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

[MustardSeed]

I used to be a runner.  I moved to an area with no sidewalks so now I run on a treadmill but this was my experience - I didn’t think about it much but as I watched this, I thought to myself, geez, get out of my head.

[Calm]

I wonder how  many will gut react to this by thinking it’s her own fault because it’s obvious she wants the attention by her choice of clothing even if they don’t say it out loud?

[MustardSeed]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder how  many will gut react to this by thinking it’s her own fault because it’s obvious she wants the attention by her choice of clothing even if they don’t say it out loud?

Interesting, I didn’t consider that? But then I live in an area where this is normal clothing for runners. 
I remember living in Utah it would have been scandalous back in the day to show a “midriff” whatever that is lol

[Calm]

On 7/1/2026 at 6:22 PM, MustardSeed said:

Interesting, I didn’t consider that? But then I live in an area where this is normal clothing for runners. 
I remember living in Utah it would have been scandalous back in the day to show a “midriff” whatever that is lol

It is normal clothing, but that never stopped the comments when I was young.  I wore T-shirts and jeans and everything shown occurred for me.  I just still remember when the typical response when hearing of an assault was to ask what they were wearing or where they had gone (implying they should have known better).

Though such a focus may be due my age and my grandmothers (did not grow up in Utah, though visited included one extended stay for 4 months, but I hadn’t hit puberty at that time and hadn’t yet started to get the catcalls and older men being overly friendly,, though my grandmothers were definitely commenting about what other girls and women were wearing).

I would love it if I am out of date on this.

Edited July 10 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

On 7/1/2026 at 5:00 PM, Calm said:

I wonder how  many will gut react to this by thinking it’s her own fault because it’s obvious she wants the attention by her choice of clothing even if they don’t say it out loud?

I hope the mods can excuse the little bit of language in this clip. I believe this is applicable.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTSVrK686/

[MustardSeed]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8G7243g/

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8G7243g/

I don’t have TikTok so it won’t let me see it. Can you explain what’s going on?

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t have TikTok so it won’t let me see it. Can you explain what’s going on?

Sorry- I should have explained it.  Usually I can download and post but it didn’t let me- 
 

A man reviewing another account that where a female hairdresser shared that it’s not uncommon for men to pleasure themselves under the stylist cape during services.  The comment section was rampant with similar experiences, and the man telling the story was basically saying in a genuinely befuddled and sad way, “we are broken and we  have to fix this” . Apparently it’s a common enough practice that some cosmo schools warn their students of the behavior. 
 

 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Sorry- I should have explained it.  Usually I can download and post but it didn’t let me- 
 

A man reviewing another account that where a female hairdresser shared that it’s not uncommon for men to pleasure themselves under the stylist cape during services.  The comment section was rampant with similar experiences, and the man telling the story was basically saying in a genuinely befuddled and sad way, “we are broken and we  have to fix this” . Apparently it’s a common enough practice that some cosmo schools warn their students of the behavior. 
 

 

That’s so messed up. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sorry- I should have explained it.  Usually I can download and post but it didn’t let me- 
 

A man reviewing another account that where a female hairdresser shared that it’s not uncommon for men to pleasure themselves under the stylist cape during services.  The comment section was rampant with similar experiences, and the man telling the story was basically saying in a genuinely befuddled and sad way, “we are broken and we  have to fix this” . Apparently it’s a common enough practice that some cosmo schools warn their students of the behavior. 
 

 

My first reaction to this is men are too easily entertained.  

[The Nehor]

On 7/14/2026 at 8:26 PM, MustardSeed said:

Sorry- I should have explained it.  Usually I can download and post but it didn’t let me- 
 

A man reviewing another account that where a female hairdresser shared that it’s not uncommon for men to pleasure themselves under the stylist cape during services.  The comment section was rampant with similar experiences, and the man telling the story was basically saying in a genuinely befuddled and sad way, “we are broken and we  have to fix this” . Apparently it’s a common enough practice that some cosmo schools warn their students of the behavior. 

I think you’ll find that transgender people are the ones that are making women feel unsafe and creeped on. Cishet men aren’t doing anything wrong and if they are it is because of the male loneliness epidemic which is the fault of women.

On 7/14/2026 at 11:28 PM, Calm said:

My first reaction to this is men are too easily entertained.  

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. That is so juvenile it is almost just pathetic. It would be if it wasn’t so predatory. I mean, it is still pathetic but also predatory.

Edited July 20 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

Another addition--written by Adam Cam in response to breaking news about a gang rape that was reported in 2024 at Cornell--to the 'not all men' discussion:

Quote

 

A 20-year-old woman was drugged and assaulted for seven hours by seven men inside a Cornell fraternity house.

And while this was happening, a message was sent to the fraternity's active-members group chat basically telling other men there was “free p***y” upstairs. One of them later asked if the “shop” was still open.

I mean… what the f*ck?

Women are told from the time they're teenagers to watch their drinks, stay with their friends, don't walk home alone, share their location, text when they get home…

How about we start putting some of that responsibility on the men?

Because as horrific as all of this is, I can't stop thinking about everyone else around them. The men in that group chat. The men responding to those messages. The men inside that fraternity house.

At what point does someone think, “Hang on, what the hell is going on upstairs?”

And this is where I lose patience with the “not all men” argument.

Of course it's not all men. But if we're constantly going to remind women that there are loads of good men out there, then surely part of being one of those good men is actually doing something when the men around you cross the line.

And it gets even worse…

She reported what happened in 2024. Nobody was criminally charged. Nearly two years went by.

Then the lawsuit became public, the story exploded, people started demanding answers and now the criminal investigation has finally been reopened.

Why did it take this level of public outrage for this case to get another look?

But the part that's pissed me off most has been reading some of the posts on social media.

I've seen men talking about how drunk she was. That she took drugs. Asking why she went upstairs. Calling her a whore. Saying she wanted it. I've even seen men saying she deserved it.

And there it is.

Even when a woman says she was drugged and assaulted, somehow people still manage to turn the conversation into a list of things she should have done differently.

I don't care how much a woman has had to drink. I don't care what she's wearing, whether she willingly went upstairs, whether she took drugs or whether she's slept with one man or a hundred…

None of that gives you permission to have sex with her without her consent.

 

It's been reported that the text that was sent out went to 57 other men.  None of them did anything about it.  It's also been reported that the guy who sent that text was pre-med at the time of the rape.

[Tony uk]

I think it is so easy for a woman who has been raped, to be told she was wearing specific type of clothing, was behaving inappropriate, or in the wrong area/ environment. Adults, within their own reasoning, know what is right and wrong. So when a man, or group of men force themselves on a women. They will know what they are doing is wrong. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

I think it is so easy for a woman who has been raped, to be told she was wearing specific type of clothing, was behaving inappropriate, or in the wrong area/ environment. Adults, within their own reasoning, know what is right and wrong. So when a man, or group of men force themselves on a women. They will know what they are doing is wrong. 

Agreed. 

The Susan B Anthony Project has a Survivor's Art Gallery that shows what actual rape survivors were wearing when they were raped.  If you follow this link and scroll down a tiny bit, you can see it.  It's heartbreaking and shows that rape has nothing to do with clothing.

https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The Susan B Anthony Project has a Survivor's Art Gallery that shows what actual rape survivors were wearing when they were raped.  If you follow this link and scroll down a tiny bit, you can see it.  It's heartbreaking and shows that rape has nothing to do with clothing.

 I find it very appropriate, that information like this is put into the public arena, so that there is a better understanding of the matter, especially from the perspective of the female.

I think there was a movie in the 80s, with Jodie Foster. Possibly based on a actual event, or influenced by similar. That focused on a female, who went into a bar and was attacked by a number of men. If I remember correctly, the female was accused of incorrect place/dress/behaviour.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Another addition--written by Adam Cam in response to breaking news about a gang rape that was reported in 2024 at Cornell--to the 'not all men' discussion:

Quote

A 20-year-old woman was drugged and assaulted for seven hours by seven men inside a Cornell fraternity house.

A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And while this was happening, a message was sent to the fraternity's active-members group chat basically telling other men there was “free p***y” upstairs. One of them later asked if the “shop” was still open.

Some details here:

Quote

On the night of Oct. 19, 2024, the woman had been bar hopping with her sorority sisters before, visibly intoxicated, she headed to the fraternity house to hang out with a male pal who belonged to the frat, according to her 101-page lawsuit.

Once there, her friend propositioned her for a threesome with one of his fraternity brothers, to which she was incapable of consenting because of her drunken state, the suit argues.

The woman said she was pressured into snorting ketamine for the first time in her life, while also consuming high-proof rum and marijuana, according to court documents.

The defendants then “began engaging in sexual acts with Plaintiff, all without her consent,” the filing alleges.

One of the men left, and another entered to take his place, before the Snapchat “free p–sy” message was sent out, at which point, more men came, according to the suit.

While this was happening, the woman’s 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 suit alleges.

She was completely incapacitated while “heinous criminal sexual acts” were committed against her for the next four hours, until 5:45 a.m., court documents claim.

More details here:

Quote

A Cornell University frat brother asked if the “shop [was] still open” in reference to the female student who was allegedly drugged and raped in an hourslong gang assault in their Ithaca house, according to sickening newly obtained messages.

The message was sent in a Snapchat group chain between members of the Phi Chi fraternity on the night the student, referred to in court papers only as “Jane Doe,” claimed she was plied with drugs and sexually assaulted by seven students in October 2024.

“Shop still open?” read the text, obtained by CBS New York.

“Yea,” another frat bro flippantly responded.

It was unclear who sent the messages.

Earlier in the chain of Snapchat messages, one of the New York frat brothers announced that there was “free p–sy” upstairs, in reference to the woman, around 1:42 a.m., according to the woman’s lawsuit, which was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court earlier this month.

“I f–king love Chi Phi,” one of the members responded, while another added, “Like you can walk in and whip it out,” the suit alleged.

Per this article, this Snapchat thread was, in the eyes of Jane Doe's attorney, “inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client" and a 'critical piece of evidence' handed to authorities two years ago."

My initial reaction was concern for the young woman.  This is a terrible story.

Next, 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.

Nevertheless, what do the text messages actually say?  The key parts:

• “free p—y” (about 1:42 a.m.)
• “I f—king love Chi Phi.”
• “Like you can walk in and whip it out.”
• Later: “Shop still open?” — “Yea.”

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

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

Quote

One of the accused fraternity brothers then messaged the woman two days after the attack to apologize for “how things went down,” according to texts between the pair, CBS reported.

The young man, who was not identified, admitted that he should have “shut it down and kick[ed] people out before it got way out of hand,” a text said.

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

This later text — “shut it down… before it got way out of hand” — is stronger than the group chat. “Out of hand” is how people talk when a scene went past what they can defend, not when they think they hosted a tidy orgy.

That said, her reply (“Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal”), cuts the other way for a prosecutor, which is why the DA said the 2026 civil complaint is “dramatically different” from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024.

Quote

The alleged victim’s lawyer told the outlet he was aware of texts between the pair but could not verify their contents.

"Could not verify."  The later texts are potentially damaging to his case, and he does not want to go on the record about them.

More details per the civil complaint:

Quote

Local Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten — who has reopened an investigation into the woman’s claims, citing new potential evidence in her lawsuit after initially declining to press charges against the men — told the outlet, “We all process trauma differently.

“So we defnitly acknowledge that she may have different recollections, may have different interpretations, of what happened to her.

...

On the night of Oct. 19, 2024, the woman had been bar hopping with her sorority sisters before, visibly intoxicated, she headed to the fraternity house to hang out with a male pal who belonged to the frat, according to her 101-page lawsuit.

Once there, her friend propositioned her for a threesome with one of his fraternity brothers, to which she was incapable of consenting because of her drunken state, the suit argues.

The woman said she was pressured into snorting ketamine for the first time in her life, while also consuming high-proof rum and marijuana, according to court documents.

The defendants then “began engaging in sexual acts with Plaintiff, all without her consent,” the filing alleges.

One of the men left, and another entered to take his place, before the Snapchat “free p–sy” message was sent out, at which point, more men came, according to the suit.

While this was happening, the woman’s 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 suit alleges.

She was completely incapacitated while “heinous criminal sexual acts” were committed against her for the next four hours, until 5:45 a.m., court documents claim.

A lawyer for Kretzschmar denied that his client participated in any sexual abuse or any of the other acts detailed in the suit, including that he poured ketamine onto the then-20-year-old student’s body and snorted it off her.

Kretzschmar’s lawyer, Jeremy Saland, said a “hair follicle test” on his client showed he had no ketamine in his system. That test has not been independently reviewed.

Saland said Kretzschmar saw the Snapchat messages, went into the room for a few minutes and then left.

“She was not undressed. He didn’t see her under duress. She wasn’t having a hard time articulating anything,” the lawyer said of the woman and his client.

It would be interesting to see what legal claims Jane Doe has against Kretzschmar.  From this article:

Quote

Attorney Jeremy Saland spoke about his client, Scott Kretzschmar, in his first prime-time interview, on NewsNation’s “CUOMO.”

Kretzschmar is one of seven men sued in a civil complaint filed Sept. 18 in New York County Court by a former Cornell student identified as Jane Doe. She alleged the seven members of the Chi Pi fraternity raped her after she was pressured to take ketamine and could not consent.

Saland said Kretzschmar denies ever touching her or having sexual contact with her.

“It’s not okay to victimize an innocent person to further your goal, whatever that may be,” Saland told Chris Cuomo.

The attorney said his client was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay. Saland said she was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking.

Saland said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body. He said his client took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system. He also said the lawsuit’s opening lists his client as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not.

This is the difficult part of armchair quarterbacking the prosecutor's case. 

Allegation A against Kretzschmar ("said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body")

plus

Lack of Allegation B ("the lawsuit’s opening lists {Kretzschmar} as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not")

plus

Forensic Evidence ("{Kretzschmar}  took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system" (and K was not found)

plus 

Subsequent Seemingly Exculpatory Statement by Jane Doe ("'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too'") 

Would seem to create all sorts of room for "reasonable doubt" as to Kretzschmar.  And if Kretzschmar is exculpated by the evidence (the forensic evidence re: ketamine and Jane Doe's subsequent "not illegal" text message may do a lot to undermine her theory of the case, as it affects her credibility, and her credibility is vital), then her civil complaint against him - alleging that he committed rape - would be a false rape allegation.  And if she made a false allegation against Kretzschmar, is it possible that she is falsely accusing any or all of the other six?  

That's the way things might play out as to that aspect of the case.  There are other aspects of it that have some problems:

Quote

A lawyer for Lopes, Andrew Miltenberg, said his client also “unequivocally denies the allegations against him,” which he said were “previously investigated” by Cornell.

Lopes is accused in the woman’s suit of sexually assaulting her as well as pouring ketamine on her body and snorting it off her.

“The allegations now being made publicly differ from what was reported and investigated during that process,” he told CBS.

Huh.  I wonder what the differences are.

Quote

Van Houten said campus cops investigated the woman’s accusations at the time and that his office declined to prosecute because the evidence as it was presented to prosecutors wasn’t there.

The DA, who has come under heavy fire for the cops and his office’s handling of the case, said over the weekend that he is reopening the investigation because of purported new evidence from the woman’s lawsuit.

He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time “did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.”

Again: "{H}er sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

Quote

But the woman’s lawyer said the alleged attack was reported to both campus and Ithaca police and that they failed to follow up on key pieces of evidence such as the group chat.

I suspect "both campus and Ithaca police" looked at her initial sworn statement and took its claims - and the absence of claims of being "drugged against her will or gang raped" - at face value.

That doesn't mean she was not drugged or raped.  It does mean that the evidence in support of her claims is mixed, perhaps even mediocre-to-poor.

Quote

The Chi Phi fraternity chapter was closed in 2024 and remains barred from the prestigious Ivy League campus.

Some of the students named in the suit were allowed to “mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell,” according to court documents.

Some also were suspended and/or expelled, but the school has refused to say how many, much less who. The woman’s lawyer told The Post that two of the seven were expelled.

One of the students, Sarabia, was fired from his job at the Wells Fargo office in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the wake of the new allegations, it was reported Monday.

All seven of these young men have been named by names.  Their reputations may well never recover.

That does not mean they are innocent.  The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point.  It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I mean… what the f*ck?

I am similarly deeply concerned about this incident, regardless of the verity of the allegations.

Hookup Culture is a terrible thing, particularly when mixed with drugs and alcohol.

Systems and groups, like fraternities and sororities that regularly host drug-and-booze-filled events and lifestyle environments are creating the environment for, and facilitate and foment, licentious behavior, and are doing a terrible thing to individuals and to society.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Women are told from the time they're teenagers to watch their drinks, stay with their friends, don't walk home alone, share their location, text when they get home…

Good counsel, all of this.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

How about we start putting some of that responsibility on the men?

Because as horrific as all of this is, I can't stop thinking about everyone else around them. The men in that group chat. The men responding to those messages. The men inside that fraternity house.

"Responsibility" to do what?  

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

Again: Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

At what point does someone think, “Hang on, what the hell is going on upstairs?”

Looks like Kretzschmar, at least, may have thought that.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And this is where I lose patience with the “not all men” argument.

This is where I get confused about denigrating references to the "'not all men' argument."  What to "all men" have to do with any of this?  All but a very few of us were not situated to do anything at all.

As for doing "something," men do such things all the time.  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.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Of course it's not all men.

Then perhaps "the 'not all men' argument" ought to be recognized, particularly when broad generalizations are in play.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

But if we're constantly going to remind women that there are loads of good men out there, then surely part of being one of those good men is actually doing something when the men around you cross the line.

There are countless stories of men intervening to save others from harm.  Lots of men have done, and will do "something" when another person - man or woman - "cross{es} the line."

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And it gets even worse…

She reported what happened in 2024. Nobody was criminally charged. Nearly two years went by.

Then the lawsuit became public, the story exploded, people started demanding answers and now the criminal investigation has finally been reopened.

Why did it take this level of public outrage for this case to get another look?

A fair question. 

"{T}he DA said the 2026 civil complaint is 'dramatically different' from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024."

"He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

The forensic report on ketamine was probably close to the 2024 events.  If so, the prosecutor may have looked at that as well.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

But the part that's pissed me off most has been reading some of the posts on social media.

I've seen men talking about how drunk she was. That she took drugs. Asking why she went upstairs. Calling her a whore. Saying she wanted it. I've even seen men saying she deserved it.

If true, this is appalling.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And there it is.

Even when a woman says she was drugged and assaulted, somehow people still manage to turn the conversation into a list of things she should have done differently.

I don't care how much a woman has had to drink. I don't care what she's wearing, whether she willingly went upstairs, whether she took drugs or whether she's slept with one man or a hundred…

None of that gives you permission to have sex with her without her consent.

100% agree.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's been reported that the text that was sent out went to 57 other men.  None of them did anything about it.  It's also been reported that the guy who sent that text was pre-med at the time of the rape.

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

A terrible circumstance no matter what the facts turn out to be.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited September 29 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, was this consensual (or believed-consensual) group sex that was being advertised?  Or must it be read to mean “she is unconscious, come use her?"

In the context of this entire thread- I don’t care so much about the legalities of what can be determined to be illegal or not. This is disgusting and as a woman I’m not feeling safer in the world by any part of this story.

The only thing that invites more safety to my psyche is that the first exposure I had to the story was a man spouting off in a very angry way in a video talking about this and how disgusted he is with rape culture, and the fact that men do not do enough to shut this down with other men.

That’s a good start. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

In the context of this entire thread- I don’t care so much about the legalities of what can be determined to be illegal or not. This is disgusting and as a woman I’m not feeling safer in the world by any part of this story.

The only thing that invites more safety to my psyche is that the first exposure I had to the story was a man spouting off in a very angry way in a video talking about this and how disgusted he is with rape culture, and the fact that men do not do enough to shut this down with other men.

That’s a good start. 

Exactly.  Like the author said, of course it's not all men.  But it would not be the incredibly number of men that it is if all the 'good' men actually stopped enabling, celebrating, deflecting, and excusing the bad ones.  We need more guys like this author who recognize that when someone responds to these crimes with 'it's not all men', it's a sign that person has lost the plot.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law.

Some details here:

More details here:

Per this article, this Snapchat thread was, in the eyes of Jane Doe's attorney, “inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client" and a 'critical piece of evidence' handed to authorities two years ago."

My initial reaction was concern for the young woman.  This is a terrible story.

Next, 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.

Nevertheless, what do the text messages actually say?  The key parts:

• “free p—y” (about 1:42 a.m.)
• “I f—king love Chi Phi.”
• “Like you can walk in and whip it out.”
• Later: “Shop still open?” — “Yea.”

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

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

This later text — “shut it down… before it got way out of hand” — is stronger than the group chat. “Out of hand” is how people talk when a scene went past what they can defend, not when they think they hosted a tidy orgy.

That said, her reply (“Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal”), cuts the other way for a prosecutor, which is why the DA said the 2026 civil complaint is “dramatically different” from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024.

"Could not verify."  The later texts are potentially damaging to his case, and he does not want to go on the record about them.

More details per the civil complaint:

It would be interesting to see what legal claims Jane Doe has against Kretzschmar.  From this article:

This is the difficult part of armchair quarterbacking the prosecutor's case. 

Allegation A against Kretzschmar ("said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body")

plus

Lack of Allegation B ("the lawsuit’s opening lists {Kretzschmar} as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not")

plus

Forensic Evidence ("{Kretzschmar}  took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system" (and K was not found)

plus 

Subsequent Seemingly Exculpatory Statement by Jane Doe ("'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too'") 

Would seem to create all sorts of room for "reasonable doubt" as to Kretzschmar.  And if Kretzschmar is exculpated by the evidence (the forensic evidence re: ketamine and Jane Doe's subsequent "not illegal" text message may do a lot to undermine her theory of the case, as it affects her credibility, and her credibility is vital), then her civil complaint against him - alleging that he committed rape - would be a false rape allegation.  And if she made a false allegation against Kretzschmar, is it possible that she is falsely accusing any or all of the other six?  

That's the way things might play out as to that aspect of the case.  There are other aspects of it that have some problems:

Huh.  I wonder what the differences are.

Again: "{H}er sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

I suspect "both campus and Ithaca police" looked at her initial sworn statement and took its claims - and the absence of claims of being "drugged against her will or gang raped" - at face value.

That doesn't mean she was not drugged or raped.  It does mean that the evidence in support of her claims is mixed, perhaps even mediocre-to-poor.

All seven of these young men have been named by names.  Their reputations may well never recover.

That does not mean they are innocent.  The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point.  It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good.

I am similarly deeply concerned about this incident, regardless of the verity of the allegations.

Hookup Culture is a terrible thing, particularly when mixed with drugs and alcohol.

Systems and groups, like fraternities and sororities that regularly host drug-and-booze-filled events and lifestyle environments are creating the environment for, and facilitate and foment, licentious behavior, and are doing a terrible thing to individuals and to society.

Good counsel, all of this.

"Responsibility" to do what?  

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

Again: Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

Looks like Kretzschmar, at least, may have thought that.

This is where I get confused about denigrating references to the "'not all men' argument."  What to "all men" have to do with any of this?  All but a very few of us were not situated to do anything at all.

As for doing "something," men do such things all the time.  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.

Then perhaps "the 'not all men' argument" ought to be recognized, particularly when broad generalizations are in play.

There are countless stories of men intervening to save others from harm.  Lots of men have done, and will do "something" when another person - man or woman - "cross{es} the line."

A fair question. 

"{T}he DA said the 2026 civil complaint is 'dramatically different' from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024."

"He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

The forensic report on ketamine was probably close to the 2024 events.  If so, the prosecutor may have looked at that as well.

If true, this is appalling.

100% agree.

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

A terrible circumstance no matter what the facts turn out to be.

Thank you,

-Smac

Yes, it is terrible

[smac97]

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

A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law.

Some details here:

More details here:

Per this article, this Snapchat thread was, in the eyes of Jane Doe's attorney, “inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client" and a 'critical piece of evidence' handed to authorities two years ago."

My initial reaction was concern for the young woman.  This is a terrible story.

Next, 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.

Nevertheless, what do the text messages actually say?  The key parts:

• “free p—y” (about 1:42 a.m.)
• “I f—king love Chi Phi.”
• “Like you can walk in and whip it out.”
• Later: “Shop still open?” — “Yea.”

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

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

This later text — “shut it down… before it got way out of hand” — is stronger than the group chat. “Out of hand” is how people talk when a scene went past what they can defend, not when they think they hosted a tidy orgy.

That said, her reply (“Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal”), cuts the other way for a prosecutor, which is why the DA said the 2026 civil complaint is “dramatically different” from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024.

"Could not verify."  The later texts are potentially damaging to his case, and he does not want to go on the record about them.

More details per the civil complaint:

It would be interesting to see what legal claims Jane Doe has against Kretzschmar.  From this article:

This is the difficult part of armchair quarterbacking the prosecutor's case. 

Allegation A against Kretzschmar ("said the lawsuit accused Kretzschmar of snorting ketamine off her body")

plus

Lack of Allegation B ("the lawsuit’s opening lists {Kretzschmar} as accused of rape, but the text of the claim does not")

plus

Forensic Evidence ("{Kretzschmar}  took a hair follicle test and had no ketamine in his system" (and K was not found)

plus 

Subsequent Seemingly Exculpatory Statement by Jane Doe ("'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too'") 

Would seem to create all sorts of room for "reasonable doubt" as to Kretzschmar.  And if Kretzschmar is exculpated by the evidence (the forensic evidence re: ketamine and Jane Doe's subsequent "not illegal" text message may do a lot to undermine her theory of the case, as it affects her credibility, and her credibility is vital), then her civil complaint against him - alleging that he committed rape - would be a false rape allegation.  And if she made a false allegation against Kretzschmar, is it possible that she is falsely accusing any or all of the other six?  

That's the way things might play out as to that aspect of the case.  There are other aspects of it that have some problems:

Huh.  I wonder what the differences are.

Again: "{H}er sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

I suspect "both campus and Ithaca police" looked at her initial sworn statement and took its claims - and the absence of claims of being "drugged against her will or gang raped" - at face value.

That doesn't mean she was not drugged or raped.  It does mean that the evidence in support of her claims is mixed, perhaps even mediocre-to-poor.

All seven of these young men have been named by names.  Their reputations may well never recover.

That does not mean they are innocent.  The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point.  It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good.

I am similarly deeply concerned about this incident, regardless of the verity of the allegations.

Hookup Culture is a terrible thing, particularly when mixed with drugs and alcohol.

Systems and groups, like fraternities and sororities that regularly host drug-and-booze-filled events and lifestyle environments are creating the environment for, and facilitate and foment, licentious behavior, and are doing a terrible thing to individuals and to society.

Good counsel, all of this.

"Responsibility" to do what?  

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

Again: Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

Looks like Kretzschmar, at least, may have thought that.

This is where I get confused about denigrating references to the "'not all men' argument."  What to "all men" have to do with any of this?  All but a very few of us were not situated to do anything at all.

As for doing "something," men do such things all the time.  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.

Then perhaps "the 'not all men' argument" ought to be recognized, particularly when broad generalizations are in play.

There are countless stories of men intervening to save others from harm.  Lots of men have done, and will do "something" when another person - man or woman - "cross{es} the line."

A fair question. 

"{T}he DA said the 2026 civil complaint is 'dramatically different' from her initial sworn account and why no one was charged in 2024."

"He said Monday that her sworn initial statement at the time 'did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped.'"

Jane Doe's subsequent text to another young man states: "'Non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal,' although noting that her memory was 'super clouded too.'"

The forensic report on ketamine was probably close to the 2024 events.  If so, the prosecutor may have looked at that as well.

If true, this is appalling.

100% agree.

Again: "{Kretzschmar said he} was in the room only briefly and left because, based on what he saw, she was okay.  {S}he was not naked, was not passed out and had no trouble speaking."

A terrible circumstance no matter what the facts turn out to be.

Thank you,

-Smac

Two additional articles with added details:

How the woman in the alleged Cornell gang rape case realized she was a victim and launched a push for justice

CBS News obtains alleged victim’s sworn statement to Cornell University Police

 

A very troubling story.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

All seven of these young men have been named by names.  Their reputations may well never recover.

That does not mean they are innocent.  The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point.  It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good.

Good. Whether or not they can be criminally held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no doubt based on the snapchat thread alone that they should not have their reputations permanently tarnished. Presumption of innocence is great for the state, but other institutions need not be bound by it. Any person that is on a text thread offering free passed out p***** and take no action to stop or report it, deserves to have their reputation permanently tarnished. That is damning enough for me to think that each individual at the very least on that thread should be named and kicked out of school for a start. Men need to be more afraid of supporting rape culture than they are of being "bros". Consent for sex isn't given by other men in a snap chat thread. Full stop, end of story. No further information needed as far as tarnishing their cherished white male reputation. 

 

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

"Responsibility" to do what? 

Put a stop to rape. Report the conversation. Get the woman help. Stand up for her rights as a woman? Not support rape culture.

 

 

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

What to "all men" have to do with any of this? 

Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>. 

 

 

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

Next, 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.

I think you mean rape culture. It's the culture that makes young women doubt themselves after they've been raped. It's the culture that tells them to look inward and repent for their wrong doing in contributing to their rape. It's the culture that says she agreed to a threesome at a frat party so why should we tarnish everyone else that raped her after. It's the culture that asks how many drinks she had or what she was wearing etc. The culture that urges a girl not to ruin someone else's whole life for a little mistake. 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

All seven of these young men have been named by names.  Their reputations may well never recover.

That does not mean they are innocent.  The presumption of innocence gives us a starting point.  It is a rebuttable presumption, but so far the evidence needed to rebut that presumption seems to be not very good.

Good.

I'm not sure you understood what I mean.  The evidence needed to rebut/overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to these young men "seems to be not very good."

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Whether or not they can be criminally held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no doubt based on the snapchat thread alone that they should not have their reputations permanently tarnished.

Tarnished in what way?  As rapists?

If the young woman is found to have fabricated the allegations, should her reputation be "permanently tarnished?"

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Presumption of innocence is great for the state, but other institutions need not be bound by it.

Broadly, yes.  But there are real risks associated with entirely setting aside that presumptions.

If you had a neighbor or relative or co-worker falsely accuse you of sexual assault, I think you would very much appreciate the value of the presumption, and would object to efforts to disregard it and take an unsubstantiated assertion of misconduct, standing alone, as sufficient evidence of that misconduct.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Any person that is on a text thread offering free passed out p***** and take no action to stop or report it, deserves to have their reputation permanently tarnished.

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

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

What to "all men" have to do with any of this? 

 

Well here you are defending the rapists, so <shrug>. 

I am doing nothing of the sort.  I am examining the evidence.  I have repeatedly condemned any sort of sexual abuse or assault, and do so again here.

My first statement in this thread: "A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law."

In other circumstances I might have taken some umbrage at your accusation.  But you so frequently dole out baseless deprecations, like some sort of anonymous online Pez dispenser, that they have no force or impact.  

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Next, 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.

I think you mean rape culture.

No, I mean Hookup Culture in general, and the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System in particular.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's the culture that makes young women doubt themselves after they've been raped.

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

I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's the culture that says she agreed to a threesome at a frat party so why should we tarnish everyone else that raped her after.

If an unsubstantiated - and so far not very well corroborated - allegation of rape were leveled against you, I do not think you would join in the rush to judgment and condemnation which you are not endorsing.

Rape is a serious crime and it needs to be vigorously prosecuted.

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's the culture that asks how many drinks she had or what she was wearing etc. The culture that urges a girl not to ruin someone else's whole life for a little mistake. 

I was speaking of Hookup Culture, which is a social norm that accepts and encourages casual, uncommitted sexual encounters without requiring emotional intimacy or a traditional dating relationship.

I think nobody disputes that this culture exists, including you.  Am I right about that?

I think participants in and advocates of Hookup Culture, both men and women, should be deeply ashamed and turn away from it.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 2 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure you understood what I mean. 
 

That’s because you break apart posts to an extent where you lose the forest for the trees. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The evidence needed to rebut/overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to these young men "seems to be not very good."

That’s because you, as you have demonstrated over and over in threads like these, don’t have the foggiest idea how sexual assault normally occurs, is reported and treated. This is despite the repeated kind efforts of women in these threads trying to educate you. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Tarnished in what way?  As rapists?

Every single person in that text thread was at a place where a woman’s consent was treated as inconsequential and secondary to a man’s desire. It’s exhibit ‘A’ in rape culture.  

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the young woman is found to have fabricated the allegations, should her reputation be "permanently tarnished?"

Yes. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, yes.  But there are real risks associated with entirely setting aside that presumptions.

If you had a neighbor or relative or co-worker falsely accuse you of sexual assault, I think you would very much appreciate the value of the presumption, and would object to efforts to disregard it and take an unsubstantiated assertion of misconduct, standing alone, as sufficient evidence of that misconduct.

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

Yes. The fact that you don’t see them as such means you are part of the rape culture problem. And if I was involved in an incident with this much supporting evidence, I deserve everything I get. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am doing nothing of the sort.  I am examining the evidence.  I have repeatedly condemned any sort of sexual abuse or assault, and do so again here.

Sure. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My first statement in this thread: "A terrible story.  I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law."

In other circumstances I might have taken some umbrage at your accusation.  But you so frequently dole out baseless deprecations, like some sort of anonymous online Pez dispenser, that they have no force or impact.  
 

I call ‘em like I see ‘em. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

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

That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this sentiment is anything close to "prevailing attitudes" in American society.

I could only wish your views weren’t the prevailing ones in American society. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I think nobody disputes that this culture exists, including you.  Am I right about that?

I think participants in and advocates of Hookup Culture, both men and women, should be deeply ashamed and turn away from it.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t care who people decide to have sex with and I think blaming hookup culture for rape is rape culture exhibit ‘B’. 

Edited October 2 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

If a responsible person received such a text, would their first thought be “hey, it’s not unusual for a young woman to consent to having random sex with multiple guys when she is sober and capable of consent, so I can ignore the possibility that she has taken or been given drugs or drink and therefore is not truly capable of consenting.  Therefore, there is no need for me to go talk to her to make sure she is coherent”.  Or perhaps it would be “looking at what’s going on here and knowing of what has happened in similar circumstances in the past, these texts are red flags, I better go make sure she is both capable of consent and not under pressure to consent and if not, call 911 for paramedics and maybe cops”.  Or maybe “not my party, not involved, I will just pretend nothing is happening.”

Edited October 2 by Calm

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s because you, as you have demonstrated over and over in threads like these, don’t have the foggiest idea how sexual assault normally occurs, is reported and treated.

I have had a number of experiences as an attorney working with rape allegations.  I suspect you have not.  I also think you do not give much consideration to the legal aspects of this issue.  I think you would do better if you did pay some attention to that, and spend less time on ad hominem, appeals to outrage/emotion, and other logical fallacies.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Tarnished in what way?  As rapists?

Every single person in that text thread was at a place where a woman’s consent was treated as inconsequential and secondary to a man’s desire. It’s exhibit ‘A’ in rape culture.  

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

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

If the young woman is found to have fabricated the allegations, should her reputation be "permanently tarnished?"

Yes. 

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

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Broadly, yes.  But there are real risks associated with entirely setting aside that presumptions.

If you had a neighbor or relative or co-worker falsely accuse you of sexual assault, I think you would very much appreciate the value of the presumption, and would object to efforts to disregard it and take an unsubstantiated assertion of misconduct, standing alone, as sufficient evidence of that misconduct.

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

Yes. The fact that you don’t see them as such means you are part of the rape culture problem.

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

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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

That text thread is rape culture. And you are here both defending it and denying rape culture in the same breath. 

I could only wish your views weren’t the prevailing ones in American society. 

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

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t care who people decide to have sex with and I think blaming hookup culture for rape is rape culture exhibit ‘B’. 

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

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

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

Do you think "Hookup Culture" is a thing?

Thanks,

-Smac