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

[smac97]

.

Edited Saturday at 07:38 PM by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape.

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent.

That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape."

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law,

Alas, that won't happen.  At this point, even an acquittal or a retraction from Jane Doe would not restore them to their status quo ante.  

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?  

I think news stories that get this sort of coverage seldom end in rational outcomes.  For many, the options are A) the frat guys are guilty of rape, or B) the frat guys got away with rape.

I asked Grok what happened to the men accused in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Scandal:

Quote

What happened to the accused men in the Duke lacrosse case

In 2006, three Duke University lacrosse players—David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann—were charged with rape (and related offenses) after Crystal Mangum, a stripper hired for a team party, accused them. The case drew intense national media coverage framed around race and class.

Key developments:

• DNA evidence did not implicate them, and Mangum’s accounts were inconsistent.
• District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred and briefly jailed for ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence.
• In April 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all remaining charges and took the unusual step of declaring the three men innocent, calling the prosecution a “tragic rush to accuse.”
• In late 2024, Mangum publicly admitted she had fabricated the allegations.

Aftermath for the players

• Duke settled with them (reported figures around $20 million each in some accounts). They also reached a settlement with the City of Durham.
• David Evans graduated from Duke, earned an MBA from Wharton, and has worked in finance/private equity (including as a partner at Apax Digital).
• Reade Seligmann transferred to Brown, graduated, earned a law degree from Emory, and has worked as an attorney (including recognition related to eyewitness identification reform).
• Collin Finnerty transferred to Loyola University Maryland, continued playing lacrosse, later earned an MBA from Columbia, and has worked in investment banking.

Did their reputations recover?

Formally and legally, yes: they were exonerated, received substantial settlements, and built professional careers. The Attorney General’s explicit declaration of innocence, Nifong’s disbarment, and Mangum’s later admission removed the legal stigma.

In practical terms, recovery was incomplete and uneven. The initial media firestorm, campus protests, “wanted” posters, and suspension of the season created lasting public association with the accusations for many people who followed the story in real time. Some reporting notes that false accusations of this kind leave residual reputational damage that is hard to fully erase, even after exoneration. The players themselves and their families have described the experience as a prolonged ordeal that disrupted their lives, though they have largely moved on professionally and privately.

In short: the three men were cleared, compensated, and established careers, but the intensity of the original coverage meant that, for a significant portion of the public, the case remained a durable reference point long after the charges were dropped.

And that was for men who were affirmatively exonerated and won millions in compensation.

These guys will likely live the rest of their lives under the stigma of the accusations, regardless of whether the allegations are proved up or rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

@Grok

In response to your summary of the aftermath for men accused of rape falsely, Chat wanted me to be sure and let you know its opinion:

Quote

The Other Side of the Presumption of Innocence: What Happens to Women Who Report Rape?

It is legitimate to be concerned about men who are falsely accused of rape. A false accusation can damage a person's reputation, relationships, education, employment, and mental health, even when no criminal conviction occurs. A fair system must take that harm seriously.

But an argument that focuses almost exclusively on the consequences for men accused of rape is incomplete. It treats the possibility of wrongful accusation as the central danger while often overlooking the consequences for women who report rape—including women whose accounts are true, women whose cases cannot be proved, and women whose accusations are never accepted by the people around them.

The problem with the conclusion that we must therefore become more skeptical of women's claims is that skepticism is not applied in a vacuum. Women who report sexual assault already face social, institutional, and legal barriers. Greater skepticism can protect an innocent man in some circumstances, but it can also silence a genuine victim, reinforce misconceptions about sexual assault, and leave perpetrators free to harm others.

The appropriate goal is not to choose which sex deserves the benefit of the doubt. It is to assess evidence fairly, distinguish uncertainty from falsity, and recognize the consequences of both kinds of error.

1. In general: The consequences for women who come forward

A woman who reports rape does not simply tell a story and wait for a verdict. She may have to revisit a traumatic experience repeatedly, explain intimate details to strangers, answer questions about her behavior, and expose herself to disbelief, gossip, retaliation, or public scrutiny.

Her experience can become a matter of public debate in which people who know little about the circumstances decide whether she is credible. Friends may distance themselves. Partners may question her. Classmates or colleagues may treat her differently. She may be blamed for drinking, going to someone's room, knowing the accused, or failing to resist in a way others consider appropriate.

And none of these consequences requires the accused to be convicted—or even formally charged.

Research supports the significance of these secondary harms. A study of 374 college women found that blaming responses to sexual assault disclosures were associated with lower self-esteem and poorer coping outcomes. A separate study of 1,863 survivors found associations between negative social reactions and greater PTSD symptoms.

The consequences can also discourage future reporting. Qualitative research has documented survivors withdrawing from disclosure after being blamed, doubted, or treated insensitively by people they approached for help.

This creates a fundamental problem with the argument that we should simply become more skeptical of women's claims to protect men from false accusations. The social cost of reporting can be substantial even when the woman is telling the truth. Increasing generalized suspicion can make that cost worse without necessarily making anyone better at identifying false allegations.

That does not mean every allegation should be believed as an established fact. It means that the decision to report is not cost-free for women, and those costs belong in any honest comparison of the harms associated with sexual assault allegations.

There is also a distinction between being careful about what we conclude and being suspicious of the person who reports. We can avoid declaring an accused man guilty without automatically treating the woman as dishonest, manipulative, or mistaken.

2. When the woman's account is validated by the legal system

When a rape allegation results in a conviction, the legal system has determined that the evidence satisfies the applicable criminal standard of proof. That is a materially different situation from one in which an allegation remains unresolved.

But a conviction does not reverse the harm the woman has already experienced.

She may have endured:

The physical and psychological consequences of the assault itself.

Delays and uncertainty while deciding whether to report and while the case proceeds.

Repeated questioning about intimate details of the assault.

Challenges to her credibility and scrutiny of her conduct before and after the assault.

Disruption to her education, employment, relationships, and social life.

Harassment or hostility from people who support the convicted offender.

The continuing effects of trauma after the criminal case concludes.

A conviction can provide formal recognition that a crime occurred. It cannot restore the time, security, relationships, or sense of safety that may have been lost.

Nor does a conviction guarantee social vindication. People may continue to defend the offender, question the verdict, minimize the crime, or criticize the woman for reporting it. In cases that attract public attention, the survivor may remain the subject of commentary long after the trial ends.

The criminal justice process itself can also be difficult. A systematic review of 36 studies covering 288,066 sexual assault cases found substantial attrition at multiple stages, from investigation through conviction. The studies varied considerably in their samples and results, so their pooled figures should not be interpreted as a single national probability for every report. Nevertheless, the review illustrates how rarely a reported case necessarily proceeds through every stage of the criminal justice system.

If we care about the consequences of wrongful accusations, we should also care about the consequences of genuine assaults—even when a conviction is ultimately obtained. The former does not cancel out the latter.

And if the argument is that men can suffer reputational damage before a case is resolved, that is true. But women can also suffer reputational damage before a case is resolved, including when they ultimately prove their allegations in court.

The difference is that the woman may have already suffered the assault itself, while the accused man may or may not have committed the act in question. Both sets of consequences deserve consideration, but they are not interchangeable.

3. When the evidence is inconclusive and reasonable people disagree

This is the hardest category, because it is where the presumption of innocence, the limits of evidence, and people's competing interpretations collide.

Imagine a woman reports being raped while intoxicated. The man says the sex was consensual. There are no independent witnesses to the sexual encounter, the available messages are ambiguous, and the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.

One person concludes that the woman was assaulted. Another concludes that she is lying. A third concludes that the available evidence does not permit a reliable determination.

Only the third conclusion necessarily follows from the lack of sufficient evidence. The first might be supported by evidence not available to the second person, while the second requires a basis for concluding that the woman fabricated her account rather than being mistaken, unable to remember events clearly, or unable to prove what happened.

An allegation that cannot be proved is not thereby a false allegation. Equally, the fact that an allegation has been made does not establish that it is true.

This is where people often apply the presumption of innocence inconsistently. They correctly argue that an accused man should not be declared guilty without sufficient evidence, but then go further and treat the absence of proof as evidence that the woman fabricated the allegation.

Others make the opposite error, treating the woman's account as conclusive regardless of contradictory evidence.

Neither approach is sound.

The consequences for the woman do not depend on the verdict

If the woman is telling the truth, an inconclusive case may leave her without legal recognition of what happened. The accused may return to ordinary life while she continues to experience the consequences of the assault.

If the allegation becomes public, she may be called a liar, a vindictive ex-partner, an attention-seeker, or someone attempting to destroy an innocent man's life. Her motives may be scrutinized more closely than the evidence. She may lose friends or be excluded from a social group. She may regret reporting the assault at all.

If she is mistaken about some aspects of the event, she may still have experienced a frightening or distressing encounter. That does not automatically make every allegation accurate, but it also does not justify assuming deliberate deception.

And if the accusation is maliciously fabricated, then the accused man is a victim of a serious wrong and deserves appropriate protection and redress.

These are different possibilities. An inconclusive case does not tell us which one occurred.

The consequences for the man also matter

An innocent man may suffer significant reputational, professional, educational, and personal damage from an accusation, even if the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt. Public accusations can spread beyond the reach of later corrections, and a legal dismissal may not restore his reputation.

That harm should not be minimized.

But it does not follow that the appropriate response is to presume that women who make unproven allegations are lying, or to discourage women generally from reporting sexual assault.

The appropriate response is to avoid claiming more than the evidence supports, protect due process, discourage harassment and retaliation, and recognize that an unresolved case is not proof of either guilt or fabrication.

There is a further asymmetry worth considering: when the evidence is inconclusive, the accused may be protected from criminal punishment while the woman may receive neither legal validation nor social support. She can be left in the position of having to defend not only her account but her character, while the accused can point to the absence of a conviction as though it settles the underlying facts.

It does not.

The legal system may be unable to determine what happened. That uncertainty is real. But uncertainty about the facts is not a reason to assume that the person reporting harm is dishonest, any more than it is a reason to assume the accused is guilty.

4. What a genuinely rational and cautious approach would look like

If the stated goal is rationality and fairness, the standard should apply to both sides.

Do not treat an accusation as proof of guilt.

Do not treat the absence of a conviction as proof that an accusation was fabricated.

Distinguish deliberate falsehood from mistaken recollection, insufficient evidence, and inability to establish a crime.

Evaluate the evidence rather than relying on stereotypes about how a genuine victim or an innocent accused person should behave.

Recognize that trauma responses, intoxication, delayed reporting, imperfect memory, and apparently ordinary behavior afterward cannot be interpreted in isolation as definitive proof for or against an allegation.

Protect people from disproportionate punishment, harassment, and retaliation while facts are being established.

Allow proportionate safety measures and support without requiring a definitive verdict.

Apply the same intellectual standards to claims made by the accused and the complainant.

The aim is not to replace a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. It is to stop treating a legal safeguard against wrongful conviction as a universal instruction about whom to believe, whom to support, or whose welfare deserves consideration.

Chat knows it can go a bit long at times, it is used to a slower pace, so provided this Tl;dr version for Grok as well because it knows Grok is quite busy these days and wants to help the whiz kid make his mark in the digital world….

Quote

The central double standard

Here is the argument in a more concise form, suitable for a discussion:

I agree that false accusations of rape can cause devastating harm to innocent men. That deserves to be taken seriously. But an argument that focuses on this harm while concluding that we should be more skeptical of women's reports leaves out the other half of the problem.

Women can suffer serious consequences for reporting rape whether or not a case results in conviction. They may face disbelief, victim-blaming, social exclusion, harassment, and damage to their reputations. If their claims are true but cannot be proved, they may be denied both legal recognition and social support. Even women whose allegations are ultimately validated in court may have endured years of scrutiny and hostility before receiving that validation.

In an inconclusive case, some people will conclude that the woman lied, others will conclude that she was assaulted, and others will recognize that the evidence does not permit a reliable conclusion. Only the last position is necessarily justified by the fact that the case is inconclusive. An unproven allegation is not automatically a false allegation.

If we want to be rational, we must distinguish between protecting an innocent man from wrongful punishment and treating every woman whose allegation cannot be proved as presumptively dishonest. Those are not the same thing.

We should not presume that a man is guilty because a woman accuses him. But neither should we presume that a woman is lying because a man denies her account or because the legal system cannot establish guilt.

A fair standard does not ask us to choose in advance which sex deserves our skepticism. It asks us to evaluate the evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and take the consequences for both parties seriously.

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

You have a point. Outside of a legal context, I too believe these men were guilty (morally) of rape. Part of the problem becomes when (and if) these men are found innocent in a court of law, will we (the royal we) accept the verdict or will we rail against the very legal system that found them innocent?  

Those are good questions to ponder.  Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? 

What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)?  Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated?  If the answer is no, then it could not be wrong to rail against the legal system if someone were found innocent that we believed was guilty.

From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides.  Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement.  But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial.  Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature. 

[smac97]

IN THE SPOTLIGHT What happens next in Cornell 7? Exact evidence needed for charges, haunting texts, & loophole that could bring case down

Quote

THE fate of seven former Cornell fraternity members accused of sexually assaulting a student could hinge on a string of troubling text messages, conflicting accounts, and a controversial legal loophole.

After weeks of explosive allegations, leaked conversations, and denials from the accused men, prosecutors now face the difficult task of deciding whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges.

That the "difficult task" in view is determining whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges at all (as opposed to there being sufficient evidence to create a likelihood of a conviction) is a notable point.

Quote

The case, centered on an alleged assault at Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca, New York, in October 2024, is now being reviewed by state Attorney General Letitia James.

And two legal experts have told The U.S. Sun that while some of the evidence could help prosecutors build a case, other details may prove just as valuable to the defense.

I am not adept at criminal law, but the evidentiary issues in this case are pretty clear to anyone with experience in the law.

Quote

Former prosecutor Nana Knight said the biggest question is whether the allegations against the seven men could ultimately be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“As a former prosecutor, I’m looking at this case and I’m trying to see if this case, based on the evidence that’s out there in public, is provable beyond a reasonable doubt,” Knight told The U.S. Sun.

That Knight saying she is "looking at this case" and "trying to see" if it is viable "based on the evidence" is, to me, an indicator that she presently thinks that the case is not 

Quote

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit last month accusing seven men of sexually assaulting her after she allegedly became heavily intoxicated and was given ketamine.

The defendants have denied wrongdoing, and none has been criminally charged.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten initially declined to prosecute the case in 2024, but reopened the investigation in September after the lawsuit brought previously undisclosed evidence to public attention.

I wonder what the "previously undisclosed evidence" is.  I think it may be Jane Doe's affirmative statements to the police that she had been sexually assaulted.

Quote

What evidence could lead to charges

Knight believes the case has enough publicly available evidence to warrant a trial, although she stressed that prosecutors would face serious challenges in securing a conviction.

“Based on what I have seen that’s publicly available as a former prosecutor, that this becomes a triable case, right?” she said.

“Because there’s some evidence to indicate that not all the sexual contact was consensual.”

"Serious challenges."  I agree.  So far.

Quote

Among the evidence likely to come under scrutiny are Snapchat messages allegedly exchanged between fraternity members, texts sent by Doe after the incident, witness accounts, and records from Cornell’s internal investigation.

Prosecutors will need to establish what happened during the alleged encounter, whether Doe was able to consent, and what each accused man personally did.

Knight stressed that the investigation cannot simply treat the seven defendants as a single group.

“We have seven men, which means we have seven different cases,” she said.

“Criminal responsibility is personal, right? So each man has to be judged on what he did.”

A solid point, this.

Quote

Messages that could cut both ways

Some of the biggest complications may come from Doe’s own messages to the accused men after the alleged assault.

Previously leaked exchanges showed her initially describing parts of the encounter in positive terms, including a message referencing “our body, my choice.”

However, she later alleged that much of what happened was nonconsensual and that she had been too intoxicated to understand or remember everything.

Knight warned that both sides could use those messages to support competing versions of events.

“I mean, these messages cut both ways,” she said.

I think the text messages, both from the frat members to each other and the texts from Jane Doe, "cut both ways."

Quote

“So the prosecutor, you know, has to kind of reconcile that with this idea that sexual assault did happen and it was not consensual.”

Other exchanges reveal that one of the men apologized to Doe, raising questions about whether his remarks could be interpreted as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

But Knight cautioned against treating an apology as proof of a crime.

“An apology doesn’t mean a confession, right?” she said.

“I would expect the prosecutor to argue consciousness of guilt, an understanding and acknowledgement that the contact, the sexual act happened.”

She added that defense attorneys would likely offer a different explanation for the same comments.

Meanwhile, disturbing Snapchat messages allegedly exchanged among fraternity members during the night could face similar scrutiny.

A group chat included crude references to Doe and alleged invitations for other men to join sexual activity.

In one previously reported recorded conversation, a fraternity member was questioned about messages he allegedly exchanged with others that night. 

New York sexual assault attorney Megan Thomas said Doe’s seemingly conflicting accounts would not necessarily undermine the allegations.

“There’s a lot of seemingly conflicting evidence in this case,” Thomas told The U.S. Sun.

Yes, quite a bit of conflicting evidence.

Quote

“Evidence that she has said I was raped, evidence that she says my body, my choice. But that is how trauma victims generally present.”

This is a difficult point.  It sort of comes across as a "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" environment.  Jane Doe's statements that she was raped are taken at face value, but her statements indicating consent are not.

Quote

Thomas, who represents sexual assault survivors, said prosecutors could call experts to explain why a person might initially describe an encounter differently before later alleging assault.

Knight agreed that expert testimony could help jurors understand memory gaps or behavior that might otherwise appear contradictory.

However, both experts acknowledged that defense attorneys could argue the earlier messages support the men’s claims of consent.

“Both sides will use the evidence as best they can to support their own position,” Thomas said.

Ambiguous evidence does not bode well for a conviction.

Quote

What happens next?

Letitia James’s office must now review the evidence gathered during the original investigation, examine additional material, and determine whether further witness interviews or investigative steps are needed.

Knight said the earlier decision not to prosecute does not prevent authorities from reconsidering the case.

“Additional evidence comes to light,” she explained, which can allow prosecutors to “take a fresh look and make an independent decision on whether the evidence is sufficient.”

If investigators conclude that criminal charges are justified, the case could be presented to a grand jury, which would decide whether there is sufficient evidence to indict particular defendants.

An indictment would not establish guilt, and prosecutors would still need to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Knight suggested the competing evidence could make that a significant challenge.

“I would expect that there’s evidence that the prosecutor can use to make a case that this was, you know, that this should be criminally charged,” she said.

“But I could also see a lot of defense arguments raised which could also be effective at trial.”

This has been my assessment so far as well.

Quote

The review could take months, and there is no guarantee that any of the seven men will face criminal charges.

Separately, Doe’s civil lawsuit against Cornell and the accused men will continue regardless of whether prosecutors bring a criminal case.

The depositions will likely be important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

IN THE SPOTLIGHT What happens next in Cornell 7? Exact evidence needed for charges, haunting texts, & loophole that could bring case down

FYI, the USSun appears to be a tabloid that is judged unreliable enough it is not to be used as a reference on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun

Justification for the ban includes this:

Quote

• I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.

Again, what does this case have to do with the thread’s topic or the Church?

Edited Monday at 07:28 PM by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

FYI, the USSun appears to be a tabloid that is judged unreliable enough it is not to be used as a reference on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun

Justification for the ban includes this:

Good to know that The Sun is seen in some quarters as unreliable.

That said, I think the article was at least somewhat useful for its citations to comments made by Nana Knight (a former prosecutor) and Megan Thomas (a "New York sexual assault attorney").

Feel free to disregard.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Again, what does this case have to do with the thread’s topic or the Church?

First, Bluebell brought this topic into the thread in relation to the "not all men" topic.  IIRC, she and you have both amply commentated on that topic in various threads.

Second, my recollection is that the originator of the thread gets to generally determine its scope.  I started this thread.

Third, allegations of sexual misconduct intersect with, at a minimum, the Law of Chastity, and often the Word of Wisdom.  "And thus we see" and all that.

Fourth you are at liberty to pay no attention to my posts or this thread.

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic.  This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Monday at 09:33 PM by smac97

[The Nehor]

On 10/17/2026 at 2:52 PM, smac97 said:

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent.

That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape."

No, JUST NO!

Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. The guys were still snorting the stuff off of her. There is no reason to think they weren’t sober when they walked in.

On 10/17/2026 at 2:52 PM, smac97 said:

Alas, that won't happen.  At this point, even an acquittal or a retraction from Jane Doe would not restore them to their status quo ante.  

Nor should it.

On 10/17/2026 at 2:52 PM, smac97 said:

I think news stories that get this sort of coverage seldom end in rational outcomes.  For many, the options are A) the frat guys are guilty of rape, or B) the frat guys got away with rape.

I asked Grok what happened to the men accused in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Scandal:

And that was for men who were affirmatively exonerated and won millions in compensation.

They went on to lead successful lives in high paying professions? Oh, the AGONY!!!!!!!

This is likely to be the result for these guys too no matter how this shakes out. One of them is pretty closely related to powerful people in South Korea too and the big guns lawyers are crawling in. More will follow.

On 10/17/2026 at 2:52 PM, smac97 said:

These guys will likely live the rest of their lives under the stigma of the accusations, regardless of whether the allegations are proved up or rebutted.

It is amazing how depraved the whole thing was to you in general when you were talking about the victim and suggesting it was still debased even if consent was involved.

Now when talking about the alleged perpetrators you are wishing that they could have their reputations restored to some kind of pristine state? What happened to the bit about how depraved and debased the whole situation was no matter how it happened? Why shouldn’t people think less of them? I thought this was all very serious sin. Are we back to it counting less because they are rich white guys with bright futures that could be harmed by this?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

irst, Bluebell brought this topic into the thread in relation to the "not all men" topic.  IIRC, she and you have both amply commentated on that topic in various threads.

Talking about how the Cornell case relates to rape culture and not all men is not the same topic that needs one to analyze timelines, etc, to prove truth or falseness of accusations.  In fact, it comes across as avoiding the original topics to me at this point, though I suspect the reality is people just got distracted.

Quote

Second, my recollection is that the originator of the thread gets to generally determine its scope.  I started this thread.

True.  I am just curious why you see this as a thread topic that holds any relevance to the board.

Quote

Third, allegations of sexual misconduct intersect with, at a minimum, the Law of Chastity, and often the Word of Wisdom.  "And thus we see" and all that.

Yeah….somehow that feels like this is justifying gossip, etc.  Do we really need to know the timelines, texts, minute details, opinions of numerous people on who did what, etc before and after to comment on how this relates to the Law of Chastity and WoW or can we settle that connection with one sentence:  “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.”

Quote

Fourth you are at liberty to pay no attention to my posts or this thread.

And I am at liberty to comment on the relevance as well.

Quote

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic.  This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

But that doesn’t lead to a need to actually demonstrate what you think is a dispassionate assessment of evidence.  That’s a different topic.  Like talking about the need to maintain your car or it will break down sooner (the why) does not mean you must also talk about how to maintain it to be thorough.

Edited yesterday at 12:20 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic.  This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

Or we could act to effect social and cultural change so that women do not have to operate on the presupposition that all men are potential rapists? Just a thunk.

And no, your analysis is not dispassionate. You clearly favor the perpetrators over the victim. It is all over your posts here.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, JUST NO!

Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. The guys were still snorting the stuff off of her. There is no reason to think they weren’t sober when they walked in.

Nor should it.

They went on to lead successful lives in high paying professions? Oh, the AGONY!!!!!!!

This is likely to be the result for these guys too no matter how this shakes out. One of them is pretty closely related to powerful people in South Korea too and the big guns lawyers are crawling in. More will follow.

It is amazing how depraved the whole thing was to you in general when you were talking about the victim and suggesting it was still debased even if consent was involved.

Now when talking about the alleged perpetrators you are wishing that they could have their reputations restored to some kind of pristine state? What happened to the bit about how depraved and debased the whole situation was no matter how it happened? Why shouldn’t people think less of them? I thought this was all very serious sin. Are we back to it counting less because they are rich white guys with bright futures that could be harmed by this?

Such promising young men....

Judging a rape accusation by focusing on the woman's past (such as how drunk she was or what kind of girl she was to be where she was when the assault happened, etc) while focusing on the man's (men's) future is the epitome of rape culture in this country. 

Has what won't be restored to Jane Doe if she was actually raped been discussed yet?  Or do only the men's futures matter.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Such promising young men....

This both begs the question and, in my view, is not based on a dispassionate view of the evidence.

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Judging a rape accusation by focusing on the woman's past (such as how drunk she was or what kind of girl she was to be where she was when the assault happened, etc) while focusing on the man's (men's) future is the epitome of rape culture in this country.

I think we need to examine the evidence.

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Has what won't be restored to Jane Doe if she was actually raped been discussed yet?  Or do only the men's futures matter.

It has.  If she was assaulted, she deserves every measure of support and understanding.  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}."

If she was not assaulted, if she is making false accusations, then the risk of serious adverse consequences is fairly small.

Again:

Quote

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

Those are good questions to ponder.  Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? 

No.  The Lindsay Clancy jury nearly acquitted her.  Had that happened, I don't think we would be "morally bound" to accept such a travesty of justice.

Similarly, I think we all know O.J. did it.  We were not "morally bound" to accept the verdict that let him go free.

Casey Anthony.  The Rodney King officers.  

Acquiescing to problematic verdicts is not my point.  Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)?  Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated?

I think any agreement or disagreement with a verdict should be based on the evidence and a dispassionate assessment thereof.

Here, I don't see anything close to that.  I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides. 

I agree.  What I don't see, though, is evidence of "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone."  I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement. 

I agree.  But "support the system" does not mean we uncritically endorse every decision it makes.  Mistakes can happen.

Here, though, what I see at present on this thread is a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial. 

I agree. 

We are also not under any personal obligation to reflexively and uncritically accept or reject serious accusations.  We should examine the evidence and develop - as you put it - "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone."

I don't see that happening on this thread.  Instead, what I see is . . . well, you know.

On 10/17/2026 at 4:42 PM, bluebell said:

Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature. 

I am curious.  Are you saying we should not base our assessment on the evidence?  If so, then upon what should our assessment be based? 

We do have other options to non-evidence-based assessments, I guess: political considerations, "identity"-based affiliations and sympathies and antipathies, mobocratic rage, rushes to judgment, arbitrarily disregarding or inverting the presumption of innocence, prejudice.  None of these is good, IMO.  Assessing the evidence, dispassionately, is better.

None of us is perfect at this.  We all have our emotions and biases and subjective preferences.  For example, I really love the Church and am quite partial to it.  And yet years ago, while I was in law school, my initial assessment of the Main Street Plaza dispute was reflexively in favor of the Church.  However, as the case progressed, I came to see the merits of the legal arguments against SLC's agreement with the Church.  When the 10th Circuit's decision came out, I reviewed it and found it to be substantially correct.  Both the facts and the law were not on the side of the Church on that one.

I've said this, or something like it, a few times:

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

I have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct.  There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex.  I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them.

Nor is there particularized affinity with or presumptive antipathy toward Jane Doe, either.  I don't know her or have any connection to her either.

The presumption I do hold, however, is the presumption of innocence.  It is foundational for several interlocking reasons.

As a legal principle: It requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing punishment. The accused starts free of the stigma and consequences of a conviction; the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. This protects against conviction on weak, incomplete, or contested evidence and reduces the risk of punishing the innocent—an outcome that is irreversible and far more damaging than letting a guilty person go free in a given case.

As a component of a high-trust society: It underwrites the expectation that ordinary people will be treated as free and not under permanent suspicion. When the default is innocence rather than guilt, social and economic life can proceed with less fear that an accusation alone will destroy reputation, livelihood, or liberty. That baseline trust makes cooperation, commerce, and voluntary association easier; a society that routinely treats accusation as sufficient tends toward suspicion, self-censorship, and fragmentation.

As a constraint on state power: It limits the state’s ability to punish on the basis of its own assertion or convenience. By forcing the government to meet a high evidentiary standard in an adversarial process, it checks arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions, reduces the leverage of officials over private citizens, and preserves the idea that the individual is free unless and until the state affirmatively proves otherwise. Without it, the coercive power of the state expands dramatically and the practical difference between accusation and conviction shrinks.

I am troubled by what seems to be common and widespread licentious behaviors, both as to sexual conduct and recreational use of mind-altering substances.  The inculpatory evidence published so far is, in my view, fairly poor.  We have the group text shared by the frat members, but that can be reasonably interpreted in ways other than an invitation to join in sexual assault of an incapacitated woman.  We have Jane Doe's claims, but we also have contravening evidence - including her own statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 03:03 PM by smac97

[smac97]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I am undecided on that point, as I think the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish guilty intent.

That said, everyone was blotto, so if everyone lacked the capacity to consent, then Jane Does might be seen as also being "guilty (morally) of rape."

No, JUST NO!

Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’.

Also it has not been established that the sexual conduct on that night 2 years ago was nonconsensual.  Perhaps some of it was and other parts was not.  Perhaps, then, we ought to examine the evidence rather than rush to judgment.

As it happens, one of the primary sources for the idea that the frat members were inebriated is . . . Jane Doe.

According to her own 2024 sworn statement to Cornell police (and consistent details in contemporaneous reporting), she described the men as intoxicated and high on ketamine.

Key points from her account (primarily the six-page voluntary statement she reviewed, edited, and signed under penalty of perjury):

• The night involved heavy drinking and ketamine use by the group. She described snorting ketamine off the men’s bodies (and vice versa), including one instance of snorting it off a man’s genitals.  (Interestingly, there may be forensic evidence that rebuts this allegation as to one of the accused).
• Specific men were heavily impaired: one passed out and later said he wanted sex again for “redemption” after passing out earlier; another was dry-heaving / struggling not to vomit.
• She characterized the overall scene as involving men who were sufficiently intoxicated that some had trouble staying conscious, while she herself rated her intoxication at various points as a 5–6 out of 10 early on and later as high as an 8 out of 10 (“the most intoxicated I’ve ever been”).
• She and the men were described as jointly using ketamine and alcohol during the encounters.

Her later civil lawsuit emphasizes her own incapacitation and claims of pressure/coercion more strongly, while her contemporaneous police statement portrays a drug- and alcohol-fueled night in which both she and the men were using substances and were impaired. The men have generally denied wrongdoing and described any sexual contact as consensual.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The guys were still snorting the stuff off of her.

That's the allegation, yes, alongside Jane Doe's statements about her "snorting the stuff off of" the body of one of the frat members.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no reason to think they weren’t sober when they walked in.

Jane Doe's 2024 statement seems to merit some attention:

• From the Tompkins County DA’s summary of her statement: the night involved “the group snorting ketamine off each other’s naked bodies and guzzling booze as they had sex — with some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving as they tried not to vomit.”
• “At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as ‘5 or 6 out of 10’ and that she was ‘pretty ok with having this threesome.’”
• Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.”
• Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” She responded, “Sure.”
• In the interview that formed the basis of the statement (per transcript reporting), when asked if she was OK with the initial encounter: “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.”

She made these statements as an adult, voluntarily, under oath, within a fairly close timeframe of the events in question (when her recollections would have been most clear), and verified their accuracy.  All these are generally indicia of reliability and trustworthiness.  So should we believe her statements here or not?  If not, why not?

Her 2026 civil suit should also be taken seriously, despite it's self-serving and self-interested nature.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now when talking about the alleged perpetrators

"Alleged perpetrators."

I am glad to see you using this terminology.  Truly.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

you are wishing that they could have their reputations restored to some kind of pristine state?

If they are innocent of rape, then I would want their reputations restored as to that point, yes.

As to their sexually licentious behaviors?  I think besmirched reputations have already happened there.

I am curious if you think sexually licentious persons should have their reputations destroyed because of that behavior.  You, earlier in this thread: "Seriously, I am a full blown pervert but you can do much more taboo stuff with consent from all involved and have a lot more fun." 

Pervert: "A person whose sexual behavior or desires are considered abnormal, obsessive, or socially unacceptable."

I think the better way is for individuals to change themselves through faith, repentance, and morally upright conduct.

As it is, though, there are folks inverting the presumption of innocence, and are not dispassionately examining the evidence, and are instead rushing to judgment based on mobocratic rage.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What happened to the bit about how depraved and debased the whole situation was no matter how it happened?

I think sexual licentiousness is a terrible thing.  I would hope that individuals indulging in it would stop, reconsider their behavior, repent, and proceed to live virtuous lives.  Those who continue in licentiousness run the very real risk of doing harm to their reputation and standing in society.  Or not, since licentiousness is, in many quarters, endorsed and celebrated.

In the end, I think we should each focus less about social standing and more about our standing before "the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead" (Moroni 10:34).  “For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts" (D&C 137:9).

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why shouldn’t people think less of them?

Social opprobrium can, I suppose, have some utility.  Directed against sexual assault, and perhaps also against sexual licentiousness.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I thought this was all very serious sin.

It is.  However, I think there are legitimate distinctions between sexual licentiousness and sexual assault.  All are depraved and unhealthy and wrong, but the latter is - in my view - more serious because of its nonconsensual aspect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 05:26 PM by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

First, Bluebell brought this topic into the thread in relation to the "not all men" topic.  IIRC, she and you have both amply commentated on that topic in various threads.

Talking about how the Cornell case relates to rape culture and not all men is not the same topic that needs one to analyze timelines, etc, to prove truth or falseness of accusations.  In fact, it comes across as avoiding the original topics to me at this point, though I suspect the reality is people just got distracted.

I think they are interrelated.  The rush to judgment in the Cornell matter, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the generalized disregard or selective assessment of the evidence are all arguably perpetuations of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment you and others have been endorsing for years.  

"All men are potential rapists," so an accusation alone is sufficient to validate itself.

"All men are potential rapists," so we are free to disregard or invert the presumption of innocence in favor of a mobocratic rush to judgment.

"All men are potential rapists," so we don't need to dispassionately examine the evidence.

And so on.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Second, my recollection is that the originator of the thread gets to generally determine its scope.  I started this thread.

True.  I am just curious why you see this as a thread topic that holds any relevance to the board.

Asked and answered.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Third, allegations of sexual misconduct intersect with, at a minimum, the Law of Chastity, and often the Word of Wisdom.  "And thus we see" and all that.

Yeah….somehow that feels like this is justifying gossip, etc.  

My focus has been on attempting to dispassionately examine the evidence in a widely-reported story involving allegations of sexual assault. 

This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her voluntary and sworn statement to law enforcement in 2024.  That is not "justifying gossip."

This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her 2026 civil lawsuit.  That is not "justifying gossip."

This includes evaluating the text messages (to/from Jane Doe and some of the frat members, to/from Jane Doe and her roommate, to/from the frat members to each other).  That is not "justifying gossip."

This includes examining the published responses from the accused (the denials, defenses, the claim of exculpatory forensic evidence as to one of the accused, etc.).  That is not "justifying gossip."

If you want to call your own participation in the discussion "gossip," feel free.  I don't think I'll do the same about my participation.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Do we really need to know the timelines, texts, minute details, opinions of numerous people on who did what, etc before and after to comment on how this relates to the Law of Chastity and WoW or can we settle that connection with one sentence:  “Another example of why choosing not to drink, not to do recreational drugs, and not engage in premarital sex is wise.”

I'd like to see that.  But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)?  Or does it only apply to the "potential rapists" portion of society?  

Moreover, the issue is more than about sexually licentious behavior.  The allegations are about sexual assault, which are serious and deserve some real examination.

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic.  This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis, the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed, and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

But that doesn’t lead to a need to actually demonstrate what you think is a dispassionate assessment of evidence.  

We are all here voluntarily.  There is no "need" for any of us to say anything about any topic at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 20 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And no, your analysis is not dispassionate.

I am make a concerted effort.  I don't think you and most other participants can say the same.  I don't even think you guys are trying.  I've been watching a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment all the way.  I think that is a mistake.

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You clearly favor the perpetrators over the victim.

First, your statement's references to "perpetrators" and "victim" begs the question.  You previously referred to "the alleged perpetrators ," and I think that is more apt.  

Second, I do not favor the frat members.  I find their licentious behavior to be depraved and reprehensible.  The issue is whether the evidence - most notably Jane Doe's contemporaneous statement in 2024 and her text messages - indicates that their behavior amounted to nonconsensual sexual contact - rape.  Right now there is real doubt about whether a prosecutor could even get an indictment on the evidence, let alone a conviction.

Third, if a sufficient measure of inculpatory evidence eventually accumulates, those found guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (as I noted in my first post: "I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law").  Sexual assault and abuse is one of the most evil things that exist in our society, and it needs to be taken very seriously. 

Fourth, you have described yourself as a "full blown pervert."  If you, in behaving in ways that demonstrate this self-appellation, were ever accused of crossing the line into nonconsensual behavior, I think you would suddenly have all sorts of appreciation for the presumption of innocence, and for people who decline to do what you have done here, namely, disregard the evidence and go with a mob-rage-induced rush to judgment.  I think you might even request that bystanders fairly and dispassionately evaluate the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 22 hours ago by smac97

[MustardSeed]

Why is being dispassionate on a social media website important? 
 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, I find the abject prejudice and ugliness inherent in public declarations that "all men are potential rapists" to be quite problematic. 

Are you saying people that talk about "all men are potential racists" are bigoted? I thought you were above such calumnies. 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

This concern extends to situations such as the Cornell matter, where mobocratic rage and rush to judgment overruns reasoned and evidence-based analysis,

If you weren't so emotionally defensive about this issue, you *might, just might be able to understand that people can look at the same facts on the ground in a reasoned and evidence-based manner and disagree with your assessment. This disagreement might stem from different lived experiences and exposure to other information that they feel is more important here. Things like the likelihood of made up allegations vs the likelihood of sexual assault. Studies and personal experience with how perpetrators reach out and do damage control immediately after knowingly violating boundaries and how victims often downplay their own victimhood. These are all reasoned and evidence based things that can be studied. If you weren't so overwrought with emotion here, you would actually be able to acknowledge this.   

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

the presumption of innocence is inverted or set aside or destroyed,

The presumption of innocence is important to you, and it is very important feature of legal system. When adjudicating social behavior and how we judge and interact with others, it's not the only useful and rational way to interact with the world. This has been explained to you over and over. If I think someone is sketchy, I'm not going to do business with them or associate with them. I'm not going to wait until they are convicted of a crime. 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

and where efforts to dispassionately assess the evidence are shouted down as "defending rapists" and similar calumnies.

Your first post here instructed us as to how me "must" read the victim's texts as exonerating the accusers ignoring other reasonable interpretations. Your first post here asked us to set aside the plain language of the snapchat group chat and read it in a more charitable light. Why are you allowed to call the women here bigoted for explaining that they must view all men as potential rapists, but pointing out your strong preference in reading the facts here in support of the men a "calumny?"

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying people that talk about "all men are potential racists" are bigoted? I thought you were above such calumnies. 

"Calumny" is the act of making a false, malicious, or unverified statement about someone with the explicit intent to damage their reputation. 

People who go around announcing "All Muslims are 'potential' terrorists" or "All gays are 'potential' pedophiles" or "All Black men are 'potential' rapists" are making a per se prejudiced statement.  Hence there is no falsity or lack of verification.  And since I am attempting to persuade others to abandon this terrible sentiment, my critique of it has not been malicious.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you weren't so emotionally defensive about this issue,

My objection to "all men are potential rapists" is based on reasoning, not on emotion.

I object on similar grounds to "All Muslims are 'potential' terrorists" or "All gays are 'potential' pedophiles" or "All Black men are 'potential' rapists" and such.

Would you endorse these categorical denigrations?  Or, if you disagree with them, does that make you "emotionally defensive" about them?

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

you *might, just might be able to understand that people can look at the same facts on the ground in a reasoned and evidence-based manner and disagree with your assessment.

I do understand that.  I just haven't seen much in the way of "a reasoned and evidence-based" approach to this topic.

As it is, all you and yours have done in terms of "disagree{ing}" with my assessment is to label me a rape apologist.  That is neither reasoned nor evidence-based.  It's just ad hominem.

“All men are potential rapists”-style claims are prejudiced because they attribute a serious moral failing or criminal propensity to an entire demographic category on the basis of sex alone.

That framing treats men as a homogeneous group defined by risk rather than as individuals whose actual conduct, character, and choices vary widely. It substitutes group membership for evidence about particular people, which is the same logical structure used in other forms of stereotyping that are routinely recognized as unfair (e.g., treating members of any other large group as inherently dangerous or untrustworthy because of the actions of some subset). Most men do not commit sexual assault; the claim therefore overgeneralizes from the behavior of a minority and applies a presumption of potential guilt that would not be accepted if directed at other groups (such as Muslims, gay men, black men, etc.).

The result is a collective characterization that is both factually overbroad and ethically inconsistent with judging people by their own actions.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This disagreement might stem from different lived experiences and exposure to other information that they feel is more important here.  Things like the likelihood of made up allegations vs the likelihood of sexual assault. Studies and personal experience with how perpetrators reach out and do damage control immediately after knowingly violating boundaries and how victims often downplay their own victimhood. These are all reasoned and evidence based things that can be studied. If you weren't so overwrought with emotion here, you would actually be able to acknowledge this.   

While at BYU I dated a woman who had served her mission in Marseilles.  She told me that she harbored a strong and pervasive distrust and dislike of all Muslim men because she had had numerous unpleasant experiences with some Muslim men while serving as a missionary.

I appreciated the impact of her - as you call it - "lived experiences and exposure to" some Muslim men in Marseille in the early 90s, but I don't think she was justified in harboring prejudiced sentiments against the entire category of all Muslim men everywhere.

Different lived experiences and base-rate information are worth discussing. The difficulty is when that discussion collapses into a collective characterization of “all men” as potential rapists. That framing is not simply a heightened individual caution based on evidence about particular people or situations; it is a group-level presumption. Treating an entire demographic as inherently risky on the basis of sex is the same structure of stereotyping that is recognized as prejudiced in other contexts. Statistics about sexual assault, false reports, underreporting, or post-incident behavior can and should be examined carefully; they do not require or justify assigning potential criminality to every member of a sex.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The presumption of innocence is important to you, and it is very important feature of legal system. When adjudicating social behavior and how we judge and interact with others, it's not the only useful and rational way to interact with the world. This has been explained to you over and over. If I think someone is sketchy, I'm not going to do business with them or associate with them. I'm not going to wait until they are convicted of a crime. 

The presumption of innocence is a legal rule that governs the state’s power to punish. Outside that setting, people routinely make risk-based decisions about association, business, and trust on incomplete information. That is ordinary prudence. What is not ordinary prudence is converting incomplete information into a standing presumption that applies to an entire class of people. One can decline to associate with someone who seems sketchy without treating half the population as sketchy by default.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your first post here instructed us as to how me "must" read the victim's texts as exonerating the accusers ignoring other reasonable interpretations.

This is not remotely accurate.  It is a substantial falsehood and mischaracterization.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your first post here asked us to set aside the plain language of the snapchat group chat and read it in a more charitable light.

I did nothing of the sort.  The language in those disgusting texts is ambiguous, hence not "plain language."

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why are you allowed to call the women here bigoted for explaining that they must view all men as potential rapists, but pointing out your strong preference in reading the facts here in support of the men a "calumny?"

On the texts and the group chat, the request was not that they “must” be read as fully exonerating. The point was that they are relevant evidence that undercuts the narrative in the civil complaint and that they should not be set aside or reinterpreted solely to preserve the accusation.

Applying ordinary evidentiary standards—looking at what was said, when, and whether it is consistent with the later account—is not “calumny.” Calling a group-level presumption about all men “prejudiced” is an evaluation of the logical structure of the claim. Those are different exercises. One can acknowledge patterns, risk, and imperfect information without adopting a categorical rule that men, as a class, are to be regarded as potential rapists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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:

Quote

The woman allegedly replied, “Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,” although noting that her memory was “super clouded too.”

 

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your first post here instructed us as to how me "must" read the victim's texts as exonerating the accusers ignoring other reasonable interpretations.

This is not remotely accurate.  It is a substantial falsehood and mischaracterization.

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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

The woman allegedly replied, “Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,” although noting that her memory was “super clouded too.”

I don't understand.  Would changing "must" to "should" make the observation more palatable to you?

By what principle do you sift out relevant evidence?  What pieces of evidence merit attention and evaluation, and which do not?

For me, I think we start with questions about indicia of reliability, authentication, hearsay, inculpatory and exculpatory, and so on.  A near-contemporaneous statement from Jane Doe that "{none} of the sexual stuff was illegal" surely seems relevant.  Its authenticity does not appear to be in dispute.  Hearsay is not an issue.  It's facially exculpatory.  So what grounds do we have for not taking the text at face value?  There is certainly a fair argument which could be made about delayed processing, trauma, and so on.  There are also fair arguments which could be made about how she was telling the truth then, but changed the narrative.

Also, I said nothing about Jane Doe's statement "exonerating" the accused.  Reading and interpreting text messages in context and in relation to other communications is an entirely legitimate exercise that both sides will do.  Whether that results in exoneration or conviction is yet to be seen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Would changing "must" to "should" make the observation more palatable to you?

At a minimum a dispassionate evidence approach would require that you at least acknowledge that downplaying sexual assault by a friend is extremely common. So if we “must” acknowledge her text thread we “must” also acknowledge her realization later. We “must” also acknowledge how common it is for this exact thing to happen. Since you view me as an emotional wreck and you love chat bots here is Claude:

“When rape or sexual abuse is perpetrated by a friend how common is it that the victim initially downplays the assault”

Claude:

“

It's very common. Researchers call it "unacknowledged rape": the person's experience meets the legal definition, but they don't label it rape.

• Prevalence: A 2016 meta-analysis (Wilson & Miller) found roughly 60% of people who experienced rape didn't initially call it that. Earlier work by Mary Koss found around 70% in college samples. Exact figures vary by study and how questions are worded.
• Friends and acquaintances: Downplaying is more common when the perpetrator is someone known and trusted than when it's a stranger. It's also more common when there was alcohol, no visible physical violence, or no physical resistance, because those cases don't match the "stereotypical rape" many people picture.
• Why it happens: Common factors include wanting to preserve the friendship or social group, self-blame, fear of not being believed, and not wanting to see a trusted person as someone who would do this. Calling it "a bad night" or "a misunderstanding" can be a way to cope.
• Over time: Many people re-label the experience later, sometimes months or years afterward, often after hearing others' stories or learning more about consent.

Downplaying isn't a sign the assault was less serious or that someone is lying. If this is about you or someone close to you, I'm happy to talk it through or help find support.”

Edited 19 hours ago by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point.

I think it would help if more people saw you as actually doing that rather than believing you are doing that.  But the way you are choosing to talk about what facts we do know and where you then take it does not appear to be dispassionate to me.

Bluntly, it is coming across to me as a way to dismiss others’ conclusions…some of which are emotional, but some no more emotional than your own.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

  But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)?  Or does it only apply to the "potential rapists" portion of society?  

Is Jane Doe on this message board listening to the Law of Chastity or WoW discussion?  Will her behaviour or perspectives likely be remotely affected by our discussion?

And how are you applying a Law of Chastity or WoW discussion to the “potential rapists” portion?

If you are saying women would be much less likely to view men as potential rapists if they were aware the men were committed to living the Law of Chasity and WoW and this phrase might even disappear if the LoC and WoW became society wide, I agree with you.

If something else, I am not following you at all.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct.  There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex.  I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them.

They are men.  You are a man. You want men to be talked about a certain way…or maybe it’s not talked about in certain ways.   Probably both now I think of it. 

You do not always appear to be as cautious or caring about women if one looks at the amount of space you devote to concern about each and the emphasis you give when discussing the presumption of innocence in both cases.  

It’s not necessary that you be as concerned with women as men given you won’t encounter many of the same sorts of things that women encounter and it’s easy to assume you might encounter the same sort of stuff as other men.  The problem is you presenting yourself as dispassionate when you do so, but label others as emotional or rage based when they do something similar.

Your emphasis (the depth and amount of time you spend on this) and concerns about false accusations vs false acquittals is not dispassionate.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm