All Activity

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are. And why I don’t see your pursuit of truth as that objective since you are apparently relying on your gut to speculate about what a woman might do in her situation rather than research actual women’s reactions under threat. Going from memory…it’s 70% of women who experience toxic immobility in trauma, which includes sexual assault. Count me as one of them. Fight, flight, or fawning…. Ensuring they do not anger the person confronting or assaulting them, hoping that will more likely let them get out alive, pretending it’s not even happening to them as in disassociation…not every woman will go to “help me” or “scream bloody murder” and go for the eyes or crotch in an uncertain situation. In fact, we have to often be trained to do so and are told to practice, practice, practice. I hadn’t had any self defense classes by that point and we didn’t train when I did either. I like the more modern ones much better where women don’t just visualize or model, but actually get to hit a very wel protected aggressor. And this downplaying, denial, disassociation, etc can be extended long after the assault or trauma: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11705429/ As would typically happen in cases where it was consensual and in cases where it wasn’t, but the victim is in shock and/or denial or doubling down on fawning. I understand such behaviours are common enough in assault and trauma cases they are listed in the DSM 5 under PTSD and ASD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/box/part1_ch3.box16/

I believe the phrase is assuming facts not in evidence…at least on TV it is, lol. If you want to find the truth, only deal with the facts dispassionately, shouldn’t you determine if she was the one who used the phone before pooh-poohing any speculation? Didn’t you just say as much? There is of course the option she was in full control of her body, her mind, and her phone even though she had consumed a large amount of alcohol earlier and continued to do so and as I just googled, drunkenness peaks around 1 to 1.5 hours after consumption and can last from 2 to 6 hours…don’t know it this is average for men and women, as I understand women are more susceptible due to size. Google states she was likely drunk for at least 9-10 hours, having started with six shots of vodka at her sorority house, continuing at 2 bars until 10:30 pm when she went to the frat house. Campus police has her self reporting as 5 out of 10 drunk…as if self reporting when drunk would be accurate. It would appear she was familiar with alcohol, but this incident had her drinking excessively for her as well as lacking experience with the drugs, ketamine and marijuana. I don’t think I could have accurately judged how intoxicated I was with either ketamine or cannabis the first time I used either. In fact I know I couldn’t with cannabis because I described my experience to a doctor at an opiate class saying it didn’t do much for me and his eyes opened up and he said I was much more under than I thought and was likely close to having my breathing shut down (due to other medications I was taking). Fun times. But let’s assume even with the amount of alcohol she had partaken over time, she hadn’t consumed enough nor did the addition of more intoxicants push her past her actual limit and she was exaggerating her intoxication level when taking to campus police. If she did have enough presence of mind to realize she was being assaulted, maybe she had enough presence of mind to realize it could turn ugly fast if the men became aware she was alerting someone to the rape. It’s not uncommon for women to have been killed to cover up an assault. So she didn’t even if she had a free moment. Its really odd you seem to think if men were actually raping her, they wouldn’t be paying attention to what she was doing to make sure any text she sent was harmless for them. Or that they wouldn’t tell her to answer the text so as to not alert anyone to come look for her, etc. But perhaps they, unlike her, were actually too intoxicated to take in their surroundings and there were no issues with her texting because they were just laying around consensually having sex, while she checked her phone for messages (ouch, doesn’t bode well for their dignity). Talking about the guys who said they were group taking drugs and making out with her with her awareness and permission, not just the two she had (idiotically imo) initially agreed to or the one(s) that deny any involvement. Apparently one of the first guys (speaking for both) stated in a text message he and the other were too intoxicated to stop other guys from entering the room and joining the fun which led to it getting “way out of hand”. Seems odd he would see it as way out of hand, but she would see it as consensual. Out of hand generally means out of control. Out of control implies lack of consent because it is not what is expected and no one is controlling it so consent can be properly gotten. Hmmm….Maybe he was just a lot more drunk than she and thus it was distorted for him. Not saying any of this is what happened. I am passionately and subjectively exploring possibilities…all of them, not just one side. Could keep going with other ideas, need to post this before it gets blocked for too long since verified. PS: not commenting on lawyer stuff because not a lawyer or lawyer adjacent, unlike the psychological stuff…have some training and experience there in psychology (not massive of course unlike others on this list including MustardSeed, the professional) and some minor, very minor experience about how women think….including personal experience being under assault (not rape, restriction as he backed off when I blame my dad for not allowing me to date him…and guess what, I didn’t call out even though there was a police station likely within shouting range, not did I mention it to anyone or called it an assault until years later nor was I anything but my usual friendly self when I saw him in class the next day…and the rest of the year, so embarrassed and humiliated by it, didn’t think I had anything to feel victimized about as he didn’t hurt me and I had willing gone on one date with him).

Then why are you doing it here instead of some criminal or law website where people are more familiar with such things? It appears our comments are not that insightful in regards to finding the truth of what happened. No one here has any personal connection or ability to question those involved in the investigation, etc. I hung out in Websleuths while as I trying to ascertain the truth of the Daybell missing kids. Got a lot of good info there. Also the freedom forums as there were people much more familiar with the circumstances. I shared info here because I thought people would be interested, but I don’t think I expected to get any significant tidbits of truth to determine the facts of the crime, if there was one, here. That would have been unexpected even though there was a much closer connection with the Daybells here than there is connection with the Cornell case. This is a religious themed message board. Also things related to the LDS faith and culture. Cornell case facts is very off topic. Now if you want to discuss the moral implications, that is relevant to a religious setting…but that’s neither objective or dispassionate conversation.

That's all right. You are incorrect. I don't "enjoy" discussing this topic at all. It is altogether unpleasant. It is, however, important. The American judicial system relies heavily on an adversarial process, in which allegations are presented by an self-interested party (the plaintiff) and are responded to by the self-interested party who is subject of those allegations (the defendant). It is the job of advocates on both sides to collect evidence, examine it, and present it to a factfinder (the judge or jury). The plaintiff's narrative is vetted by the defendant's efforts, and vice versa. In the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened. It's not about "for the sport of it" at all. Not for me. It's about getting to the truth. Allegations of sexual assault are very serious, and ought to be treated as such. They should also be carefully and dispassionately examined. Thanks, -Smac

I’m sorry Smac I find it very difficult to engage with you. I suspect you just enjoy debate for the sport of it and I don’t want to participate in that anymore. peace

She had enough presence of mind to send a context-appropriate response to her roommate while she was being sexually assaulted, but she did not have enough presence of mind to mention the then-ongoing sexual assault? And the frat guys who were allegedly were sexually assaulting her saw her receiving and sending text messages during a sexual assault, and did nothing about it? They used force to facilitate the sexual assault (see paragraph 173), but they did not use force to keep her cell phone away from her during the sexual assault? Yes, that could have happened. Could it also be that she sent the text during a consensual encounter (that is, again, how she characterized her multiple threesomes in her 2024 statement)? Yes. If a woman is being sexually assaulted, and if she has an opportunity to contact a friend and alert the friend of what is happening, wouldn't it seem likely that she would make use of that opportunity? I agree. It is also possible that she received the text message and sent a response without having been prompted or coerced. Again, her 2024 statement gives no indication that the sexual contact was nonconsensual. And she did not mention any of this stuff about texts between her and her roommate. Not in 2024. Not in 2026. Thanks, -Smac

It’s relatively easy to flash a phone in front of someone’s face or grab their finger for Touch ID. I agree. That's why I presented this "alternative explanation." We don't know if her phone was locked, but I think it is reasonable to provisionally assume that it was. We don't know if her phone's security feature was based on fingerprint or face recognition (as opposed to a passcode or pattern code). I don't think it is reasonable to make a provisional assumption either way at this point. We don't know why Jane Doe's lawyer did not include any reference to this text message. The options for assumptions are likely A) Jane Doe will say she did not remember sending this text, or that B) she did not send it (implying someone else, one of the frat guys, did). Despite our not knowing these things, I think this development is significant. I do. I think it is potentially a huge issue in terms of maintaining Jane Doe's narrative and timeline. Jane Doe did not present this text exchange with her roommate, or reference it at all, in her civil complaint, either as a factual allegation or as a defense/explanation. The judge will want to know why. The jury will want to know why. The attorneys will want to know why. What the roommate will say will be important. Technical examination of the phone will be important. If she no longer has the phone, that will be important. And so on. If this issue develops at all, it seems far more likely to cut against her credibility than bolster it. Jane Doe will have to present an explanation as to why she did not mention the text exchange in 2024 or 2026, as she did with so many other details. The factual allegations in her civil complaint start on page 23, numbered paragraph 132. She includes all sorts of small but specific details of that night, such as the brand of vodka she drank at the sorority house that night (para. 136), that she then took an Uber to a bar, got an "X" stamped on both hands, but she had "at least one" drink there (para. 137-138), that around 10:00 p.m. she went to another bar, but an "under 21 wristband" (para. 141-142), that by this point "she had consumed about 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours" (para. 144), that she then went to the frat house, that Ingalls greeted her and gave her a beer and they then danced (para. 145-147), and so on. More details about where she went, with whom, who did what, who was sitting where, who brought out the Ketamine, the commencement of the sexual behavior and details about it, and so on. All sorts of minutiae about that night, but no mention whatsoever of her having received a text message, and of her having responded to it, right in the middle of the alleged sexual assault. That seems like a significant omission, a significant gap in the factual narrative. Similarly, Jane Doe's not-very-compatible-with-the-2026-civil-complaint written statement from 2024 is likewise replete with lots of specific details prior to and during the sexual behavior, but she didn't mention the text exchange with her roommate there, either. Nowhere, in either of these fairly extensive accounts, does Jane Doe recount anything about her or someone else using her cell phone to send a context-appropriate text message to her roommate at 3:05 a.m., or that anyone else did, or that her roommate never mentioned this text message to her (even after she filed a complaint in 2024 and before or after she filed a civil suit in 2026), or that she (Jane Doe) was aware or not aware of the text message on her phone. Now, is it possible that A) Jane Doe's phone had a face or fingerprint style security feature, and B) was across the room, such that she could not reach it, and that C) one of the frat guys, despite apparently being in an alcohol-and-ketamine-induced stupor, immediately noticed at 3:05 a.m. that a text had come in on Jane Doe's, then D) this guy still had the presence of mind to think something like "Hey, someone may be texting her to check on her, so we need to head that off," and also figured out that the phone needed to be unlocked via fingerprint or face scan, and on that basis he E) picked up the phone, and F) walked it over to Jane Doe, and G) held the phone in front of Jane Doe's face or touched her finger to the screen to unlock the phone, and G) opened up the text messaging app and read the text message ("You coming home {tonight})?"), and H) typed in an innocuous response ("idk") and sent it, and I) accomplished items (C) through (H) within a few minutes of 3:05 a.m. (there is no intervening timestamp between the roommate's text message and the "idk" response to it), and I) Jane Doe had absolutely no recollection whatsoever about the frat guy using her phone (despite having ample supposed recollections of all sorts of other details as to what was going on in that room), which is J) why she never mentioned any of this stuff in either her 2024 statement or to her attorney in 2026, and/or why he did not include any reference to it in the civil complaint? Yes, it's possible. Is there any evidence of this sequence of events? So far, no. Is it possible that Jane Doe sent the text? Yes. Is it likely that she did so while being sexually assaulted? IMO, No. Is it possible that she did so while participating in consensual sexual behavior (which is how she characterized that behavior in her 2024 statement)? Yes. Assuming the civil suit proceeds, the roommate is almost certainly going to be deposed. There are a lot of assumptions built in to that assessment. Far fewer, I think, than the alternative, which - applying Occam's Razor - would make it more likely that the phone was not "on the other side of the room," that Jane Doe noticed the text come in, unlocked her phone, and sent a brief response to it, which response gave no indication that she was being sexually assaulted. I think the accused frat guys and their lawyers are finding this development to be really significant. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are already preparing deposition questions for the roommate, subpoenas for Jane Doe's phone, and research and arguments about spoliation of evidence (in case the phone is not available). Thanks, -Smac

Candles didn't do anything. I could tell there was a candle through the hat but the natural lighting was brighter and the candle just made a yellow glow on the hat. Sorry, I misremembered. The statements were about how Joseph found the seer stone to be easier to use vs the interpreters. And I inferred that interpreters were for behind the curtain and the seer stone was in the hat. It does point to the fact that he didn't use a lens to see better in the hat if he preferred to use a opaque stone vs a potentially magnifying lens. This sounds very similar to the arguments that Joseph never used the stone in the hat process. That instead, he always used a blanket and always had the plates in front of him and only used the interpreters. The problem I have with that argument is why would he ever perform the stone in the hat stunt. He's got a great thing going. He is doing everything behind a curtain, he is warning people from looking behind the curtain, he can comfortably do his trick. And then every now and then he decides to show off his translation power with a stone in the hat? Huh? That makes no sense to me. He is willing to mess up so badly that people would catch on to him for a stunt? And why would the watchers even accept that stunt? It is nothing like how he supposedly translates, since he doesn't have the plates in front of him and he isn't using the interpreters. This argument feels like an attempt to force Joseph to use a blanket instead of accepting the evidence we have. Additionally, why did Joseph use the stone in the hat with Martin and Emma? With both of them, there is no one present. If he is already using the blanket mechanism, why would he occasionally use the stone in the hat when he is in a private situation? And Emma says it was just her and him for multiple hours for multiple days with his head in the hat. I find it interesting you mentioned memorizing Isaiah. I've heard that but don't understand why Isaiah is always brought up like that. If he was making up the Book of Mormon, then he either wrote it out himself and so he could have memorized any section of it or he was making it up on the fly so no need for memorization. In fact, it would be simpler to do the stunt on parts of the Book of Mormon that aren't Isaiah since there is no way he could mess up as it was his own invention. And it was 1/3 of the Book of Mormon at Fayette. Alma to Moroni is 323 pages. 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon is 145 pages. Oliver and Joseph were in Harmony from April 6 to about June 1 (54 days) and they were finished around July 1 (~30 days). And for me, the blanket and death penalties actually make a lot of sense if it was real. So I don't find the existence of those 2 things as much factor on whether or not Joseph invented it. If we are talking about how the translation occurred, they are way too early in the process to tell us much. They would only know about the very beginning of the translation. They would know nothing about Oliver or Fayette. If we are talking about the contents of the Book of Mormon, I've said this to you before, but I find them way to late in the process to be a factor. So, in one situation, they are too early. In another situation, they are too late.

Are you suggesting this is the only other response here besides your own and any similar ones? I am curious as to how you are seeing the entirety of the conversation, because you present the discussion framework mostly as two sided, the above and your more dispassionate examination of the facts.

Most of the time I can see others’ POV, even the times I don’t think it’s reasonable. But not seeing it at all here. You defined “subversion” as destroying and he said he wasn’t destroying. How is that not lying in your view?

The dismissiveness of the alleged victim’s claims even though her behaviour is consistent with actual victims’ behaviour, the justification of the men’s behaviour, the insistence of giving the men the benefit of the doubt for the sake of justice, innocent until proven guilty, etc while making their case by doubting the woman, the emphasis on how it will ruin these men’s lives while ignoring how even making the claim can ruin hers, and so on. Just to be clear, I don’t think you are wrong in your list of problematic aspects where those are actually happening. I just think your list is only seeing half of the picture.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing is inherently lying.

I think it is good that we are taking allegations of sexual assault seriously. I think there are aspects of reactions that are problematic: the rush to judgment, the mobocratic rage, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the vitriolic responses to suggestions that we dispassionately and fairly review the evidence, and so on. I don't think anyone is "defending" the accusers. The sexual licentiousness and behavior was deplorable. That said, one of the accused, Matthew Ingalls, has an apparently contemporary charge against Jane Doe: ‘Cornell 7’ frat bro claimed accuser ‘sodomized’ him and that school didn’t care he was sex-assault ‘survivor:’ report Jane Doe makes a claim of sexual assault, and is presumptively believed, and any other response (such as a proposal to set aside emotionalisms and rage and dispassionately examine the evidence) is shouted down as "enabling" rapists and rape culture. Mr. Ingalls makes a claim of sexual assault, and is ignored and/or presumed to be lying. I am troubled by the inverted and contradictory assumptions that seem to be in play. I am sorry you have been distressed. I'm not sure why you would participate in a conversation that is causing such distress. In any event, I and going to respectfully decline what I see to be an implied request, namely, to not ask any questions or express any concern about the facts of this case. I think we can and should have difficult discussions, as this is a discussion board. Thanks, -Smac

It’s relatively easy to flash a phone in front of someone’s face or grab their finger for Touch ID. Unless her phone is only password protected, I don’t see this as an issue. I have taken my husband’s phone and held it up in front of his face with him glimpsing it and it opened when he was too preoccupied to find something on it himself. Once it was even to send a text to our daughter. I did not have my phone with me. Eyes just need to be opened I believe and possibly focused on the screen, possible even with a semiconscious person if one waves the phone around as eyes will likely track it unless completely spaced. Many a crime show has fingers or thumbs cut off for this purpose or forensic scientists even ‘wearing’ the dead guy’s skin to open the victim’s phone to save the tech guys work. With a living body, even if passed out, seems like a no brainer. I can also see someone shoving a phone at her and telling her to respond “I don’t know”. Not sure how much conscious, focused brain power that would take with how often most people are messaging. I think there are quite a few possibilities once it is established her phone isn’t password protected added: or attention required for Face ID. If it is either of those, at that point, seems it would have to be not incapacitated, but coerced. Whether that could fit the timeline or not, I don’t know. Added: I change my mind, I just opened my phone with my eyes closed (after swiping up with eyes closed, I turned it to face away from my face, though I could see the screen at a sharp angle). She could be incapacitated if she didn’t have the ‘requires attention’ option or didn’t have it activated. I don’t know the legal requirements, but just because she might be able to process and respond to a simple text, does that mean she’s not impaired enough to not be able to give consent. “idk” is not evidence of higher level brain power in my book. People drive cars heavily impaired after all. My mother under the influence of Ambien walked into my brother and his wife’s room after everyone had gone to bed and sat at the foot of the bed, talking to them. They thought it odd due to the timing, she had never done it before and the conversation wasn’t urgent, even if coherent and reasonable (think it was about the next day, but it has been a couple of decades, so not sure). They, however, knew immediately she was out of her mind when while talking, she started to take off her clothes. Quickly stopped her and took her back to bed. She did not remember in the morning. I don’t know if Ketamine could have the same sort of effect. The three times I was under it, I don’t think I was witty in my speech, though the second time I might have been more complicated as I complained it wasn’t working like it had. I might have been able to read and text that time as I was surely, painfully bored and spent time looking around, but since no reading material, who knows. The therapist just checked on us briefly unless something went wrong, at the desk I believe the rest of her time. It was one of the reasons I became dissatisfied with it and didn’t urge my daughter to continue as the most benefit comes (from the research I have read) through talking with the therapist at least during the latter part of the experience. But you can’t line people up in multiple recliners in a small room with one therapist supervising 5 or so clients if you go that route (no complaints about the therapist, loved her, she didn’t stick around very long, they lost most associated with the clinic originally once they got taken over by a franchise). The third time I had a nasty hellish trip and I remember coming out of it and hearing her repeat where I was, I was safe, she was there with me, etc and I responded back “this isn’t good, this isn’t good, this isn’t good….” once and “I don’t like this” another and “thank you for staying here” when it started to finally lift a bit before getting sucked back in each time, so I may have been semi coherent for a few minutes but overall incapacitated big time. First time was a very lovely, very colorful gentle roller coaster ride, remember a brief check, not sure how I responded. Anyway…it is possible she had brief moments of coherency enough to respond to a text, especially if someone prompted her if her ketamine experience was anything like mine were at times. Which is a stretch given mine was medical and hers recreational and combined with alcohol.

I think it’s more “the most consistent with the rest of his comments and behaviour, past and present, interpretation” and “the cherry picking, taken out of context interpretation” myself to be blunt.

Immediately before the disputed "sweet spot" statement, Dan describes having both supporters and detractors across the religious spectrum. He then explains that he is putting data out there and that people will interpret it in different ways. That context supports a reading in which he sees his role as providing evidence without dictating what conclusions people must draw from it. But smac is not unreasonable to focus on the words "doing something right." Those words express a favorable assessment of his position. The question in my mind, however, is what he (Dan) thinks he's doing right. There are at least two plausible interpretations: - The charitable interpretation: He's doing something right because he is presenting evidence consistently, without tailoring his conclusions to satisfy either religious believers or skeptics. - The critical interpretation: He's doing something right because his work supplies arguments that help people justify either maintaining or abandoning religious faith, and he considers both outcomes desirable. I don't think the quote alone can definitively establish which interpretation he intended. His accompanying explanation about presenting data and allowing people to interpret it supports the first, although it doesn't completely eliminate the second.

Not to me. But reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

When you accuse him of being subversive about faith, etc over and over again and post a definition of “tending or intending to subvert, overthrow, destroy, or undermine an establishedsystem, government, authority, institution, or set of beliefs"” when he has said he’s not out to destroy anyone’s belief, that seems a pretty clear accusation of lying to me.

Yes. Not sure I have accused him of lying. Thanks, -Smac

‘Cornell 7’ accuser sent roommate 3-letter text during alleged gang rape, newly released messages show The contemporaneous text creates a significant credibility problem for Jane Doe's account in her civil complaint, as well as in any criminal investigation. Reporting from the New York Post, TMZ, and other outlets confirms the exchange: the roommate texted Jane Doe around 3:05 a.m. asking if she was coming home, and she replied “idk.” That timestamp falls squarely inside the multi-hour window the complaint describes as an ongoing, incapacitating sexual assault in which she was too impaired to consent, her phone was across the room, and she felt she had no way to escape. To reconcile the “idk” reply with the complaint’s narrative she would need a coherent account of several things at once: During the very time she was being sexually assaulted, she was able to cross the room, locate and unlock her phone, read the incoming message, and send a coherent reply to it while at the same time being too incapacitated to consent or to send any message indicating distress or requesting help. There is a plausible reason the complaint omitted this text exchange and instead stated that the phone was on the other side of the room and that escape was not possible. The same level of functioning that allowed a short, context-appropriate reply to her roommate did not allow a different short reply that would have summoned assistance ("Help. Call the cops."). Those points are hard to square without additional evidence that has not been publicly reported. And if such supporting evidence existed, it stands to reason that she would have given it to her attorney, or her attorney would have asked for it, and it would have been included or at least referenced in the civil complaint. An alternative explanation, that someone else sent the "idk" text, would raise its own problems: modern phones are typically locked, the complaint does not mention anyone else using her phone, and any claim of spoliation or third-party use would need to be developed with the device itself. This message does not stand alone. Other reported texts from the days immediately afterward show her describing the events in terms that also conflict with the later “incapacitated / non-consensual” framing in the lawsuit (statements that the sexual activity was not illegal, that she liked being with certain of the men, and “our body our choice”). Those later messages are subject to the same trauma/processing explanations her counsel has offered, but they remain part of the contemporaneous record that defense counsel will use to test the complaint’s allegations. In short, the 3:05 a.m. exchange is a concrete, time-stamped data point that is difficult to reconcile with the degree of incapacitation and lack of opportunity alleged in the complaint. How much weight it ultimately receives will depend on the full evidentiary record, any forensic examination of the phone, and how the inconsistencies are explained under oath. On the information currently public, however, it is a material problem for the narrative that she was continuously too impaired to consent or to seek help during that period. Thanks, -Smac

Like calling someone a lying subversive wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Actually I'm not sure! I have heard that before, not sure how important it really is.

Is the advice to get your degrees at different institutions not as accepted as it once was?

Retain as BYU students

I would love to see a strong focus on better maternal and child health care, including prenatal and postnatal support. This should, imo, be tied tightly to welfare to help ensure pregnant women and children get their nutritional needs met no matter how or why they got pregnant, what their family situation is, or how many jobs, if any, parents have. (I wish we could do it for all, but believe we need to focus on the most vulnerable and dependent individuals first). With our focus on the value of family, it makes sense to support and invest in them. Maternal health is a high indicator of the health of the family and its individuals. Not only physical and emotional, but financial. And it extends way beyond the family. You want a safe bet for building a stronger economy? Invest in mothers’ health. Give them good medical care and good food at the very least. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4814064/