Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. 

If a responsible person received such a text, would their first thought be “hey, it’s not unusual for a young woman to consent to having random sex with multiple guys when she is sober and capable of consent, so I can ignore the possibility that she has taken or been given drugs or drink and therefore is not truly capable of consenting.  Therefore, there is no need for me to go talk to her to make sure she is coherent”.  

I'm not sure anyone here is discussing "responsible people."  Greek System hedonism and Hookup Culture are terrible things, and those who participate in them are debasing themselves and others, including by participating in and accommodating and normalizing sexual licentiousness.  Sooner or later - often sooner - such depravities will lead to instances of nonconsensual sex, sexual violence, ambiguities about these, etc.

So the point I am raising is less about what "responsible people" should do, and more about what result we may see from the factual allegations and evidence in view.  The text messages are evidence to be used in legal proceedings, and are governed by Rules of Evidence.  These rules are essential in court, but they also have utility in everyday discussions about legal issues as well.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or perhaps it would be “looking at what’s going on here and knows by what has happened in similar circumstances in the past, these texts are red flags, I better go make sure she is capable of consent and if not, call 911 for paramedics and maybe cops”.  Or maybe “not my party, not involved, I will just pretend nothing is happening.”

Again: Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available.  Do you agree or disagree?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have had a number of experiences as an attorney working with rape allegations. 

Since you are bringing it up, are you aaying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney? Representing them in court? I thought you were a property law kind of guy. Or perhaps your clients are the ones accused of rape?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect you have not.  I also think you do not give much consideration to the legal aspects of this issue.  I think you would do better if you did pay some attention to that, and spend less time on ad hominem, appeals to outrage/emotion, and other logical fallacies.

I think you pay entirely too much attention to what can be proved in a court of law to the evidentiary standard there. The reasonable doubt standard is a high bar to clear and rightfully so. It means that many many guilty people will also go free to avoid unjust imprisonment. It's not the standard by which people do or should live their lives when interacting with others. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You did not answer my question.  I would hope we could have a reasoned discussion, with fewer histrionics and logical fallacies.

In what way?  Social opprobrium?  Legal consequences?  Jail time?  

I hope you can set aside the histrionics in favor of a reasoned and circumspect discussion.  This is a serious discussion, and deserves more decorum and less of histrionics and logical fallacies you keep presenting.

Your histrionics and endless ad hominems are diminishing the seriousness and decorum with which this topic should be discussed.  I hope you can set these things aside.

Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. 

I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society.  I can say that and still utterly condemn any sort of sexual abuse/assault.

Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused. The text thread ignores the consent of the woman and offers for free what is not theirs to offer. You claim rape culture doesn't exist, and you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, Hookup Culture is, I think, both clearly in existence, and is pervasive through much of society, and it has a substantial role to play in creating grounds in which some people can normalize, trivialize or excuse sexual violence.

This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you think "Hookup Culture" is a thing?

Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. 

 

Edited October 2 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I have had a number of experiences as an attorney working with rape allegations. 

Since you are bringing it up, you are saying you have worked with rape victims as an attorney.

Yes.  I also had several experiences in working with victims of sexual abuse while serving as my ward's bishop.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Representing them in court?

No.  The victim of a crime is typically not "represented" in criminal proceedings.  None of the instances of which I speak involved the victim filing a civil suit, so I did not represent them in that capacity either.

I did "represent" one victim in relation to criminal proceedings, but only in communications with the prosecutor (who declined to press charges, despite substantial forensic and circumstantial evidence).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I thought you were a property law kind of guy. Or perhaps your clients are the ones accused of rape?

I have a friend who had been publicly accused (on social media) of rape.  However, both he and the accuser did not live in Utah, so I could not represent him.  I did, however, help him in his preparation and efforts to find an attorney in his state, and I also worked with him on assessing the remedy (the accuser withdrew her accusation and agreed to not publicly accuse him again).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think you pay entirely too much attention to what can be proved in a court of law to the evidentiary standard there.

The allegations are playing out in a legal arena, so it makes sense to assess them in a legal lens.

For example, you seem to be presupposing the guilt of the individuals, even after discussion of evidence that seems to militate toward exculpating those individuals.  You are also using highly charged and inflammatory language, even to the point where you publicly and repeatedly accuse me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture."  And you said these things despite my unequivocal condemnation of sexual abuse of any kind.

This sort of vitriolic rhetoric does not advance the discussion, and even diminishes the seriousness with which this topic should be treated.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The reasonable doubt standard is a high bar to clear and rightfully so. It means that many many guilty people will also go free to avoid unjust imprisonment. It's not the standard by which people do or should live their lives when interacting with others. 

I agree.

I have been discussing the evidence publicized to date.  I think it creates plenty of room for reasonable doubt as to the rape allegations.  And not just reasonable doubt, but substantial doubt.  I'm not even sure Jane Doe could get a civil claim - which is based on the "preponderance of evidence" standards - across the finish line.  Her own statements have, I think, damaged her credibility.

You seem to presuppose that she was raped.  And your presupposition appears to be based entirely on two things: the accuser is a woman, and the accuser has said she was raped.

Again, if Jane Doe had publicly - and falsely - accused you of sexual assault, I think you would object to the sort of rush to judgment against you as you have demonstrated to the young men described in the news items.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I hope you can set aside the histrionics in favor of a reasoned and circumspect discussion.  This is a serious discussion, and deserves more decorum and less of histrionics and logical fallacies you keep presenting.

Your histrionics and endless ad hominems are diminishing the seriousness and decorum with which this topic should be discussed.  I hope you can set these things aside.

Yes, if only we could talk about the rape of our daughters, sisters, wives, friends and family with dispassion. That's the ideal we should all strive for. 

More histrionics.

I am in favor of "reasoned and circumspect discussion" about "serious" topics.  I am surprised you respond to this with snide sarcasm.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yet you defend the text thread, and the men accused.

I have done nothing of the sort.  Here is what I have said:

• "A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law."
• "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general."
• "To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity."
• "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault.  As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk.  I did something."
• "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling."
• "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}."

Your hostility is overriding your capacity to have a reasoned discussion, and to accurately characterize others' statements.  I hope you can set that aside.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The text thread ignores the consent of the woman and offers for free what is not theirs to offer.

Again: The text messages are revolting, but must they be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available.  To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity.  However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised?  Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?"  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And claim rape culture doesn't exist, you condone it with the same breath when you defend the text thread.

I have done nothing of the sort.

Again: Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today.

That's not to say "rape culture" has never existed.  The antebellum South had rape culture relative to black women.

South Africa faces a severe, institutionalized crisis of sexual violence and pervasive rape culture, characterized by deeply rooted patriarchal norms, extreme gender-based violence, and systemic failures in justice and policing.  Botswana, Lesotho, and Eswatini repeatedly sit at or above South Africa in UNODC-style recorded rape rates (often 75–95 per 100,000). The pattern is regional, not unique to one state: high violence, weak deterrence, and similar entitlement norms.

Papua New Guinea.  Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.  Afghanistan. 

Historically, we have seen sexual assault as part of wartime atrocities, slavery, and so on.

Again, I don't think this sentiment ("normalizing" sexual assault) is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society.

Again, I think we need to have sober and reasoned and decorous discussions about difficult topics such as this.  Your endless ad hominems and appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies are impeding this.  I hope you can set these tendencies aside.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

In contrast, Hookup Culture is, I think, both clearly in existence, and is pervasive through much of society, and it has a substantial role to play in creating grounds in which some people can normalize, trivialize or excuse sexual violence.

This is just the latest version of "what was she wearing" so you can cast aspersions on those you look down on. "She was out drinking showing bad morals. What can you expect? She was basically asking to be raped."

Again:

• "A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law."
• "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general."
• "To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity."
• "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault.  As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk.  I did something."
• "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling."
• "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}."

I can question the legitimacy of imputing "rape culture" onto American society in 2026 and condemn Hookup Culture and condemn sexual assault in every respect.  

Again, under other circumstances I might take exception to being publicly libeled as you do here.  But your endless vitriol just makes you seem like an unreasonable and hysterical and unserious person.

You are outraged that sexual assault happens.  So am I, but we don't need to endlessly advertise our personal emotions.  Nor do we need to tear others down for not matching the decibel level of your public expressions of your own outrage.  At this point, your ad hominems are starting to look like virtue-signaling.  Anyone who does not match your public vitriol is a rape apologist?  That's absurd.  It is, or should be, beneath you.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Do you think "Hookup Culture" is a thing?

Who cares? People having casual sex has absolutely zero to do with rape, rape culture, and the people that excuse it. 

I respectfully disagree.  When we as a society cheapen the sexual act, we increase the likelihood that some of us will not treat it with the gravity it deserves.  

Hookup culture can feed the conditions people call rape culture mainly by blurring consent and rewarding pressure, not by explicitly declaring rape acceptable.

In a script where sex is expected after a party, a match, or going home together, refusal is easier to treat as a negotiable obstacle than as a stop. Alcohol is built into that script (and drugs, and both are prevalent in the Greek System). Intoxication weakens the ability to consent, muddies memory, and gives offenders a ready excuse (“she was into it”). Campus and survey research consistently finds that a large share of sexual assaults happen in exactly these settings: acquaintances, parties, heavy drinking, and little or no verbal agreement.

Status incentives make it worse. Where casual sex is treated as proof of desirability, especially for young men, some learn to push past hesitation, isolate a partner, or keep going after a soft no. That is entitlement in practice: sex is framed as something owed once the interaction has reached a certain stage. Ambiguous non-verbal cues then get read in the pursuer’s favor, and regretted or pressured sex is later minimized as a misunderstanding.

The link is partial. High-rape societies have existed without dating apps or campus parties, and most hookups are not assaults. The contribution is, nevertheless, specific: norms that make sex the default, alcohol the lubricant, and a clear no socially costly create more encounters in which coercion is easy to commit and easy to deny.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

There is a fundamental difference here that precludes understanding. My opinion is that Smac speaks from a position of proving that his point of view will be court passable. 
The large majority here, in contrast, are here to primarily socialize. 
The rules of social engagement are vastly different than the rules of court engagement. 
Smac wins at legal observances.  The rest win at being safe friendships and engaging in social ineractions in ways that foster vulnerabilities and intimacy.  
 

No one is wrong unless you think you’re even playing the same sport. 🧨

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

There is a fundamental difference here that precludes understanding. My opinion is that Smac speaks from a position of proving that his point of view will be court passable. 

Well, no.  I've provided an assessment of evidence that has been publicly disclosed, and then applied broad principles and rules of evidence.  My guesses, such as why the prosecutor may have not brought charges 2 years ago, and why these charges face some evidentiary hurdles, have been quite broad.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The large majority here, in contrast, are here to primarily socialize. 

I can appreciate that, but I'm not a part of it.

I'm not here to socialize (as in "to spend time with other people for fun").  I'm here to discuss topics pertinent to the Church.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The rules of social engagement are vastly different than the rules of court engagement. 

When the topic of "social engagement" is about legal issues, the rules by which such issues are going to be resolved ought to be part of the discussion.  This is particularly so when we have participants throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails for failing to act like we are in some sort of Struggle Session in which we all must be vitriolic and performative, or else we'll be denounced in terrible ways.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Smac wins at legal observances.  

I'm providing educations guesses and commentary, that's all.

I'd like to do so without digressions into ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The rest win at being safe friendships and engaging in social ineractions in ways that foster vulnerabilities and intimacy.  

I guess we see this board in different ways.  For me, it's a discussion board.  I tend to participate in topics that interest me, and those topics are often difficult or complex or involve legal aspects.  I'm not here for "fun."

I'm also not here to talk into an Echo Chamber.  A few years back I had a good friend in my neighborhood whose FB posts started to pop up whenever I logged on (which was sporadic).  At the time I assumed she was "sharing" her posts with me (I don't know how FB's algorithms work in terms of showing me content), so I started to read her posts.  As it turns out, she was talking about some topics in which I was interested, so I began to add comments to some of her posts.  Later, she started posting items that were political in nature.  I responded, again thinking that she was sharing/sending these posts to me.  I asked her questions mostly, but I did disagree with some of her more strident comments (I did so respectfully and mildly).  After 2-3 such interactions, she sent me a private stating that when she posted "political" stuff on FB, she does so with the expectation that her friends will either agree with her or remain silent, and she asked that I not post further comments responding to her posts.  I apologized and stopped.  I did not know that this was her expectation, but I respected it.

This board is not like that (for me, anyway).  The news item here is about a young woman making allegations of rape.  My comments here have been to discuss those allegations, which discussion should - in my view - be sober and reasoned.  

To me, sexual assault of any sort is terrible and evil.  That's the starting point, even axiomatic and tautological, so there really ought not be a need for us to participate in some sort of Struggle Session in which we rend our cloths and publicly proclaim outrage about sexual assault.  We're not in China during the Cultural Revolution.  We're not in North Korea either, with its Saenghwal Chonghwa nonsense.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

No one is wrong unless you think you’re even playing the same sport. 🧨

I think it is wrong to publicly accuse another person of horrendous things without cause, as @SeekingUnderstanding has done in this thread over and over.  I have said nothing to condone or excuse any form of sexual abuse, but he is publicly accusing me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture."

This is a small message board, and overwrought libels from @SeekingUnderstanding are nothing new.  But I think his vitriol is impeding what ought to be a serious and measures discussion of a difficult topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

You win I guess

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today.

Wow

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today.

Wow

I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.  I can't do much with an unadorned "Wow."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

More details, this time from the New York Times:

Men Accused in Cornell Sex Assault Suit Give Varying Accounts of Night

Some excerpts:

Quote

In the weeks after a Cornell University student reported being raped at a fraternity party on campus, most of the men she accused were questioned by university officials about their actions that night.

Their answers, which have not been previously reported, were detailed in hundreds of pages of confidential investigative files obtained by The New York Times.

...

But in hours of interviews and a statement collected during Cornell’s administrative investigation over the winter of 2024, all the men denied any wrongdoing. Four acknowledged having sexual contact with the woman but said that their interactions had been consensual. The others denied participating in sexual encounters.

One said that he, in fact, was “a victim of sexual misconduct” because the woman had given him oral sex when he was “too incapacitated” to consent.

I am curious as to whether @SeekingUnderstanding will express similarly acute outrage at Jane Doe, as she is now alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against one of the young men.

If the allegation alone is sufficient...

Quote

All their accounts differed, frequently contradicted each other and generally ran counter to the statements given by the woman to the Cornell police in 2024. The majority said they did not think the woman appeared intoxicated.

"Appearing intoxicated" seems like a very subjective thing.  Some inebriated persons exhibit typical traits (slurred speech, lack of balance, etc.), but some people can look and act in ways giving no real indication of being drunk.

Quote

Since the woman, identified in her lawsuit as Jane Doe, sued the fraternity members, the men have largely remained silent. Lawyers for at least three of them have issued statements denying criminal wrongdoing.

Lawyers for six of the men did not respond to requests for comment.

Jeremy Saland, who represents the seventh, Scott Kretzschmar, acknowledged that his client had participated in a group chat that described the sexual encounters in lewd terms but had otherwise done nothing wrong.

“Taking part in an offensive conversation is not the same as taking part in a rape,” Mr. Saland said, adding that he had reached out to the district attorney and was confident Mr. Kretzschmar would be exonerated. “Please let the process work before recklessly proliferating or coming to a wrongful conclusion about him.”

"{L}et the process work."

A good idea, that.  Otherwise, Jane Doe is, by some folks' reckoning, to be condemned because someone has alleged that she engaged in sexual misconduct.

Quote

In the statements detailed in the investigative records, Mr. Kretzschmar and the other men described their recollections of the night of the party in their own words.

They said their interactions with Jane Doe began when one of the men, Matthew Ingalls, asked if she wanted to have a threesome with him and another fraternity member, Jonathan Newell.

That request later spiraled into a series of sexual encounters, they said. It was Mr. Newell who, not long into their encounter, fired off a Snapchat message to dozens of other members advertising “free p&^%y” in the bedroom, according to Jane Doe’s lawsuit.

Very troubling stuff, this.

Quote

Mr. Newell told investigators that he was invited by Mr. Ingalls to participate in the threesome, saying he assumed Mr. Ingalls had asked for permission, the records show. Mr. Newell said that he and Mr. Ingalls had drunk a lot and consumed marijuana and ketamine, causing both to throw up.

Yeesh.  I am very grateful I grew up in the Church and had specific instruction and constraints given to me (the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom), which I accepted and applied.

Quote

The other men involved that night said that Jane Doe and those around her did not seem overly inebriated and that they themselves had not had too much to drink.

“They weren’t slurring their speech,” said Winston Lee, one of the accused men. “They seem perfectly normal.”

Another fraternity brother, Gillio Lopes, who, along with Mr. Newell lived in the room where the sexual encounters took place, said that he had “a pretty solid recollection” of the night because in his view he had not drunk that much — roughly six beverages, he estimated, in the form of three Keystone beers and three vodka-and-Hawaiian Punch mixed drinks.

Three beers and three vodka-and-Hawaiian Punch mixed drinks = "had not drunk that much"

The Greek System seems to have a lot to answer for.

Quote

When asked about his involvement with Jane Doe, Mr. Lopes said that she initiated their sexual contact and did not ask for his consent — a statement flatly at odds with her account of the night.

Here is another potential accusation against Jane Doe of sexual misconduct: "Mr. Lopes said that she initiated their sexual contact and did not ask for his consent."

Quote

Mr. Lee also said that Jane Doe initiated sexual activity without asking. He said he snorted a line of ketamine off her body and she tried to initiate sex.

“I kind of took a step back because I didn’t want to engage in anything like sex,” Mr. Lee said. “I thought it wasn’t the time for that.”

Another allegation against Jane Doe: "Mr. Lee also said that Jane Doe initiated sexual activity without asking."

Quote

But later that night, Mr. Lee said he asked for Jane Doe’s consent before engaging in a threesome with her. He recalled telling Jane Doe that “if you’re uncomfortable with any of this or you won’t want to do this, that’s perfectly fine. We can call it a night.” He said Jane Doe replied: “We’re all consenting adults here.”

Another of the men, Mr. Kretzschmar, told interviewers that he and his friend Scott Norris entered the room after reading Mr. Newell’s Snapchat message, which he said had left him “befuddled.”

He said Jane Doe was not slurring her words when they arrived and that she did not appear drunk. He said he asked her “if she was all right just because the nature of the text, and there was one female in the room with a couple dudes.”

“We were just checking out to see if everything was OK, and it was,” he said, later adding of Ms. Doe: “And if she wasn’t, I’d like to think that I would have helped out and did something about it.”

“We were just checking out to see if everything was OK, and it was.”

"And if she wasn’t, I’d like to think that I would have helped out and did something about it."

I'm curious as to how much credence will be given to these statements.

Quote

Mr. Norris, in his interview, said he had been “somewhat concerned” when he received Mr. Newell’s Snapchat message, but assumed it was “crude humor.” He said he did not do any drugs in the room and did not have sex with Jane Doe.

“She was conversational with people, and that alleviated whatever concerns I had from the text before,” Mr. Norris said, adding that he stayed in the room for only five minutes and that all the men in the room were completely or partially clothed for the duration.

In her interview with the police, Jane Doe said that Mr. Kretzschmar and Mr. Norris were “more like voyeurs than anything,” the records show.

And yet in her civil suit she accuses Kretzschmar of rape (not sure about Norris).

Quote

Diego Sarabia said he entered the room after 2:30 a.m. and was shocked by the scene before him: Several fraternity brothers were there, and one was standing behind Jane Doe, although Mr. Sarabia refused to say whether the person was naked or dressed.

“I was immensely concerned since I’ve never seen anything like this in my four years at the house,” he said, according to the records.

But he said his concerns were allayed when “all the people in the room” told him to come in.

“I remember the girl in specific saying something along the lines of, ‘This was normal in the medieval times,’” he said. Jane Doe said at one point he insulted her before grabbing her and kissing her.

What a terrible environment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.  I can't do much with an unadorned "Wow."

You said there is no such thing as rape culture when there is. That is what the “wow” is about.

 

I do think that having group sex while drunk is almost always a bad idea.

Also that the guys almost certainly raped her based on the text conversation where they planned to rape her. It may not be legally actionable and that is fine but they’re rapists. They have openly said they are willing to rape someone. That should be worth some condemnation and not the equivalent of saying Jane Doe is equally culpable. I am gonna ascribe the need to hold that up as some kind of sticking point to misogyny.

Edited Saturday at 05:52 AM by The Nehor

[Calm]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You said there is no such thing as rape culture when there is. That is what the “wow” is about.

 

This

[smac97]

On 10/2/2026 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

You said there is no such thing as rape culture when there is. That is what the “wow” is about.

I said: Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today.

I am willing to listen to perspectives that differ from mine on this point.

On 10/2/2026 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Also that the guys almost certainly raped her based on the text conversation where they planned to rape her.

"Almost certainly" is an interesting qualifier.  It seems that our perspectives differ in degree, not kind.

A qualitative difference may be the basis for our respective views.  I operate from a rebuttable presumption of innocence  in favor of the accused.  I then look at the evidence presented so far. 

The seven are not one case. The public record supports a degrading group sexual episode, and it does not yet prove that all seven committed rape, or that any of them did. Cornell split them. A prosecutor declined the case, then reopened it. No criminal finding exists.

On October 19, 2024, Jane Doe, then 20, drank about ten drinks in three hours, including at bars that served her underage. She arrived at the Chi Phi house around 11 p.m. already visibly drunk, to see a man she knew. On her account he and another man gave her more alcohol and pressed her to snort ketamine, her first time. The lawsuit says she was already incapable of consent and that one man slapped her hard enough to bruise her. Her November statement to police is softer on the start: she was “pretty OK” with the first encounter, “as much as I can be” while very drunk. A third man joined. Around 1:42 a.m. someone posted to the chapter Snapchat, “Chi Phi Actives,” that there was “free p&*$y” upstairs, with a photo, “shop still open?,” and “yea.” More men came in. She says more ketamine was poured on her body and snorted, that she was moved to another room, that she was slurring and horrified, and that she lost consciousness around 5:45 a.m. Four of the seven have admitted sexual contact and called it consensual. The others deny taking part. One says he was the incapacitated party, and that she performed oral sex on him when he could not consent. Their accounts conflict with hers and with each other.

The next forty-eight hours are the hardest evidence against a completed rape narrative.

She told roommates about ketamine and sex with multiple men, not about rape; one thought she was in shock.

On October 21 she told her sorority big sister that rumors she was a slut were going around and, laughing, that "unfortunately they are true."

On October 22 she went to Cornell Health for a urinary tract infection she called traumatic. CNN reports she asked about a rape kit and was told to talk to somebody; other accounts say she was steered to therapy and not offered an exam. That day and the next she texted that her memory was clouded, that none of the sexual stuff "was illegal," that she had liked being with two of the men, and that they should leave out the extra men and the ketamine. She told a roommate that if anyone asked, say it did not happen.

The rape account comes later. She learned about the Snapchat. She read an online post saying Chi Phi had gang-raped a sophomore, and told investigators that was the first time the story about her changed from “whore” to “assaulted.”

On November 3 she texted that 90 percent of the night was not consensual and that she felt like a sex doll.

On November 7 she had a forensic exam; more than two weeks had passed, and no DNA was recovered.

On November 8 she reported to Cornell police.

In the November 14–15 interview she said she was 100 percent confident she had been raped, that there was no escape, and that she was the most intoxicated she had ever been. She also said she took more ketamine thinking that if she passed out and they had sex with her, they could be charged with rape. The six-page statement sent to the district attorney described the conduct as voluntary and conscious. It omitted the rape sentence. He declined charges. He now says he never saw the full transcript, has reopened the file, and still says the decision on the statement he had was legally correct. New York’s voluntary-intoxication rule is part of that problem: she chose the alcohol and the ketamine.

Cornell’s Title IX panel, on a preponderance standard and after interviews with six of the seven, did not treat them as one defendant. It expelled the man she went to see, finding he manipulated and endangered her for himself and for the entertainment of others, and expelled the man who sent the message drawing the others in. Two accused of nonconsensual sex were suspended. Two were not found responsible for sexual assault and were given no-contact orders and reflection papers. One graduate was barred from campus. The chapter was closed. In September 2026 she sued Cornell, the chapter, and the seven. The criminal case is open again, and the attorney general is reviewing the university’s response.

The chat, the bruises, the split Title IX results, and her later incapacity account are the case for culpability, strongest against the man who brought her in and the man who advertised her. The next-day texts, the “unfortunately they are true” remark, the missing DNA, the line about taking ketamine so they could be charged, and the men’s consent accounts are the case against calling all seven rapists. Those two files are still both true on the present record.

On 10/2/2026 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

It may not be legally actionable and that is fine but they’re rapists. They have openly said they are willing to rape someone.

Hadn't heard that allegation.

On 10/2/2026 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

That should be worth some condemnation and not the equivalent of saying Jane Doe is equally culpable.

"Equally culpable" of ... rape?  Well, there are allegations against her.

On 10/2/2026 at 11:21 PM, The Nehor said:

I am gonna ascribe the need to hold that up as some kind of sticking point to misogyny.

Ad hominem.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I said: Rape culture is a societal environment that normalizes, trivializes, or excuses sexual violence through prevailing attitudes about gender, power, and sexuality. I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society today.

I am willing to listen to perspectives that differ from mine on this point.

"Almost certainly" is an interesting qualifier.  It seems that our perspectives differ in degree, not kind.

A qualitative difference may be the basis for our respective views.  I operate from a rebuttable presumption of innocence  in favor of the accused.  I then look at the evidence presented so far. 

The seven are not one case. The public record supports a degrading group sexual episode, and it does not yet prove that all seven committed rape, or that any of them did. Cornell split them. A prosecutor declined the case, then reopened it. No criminal finding exists.

On October 19, 2024, Jane Doe, then 20, drank about ten drinks in three hours, including at bars that served her underage. She arrived at the Chi Phi house around 11 p.m. already visibly drunk, to see a man she knew. On her account he and another man gave her more alcohol and pressed her to snort ketamine, her first time. The lawsuit says she was already incapable of consent and that one man slapped her hard enough to bruise her. Her November statement to police is softer on the start: she was “pretty OK” with the first encounter, “as much as I can be” while very drunk. A third man joined. Around 1:42 a.m. someone posted to the chapter Snapchat, “Chi Phi Actives,” that there was “free p&*$y” upstairs, with a photo, “shop still open?,” and “yea.” More men came in. She says more ketamine was poured on her body and snorted, that she was moved to another room, that she was slurring and horrified, and that she lost consciousness around 5:45 a.m. Four of the seven have admitted sexual contact and called it consensual. The others deny taking part. One says he was the incapacitated party, and that she performed oral sex on him when he could not consent. Their accounts conflict with hers and with each other.

The next forty-eight hours are the hardest evidence against a completed rape narrative.

She told roommates about ketamine and sex with multiple men, not about rape; one thought she was in shock.

On October 21 she told her sorority big sister that rumors she was a slut were going around and, laughing, that "unfortunately they are true."

On October 22 she went to Cornell Health for a urinary tract infection she called traumatic. CNN reports she asked about a rape kit and was told to talk to somebody; other accounts say she was steered to therapy and not offered an exam. That day and the next she texted that her memory was clouded, that none of the sexual stuff "was illegal," that she had liked being with two of the men, and that they should leave out the extra men and the ketamine. She told a roommate that if anyone asked, say it did not happen.

The rape account comes later. She learned about the Snapchat. She read an online post saying Chi Phi had gang-raped a sophomore, and told investigators that was the first time the story about her changed from “whore” to “assaulted.”

On November 3 she texted that 90 percent of the night was not consensual and that she felt like a sex doll.

On November 7 she had a forensic exam; more than two weeks had passed, and no DNA was recovered.

On November 8 she reported to Cornell police.

In the November 14–15 interview she said she was 100 percent confident she had been raped, that there was no escape, and that she was the most intoxicated she had ever been. She also said she took more ketamine thinking that if she passed out and they had sex with her, they could be charged with rape. The six-page statement sent to the district attorney described the conduct as voluntary and conscious. It omitted the rape sentence. He declined charges. He now says he never saw the full transcript, has reopened the file, and still says the decision on the statement he had was legally correct. New York’s voluntary-intoxication rule is part of that problem: she chose the alcohol and the ketamine.

Cornell’s Title IX panel, on a preponderance standard and after interviews with six of the seven, did not treat them as one defendant. It expelled the man she went to see, finding he manipulated and endangered her for himself and for the entertainment of others, and expelled the man who sent the message drawing the others in. Two accused of nonconsensual sex were suspended. Two were not found responsible for sexual assault and were given no-contact orders and reflection papers. One graduate was barred from campus. The chapter was closed. In September 2026 she sued Cornell, the chapter, and the seven. The criminal case is open again, and the attorney general is reviewing the university’s response.

The chat, the bruises, the split Title IX results, and her later incapacity account are the case for culpability, strongest against the man who brought her in and the man who advertised her. The next-day texts, the “unfortunately they are true” remark, the missing DNA, the line about taking ketamine so they could be charged, and the men’s consent accounts are the case against calling all seven rapists. Those two files are still both true on the present record.

Hadn't heard that allegation.

"Equally culpable" of ... rape?  Well, there are allegations against her.

Ad hominem.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/2/2026 at 3:18 PM, smac97 said:

I think it is wrong to publicly accuse another person of horrendous things without cause, as @SeekingUnderstanding has done in this thread over and over.  I have said nothing to condone or excuse any form of sexual abuse, but he is publicly accusing me of "defending the rapists" and "defending ... rape culture."

This is a small message board, and overwrought libels from @SeekingUnderstanding are nothing new.  But I think his vitriol is impeding what ought to be a serious and measures discussion of a difficult topic.

Hi @smac97. I don't have a lot of time for this, so let me just sum up one last time. This woman's friend enticed her to come over to a frat party, gave her ketamine for the first time, then invited her to have sex. He then publicly blasted over 50 of his closest friends that she was sexually available for them upstairs. Is this a rape case that is winnable in court? I doubt it. Due to rape culture, even the "perfect" victim's rape case is a tough sell in court. Am I comfortable saying that those men participated in rape or at the very least rape adjacent behavior. Absolutely. Am I fine with them having public consequences for their actions here? Absolutely. I think these types of public shaming is one of the only potential ways to drive changes in bad behavior of this kind. Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree.

Here is you over and over:

On 9/29/2026 at 2:18 PM, smac97 said:

Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure. 

On 10/2/2026 at 10:41 AM, smac97 said:

Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available.  To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity.  However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised?  Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?"  

On 10/2/2026 at 11:50 AM, smac97 said:

Again: Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.

You are working really, really hard here to make sure everyone knows that if you twist sideways and squint, offering a drugged up woman to 50 of your friends could possibly be just fine. "Must" these messages be read that way? No. But that's the plain english most likely thing that they mean. 

What's further disgusting to me is what you do next though. You work really hard to ask must we read the texts as rape, trying to give every benefit of the doubt. In the next breath, you aren't asking any more. You are telling us what we have to do. We must:

On 9/29/2026 at 2:18 PM, smac97 said:

The text messages must also be read in light of a subsequent communication between Jane Doe and one of the accused:

So the "friend" does damage control right after. Supposedly you know all about rape cases having done work as a lawyer and a bishop. And yet you know nothing about how common this is. An abuser doing damage control right after. And a woman downplaying the abuse right after. https://cptsdfoundation.org/2025/06/05/fawn-response-the-trauma-survival-pattern-thats-mistaken-for-kindness/

So we must take those texts at face value. And then you ask must we really read the frat texts as advertising rape? 

I can't read this as anything but "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture". 

Will the Cornell kids get charged and convicted of rape? Almost certainly not. Do they deserve the public shame that comes with having their names associated with this forever? Absolutely. 

 

On 10/2/2026 at 9:25 PM, smac97 said:

I am curious as to whether @SeekingUnderstanding will express similarly acute outrage at Jane Doe, as she is now alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against one of the young men.

If the allegation alone is sufficient...

A last note pointing to your equivalence here. We have a drunk young woman invited to a frat house by a friend. The friend gives her mind altering drugs that remove any ability for her to consent to anything. The "friend" then texts his 50 closest friends that she is sexually available for all of them. This situation is simply "allegation alone" to you. Really?

Edited Monday at 11:58 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

I don’t believe rape culture where men excuse each other of rape and present it as tacitly acceptable by defending rapist is a thing.

*Proceeds to defend rapists and insists that anything that indicates a rape occurred should be read with nuance and anything that is even vaguely exculpatory must be treated as completely factual*

The rape culture is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!!

[smac97]

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Hi @smac97. I don't have a lot of time for this, so let me just sum up one last time. This woman's friend enticed her to come over to a frat party, gave her ketamine for the first time, then invited her to have sex.

Perhaps.  We do not yet have a clear determination of what happened.  And the discussion has become way too emotional and political and mobocratic.  So we have a substantial dearth of information, social-media-driven outrage, and emotionalisms overriding clinical assessment.

For example, consider some of these news items in just the last 24 hours:

Jane Doe in Cornell rape case facing death threats, backlash for accusations

Entirely inappropriate, if true.

Cornell rape accuser faces threats demanding she drop her lawsuit, attorney says

Quote

The woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Cornell University fraternity members has received threats pressuring her to drop her lawsuit, her attorney said Sunday.

Thomas Giuffra told CNN’s “State of the Union” that people attempting to unmask his client’s identity had also targeted at least three women mistakenly identified as her. The former Cornell student is identified as Jane Doe in court documents.

“She’s received multiple threats, and women who aren’t even Jane Doe receive threats,” Giuffra said. He added that he had received a threat Sunday morning.

In the interview, Giuffra did not identify those responsible or say whether the threats had been reported to law enforcement.

I would think threats of this sort would be immediately reported to law enforcement for investigation.  

Cornell Gang Rape Scandal: Misidentified Marine Wants Court Error Struck After Death Threats

Quote

A U.S. Marine falsely linked to the Cornell gang rape lawsuit is fighting to get the mistake wiped from the court docket ... after claiming the error led to death threats against his family ... TMZ has learned.

According to a new court filing, obtained by TMZ, Sgt. Matthew Ingalls is asking a New York judge to strike the original court document that wrongly included his family's address -- or at least redact the bad information.

As TMZ previously reported, Ingalls shares the same name as one of the seven men accused in the Cornell sexual assault lawsuit ... but he's got absolutely nothing to do with the case.

His attorney says Ingalls is an active-duty U.S. Marine who has never attended Cornell and was stationed at a military base in North Carolina when the alleged assault happened.

The problem started when Jane Doe's lawyers put an address tied to Ingalls' family in a court filing. His attorney says they later admitted the mistake and filed a corrected version with a different address.

But the original document is still sitting on the court docket ... and Ingalls says the damage has been very real.

According to the new filing, he and his family have been bombarded with harassment and death threats, while relatives' phone numbers were also published ... leading to more threatening calls.

A major error by the attorney.  And way too much emotion and vitriol.

Cornell student informs cops that frat bros told her to keep ‘orgy’ secret: ‘Bad for our image’

Quote

A female Cornell student told campus cops early in the investigation into an alleged gang rape that fraternity brothers held secret meetings to cover up the “orgy” because it “would be bad for our image,” newly obtained videos show.

The unidentified woman was one of several students seen talking to officers early in the investigation into Jane Doe’s allegations that she was drugged and raped at a fratenrity party.

“Chi Phi held a meeting essentially to get all of the men on the same page about what happened,” the student told campus police, according to ABC News, which blurred her face and transcribed what she said without using audio that could identify her.

She reported that a frat brother at the party told her, “This was a consensual orgy … but don’t spread it because it will be bad for our image.”

Two unidentified frat brothers were then seen telling investigators that the sex was all “consensual,” with one also denying that the meetings were specifically to address or hide what had happened.

“We didn’t have a meeting about it specifically. It was our weekly chapter meeting. We got through a bunch of stuff,” one of the male students replied.

Neither of the Chi Phi brothers featured in the new video release is accused of participating in the alleged sexual assault.

University police received an anonymous tip that fraternity leadership asked a potential witness to stay quiet because “the reputation of all involved and the frat would be ruined” if news spread, according to records.

Secret frat meetings "to get all of the men on the same page about what happened" would, if true, be quite troubling.  But we don't really know if this is true.

Frat leadership potentially tampering with witnesses would also be troubling if true.  "If."  We don't know.

Cornell 7 accuser’s lawyer claims frat bros ‘had meetings’ to cover up gang-rape allegations: ‘Conspiracy of silence’

Quote

Cornell University’s Phi Chi fraternity held emergency meetings to coordinate how to cover up allegations that a student was drugged and gang raped at their house, according to the accuser’s attorney.

Thomas Giuffra, the attorney for the accuser, identified only as Jane Doe, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that after she reported the alleged sexual assault to campus police the “whole fraternity had meetings to try and cover this up and to be part of the conspiracy of silence.”

“That’s really frightening that this happened. There were 57 people who got that group chat and not one of them — other than the person who leaked it to her — did anything,” the attorney said, adding he’d just learned of the meeting on Tuesday.

“Nobody walked out of those meetings and said, ‘Hey this is wrong, we’re going to the police, we’re throwing these guys under the bus and holding them accountable,’”’ he continued.

“All they were interested in was protecting their fraternity brothers and keeping it as business as usual — that’s what they were interested in, not justice, not this woman.”

I question the wisdom and propriety of the attorney trying this case in the media.  I am concerned he is seeking to foment public outrage, when the more proper course of action would be to let legal investigations and proceedings take their normative course, including course corrections for past errors (if appropriate).

Bar named in Cornell rape lawsuit disputes accuser's account, says she was never served alcohol while underage

Quote

A bar named in the lawsuit at the center of the Cornell University sexual assault firestorm is disputing the alleged victim's claim that it served her alcohol while she was underage on the night of the alleged assault — a denial the bar has now also lodged in court.

Moonies Bar & Nightclub, a downtown Ithaca, New York, bar popular with Cornell students, told Fox News that underage guests at a private Tri Delta sorority event on Oct. 19, 2024, were marked on their hands, while guests over 21 received wristbands. The bar says its bartenders served alcohol only to guests wearing wristbands.

The complaint and Moonies' account both say Doe was marked as underage. They differ over whether she was then served alcohol.

Doe's lawsuit alleges a Moonies bouncer placed an "X" on each of the then-20-year-old's hands to signify she was under 21, but that she was nevertheless served and consumed at least one alcoholic beverage inside the bar.

"No alcohol was served to anyone who had mark on their hands," Moonies said in a statement to Fox News Tuesday, disputing the allegations.

 

Moonies also told Fox News that Doe later worked for the company from February to March 2025 and discussed the October 2024 incident during that period.

According to the bar, Doe never said during those conversations that she had been intoxicated at Moonies or served alcohol by one of its bartenders.

Fox News Digital contacted Doe's attorney for a response to both of Moonies' assertions.

In a formal answer filed Sunday in New York Supreme Court, Zareen Enterprises LLC, which does business as Moonies Bar & Nightclub, denied unlawfully selling or furnishing alcohol to anyone under the legal drinking age and denied selling or furnishing alcohol to any visibly intoxicated person.

Whether she was intoxicated prior to going to the frat house is, I think, an important factual component, both as to her ability to consent and the credibility of the persons involved.  

'Damage control': Phone calls, records suggest some Cornell frat brothers tried to contain 'gang rape' allegations

Quote

Some of the fraternity brothers later accused of sexual assault at Cornell University attempted to contain the allegations in the weeks following the incident, apparently worried about what would happen to their own reputations and futures on campus, according to text messages, phone calls, and other records reviewed by ABC News. 

Students who later spoke to campus authorities described the efforts by some in Chi Phi as “damage control” to ensure the woman allegedly assaulted — now known as Jane Doe — was “not upset about the situation,” according to school records reviewed by ABC News. 

The fraternity brothers’ efforts came as Jane Doe’s perception of what occurred that evening in October 2024 appeared to change from believing the sexual encounters were largely consensual to describing them in a phone call as a “gang rape.” 

"The only way for me to heal is to know what happened," the woman, then a Cornell junior, told one of her alleged attackers, Matthew Ingalls, over the phone one day before she went to the Cornell University Police Department on Nov. 8, according to a recording of the call obtained by ABC News. “That's why I'm trying to just piece it together, you know, like I'm just like confused.”

Ingalls, according to police records of the incident, invited Jane Doe to the fraternity house. He has not responded to requests for comment but previously denied wrongdoing as have the other brothers named in a civil suit brought by Doe. Ingalls has not been charged with a crime.

During Cornell’s investigation, he said he was too intoxicated to consent and suggested that Jane Doe actually assaulted him, according to school records reviewed by ABC News. 

Accused Cornell fraternity member claims accuser 'sodomized' him while incapacitated, alleges university ignored him as assault survivor

Quote

Former Cornell University fraternity member Matthew Ingalls, one of the men accused in the Cornell 7 case, claimed in an email to the school that he was "sodomized" by the accuser, who is being called Jane Doe.

Ingalls, a former Chi Phi brother, also accused the university of ignoring him as a survivor of sexual assault. Doe accused him and six other Chi Phi members of sexually assaulting her in 2024. Ingalls has not yet been charged with a crime.

 

Ingalls sent the message to Cornell's Title IX investigator in February 2025. He wrote that the school had received information about the alleged sodomy in November but did nothing.

The email read, "After all, 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?"

"The very fact that I had to bring this to your attention now in February confirms my worst fears: that this process is rolled [sic] with gender discrimination."

Man at center of Cornell gang rape lawsuit told probers he’s the real victim of Jane Doe

Quote

One of the former fraternity brothers accused in a lawsuit of gang raping a fellow Cornell University student two years ago told investigators that he is the real victim — and suggested he would file his own complaint.

A former Cornell student, identified as Jane Doe, claimed in a bombshell lawsuit filed last month that she was drugged and gang raped by seven members of the now-defunct Chi Phi fraternity in Ithaca, New York, in October 2024.

None of the men have been criminally charged and all have denied wrongdoing.

One of the men, Matthew Ingalls, who according to the lawsuit invited Doe to the house before the alleged assault, later told investigators he was too intoxicated to consent that night and described himself as the victim, according to documents obtained by ABC News.

In an email to Cornell’s Title IX investigator, who probes reports of sex-based discrimination or sexual misconduct on campus, Ingalls reportedly accused the school of “entrapment.” He also suggested in the email that he might file his own complaint against Doe.

The allegations against Jane Doe are, if true, very troubling.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He then publicly blasted over 50 of his closest friends that she was sexually available for them upstairs. Is this a rape case that is winnable in court? I doubt it.

I have some concerns about it as well.  Why do you doubt this is a viable rape case?

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Due to rape culture, even the "perfect" victim's rape case is a tough sell in court.

Could you elaborate on this?  What effects of "rape culture" do you believe are in play?

I agree that rape cases can be difficult to prosecute, but I'm not quite ready to blame "rape culture" for it.  The normative rules of evidence, presumptions of evidence, burden of proof, and so on are not changed for rape cases (except for some limited purposes such as obscuring the identity of the victim, which would seem to not be problematic).

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Am I comfortable saying that those men participated in rape or at the very least rape adjacent behavior. Absolutely.

"Absolutely."  As in "without exception; completely; wholly; entirely."

Is this perspective based solely on a dispassionate evaluation of all relevant evidence?  Or are there other factors that affect your perspective?

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Am I fine with them having public consequences for their actions here? Absolutely.

"Absolutely."

I find this troubling.  I don't think your certainty is well justified.  I think it is a rush to judgment borne of emotion.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think these types of public shaming is one of the only potential ways to drive changes in bad behavior of this kind.

Unless, of course, the young men are not guilty of rape.  Then social-media-fueled rage and mobocratic "public shaming" of them for something they did not do becomes quite problematic.

Are you similarly "absolute" in your assessment of Matthew Ingalls' claim that Jane Doe sexually assaulted him?

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree.

Your comment here is a good example of the vitriol and emotionalism in play here.

I have said nothing to condone any sort of sexual misconduct, and have instead repeatedly condemned it.  I have also condemned "Hookup Culture" and its attendant ill effects on society, as well as problems with the Greek System.

And yet here you are, speaking anonymously and publicly accusing a non-anonymous person of terrible things, apparently because I am advocating for a measured evaluation of the evidence rather than an emotional rush to judgment.

Again, if you were one of the "Cornell 7," or if you were innocent, I don't think you would be agreeing with your own present posture.  You would want the evidence to be evaluated, for the presumption of innocence to remain in place, for this matter to be adjudicated in the normal course of legal proceedings rather than through social media and news media coverage.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here is you over and over:

Quote

Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available.  To be sure, the texts are repulsive.  Group sex advertised like a commodity.  However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised?  Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?"  

Yes.  I am trying to be candid and clinical.  I wrote the above even though I knew that you, with your reflexive ad hominem proclivities, would find it problematic.  The best way to work with a person fueled by emotion is to persist in dispassionate analysis.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are working really, really hard here to make sure everyone knows that if you twist sideways and squint, offering a drugged up woman to 50 of your friends could possibly be just fine.

Again, we do not have all the facts.  And a lot of countervailing allegations.  

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

"Must" these messages be read that way? No.

I agree.  I am glad we have that in common, at least.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But that's the plain english most likely thing that they mean. 

Perhaps.  I'm not sure what a "consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex" situation would look like.

We also have Jane Doe's text:

Quote

Text messages between Doe and one of the defendants in the civil lawsuit, recently published by CBS, show the defendant wrote that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand."

Doe replied that “non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal.” However, her attorney has said she was in denial and traumatized at the time. At a later date, she texted one of the fraternity members saying that “90% of what happened that night was not consensual,” the New York Times reported. 

According to The New York Times, she said: “At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt.”

I acknowledge that her attorney is characterizing her text as being the result of her being "in denial and traumatized at the time," and on that basis we should not believe her words.  But this begs the question.

And here:

Quote

The days after: "I wasn't comfortable"

Jane Doe said she awoke later and returned to her room at the sorority house.

She talked about it with roommates that morning, according to documents from Cornell's Title IX investigation into the matter, which were obtained by CBS News.

One roommate recalls Doe saying, "Oh my goodness, isn't that crazy?" The roommate said Doe was laughing but seemed to be in shock. The roommate said Doe did not call it rape or assault that morning. 

"Was laughing but seemed to be in shock."  Boy, that's subjective.

"Doe did not call it rape or assault that morning."  Of course, she could have been traumatized.  Or she could have not thought to characterize it as rape or assault because it was consensual.  We don't have sufficient evidence either way.

Quote

"She was kind of recounting it as this sort of crazy thing she had done. And then, as the days went on, I think she kind of came to realize that it was something bad and that she didn't really enjoy her time there," the roommate said, according to the Title IX investigation transcript.

"{R}ecounting as this sort of crazy thing she had done."  Again, very subjective.

Quote

A second roommate said Jane Doe told her, "I wasn't comfortable." 

The day after that, Jane Doe spoke about it with her sorority "big sister," saying: "You may hear some rumors about me, and unfortunately they are true." According to the Title IX documents, the woman said that Jane Doe had not processed what had happened to her yet.

The rumors were about Jane Doe being a "slut" (Jane's own wording, apparently).

It may be that she "had not processed the what had happened."  Or perhaps "what had happened" was consensual.

One challenge with this sort of story is that there does seem to be an implicit infantilization of women.  That is, if she says something that is later falsified or else contravenes her current narrative, we are supposed to disregard the item because she "was in denial and traumatized at the time" or "seemed to be in shock" or she had not yet "realize{d} that it was something bad" or "had not processed what had happened to her yet."

Yes, these things are possible.  But they require us to review her own words and behaviors in a "whatever interpretation preserves her credibility" sort of way.  It is also possible that she consented to sexually licentious behavior, and that she was telling the truth when she said “non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal.”

I don't think it is healthy for us to infantilize women by giving them an open-ended exemption from the normative rules of law enforcement investigation and the rules of evidence in court.  Something like this: "I'm a woman, and because I'm a woman you must reflexively and automatically believe everything I say about sexual assault except where I say something that damages my credibility, such as when I said 'non{e) of the sexual stuff was illegal,' in which case you must reflexively and automatically *not* believe what I say, and you must disregard because I was traumatized, and I was traumatized because I say so, and my say-so may not be questioned because if you do hate women and are enabling rape culture."

The answer, I think, is to refrain from mobocratic rage, and to let the normative processes and rules play out.  We ought not have a two-tiered system.

Quote

Oct. 22: Medical clinic visit

On Oct. 22, Jane Doe went to Cornell Health, the medical clinic on the school's campus, to address a urinary tract infection and was tested for sexually transmitted diseases, her lawyer, Thomas P. Giuffra, said.

"Ms. Doe disclosed to the treating health care professional that she contracted the UTI in a 'traumatic way,'" Giuffra said in the statement. 

Despite her reference to trauma, "all the medical professional … did was to advise Ms. Doe to 'speak with somebody,'" Giuffra claims. 

"She was not immediately referred for a rape kit," he said. "By the time she went for the rape kit on 11/7 all of the DNA evidence was gone."

Oct. 22-23: Text messages on "how things went down"

CBS News New York investigative reporter Mahsa Saeidi obtained screenshots from a source of text messages between Jane Doe and one of the defendants accused of rape in the lawsuit.

The messages were sent just a few days after the alleged assault.

The man started by apologizing for "how things went down." He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy," and that he and another fraternity brother felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand."

Jane Doe replied that her memory was "super clouded too," and said they had all been heavily intoxicated. 

She also wrote, "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal." She said she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, "but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine."

On the same day she went to the clinic she texted that "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal."

Can you see how a dispassionate assessment of this might raised some legitimate questions?

Quote

On Oct. 23, she texted with the friend she met at the Chi Phi house and later named in the lawsuit. 

"Bro," she wrote, "everyone knows." She said the episode was "RUINING my life temporarily" and that all she could do was "sleep and cry all day," The New York Times reported, citing Cornell's Title IX documents.

He responded she didn't have "anything to be ashamed of." She said, "You're right. It'll get better."

This is a text exchange with one of the men whom she now accuses of sexual assault.  What is the context here?  See here:

Quote

In the days immediately following the incident, Jane Doe stayed in touch with some of the men she later accused of assaulting her – at first sharing concerns about her reputation and physical health. 

“I will also say this is f—--g RUINING my life temporarily.  My reputation is destroyed and I’m utterly ashamed.  I’m f—--g pissed cause this many people shouldn’t know and I feel like I know who some of the rats in the room were,” she wrote to Ingalls, who had invited her to the fraternity that night.

Why is she speaking of her "reputation" being "destroyed" and her feeling "utterly ashamed?"  Is she necessarily describing a sexual assault to one of the men whom she claims assaulted her?  Or is it possible that she was referring to an alcohol-and-drug-fueled sexually licentious incidence of group sex in which she consensually participated?  If the former, why did she, when told she had "{nothing} to be ashamed of," respond with "You're right?"  Why did she tell her sorority system that rumors of her promiscuous behavior "are true?"  

Is it possible she was, at the time, traumatized and in denial?  Yes.

Is it possible she was, at the time, ashamed of participating in group sex in the upstairs room of a frat house?  Yes.

We need to dispassionately evaluate the evidence.

Quote

Late October: Online comments about assault

About a week after the incident, Jane Doe says she saw comments on an online forum about Greek life on campus, in a section on Chi Phi, referring to terrible people who had gang raped a sophomore.

"And that's kind of when I came to the realization that I had been gang raped," she said, according to the Title IX investigation documents.

Around that time, the documents show, a roommate said she heard Doe tell one of the men: "You had penetrative sex with me. I had so much ketamine, my eyes were crossed, and you still had sex with me." 

Nov. 3 text: "Not consensual"

Jane Doe continued texting with two of the Chi Phi members, and was upset to learn she'd been disinvited from a Halloween party at the frat house, according to The New York Times report on the Title IX documents.

"I knew this was going to happen," she texted. "The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren't my friends. Yall are covering your asses."

On Nov. 3, she wrote, "let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual," according to the investigation report. Another text cited in The Times report said she "felt like a sex doll/worker."

Jane Doe: “{None} of the sexual stuff was illegal.”

Also Jane Doe (after having been disinvited to a party at the frat house) : "90% of what happened that night was not consensual."

A dispassionate jury may well look at things like this and find Jane Doe's credibility to be poor.

Quote

Nov. 14-15: Jane Doe's police interview

On Nov. 14, Jane Doe sat down for an interview with a Cornell University police investigator, a Title IX investigator, a victim advocate and Jane Doe's adviser to detail her allegations. 

"I can say with 100% confidence I was raped," she told them, according to a transcript obtained by CBS News New York.

According to the transcript, Jane Doe described drinking and using drugs that night and said she had gaps in her memory.

She was drunk and using drugs and "had gaps in her memory," but she also "can say with 100% confidence {she} was raped."

Her capacity to consent is, based on the evidence, in question.  She says she went to the frat house drunk, but the bar at which she was supposed to have downed 10 drinks said that did not happen.  She has said things that she has later contradicted.  She has materially adversely affected her own credibility in a case where credibility is vital.

Quote

The transcript shows she distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later, and when asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, "Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there ... But I was pretty OK with all of this."

Later she described feeling coerced and tired and giving in, and said she was "completely and totally incapacitated."

She said she didn't remember the end of the night "where I was raped" and didn't know how many people had sex with her.

She also said, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."

I don't recall anyone mentioning that Jane Doe has visible signs of physical abuse.

Quote

The transcript shows the investigator documenting her account, reading it back and asking her to clarify or correct it.

When she returned for a second day, Jane Doe reviewed the revised six-page statement. Before signing, the transcript shows Jane Doe said, "I'm very confident about this."

An attorney weighs in on this:

Quote

What about criminal punishment? There has been much criticism of both the Cornell Police and the Ithaca District Attorney, with each now seeking to blame the other for missteps. I'll put those issues aside to focus on what comes next.

If the allegations in Jane Doe's civil complaint are true, then the defendants' conduct was plainly criminal. Pages 25-28 of the complaint describe multiple sexual acts performed on Doe and expressly state that these were done "without her consent." If Doe is willing to testify to these, that would certainly be enough for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has been appointed as special prosecutor in the case, to secure an indictment from a grand jury.

Whether James can secure convictions remains to be seen. The sworn statement Jane Doe signed as part of the initial investigation contains assertions that are more equivocal with respect to consent than what is in the complaint. During a trial, defense counsel would no doubt use the statement to impeach any testimony by Doe that is more in line with the civil complaint. And based on the Title IX transcript excerpts published by The Times, it is clear that the defendants will testify that Doe affirmatively consented.

But that doesn't mean that a criminal trial would be a purely "he said/she said" contest in which the jury tosses up its hands and finds the prosecution fails to have met its burden of proof. Perhaps one of the defendants will take a plea deal and then testify in a way that corroborates Doe's account in the civil complaint. There might also be third-party witnesses who could so testify.

Moreover, there is little doubt that if the condensed statement is used to impeach Doe's credibility, the prosecution will introduce excerpts of the full police interview, including that Doe was "100 percent confiden[t she] was raped" and that she was "physically hit very very hard." Like most U.S. jurisdictions, New York's evidence law generally bars prior consistent statements from an available witness as hearsay, but (also like most jurisdictions), it contains an exception to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.

Accordingly, a trial would likely feature testimony by Doe that she was gang-raped and testimony by some or all of the defendants that the activity was consensual. One might wonder why any consent the defendants will say Doe manifested is not vitiated by the fact that she was very intoxicated from having consumed a whole lot of alcohol, marijuana, and ketamine. The short of it is that under New York State law as potentially relevant here, a person will be deemed incapable of giving consent if they are "mentally incapacitated" or "physically defenseless." Standing alone, either of those terms might seem to apply to a very intoxicated person, but the words don't stand alone.

A further New York State statutory provision states: "'Physically helpless'" means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act." Even the civil complaint does not allege that Doe was unconscious or unable to communicate.

That same provision also states: "'Mentally incapacitated'" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent." The civil complaint could be read to imply that the defendants administered alcohol and drugs to Doe without consent. It says the defendants "plied" her with marijuana and high-proof rum and "pressured" her to snort ketamine.

Depending on what "pressured" and "plied" mean here--and more importantly, depending on what exactly Doe would testify to--such conduct could be the basis for criminal liability under the "mentally incapacitated" provision. But the terms "pressured" and "plied" are sufficiently vague that they might not.

That might well strike many readers as deeply troubling. If someone is very drunk and/or high, shouldn't it be clear that they can't give meaningful consent to sex?

Many New York State lawmakers share this concern. In June of this year, a bill passed the New York State Senate that would expand the circumstances under which a person would be deemed incapable of consent due to intoxication, regardless of whether they became intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily. It would add language to the statutes to make clear that lack of consent will be found if "the victim was under the influence of any drug, intoxicant, or other substance to a degree which rendered the victim temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling such person's conduct and such condition was known or reasonably should have been known to a person in the actor's situation."

The Jane Doe case has brought forth calls for the State Assembly (the lower house of the New York legislature) to pass the bill as well and for Governor Hochul to sign it into law. If that happens, New York will join a substantial number of states with similar laws.

One oddity of the bill's passage would be the possibility that both (or, where more than two people are involved, all) of the parties involved in a sexual act could be guilty of the crime. Not infrequently, drunk people have sex with other drunk people. Could it really be the intention of the New York legislature to subject them both (or all) to criminal prosecution?

Some states avoid that possibility by construing language in their respective statutes similar to the New York bill's "reasonably should have been known to a person in the actor's situation" language to take account of the fact that the actor (i.e., the defendant) was also intoxicated. Thus, if a person was so intoxicated that they were "temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling" their conduct, they would also be so intoxicated that they could not be expected to have known that their partner(s) were also so intoxicated. Neither party would be guilty of a crime.

Matthew Ingalls alleges Jane Doe sexually assaulted him, but I have not seen a reflexive acceptance of that allegation.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What's further disgusting to me is what you do next though.

I hope you can eventually put aside your emotionalisms.  When a prosecutor or a judge says this, it's not "disgusting."  It's the way the law works.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You work really hard to ask must we read the texts as rape, trying to give every benefit of the doubt. In the next breath, you aren't asking any more. You are telling us what we have to do. We must:

Quote

The text messages must also be read in light of a subsequent communication between Jane Doe and one of the accused:

So the "friend" does damage control right after. Supposedly you know all about rape cases having done work as a lawyer and a bishop. And yet you know nothing about how common this is. An abuser doing damage control right after. And a woman downplaying the abuse right after. https://cptsdfoundation.org/2025/06/05/fawn-response-the-trauma-survival-pattern-thats-mistaken-for-kindness/

I am aware.

I am trying to assess the evidence dispassionately, and to defer "absolute" conclusions for the time being.  I encourage you to do the same.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So we must take those texts at face value. And then you ask must we really read the frat texts as advertising rape? 

I can't read this as anything but "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture". 

Because you dislike me personally.  Extremely.  And because your assessment here is mobocratic and emotional, not dispassionate and clinical.  That's how I see it, anyway.

Attorneys and judges go through the same sorts of analysis as I have been doing here, and for it they are sometimes subjected to the same sorts of ugly emotionalisms and accusations as you are presenting here.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Will the Cornell kids get charged and convicted of rape? Almost certainly not. Do they deserve the public shame that comes with having their names associated with this forever? Absolutely. 

"Absolutely" is not warranted here.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A last note pointing to your equivalence here.  We have a drunk young woman invited to a frat house by a friend.

Actually, we don't know that.  The bar at which she said she got drunk says that this did not happen.  

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The friend gives her mind altering drugs that remove any ability for her to consent to anything.

I encourage you to read the Complaint (or excerpts of it) that reference the use of ketamine.  It is her own attorney that equivocates.  From the above excerpt of the attorney's assessment:

Quote

The civil complaint could be read to imply that the defendants administered alcohol and drugs to Doe without consent. It says the defendants "plied" her with marijuana and high-proof rum and "pressured" her to snort ketamine.

Depending on what "pressured" and "plied" mean here--and more importantly, depending on what exactly Doe would testify to--such conduct could be the basis for criminal liability under the "mentally incapacitated" provision. But the terms "pressured" and "plied" are sufficiently vague that they might not.

Having written many hundreds of complaints, and responded to many hundreds, I take note of equivocation in them.  If Jane Doe's attorney had a good faith basis to allege that she had been "administered alcohol and drugs" without her consent, then he would have said so.  He did not.  Instead, he used wording ("pressured" and "plied") which are "sufficiently vague" to justify an interpretation that consent was absent.  It is her own attorney that equivocates on this point.

On 10/5/2026 at 12:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The "friend" then texts his 50 closest friends that she is sexually available for all of them. This situation is simply "allegation alone" to you. Really?

What other evidence of sexual assault, apart from her say-so, has been produced so far?  I would appreciate any information you may have on this point.

I don't think I'll ever be able to get past your personal animosity toward me, but perhaps you could shelve it long enough to examine this issue dispassionately.

Sexual assault is a terrible thing.  Nobody denies that.  Hence my appreciation for the Restored Gospel, which utterly condemns such behavior, and which also provides behavioral safeguards that reduce the risk of it.  The Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, if followed, will help women - and men - avoid circumstances in which sexual assault can occur.  I also think the Greek System often has a pretty terrible tendency to create environments for sexual assault and sexual licentiousness.

My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself.  A woman said it.  It must be so.  Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

Evidence, particularly anything that might contravene Jane Doe's narrative, does not matter to you at all.  You, a bystander who has only reviewed partial bits and pieces of the evidence, are already "absolutely" sure of what happened.  

For you, there is no differentiation between the actions of any of the 7 men accused. 

For you, there cannot be even the possibility that Jane's recollection may be flawed, incomplete, inaccurate in some respects, and so on. 

For you, there cannot be even the possibility that Jane or anyone else might fabricate (or exaggerate, or mischaracterize) a serious and emotionally-charged accusation of misconduct.

I am troubled by mobocratic responses to events such as this.  I think we need to be more measured and dispassionate in our assessments of difficult topics, and not let emotions override reasoning analysis and due process.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:07 PM by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself

I doubt if a woman came out of the blue and pointed at a man and claimed he raped her, there would be an instant “he’s guilty” from him.  He would want to know what we can know.  But this is not such a case. We know some undebated fact and some debated claims.

When the circumstances described are not unfamiliar, when there is a pattern of behaviour , drugs were involved, etc, then we can draw on those to help analyze the incident.  Based on similar occurrences, it becomes highly likely at some point she became unable to give consent in a legal sense.  At that point anyone involved in the act or as an accomplice would be committing rape, correct?

This pattern even includes the behaviour of the alleged victim and the accused after the  incident….it can be seen as part of a typical pattern of response to sexual assault.

Do you agree with what I have said so far?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself

I doubt if a woman came out of the blue and pointed at a man and claimed he raped her, there would be an instant “he’s guilty” from him.  

I would hope so.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

He would want to know what we can know.  But this is not such a case. We know some undebated fact and some debated claims.

I think there is a lot we don't know, and what we do know casts significant doubt on the credibility of the accuser, and the casting-doubt-on-credibility stuff is not only being ignored, I am being accused of defending rapists (notice the question that is begged in the accusation) for doing nothing more than what any attorney would do, which is to evaluate evidence for and against the allegations.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

When the circumstances described are not unfamiliar, when there is a pattern of behaviour , drugs were involved, etc, then we can draw on those to help analyze the incident.  

I'm not sure we can.  "We can assess whether the Cornell frat guys raped Jane Doe because we know that other sexual assaults by other people on other campuses under somewhat similar circumstances have happened" doesn't do much for me. 

Heidi Jones.  Tawana Brawley.  Crystal Mangum.  Wanetta Gibson.  Biurny Peguero.  Danmell Ndonye.  Nikki Yovino.  The Sabrina Erdely in Rolling Stone in 2014. 

The risk of false or exaggerated or mischaracterized or misremembers allegations of sexual assault is not small:

99% of False Accusations Go Unpunished. Center for Prosecutor Integrity Asks, ‘Why?’

Quote

Nikki Yovino of New York falsely accused two football players at Sacred Heart University of rape. The woman later admitted that she had lied to gain the sympathy of a prospective boyfriend. As a result, Yovino was sentenced to one year in prison, plus two years of probation (1).

One year.

Heidi Jones pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filing a false report. She got three years of probation and 350 hours of community service, matched to the hours the police spent on the case, and she lost the WABC job. No jail.

Tawana Brawley totally got away with her false accusations. A grand jury found the story fabricated. She was not prosecuted. 

Crystal Mangum also got away with it.  The Attorney General declared the players innocent in 2007. She was not charged for the false report. (FYI, she is currently in prison for stabbing her boyfriend to death in 2011. She admitted the Duke story was false in 2024, from that prison.)

Wanetta Gibson got away with it. She was never charged. Prosecutors said a case would be hard to prove because she was a juvenile at the time and would not formally repeat the recantation.

"Jackie," the accuser in the Rolling Stone article, was not charged.

Danmell Ndonye got away with it. The Nassau County District Attorney declined to charge her. The condition was counseling and 250 hours of community service,

Biurny Peguero pleaded guilty to perjury in 2009 and was sentenced to one to three years.

Nikki Yovino pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident and was sentenced in 2018 to a year in jail.

Quote

Prosecutor Tatiana Messina explained her decision to prosecute this way: “Many true victims of sexual assault are often disbelieved, but that is because of cases like this and the impact they have on public perceptions. Miss Yovino’s actions are a disservice to those true victims, in addition to the two young men whose lives were greatly affected, and that was not something that could have been ignored.”

I'm glad Nikki Yovino's false accusations were not altogether ignored, but one year in jail seems pretty thin given the seriousness of what she did.

Quote

One of the falsely accused men, Malik St. Hilaire, sadly recounted, “I went from being a college student, to sitting at home being expelled, with no way to clear my name. I just hope she knows what she has done to me. My life will never be the same. I did nothing wrong, but everything has been altered because of this.”

Sexual assault is a terrible thing.  So are false claims of it.

Quote

But the punishment placed on Yovino stands in sharp exception to the rule. Even though all states have laws that prohibit false allegations and false swearing, prosecutors often ignore these violations of the law.

False allegations are widespread in the United States. A national survey sponsored by the Center for Prosecutor Integrity found that 8% of Americans — 11% of men and 6% of women — report being falsely accused of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The 8% figure represents 20.4 million adults (2).

That's a lot of false allegations, virtually none of which is prosecuted. 

Now, I suspect that some of these "I was falsely accused" claims are themselves false, and they were justifiably accused.  My point is that we can't let that door just endlessly swing only in one direction.  

I have a friend who spent years doing family law.  He said that spouses lying in court to gain leverage - often by presenting claims of abuse - are simply too frequent for the judges to address.  

All the more reason, then, to avoid a mobocratic and emotions-based rush to judgment and instead seek a dispassionate evaluation of the allegations.

Quote

False allegations can have devastating consequences, including loss of family ties, social stigmatization, impairment of career opportunities, mental health problems, and wrongful convictions (3).

Since 1989, nearly 2,000 Americans have been wrongfully convicted of a crime as a result of a false allegation or perjury. False allegations and perjury have been found to be common contributors for the following types of cases (4):

• Child sex abuse: 85% of wrongful convictions
• Homicide: 72%
• Drug Possession of Sale: 63%
• Sexual assault: 45%

Falsely Accused Day will be observed on Friday, September 9 (5). The global observance will be marked by events held in the United States (6), United Kingdom (7), and elsewhere.

False allegations are not mere “name-calling.” A false allegation involves an accusation made in bad faith with the intention of maligning and harming the victim. Because of their long-term and pernicious effects, false allegations can be more harmful than physical abuse.

Given these facts, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity asks, Do prosecutors not view false allegations to be a “real” crime?

I do not deny that sexual assault happens and is an extremely serious problem.

I am proposing that we resist the impulse to join in mobocratic outrage and condemnation when stories like this arise, that we evaluate the evidence as dispassionately and fairly as we can. 

If these young men sexually assaulted Jane Doe, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I don't think we should reflexively place her allegations beyond scrutiny and discussion, nor should we attempt to stifle dispassionate analysis in favor of mobocratic rage.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Based on similar occurrences, it becomes highly likely at some point she became unable to give consent in a legal sense.  

I really don't understand your reasoning here.  How do "similar occurrences" have probative value as to the Cornell matter?

Also, do you apply this reasoning to Matthew Ingalls, the young man who is alleging that Jane Doe sexually assaulted him because he was not capable of giving consent?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

At that point anyone involved in the act or as an accomplice would be committing rape, correct?

Perhaps not in New York (and maybe in 18 other states) :

Cornell rape allegations highlight gaps in US consent laws

Quote

A lawsuit over an alleged sexual assault at Cornell University has drawn attention to differences in US state laws on consent and intoxication. The woman, identified in legal documents as Jane Doe, alleges that several men drugged and raped her at the New York university in 2024.

According to the BBC, Doe says she had been drinking before going to a fraternity house, where men pressured her to take ketamine and gave her alcohol. She alleges that a group sexual encounter involving her was then advertised in a group message as “free”. Doe says she was intoxicated and unable to consent.

New York law does not automatically deem someone unable to consent because they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs. The issue has been described in US media as a “voluntary intoxication loophole”. Governor Kathy Hochul said last week that voluntary intoxication was “not a license for sexual assault or gang rape” and pledged to work with state lawmakers to close the loophole.

Some legal experts argue the law has been misinterpreted: it does not prevent people who chose to drink or take drugs from reporting sexual assault. However, they say, a person must show they were so incapacitated that they could not physically communicate an unwillingness to engage in sexual activity—a higher threshold than simply being intoxicated.

Dan Schorr, a former sex crimes prosecutor who advises universities on sexual assault cases, told the BBC that New York law still protects people assaulted while voluntarily intoxicated. He said sexual activity is non-consensual if a person cannot communicate consent or a lack of consent because of alcohol or drugs, regardless of whether they took the substances voluntarily.

Schorr said he had prosecuted people for sexually assaulting victims who had voluntarily become intoxicated, and that the defendants were convicted and imprisoned.

Legal threshold for incapacity

At least 19 states, including New York, set a higher threshold for intoxication to be treated as incapacity to consent, according to the report. New York law says a person cannot consent if they are “unconscious or for any other reason physically unable to communicate an unwillingness to an act”.

Mitchell Epner, a former prosecutor who has handled sex trafficking cases, told the BBC that the standard can be difficult to prove. He said prosecutors might not bring charges, or defendants might be acquitted, when someone was intoxicated but not completely incapacitated.

Epner said some states use lower thresholds, under which a person who is “impaired” or “significantly impaired” cannot consent. He said being too drunk to drive could be considered impairment at that level.

University disciplinary standards can differ from criminal law. Cornell uses affirmative consent, defined as “a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity”. The university says silence or a lack of resistance does not amount to consent.

I think there is a "Law of Unintended Consequences" sort of thing that may play out here.

New York, and the states that copied the Model Penal Code, split intoxication into two offenses. Sex with someone who is physically helpless — unconscious, or unable to communicate unwillingness — is a crime no matter who poured the drinks. Sex with someone who is mentally incapacitated is a crime when the defendant administered the alcohol or the drug without consent, for the purpose of preventing resistance. Voluntary drunkenness, short of helplessness, does not by itself negate consent. That line was written into the 1962 Model Penal Code and into New York’s 1965 Penal Law. About half the states still use some version of it. A 2022 review counted at least 27. Texas has since moved the line.

The choice was about where to put a felony. Adults have consensual sex while drunk constantly. If impairment short of unconsciousness were enough, the crime would turn on a later argument about how drunk was too drunk, often with no witness except the two people and a gap in memory. Memory loss is not the same thing as incapacity at the time. The drafters punished the person who drugs someone, and the person who proceeds with someone who cannot communicate, and left mutual drunken sex outside the statute.

The elements of the crime are not gendered. If voluntary intoxication alone negates consent, a woman who has sex with a man she knew was badly drunk would meet the same elements he would. Legislatures have been slow to move the line because a rule written for the Cornell fact pattern also covers the reverse, and because “should have known she was too drunk” is a standard a jury can apply after the fact to almost any night that ends in regret. The reforms that have passed usually keep a knowledge requirement. The defendant must know, or a reasonable person would know, that the other person could not consent. They do not make drunkenness itself the crime. Removing the distinction without that limit would make both of them culpable, not only him.

Here, Jane Doe claims she was drunk.  She also claims she was "plied" with alcohol and ketamine, which is a notably vague and ambiguous thing for a lawyer to say in a lawsuit, as it falls short of force/coercion but nevertheless hints rather strongly about it.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This pattern even includes the behaviour of the alleged victim and the accused after the  incident….it can be seen as part of a typical pattern of response to sexual assault.

Do you agree with what I have said so far?

Respectfully, not really.

Your reasoning treats a type of night as proof of a particular night. That is the step that does not hold.

A pattern can raise a question. It cannot answer it. “Similar occurrences” are not evidence of what these people did, or of her capacity at the moment the act happened. They are other nights, other houses, and other disputed accounts, selected because they resemble the charge. Once the resemblance is what got them into the set, using the set to prove the charge is circular. Drugs and alcohol make incapacity possible. They do not make it probable in the legal sense, and they do not identify who knew what.

Imagine if I were to rotely declare Jane Doe a false accuser by pointing to Nikki Yovino, Tawana Brawley, Crystal Mangum, etc.  Are those false accusations in those cases probative as to what happened at Cornell in 2024?  No.  I raised them above to present grounds to resist a mobocratic rush to judgment, which is what I think is happening here.

The law asks a narrower question than the pattern does. In New York, the relevant line is whether she was physically helpless — unconscious, or unable to communicate unwillingness — or whether someone incapacitated her without her consent. Voluntary intoxication short of that is not enough. A claim that, based on similar cases, she must at some point have crossed the line is a guess about a threshold the statute defines and the evidence has to meet. Likelihood borrowed from other incidents is not that evidence.

The aftermath does not repair it. Distress, delay, silence, texting, staying, leaving, accusing, and recanting have all been called the "typical" response. A pattern that fits every outcome does not discriminate between them. It can be true that assault victims often behave in one of these ways and still be true that the behavior does not show an assault occurred.

So no. At the point where a pattern makes incapacity “highly likely,” no one has yet been shown to have committed rape. That conclusion requires proof about this night: her condition at the time, and each person’s knowledge of it. Similar cases are where that proof is supposed to come from. They are not a substitute for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 12:15 AM by smac97

[bluebell]

Does anyone know the stats for false rape allegations for men?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your reasoning treats a type of night as proof of a particular night. That is the step that does not hold.

Not proof.  Evidence to be considered.  You are assuming I mean something I do not mean, that I finished and posted a conclusion about the event rather than probabilities.

We make choices based on patterns all the time.

You would likely tell your daughters to stay away from parties that had drugs and hooking up because of patterns of behaviour that are often associated with them even if you believe they would never take drugs willingly.

Or are you saying you would never issue that type of warning because just because such things had happened at past parties doesn’t mean it would happen at the one your daughter would go to? (Serious question, wondering if your mind works that way, not wrong if so, just different)

Edited yesterday at 01:44 AM by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Does anyone know the stats for false rape allegations for men?

Reliable stats go from 2-10%, most often 2-6%.  Enough to be cautious about, not enough to be dismissive imo.

I deep dove this awhile back, going from memory.  If you want a link to a reliable site, let me know.

Edited yesterday at 01:42 AM by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Does anyone know the stats for false rape allegations for men?

Or do you mean rapes of men, not by men?

If so, there might need to be two categories, the usual one and one for men who were accused by the person they are accusing.

That would be an interesting stat…how often do accused turn around and make similar accusations and how often are those false?

A relative’s exaccused her of abuse after she accused him in their divorce of getting her in a chokehold and restraining her.  He had some martial arts training.  He then accused her of abuse, her kicking him.  In disposition though, it came out that happened in bed when they were asleep.  He said it was intentional, but PLMD runs rampant in the family.  King size beds are mandatory to avoid bruising.

You hear of dueling accusations all the time in divorce cases.  Wonder what the frequency actually is.

Added:  Getting good stats for men is likely not great.  Everything I am pulling up includes or is only assault of women, which is too dominant (reports wise at least) to also be an estimate for male.  Apparently police and others may have had the tendency to label rape of males as no crime. (There was a small enough set of data to work with that one needed to be careful not to draw global conclusions on it).  I might look for something more recent when I have time.   Hopefully this has changed as this is from almost 20 years ago, but I have my doubts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127777_Policing_Male_Rape_and_Sexual_Assault

Quote

70

A third theme to be found within the existing literature is negativity

in response to men’s reports of sexual victimisation. In the evidence

presented in this article, there are examples of men being disbelieved,

laughed at or demeaned as a result of their disclosures. There is also

other evidence of negative reactions. On the basis of disclosures from

four men who participated in a male rape survivors group, Isley et al

found that their disclosures of being victims of sexual assault were met

with negativity: ‘Members shared personal stories about their negative

responses of significant others when the rape was disclosed. Frequently,

the men have encountered reactions such as hysterical laughter and

assumptions about how “gay men would want to be raped”’.71 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reliable stats go from 2-10%, most often 2-6%.  Enough to be cautious about, not enough to be dismissive imo.

I deep dove this awhile back, going from memory.  If you want a link to a reliable site, let me know.

That’s what I found as well. It’s interesting because men are statistically more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape but generally spend zero time worrying about protecting themselves from it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself.  A woman said it.  It must be so.  Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

I really have no time so will just respond here. 
 

A woman is invited to someone’s home by a “friend”. She is given a mind altering illegal drug by this friend. After taking this drug her “friend” texts 50 of his closest buddies that she is sexually available. Do you disagree with these facts?
 

To me, these facts alone are at the very least rape adjacent behavior. I think these facts alone are so reprehensible, that these young men deserve 100 percent of the shame and scorn sent their way. I think that these types of behaviors should be discouraged and public scorn is one of the best tools to do so. 

[Tony uk]

49 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A woman is invited to someone’s home by a “friend”. She is given a mind altering illegal drug by this friend. After taking this drug her “friend” texts 50 of his closest buddies that she is sexually available. Do you disagree with these facts?
 

To me, these facts alone are at the very least rape adjacent behavior

I feel your summary is the correct line to take.

 The female was placed in a situation by her "friend". And she was in no position to agree with intercourse with with anybody, let alone a large number. Also, potentially, in no position to defend herself.