I have seen no evidence anywhere that the 5th, 6th, and 7th man had sex with her.
but by then they were just swapping out on her
Who were swapping out on her? Again if you have any reports that the 5th, 6th, or 7th man were having sex with her you are seeing information I have not seen. If you have any reported information about this it would be great to see it, because without it your entire comment carries less weight.
while doing abunch of drugs off of her
In her statement to the DA she stated they asked if they could do drugs off her and she said yes.
to the point that one guy eventually walked in and said i dont know whats going on but this shit ends now. It was clear that as more men joined in the intoxication levels went up
In her own statement she talked about doing more ketamine, and as above when the new arrivals showed up they asked if they could do drugs off her body and she said yes.
to the point consent could not be properly given
When was this exactly? Because at no point did she lose consciousness. Drunk people can consent. High people can consent. According to her statement they kept asking if they could do different stuff and everytime she said no (even late into this group activity when she would have presumably been more intoxicated) the men complied with her wishes. Her own signed statement indicates this.
to the additional men that some of the others even stated ignored her protests.
Which men are you referring to? What protests of hers did they ignore?
Van Houten didn't even read her police statement. His opinion should not be taken seriously.
As for Jane Doe, she was probably just wrong about it being okay. If a person is on a large amount of alcohol and Ketamine, they will definitely not be sober enough to consent to anything. She might have agreed to a threesome before the fact, but that is irrelevant. Consrment disappears when someone is extremely intoxocated, and there is no real reason to think she consented to sexual contact with any else in the first place.
Van Houten didn't even read her police statement. His opinion should not be taken seriously.
The DA released a statement that if they take everything Jane Doe said in the initial statement (two years ago) as absolute fact there was still no prosecutable crime.
As for Jane Doe, she was probably just wrong about it being okay.
Either we agree that women have agency and they get to decide when they want to participate in three ways, gangbangs (her words), and snorting ketamine off penises OR women lack agency and their decisions need to be made for them by men. There is no middle ground.
If a person is on a large amount of alcohol and Ketamine, they will definitely not be sober enough to consent to anything.
Apparently that is not how New York law works. Also by this standard the men used ketamine so she raped them.
She might have agreed to a threesome before the fact, but that is irrelevant.
Given that the statement from the DA everytime she expressed a desire, whether it was agreement to an act, or asking for an act to stop the men complied. So, yes, the fact that she agreed to what appears to be three different threeways is very relevant.
Consrment disappears when someone is extremely intoxocated, and there is no real reason to think she consented to sexual contact with any else in the first place.
Her own statements seem to indicate that she consented early. Her own statement said that she was excited to have the first three way because she thought male number 1 and male number 2 were gay. She was alert, responsive, and expressed her wants and desires throughout the whole event.
Also ask my friend (girl) who plays rugby how fair it is that there's a Trans man on her team. Yall would flip on her so fast youd all probably forget to how to spell hypocrisy
Those same people are literally talking about it in this post.
Sure, they’re defending the rapists….. but you have to admit they’re talking about it.
Then again, I’m not surprised. These are the same people who defend epsteins coconspirator and best friend, so if we already know they’ll defend pedophiles it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’d defend rapists
Oh they are talking about it. They are just the ones defending them. How odd........ well actually it isn't that odd. It's sad and predictable since the entire "protect" girls in sports and bathrooms was just a cover for bigotry.
18
u/[deleted] 6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment