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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Jane Doe makes a claim of sexual assault, and is presumptively believed, and any other response (such as a proposal to set aside emotionalisms and rage and dispassionately examine the evidence) is shouted down as "enabling" rapists and rape culture.

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

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

An alternative explanation, that someone else sent the "idk" text, would raise its own problems: modern phones are typically locked, the complaint does not mention anyone else using her phone, and any claim of spoliation or third-party use would need to be developed with the device itself.

 It’s relatively easy to flash a phone in front of someone’s face or grab their finger for Touch ID.  

I agree.  That's why I presented this "alternative explanation." 

We don't know if her phone was locked, but I think it is reasonable to provisionally assume that it was.

We don't know if her phone's security feature was based on fingerprint or face recognition (as opposed to a passcode or pattern code).  I don't think it is reasonable to make a provisional assumption either way at this point.

We don't know why Jane Doe's lawyer did not include any reference to this text message.  The options for assumptions are likely A) Jane Doe will say she did not remember sending this text, or that B) she did not send it (implying someone else, one of the frat guys, did).

Despite our not knowing these things, I think this development is significant.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless her phone is only password protected, I don’t see this as an issue.  

I do.  I think it is potentially a huge issue in terms of maintaining Jane Doe's narrative and timeline. 

Jane Doe did not present this text exchange with her roommate, or reference it at all, in her civil complaint, either as a factual allegation or as a defense/explanation.  The judge will want to know why.  The jury will want to know why.  The attorneys will want to know why. 

What the roommate will say will be important.  Technical examination of the phone will be important.  If she no longer has the phone, that will be important.  And so on.

If this issue develops at all, it seems far more likely to cut against her credibility than bolster it. Jane Doe will have to present an explanation as to why she did not mention the text exchange in 2024 or 2026, as she did with so many other details.  The factual allegations in her civil complaint start on page 23, numbered paragraph 132.  She includes all sorts of small but specific details of that night, such as the brand of vodka she drank at the sorority house that night (para. 136), that she then took an Uber to a bar, got an "X" stamped on both hands, but she had "at least one" drink there (para. 137-138), that around 10:00 p.m. she went to another bar, but an "under 21 wristband" (para. 141-142), that by this point "she had consumed about 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours" (para. 144), that she then went to the frat house, that Ingalls greeted her and gave her a beer and they then danced (para. 145-147), and so on.  More details about where she went, with whom, who did what, who was sitting where, who brought out the Ketamine, the commencement of the sexual behavior and details about it, and so on.

All sorts of minutiae about that night, but no mention whatsoever of her having received a text message, and of her having responded to it, right in the middle of the alleged sexual assault.  That seems like a significant omission, a significant gap in the factual narrative.

Similarly, Jane Doe's not-very-compatible-with-the-2026-civil-complaint written statement from 2024 is likewise replete with lots of specific details prior to and during the sexual behavior, but she didn't mention the text exchange with her roommate there, either.

Nowhere, in either of these fairly extensive accounts, does Jane Doe recount anything about her or someone else using her cell phone to send a context-appropriate text message to her roommate at 3:05 a.m., or that anyone else did, or that her roommate never mentioned this text message to her (even after she filed a complaint in 2024 and before or after she filed a civil suit in 2026), or that she (Jane Doe) was aware or not aware of the text message on her phone.  

Now, is it possible that

• A) Jane Doe's phone had a face or fingerprint style security feature, and
• B) was across the room, such that she could not reach it, and that
• C) one of the frat guys, despite apparently being in an alcohol-and-ketamine-induced stupor, immediately noticed at 3:05 a.m. that a text had come in on Jane Doe's, then
• D) this guy still had the presence of mind to think something like "Hey, someone may be texting her to check on her, so we need to head that off," and also figured out that the phone needed to be unlocked via fingerprint or face scan, and on that basis he
• E) picked up the phone, and
• F) walked it over to Jane Doe, and
• G) held the phone in front of Jane Doe's face or touched her finger to the screen to unlock the phone, and
• G) opened up the text messaging app and read the text message ("You coming home {tonight})?"), and
• H) typed in an innocuous response ("idk") and sent it, and
• I) accomplished items (C) through (H) within a few minutes of 3:05 a.m. (there is no intervening timestamp between the roommate's text message and the "idk" response to it), and 
• I) Jane Doe had absolutely no recollection whatsoever about the frat guy using her phone (despite having ample supposed recollections of all sorts of other details as to what was going on in that room), which is
• J) why she never mentioned any of this stuff in either her 2024 statement or to her attorney in 2026, and/or why he did not include any reference to it in the civil complaint?

Yes, it's possible.

Is there any evidence of this sequence of events?  So far, no.

Is it possible that Jane Doe sent the text?  Yes.

Is it likely that she did so while being sexually assaulted?  IMO, No.

Is it possible that she did so while participating in consensual sexual behavior (which is how she characterized that behavior in her 2024 statement)?  Yes.

Assuming the civil suit proceeds, the roommate is almost certainly going to be deposed.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Many a crime show has fingers or thumbs cut off for this purpose or forensic scientists even ‘wearing’ the dead guy’s skin to open the victim’s phone to save the tech guys work.  With a living body, even if passed out, seems like a no brainer.

There are a lot of assumptions built in to that assessment.  Far fewer, I think, than the alternative, which - applying Occam's Razor - would make it more likely that the phone was not "on the other side of the room," that Jane Doe noticed the text come in, unlocked her phone, and sent a brief response to it, which response gave no indication that she was being sexually assaulted.

I think the accused frat guys and their lawyers are finding this development to be really significant.  It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are already preparing deposition questions for the roommate, subpoenas for Jane Doe's phone, and research and arguments about spoliation of evidence (in case the phone is not available).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know the legal requirements, but just because she might be able to process and respond to a simple text, does that mean she’s not impaired enough to not be able to give consent.  “idk” is not evidence of higher level brain power in my book.

She had enough presence of mind to send a context-appropriate response to her roommate while she was being sexually assaulted, but she did not have enough presence of mind to mention the then-ongoing sexual assault?

And the frat guys who were allegedly were sexually assaulting her saw her receiving and sending text messages during a sexual assault, and did nothing about it?  They used force to facilitate the sexual assault (see paragraph 173), but they did not use force to keep her cell phone away from her during the sexual assault?

Yes, that could have happened.

Could it also be that she sent the text during a consensual encounter (that is, again, how she characterized her multiple threesomes in her 2024 statement)?  Yes.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

People drive cars heavily impaired after all.

If a woman is being sexually assaulted, and if she has an opportunity to contact a friend and alert the friend of what is happening, wouldn't it seem likely that she would make use of that opportunity?  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyway…it is possible she had brief moments of coherency enough to respond to a text, especially if someone prompted her if her ketamine experience was anything like mine were at times.  

I agree.

It is also possible that she received the text message and sent a response without having been prompted or coerced.  Again, her 2024 statement gives no indication that the sexual contact was nonconsensual.  And she did not mention any of this stuff about texts between her and her roommate.  Not in 2024.  Not in 2026.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Thursday at 01:02 AM by smac97

[MustardSeed]

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

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m sorry Smac I find it very difficult to engage with you.

That's all right.

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I suspect you just enjoy debate for the sport of it and I don’t want to participate in that anymore. 

You are incorrect.  I don't "enjoy" discussing this topic at all.  It is altogether unpleasant.  It is, however, important.

The American judicial system relies heavily on an adversarial process, in which allegations are presented by an self-interested party (the plaintiff) and are responded to by the self-interested party who is subject of those allegations (the defendant).  It is the job of advocates on both sides to collect evidence, examine it, and present it to a factfinder (the judge or jury).  The plaintiff's narrative is vetted by the defendant's efforts, and vice versa.

In the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened.  It's not about "for the sport of it" at all.  Not for me.  It's about getting to the truth.

Allegations of sexual assault are very serious, and ought to be treated as such.  They should also be carefully and dispassionately examined.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened.  It's not about "for the sport of it" at all.  Not for me.  It's about getting to the truth

Then why are you doing it here instead of some criminal or law website where people are more familiar with such things?  It appears our comments are not that insightful in regards to finding the truth of what happened.  No one here has any personal connection or ability to question those involved in the investigation, etc.   I hung out in Websleuths while as I trying to ascertain the truth of the Daybell missing kids.  Got a lot of good info there.  Also the freedom forums as there were people much more familiar with the circumstances.  
 

I shared info here because I thought people would be interested, but I don’t think I expected to get any significant tidbits of truth to determine the facts of the crime, if there was one, here.  That would have been unexpected even though there was a much closer connection with the Daybells here than there is connection with the Cornell case.  
 

This is a religious themed message board.  Also things related to the LDS faith and culture.  Cornell case facts is very off topic.  Now if you want to discuss the moral implications, that is relevant to a religious setting…but that’s neither objective or dispassionate conversation.  

Edited Thursday at 06:22 AM by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

She had enough presence of mind to send a context-appropriate response to her roommate while she was being sexually assaulted, but she did not have enough presence of mind to mention the then-ongoing sexual assault?

I believe the phrase is assuming facts not in evidence…at least on TV it is, lol.

If you want to find the truth, only deal with the facts dispassionately, shouldn’t you determine if she was the one who used the phone before pooh-poohing any speculation?  Didn’t you just say as much?

There is of course the option she was in full control of her body, her mind, and her phone even though she had consumed a large amount of alcohol earlier and continued to do so and as I just googled, drunkenness peaks around 1 to 1.5 hours after consumption and can last from 2 to 6 hours…don’t know it this is average for men and women, as I understand women are more susceptible due to size.  Google states she was likely drunk for at least 9-10 hours, having started with six shots of vodka at her sorority house, continuing at 2 bars until 10:30 pm when she went to the frat house.  Campus police has her self reporting as 5 out of 10 drunk…as if self reporting when drunk would be accurate.  It would appear she was familiar with alcohol, but this incident had her drinking excessively for her as well as lacking experience with the drugs, ketamine and marijuana.  I don’t think I could have accurately judged how intoxicated I was with either ketamine or cannabis the first time I used either.  In fact I know I couldn’t with cannabis because I described my experience to a doctor at an opiate class saying it didn’t do much for me and his eyes opened up and he said I was much more under than I thought and was likely close to having my breathing shut down (due to other medications I was taking).   Fun times.

But let’s assume even with the amount of alcohol she had partaken over time, she hadn’t consumed enough nor did the addition of more intoxicants push her past her actual limit and she was exaggerating her intoxication level when taking to campus police.

If she did have enough presence of mind to realize she was being assaulted, maybe she had enough presence of mind to realize it could turn ugly fast if the men became aware she was alerting someone to the rape.  It’s not uncommon for women to have been killed to cover up an assault.  So she didn’t even if she had a free moment.

Its really odd you seem to think if men were actually raping her, they wouldn’t be paying attention to what she was doing to make sure any text she sent was harmless for them.  Or that they wouldn’t tell her to answer the text so as to not alert anyone to come look for her, etc.

But perhaps they, unlike her, were actually too intoxicated to take in their surroundings and there were no issues with her texting because they were just laying around consensually having sex, while she checked her phone for messages (ouch, doesn’t bode well for their dignity).   Talking about the guys who said they were group taking drugs and making out with her with her awareness and permission, not just the two she had (idiotically imo) initially agreed to or the one(s) that deny any involvement.

Apparently one of the first guys (speaking for both) stated in a text message he and the other were too intoxicated to stop other guys from entering the room and joining the fun which led to it getting “way out of hand”.  Seems odd he would see it as way out of hand, but she would see it as consensual.  Out of hand generally means out of control.  Out of control implies lack of consent because it is not what is expected and no one is controlling it so consent can be properly gotten. Hmmm….Maybe he was just a lot more drunk than she and thus it was distorted for him.

Not saying any of this is what happened.  I am passionately and subjectively exploring possibilities…all of them, not just one side.  Could keep going with other ideas, need to post this before it gets blocked for too long since verified.  

PS:  not commenting on lawyer stuff because not a lawyer or lawyer adjacent, unlike the psychological stuff…have some training and experience there in psychology (not massive of course unlike others on this list including MustardSeed, the professional) and some minor, very minor experience about how women think….including personal experience being under assault (not rape, restriction as he backed off when I blame my dad for not allowing me to date him…and guess what, I didn’t call out even though there was a police station likely within shouting range, not did I mention it to anyone or called it an assault until years later nor was I anything but my usual friendly self when I saw him in class the next day…and the rest of the year, so embarrassed and humiliated by it, didn’t think I had anything to feel victimized about as he didn’t hurt me and I had willing gone on one date with him).

Edited Thursday at 08:31 AM by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

If a woman is being sexually assaulted, and if she has an opportunity to contact a friend and alert the friend of what is happening, wouldn't it seem likely that she would make use of that opportunity

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are.  

And why I don’t see your pursuit of truth as that objective since you are apparently relying on your gut to speculate about what a woman might do in her situation rather than research actual women’s reactions under threat.

I don’t even rely on personal experience because I get that not all women will respond as I did or as my friends and acquaintances who were assaulted did.   I go and look at studies. Unfortunately we have a very large base of women to draw from who can relate how they experience assault and responded to it.

For example:  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11251444/

Quote

Women’s behavioral responses during SA, also referred to as behavioral responses to threat (Anderson & Cahill, 2015) encompass both verbal (e.g., screaming) and nonverbal (e.g., pulling away) responses, and can be planned (e.g., distracting the perpetrator), unplanned (e.g., crying) and/or elicited involuntarily (e.g., freezing, dissociating, waiting for help). Behavioral responses during SA may refer to a singular response (e.g., kicking) or a series of responses (e.g., pleading, fighting, dissociating). Anderson and Cahill (2015) assert that these behaviors are all responses elicited by a SA and may be automatic and not be planned, or elicited by the women’s perception of the threat.

It’s around 40-50% of women who experience tonic immobility in trauma (the freezing response that often includes denial, etc), which includes sexual assault.  Count me as one of them.  Happens to guys too.  Might be even more traumatic to them when it happens given how our culture expect men to respond when attacked.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-King-49/publication/233184867_Adult_male_rape_and_sexual_assault_prevalence_re-victimisation_and_the_tonic_immobility_response/links/56e95bcd08ae77f87278f900/Adult-male-rape-and-sexual-assault-prevalence-re-victimisation-and-the-tonic-immobility-response.pdf

A more accessible article summarizing findings that reflects in particular on the Cornell case and what should actually be expected if educated about actual reactions in real life:

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a74083702/sexual-assault-survivors-psychology/

Fight, flight, or fawning….

Ensuring they do not anger the person confronting or assaulting them, hoping that will more likely let them get out alive, pretending it’s not even happening to them as in disassociation…not every woman will go to “help me” or “scream bloody murder” and go for the eyes or crotch in an uncertain situation.  In fact, we have to often be trained to do so and are told to practice, practice, practice.   I hadn’t had any self defense classes by that point and we didn’t train when I did either.  I like the more modern ones much better where women don’t just visualize or model, but actually get to hit a very wel protected aggressor.

And this downplaying, denial, disassociation, etc can be extended long after the assault or trauma:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11705429/

Quote

Again, her 2024 statement gives no indication that the sexual contact was nonconsensual. 

As would typically happen in cases where it was consensual and in cases where it wasn’t, but the victim is in shock and/or denial or doubling down on fawning.  I understand such behaviours are common enough in assault and trauma cases they are listed in the DSM 5 under PTSD and ASD.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/box/part1_ch3.box16/

Edited Thursday at 08:47 AM by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why are you doing it here instead of some criminal or law website where people are more familiar with such things?  

You want me to stop participating in this discussion, then?

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It appears our comments are not that insightful in regards to finding the truth of what happened.  

Okay.  I have never suggested that.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

No one here has any personal connection or ability to question those involved in the investigation, etc.  

There is a lot of evidence that has been made publicly available.  We can examine that evidence to some extent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

She had enough presence of mind to send a context-appropriate response to her roommate while she was being sexually assaulted, but she did not have enough presence of mind to mention the then-ongoing sexual assault?

I believe the phrase is assuming facts not in evidence…at least on TV it is, lol.

What facts do you think I am assuming?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you want to find the truth, only deal with the facts dispassionately, shouldn’t you determine if she was the one who used the phone before pooh-poohing any speculation?  Didn’t you just say as much?

We work with the evidence we have and draw reasonable inferences therefrom.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

If a woman is being sexually assaulted, and if she has an opportunity to contact a friend and alert the friend of what is happening, wouldn't it seem likely that she would make use of that opportunity

And this is another reason why I think you have a difficult time understanding how women think when under threat or at least believe they are.

I've been litigating for 22 years now.  I've observed dozens and dozens of judges in hundreds of hearings, and many more dozens of lawyers in hearings and depositions and such.  The question above is not definitive, but it's well within the boundaries of fair and reasonable inquiry in a legal setting.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And why I don’t see your pursuit of truth as that objective since you are apparently relying on your gut to speculate about what a woman might do in her situation rather than research actual women’s reactions under threat.

I think most other lawyers and judges examining these issues would ask the same questions I am asking.

And I'm not drawing any hard or definitive conclusions.  I'm presenting evidence and a reasoned assessment of it.  I have no commitment to inculpating Jane Doe or exculpating the frat guys, or vice versa.

The text message exchange between Jane Doe and her roommate at 3:05 a.m. may well end up being an important piece of evidence.  I surely would spend a lot of time on it if I was an attorney involved on either side. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

In the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened.  It's not about "for the sport of it" at all.  Not for me.  It's about getting to the truth.

Allegations of sexual assault are very serious, and ought to be treated as such.  They should also be carefully and dispassionately examined.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation?  And if it is possible to get to the truth here on this message board, what would that accomplish outside of the message board?

(I guess I'm asking, how viable is your stated goal and what is the positive outcome you are expecting should you achieve it)

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think most other lawyers and judges examining these issues would ask the same questions I am asking.

And I'm not drawing any hard or definitive conclusions.  I'm presenting evidence and a reasoned assessment of it.  I have no commitment to inculpating Jane Doe or exculpating the frat guys, or vice versa.

The text message exchange between Jane Doe and her roommate at 3:05 a.m. may well end up being an important piece of evidence.  I surely would spend a lot of time on it if I was an attorney involved on either side. 

Thanks,

-Smac

They would (and they have in other rape cases).  Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a reasoned assessment of this kind of evidence and they unintentionally end up victim blaming or victim shaming because of their ignorance.

This website is very short and explains some of the different ways that a person being sexually assaulted might legitimately respond in the moment.  It's doesn't include all the different ways, just some typical ones.  

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight/

This website discusses the many legitimate reasons that a woman might not report a rape right away. Sometimes it takes a woman a while to even be able to admit to herself that she was sexually assaulted (this most often happens when the rapist was someone that she knew or when she thinks that people aren't going to believe her and she knows she's going to suffer a second time from the consequences of reporting it.  It takes a while for many women to weigh the pros and cons of speaking out).

https://jacksonhealth.org/blog/2018-01-25-five-reasons-sexual-assault/

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Quote

In the end, the goal is, or ought to be, to ascertain - as best as we can - the truth of what happened.  It's not about "for the sport of it" at all.  Not for me.  It's about getting to the truth.

Allegations of sexual assault are very serious, and ought to be treated as such.  They should also be carefully and dispassionately examined.

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? 

In the sense of the U.S. legal system yielding an evidence-based assessment of the evidence and a reasoned and fair conclusion derived therefrom, yes.  Our system is far from perfect, but it's quite good, and about as good as we can hope to get.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

And if it is possible to get to the truth here on this message board, what would that accomplish outside of the message board?

None of us is in a position to act as a judge or jury in a legal sense, but we each of us can evaluate events and allegations and evidence and draw reasonable inferences and conclusions (or, alternatively, refrain from doing so).  We do this all the time on this board.  Just look at how many conversations have we had about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson, Tim Ballard, Ammon Bundy, the SEC issue, the Huntsman lawsuit, Nemo the Mormon, Mark Lamb, Paul Adams, Mark Lehnhof Stevens, Masterpiece Cakeshop, James Hamula, Shawn Gooden, Abraham Issac Cruz Hernandez, and so on.

Sometimes the issues are pretty straightforward, sometimes not.  I think it's quite likely that Joseph Bishop did some terrible things while president of the MTC, but I also think McKenna Denson fabricated and mischaracterized a lot of stuff.  I think many of the allegations against Tim Ballard are substantively true, but I also think there has been some overreach.  Ammon Bundy is straightforward.  James Huntsman's allegations were not really borne out well at all.  Paul Adams clearly did some evil things.

I have an acquaintance who was sexually assaulted.  After charges were filed, the accuser tracked her down at her work (janitorial work on campus) and arm-barred her against a wall.  She got a TRO against him.  There was forensic evidence.  Despite all this, the prosecutor dropped the charges.  I firmly believe my acquaintance, and was greatly discouraged at the outcome.

I also have an acquaintance who was falsely accused of rape.  He had "hung out" with a young woman twice, then ended things.  A few weeks later, she posted an accusation of rape against him on an "Am I Dating an A7sh&^e" Facebook group (with tens of thousands of members).  He lost his job as a direct result of this, and he also had a (female) friend end their friendship because of the accusation (she had seen the FB post).  He could not find a lawyer who would help him with a civil case.  I ended up helping him a bit until he found a law firm that would take his case.  They negotiated a settlement involving a retraction of the accusation and an agreement to not repeat it.  This cost him thousands of dollars of his own money.  I firmly believe my acquaintance (I know him very well, her allegation was vague and fairly falsifiable, and she withdrew it), and was gratified with the outcome but troubled that my acquaintance's life was so damaged.

I have no reflexive skepticism of allegations of sexual assault, but I think they need to be treated in essentially the same way as are allegations of other types of misconduct.  Presumption of innocence, hold off on a rush to judgment, hold off on mobocratic rage, evaluate the evidence, let things play out before reaching any firm conclusions.  I haven't seen that much here.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

(I guess I'm asking, how viable is your stated goal and what is the positive outcome you are expecting should you achieve it)

I think there is value in the public being informed and educated about the allegations, the facts, the evidence, and so on as pertaining to serious and important issues. Sometimes these matters don't garner

The Cornell matter seems to be a cause célèbre that is creating a sort of fever pitch rush to judgment and mob mentality, without sufficient regard for examining the evidence dispassionately.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Thursday at 05:45 PM by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

They would (and they have in other rape cases).  Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a reasoned assessment of this kind of evidence and they unintentionally end up victim blaming or victim shaming because of their ignorance.

Seems like this wording ("victim blaming or victim shaming") is begging the question and inverting the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This website is very short and explains some of the different ways that a person being sexually assaulted might legitimately respond in the moment.  It's doesn't include all the different ways, just some typical ones.  

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight/

This website discusses the many legitimate reasons that a woman might not report a rape right away.

Again, your comment here ("a woman might not report a rape right away"), as applied to Jane Doe, begs the question and inverts the presumption of innocence.

I fully agree that these are potential responses.  I think it is also possible that Jane Doe consented to the sexual contact that night.  There is evidence for that possibility.  Denying that evidence and that possibility stacks the deck, makes an accusation alone evidence unto itself, begs the question, and inverts the presumption of innocence.  Hence the need to resist the mob mentality and rush to judgment, and to attempt to dispassionately evaluate the evidence.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes it takes a woman a while to even be able to admit to herself that she was sexually assaulted (this most often happens when the rapist was someone that she knew or when she thinks that people aren't going to believe her and she knows she's going to suffer a second time from the consequences of reporting it.  It takes a while for many women to weigh the pros and cons of speaking out).

https://jacksonhealth.org/blog/2018-01-25-five-reasons-sexual-assault/

I acknowledge all of this.

Applied specifically to Jane Doe, though, this begs the question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Thursday at 06:07 PM by smac97

[smac97]

I asked Grok to summarize the text messages that are or may be pertinent to Jane Doe's allegations against the "Cornel 7":

Overview of reported text messages from the Cornell Jane Doe case

Publicly reported text messages involving the woman identified as Jane Doe in the 2026 civil complaint against seven former Chi Phi fraternity members (and others) at Cornell show a clear evolution in her descriptions of the October 19–20, 2024 night. Early messages are friendly and frame the events as non-criminal and involving mutual intoxication; later ones shift toward describing most of the activity as non-consensual. These messages also sit alongside specific allegations in her civil complaint and statements to investigators about incapacitation and lack of access to her phone.

Roommate exchange during the alleged assault

At 3:05 a.m. on October 20, 2024, Doe’s roommate texted: “You coming home tn [tonight]?” Doe replied: “idk.”

The civil complaint alleges that by this point (after a “free p&^^y” Snapchat message at ~1:42 a.m. and subsequent activity), Doe was so intoxicated she could not process events, her phone was “on the other side of the room,” and she “felt as if there was no way for her to escape this room full of predatory, fraternity men.” The complaint further describes her as becoming “completely incapacitated” later that night, with the alleged assaults continuing until around 5:45 a.m.

Lawyers for at least one accused man have pointed to the “idk” reply as evidence she could read, process, and respond to a message while the alleged events were ongoing. (Reported in New York Post, Oct. 13, 2026, and related coverage; complaint excerpts via DocumentCloud and contemporaneous reporting.)

Early post-event messages (Oct. 21–23)

Days later, Doe exchanged messages with at least one of the men she later accused (Jonathan Newell). She wrote that her memory was “super clouded too,” that “we were all way to f–king drunk and high,” and that “at the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really like being w u and matt. so anything anyone has to say about the gamgbang [sic] is out of their jurisdiction.” She added: “I don’t think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf.” She also referenced doing ketamine off his body as “one of the most insane/jaw-dropping moments of the night” and suggested they “smoke again sometime but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine.”

Separately, she texted Matthew Ingalls about campus rumors, including prior “transgender allegations” that she said she had given “no attention and it disappeared.” She advised: “Silence is the most powerful response always but i always want to say something is the prob.” She later wrote: “Also i had transgender allegations last year too so if anyone mentions it i mention the fact that i’ve been rumored about so many times. And we know i’m not transgender so.” She described the Chi Phi rumors as “ruining” her life temporarily and said people needed to “grow up cause sexuality and sex and s[–]t is changing.” (New York Post, Oct. 15, 2026, citing CBS News-obtained messages; earlier New York Post, Oct. 8, 2026; CBS New York reporting.)

Later shift (Nov. 3)

On November 3, she texted Newell: “Let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. i was given more key [ketamine] than i can remember and i know that i told you i felt uncomfortable and i didn’t know anyone in the room. all i remember after that was u giving me ket to do off your d–k in front of everyone like a sex doll/worker.” (Multiple outlets, including New York Post and CBS.)

Other reported context

• She asked about lost earrings her mother had given her and continued some friendly or neutral exchanges for days/weeks.
• She reported going to the ER for a rape kit around November 7 and contacted police around November 8.
• Her lawyer has described the early friendly messages as consistent with “textbook” delayed recognition or trauma responses.
• The district attorney has noted differences between her original statements to police and the civil complaint allegations.

These are the main publicly reported messages and the points of tension with the civil complaint’s timeline and descriptions of continuous incapacitation and inability to reach her phone. All of the above draws from contemporaneous reporting by the New York Post, CBS News/CBS New York, the New York Times, and related outlets that obtained and published screenshots or excerpts; the civil complaint is public (NYSCEF). The accused men have denied the allegations of non-consensual conduct.

Sources:

• https://nypost.com/2026/10/15/us-news/cornell-7-rape-accuser-claims-she-was-falsely-called-transgender/
• https://nypost.com/2026/10/13/us-news/cornell-7-accuser-sent-3-letter-text-during-alleged-gang-rape-messages-show/
• https://nypost.com/2026/10/08/us-news/texts-between-cornell-7-jane-doe-frat-brother-she-later-accused-of-rape-revealed-our-body-our-choice/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jane-doe-text-messages-cornell-fraternity-member/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/text-messages-reveal-new-details-in-alleged-gang-rape-at-cornell-university/
• https://www.wwaytv3.com/jane-does-account-of-what-happened-at-cornell-frat-from-text-messages-and-investigators-transcripts/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/url-cornell-university-jane-doe-rape-case-statement.html
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cornell-student-2024-statement-police-reveals-new-details-rcna600803
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/2026/10/06/i-felt-like-bait-timeline-cornell-university-rape-allegations/
• https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/03/us/cornell-rape-case-timeline-hnk
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Cornell_University_rape_allegations
• https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28717537/pages/jane-doe-v-cornell-university-complaint-p28.txt
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/cornell-texts-rape-investigation
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/09/30/cornell-7-jane-doe-rape-case-timeline/92003702007/
• https://katiecouric.com/news/national-news/cornell-sexual-assault-lawsuit-what-we-know/
• https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/cornell-university-student-rape-accusations-20261001.html
• https://lamag.com/crimeinla/cornell-seven-what-changed-between-jane-does-2024-police-statement-and-her-lawsuit/
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-the-cornell-seven-rape-case-became-a-national-scandal
• https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/gngbang-newly-surfaced-texts-show-alleged-victims-initial-reaction-before-accusing-cornell-students/news-story/39215151f513918fbd5a35cb97dad066
• https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/new-texts-between-cornell-7-2061773
• https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/northeast/texts-cornell-frat-assault/
• https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16204281/Cornell-Jane-Doe-texts-roommate-rape.html

---

I then asked Grok: "What provisional conclusions can be reasonably drawn from these text messages?"

The response:

Provisional conclusions reasonably supported by the reported text messages

The messages, as reported in multiple outlets that published screenshots or detailed excerpts (New York Post, CBS News, and others), allow a few limited, evidence-based observations. These are not legal findings about consent, criminal liability, or the truth of the civil complaint; they are inferences from the content and timing of the texts themselves.

1. Doe was able to send and receive coherent text messages during the period she later described as continuous incapacitation.
   The 3:05 a.m. exchange with her roommate (“You coming home tn?” / “idk”) occurred after the ~1:42 a.m. “free p&^^y” Snapchat message and during the window in which the civil complaint alleges she was too intoxicated to process events, her phone was across the room, and she felt there was “no way to escape.” The reply is short but responsive and grammatically coherent. This is inconsistent with a claim of total functional incapacitation at that moment, at least with respect to operating a phone.
2. In the days immediately afterward, Doe characterized the sexual activity as non-criminal and expressed positive or neutral feelings toward at least two of the men later named as defendants.
   Texts from roughly October 21–23 include statements that “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” that she “really like[d] being w u and matt,” that they should feel no shame because “our body our choice,” and that doing ketamine off one of the men’s bodies was “one of the most insane/jaw-dropping moments of the night.” She also suggested meeting again (while excluding “the extra 5 billion men and ketamine”). These contemporaneous statements are difficult to reconcile with an immediate understanding of the events as a non-consensual gang rape.
3. Her account shifted markedly within roughly two weeks.
   By November 3 she wrote that “90% of what happened that night was not consensual,” that she had been given more ketamine than she could remember, that she had expressed discomfort and did not know people in the room, and that she remembered specific acts she later framed as non-consensual. This is an evolution from the earlier “nothing illegal / our body our choice” framing. The messages do not themselves explain the change; they only document that it occurred.
4. She continued some ordinary, non-accusatory communication for days.
   She asked about lost earrings, discussed campus gossip (including prior “transgender allegations” that she said she had ignored), and maintained relatively friendly or casual exchanges. This is consistent with delayed recognition, trauma response, social pressure, or a genuine change in her assessment of events—none of which can be distinguished from the texts alone.
5. The early messages undercut any narrative that she immediately and consistently described the night as non-consensual.
   Whatever the ultimate facts, the texts show that her first documented private characterizations (to people who were present) treated the sexual activity as legal, mutual in at least some respects, and not something for which the men should feel shame. That is the opposite of the core theory later advanced in the civil complaint.

These points are limited to what the reported messages say and when they were sent. They do not resolve questions of consent, intoxication level over the full night, or what occurred outside the text record. They do, however, create a documented timeline in which Doe’s own contemporaneous statements differ substantially from the account later set out in her civil complaint and some statements to investigators. The accused men have denied the non-consensual allegations.

---

I also asked: "For people who have reviewed Jane Doe's 2024 statement, and her civil complaint, and the text messages, what overall reasonable and evidence-based inferences can be drawn so far?"

The response:

Overall reasonable and evidence-based inferences from the reported 2024 statement, 2026 civil complaint, and text messages

The publicly reported record (police/Title IX materials summarized in the New York Times, NBC, CBS, and others; the civil complaint; and the text messages published by the New York Post, CBS, and related outlets) supports a limited set of provisional inferences. These are not findings of fact about what occurred, nor determinations of consent or liability. They address consistency, timing, and the evolution of the account across the available sources.

1. Doe’s characterization of the night evolved substantially between the immediate aftermath, the November 2024 statements, and the 2026 civil complaint.
   In texts roughly 1–4 days after the event she described the sexual activity as not illegal, said she liked being with at least two of the men, invoked “our body our choice,” and referenced specific acts (including ketamine off a man’s body) in non-accusatory terms. By November 3 she was writing that 90% was not consensual. In her November 2024 police interview she stated she was raped with high confidence as to portions of the night and described significant incapacitation, but the written statement prepared from that interview was more limited. The 2026 civil complaint presents a more continuous picture of non-consent and incapacity across much of the encounter. The record therefore shows a clear progression in how she framed the same events.
2. The contemporaneous texts are difficult to reconcile with a narrative of continuous, near-total functional incapacitation during the critical early-morning window.
   The civil complaint and some portions of the 2024 statements describe her as so intoxicated she could not process events, with her phone on the other side of the room and no practical way to escape after the ~1:42 a.m. Snapchat message. Yet at 3:05 a.m. she received and replied (“idk”) to a roommate text asking if she was coming home. The reply is short but responsive. This does not prove she was fully capable of consenting to sex; it does indicate she could operate her phone and form a coherent reply at a time the later account places her in a state of profound impairment.
3. There are documented differences between the 2024 investigative materials and the 2026 civil complaint in the degree and timing of alleged incapacity.
   Reporting on the police interview and the six-page written statement indicates she described the encounter as beginning with consensual or at least non-forced activity that later became unwanted, with escalating intoxication and ketamine use. She also told investigators she took additional ketamine at one point in part hoping to pass out so that continued activity would more clearly constitute rape. The civil complaint more uniformly emphasizes inability to consent from relatively early in the sexual activity and describes her as “completely incapacitated” by the later stages. The Tompkins County District Attorney has publicly noted that the original materials he reviewed “provide a different narrative and set of facts” from the lawsuit. These differences are part of the public record.
4. Early private communications do not support an immediate, consistent understanding on her part that the events were a non-consensual gang rape.
   The friendly, non-accusatory, and in places affirmative texts to men later named as defendants (plus the ordinary request about lost earrings and discussion of campus gossip) are contemporaneous evidence of how she was characterizing the night to participants in the days afterward. Whatever psychological, social, or memory processes may explain a later shift, the texts themselves show that her first documented private statements treated key aspects of the sexual activity as legal and not something for which the men should feel shame.
5. The available sources leave significant gaps that prevent firm conclusions about the full sequence of events.
   The texts cover only discrete moments and later reflections. The 2024 statements and the civil complaint are Doe’s accounts; they are not independent contemporaneous records of the entire night. No public criminal charges have been filed. The accused men have denied the non-consensual allegations. The materials support the inference that Doe’s account changed over time and that some of her own contemporaneous statements are in tension with the strongest versions of continuous incapacitation later advanced, but they do not resolve what actually occurred between the parties.

These inferences rest on the content, timing, and reported differences among the three categories of material. They are provisional and limited to what those materials, as publicly described, show.

---

I then asked this: "What are the better pieces of evidence which support and substantiate Jane Doe's allegations?"

The response:

Better pieces of evidence that support and substantiate Jane Doe’s allegations (based on the public record)

The strongest publicly reported evidence favoring her account comes from contemporaneous fraternity communications, the university’s Title IX process and findings, elements of her statements to investigators, and limited physical documentation. These do not prove the civil complaint’s full version of events, and they sit alongside counter-evidence (including her own early texts and differences between her 2024 materials and the 2026 complaint). They are the pieces that most independently or consistently align with core aspects of her allegations.

1. Contemporaneous Snapchat messages from Chi Phi members.
   At approximately 1:42 a.m. on October 20, 2024, a message was sent in the fraternity’s “Chi Phi Actives” Snapchat group (roughly 40+ members) stating there was “free p&^^y” upstairs (or similar phrasing inviting people to “pull up”). Subsequent messages included “Like you can walk in and whip it out,” questions such as “Shop still open?” (answered affirmatively), and “Are you guys at least naked?” A photo of Doe was also shared in the chat.
   These messages are independent of Doe’s later statements. They show fraternity members treating the situation as one in which others were invited to join sexual activity with her. Cornell’s Title IX panel treated the Snapchat record as significant evidence. (Reported across New York Times, CBS News, CNN, and the civil complaint; video/screenshots obtained by multiple outlets.)
2. Cornell Title IX investigation process and outcomes.
   The university conducted an extensive investigation (more than 50 interviews with roughly 32 witnesses, electronic evidence including the Snapchat video, and a multi-day hearing process lasting about 12 days before a faculty/staff panel).
   Outcomes included: expulsions of two men (Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell), suspensions or campus bars for others, lighter sanctions (reflection papers, education requirements) for some, and permanent closure of the Chi Phi chapter. The panel found certain respondents responsible for sexual assault or attempted sexual exploitation; it did not find all seven responsible for sexual assault. It also treated as undisputed various facts about the sequence of activity, ketamine use, and the Snapchat invitation.
   This is an administrative (preponderance-of-the-evidence) process, not a criminal trial, but it is the most thorough formal review of the evidence conducted to date and produced sanctions consistent with findings of misconduct by some participants. (Cornell statements, New York Times reporting on discipline summaries, Wikipedia summary of panel findings, CNN, and related coverage.)
3. Doe’s statements to Cornell police and Title IX investigators (November 2024).
   In a lengthy interview (transcript reportedly ~120 pages), she stated “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped” regarding the later portions of the night, described becoming “completely and totally incapacitated,” referenced physical hitting, coercion (including giving in after repeated requests while exhausted/intoxicated), and gaps in memory. She distinguished an initial encounter she was “pretty OK with” from later events. She signed a shorter six-page written statement after review and corrections.
   The transcript contains more explicit language than the condensed written statement that was initially provided to the district attorney. Core elements of her account (escalating intoxication, additional men entering, discomfort, ketamine) appear across her statements to investigators, roommates, and the later complaint. (CBS News, New York Times, NBC, and Independent reporting on the transcript and statement.)
4. Limited physical and medical documentation.
   Doe reported a urinary tract infection contracted “in a traumatic way” when she sought care shortly afterward. She took photographs of a hickey on her neck and fading bruises on her buttocks that she attributed to being hit. She later went to an ER and requested a sexual assault forensic exam (rape kit) on November 7—more than two weeks later, limiting its forensic value for DNA. She reportedly preserved clothing.
   These provide some contemporaneous documentation of injury or medical issues she linked to the night, though they are not independently diagnostic of non-consent. (New York Times and related reporting.)
5. Supporting statements from some witnesses and consistency on certain points.
   Roommates reported that when she returned she described consuming ketamine and having sex with multiple men. Some fraternity members’ accounts to investigators acknowledged the Snapchat invitation, entry into the room, and sexual activity or ketamine use, though their descriptions of consent and her condition differed from hers and from each other. The Title IX panel found certain facts about the sequence and Snapchat activity to be materially undisputed.
   Ketamine was known to be in use at the house around that time.

Important limitations. No criminal charges have been filed. The district attorney has noted differences between the 2024 materials and the civil complaint. Forensic DNA evidence was limited by the delayed exam. Several of the accused have denied non-consensual conduct. Doe’s own early text messages (friendly framing, “none of the sexual stuff was illegal,” “our body our choice”) and the 3:05 a.m. roommate reply sit in tension with the strongest continuous-incapacity claims. The Title IX process used a lower evidentiary standard than a criminal case.

The Snapchat messages and the Title IX findings/sanctions are the pieces least dependent on Doe’s later narrative and most frequently cited as corroborative of the core allegation that the situation was treated by at least some participants as an open invitation for others to join sexual activity with her.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 10 hours ago by smac97

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems like this wording ("victim blaming or victim shaming") is begging the question and inverting the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt.

Again, your comment here ("a woman might not report a rape right away"), as applied to Jane Doe, begs the question and inverts the presumption of innocence.

In a sense, it completely does presume that the victim was harmed, as it should.  An investigation done right should allow the police to determine the validity of the victims accusations, but in the beginning yes the police should presume that the victim is telling the truth just as they do with victims of any other crime.  Police don't start out neutral in any other crime so why should they start out that way with rape?

Quote

I fully agree that these are potential responses.  I think it is also possible that Jane Doe consented to the sexual contact that night.  There is evidence for that possibility.  Denying that evidence and that possibility stacks the deck, makes an accusation alone evidence unto itself, begs the question, and inverts the presumption of innocence.  Hence the need to resist the mob mentality and rush to judgment, and to attempt to dispassionately evaluate the evidence.

Treating all evidence as if it has the same weight, and assuming all possibilities are equal to probabilities also stacks the deck and makes a possibility alone evidence until itself.

 

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the sense of the U.S. legal system yielding an evidence-based assessment of the evidence and a reasoned and fair conclusion derived therefrom, yes.  Our system is far from perfect, but it's quite good, and about as good as we can hope to get.

-Smac

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board.  Do we have any hope of getting to the truth here in our discussion?  You said that for you, posting here is about getting to the truth.  I'm asking if you think it's possible for you to get to the truth in this discussion.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In a sense, it completely does presume that the victim was harmed, as it should. 

An investigation done right should allow the police to determine the validity of the victims accusations, but in the beginning yes the police should presume that the victim is telling the truth just as they do with victims of any other crime.  Police don't start out neutral in any other crime so why should they start out that way with rape?

I guess we come from very different places. 

Again, you presuppose that a rape occurred.  This begs the question.  No "alleged" victim, just a question-begging "victim."  Ipso facto, the seven men are "rapists" in your view?  

If so, how do you reconcile this with the presumption of innocence?

If you were the mother or sister of someone accused of rape, and who denies the allegation, would you still characterize him as a rapist (no "alleged")?

Here is my perspective: The presumption that applies in the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence for the accused, not a presumption that the complainant is telling the truth (which is apparently what you are saying). Police investigate reported crimes; they do not begin with a formal presumption that any particular account is accurate, whether the crime is rape, robbery, or anything else.

In practice, officers take a report seriously and look for evidence that can corroborate or contradict it. That is different from starting with the conclusion that the complainant’s version is true and treating skepticism or contrary evidence as “victim blaming.” The latter approach short-circuits the investigation. It treats the accusation itself as sufficient to establish that a crime occurred and that the named person committed it.

Rape is not unique in involving delayed reporting, inconsistent statements, or questions about capacity and consent. Those issues arise in other crimes too. The proper response is still to examine the evidence—including contemporaneous communications, physical evidence, witness accounts, and the evolution of the complainant’s statements—rather than to treat any scrutiny as improper. When early statements or conduct are inconsistent with the later account, noting that inconsistency is ordinary investigative work.

Presuming the complainant’s narrative at the outset does the opposite of what the system requires: it shifts the burden onto the accused to disprove the claim before the evidence has been fully developed. An investigation can (and should) treat a report as worthy of thorough review without adopting the legal or rhetorical posture that the accused is already presumed to have committed the offense.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Treating all evidence as if it has the same weight, and assuming all possibilities are equal to probabilities also stacks the deck and makes a possibility alone evidence until itself.

Thank you for your thoughts here.  A few responses:

First, I have not suggested that we treat all evidence as if it has the same probative weight.

Second, no one is saying every possibility carries equal weight or that mere speculation equals evidence. The point is narrower: when there is actual evidence that is consistent with consent (or inconsistent with the claim of continuous non-consent/incapacitation), that evidence cannot be dismissed in advance simply because an accusation has been made.  But that seems to be what is happening in some quarters.

Third, evaluating the weight of evidence is exactly what an investigation and, if charges are brought, a trial are for. Contemporaneous statements, conduct, and communications that align with consent are not “just a possibility”; they are facts in the record that any fair assessment has to account for. In my view, treating those facts as irrelevant, or as automatically outweighed by the later accusation, is what "stacks the deck." It converts the accusation itself into the decisive evidence and requires the accused to disprove it.

Fourth, I think the proper approach is not to declare all possibilities equal. It is to let the evidence that actually exists—including evidence that cuts against the later narrative—be considered on its merits rather than ruled out of bounds at the start. That is ordinary evidence evaluation, not an assumption that every theory is equally probable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

In the sense of the U.S. legal system yielding an evidence-based assessment of the evidence and a reasoned and fair conclusion derived therefrom, yes.  Our system is far from perfect, but it's quite good, and about as good as we can hope to get.

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board. 

I can see that.  I think discussions on a message board ought to track at least some of the principles upon which our legal system is based.  The presumption of innocence, for example.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do we have any hope of getting to the truth here in our discussion? 

Yes.  We can look at the evidence.  Our legal system is, in most respects, left open to the general public, so we can end up having access to quite a bit of what both sides produce.

Consider our discussions about Joseph Bishop and McKenna Denson.  We addressed a lot of stuff, and I provisionally concluded that A) Joseph Bishop did something extremely inappropriate while he was the MTC president, but not conduct amounting to rape, and B) McKenna Denson was the victim of Bishop's misconduct, but I don't think she was truthful in her allegations of rape.  I think she significantly embellished/fabricated.

Look at the SEC dispute.  We addressed a lot of the evidence.  We were able to figure out quite a bit.

Look at the Hunstman lawsuit.  Again, the evidence was there for anyone to examine.  We examined it, and discussed it, and reached informed conclusions about what "the truth."

And so it goes.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You said that for you, posting here is about getting to the truth.  I'm asking if you think it's possible for you to get to the truth in this discussion.

At this stage?  Provisionally, perhaps.  It becomes more difficult to do when there is so much vitriolic and mobocratic behavior.

Jane Doe's allegations certainly deserve real consideration.  I don't think their validity is a foregone conclusion.  Rather, I think allegations of rape should be treated the same way allegations of any other crime are treated.  Here, though, the presumption of innocence has been inverted, critiques of Jane Doe's 2024 statement and text messages and 2026 civil lawsuit have been shouted down as "defending the rapists," and so on.

My preliminary assessment is that Jane Doe's allegations are, quality-wise, fairly poor.  I think there is effectively zero chance of a criminal conviction.  The prosecution has become politicized, and that is quite unfortunate, but we have safeguards for that sort of thing.  As for Jane Doe's civil claim, I think it is unlikely she will be able to meet the "preponderance" standard.  Again, her contemporaneous text messages and her 2024 statement is overall fairly damaging to her later claims of nonconsensual sexual contact.  The transcripts of her 2024 interviews with police might be very important, as it appears the prosecutor did not receive those, and I don't think they have been made public.  Her civil complaint does not seem to reference much in the way of corroborating evidence.

We spent a few years examining the "tithing" lawsuits.  Somewhat early on I predicted that the Church would win and the lawsuits would fail, and that was borne out.  This was not just guesswork on my part, but was based on the facts alleged and the applicable principles of law.  My prediction was not entirely correct, either, just mostly.

We can do the same when discussing the Cornell matter.  It will require us to set aside emotionalisms and examine the evidence in a dispassionate and fair-minded manner.  That's not really happening in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac