The Vassar case - right or wrong?

[Bronzeage]

I would like to point out that Yu did have a hearing and he was allowed to question Walker. Just not as fully as he wanted. Because she was crying too hard.

Crying too hard doesn't prove anything. Some people can switch it on and off.

We have a relative that's very good at manipulating her parents. She can switch the waterworks on and off at will. If you hadn't observed her over time you would have no idea her crying was fake.

Does crying too hard indicated deception in all women, or just your relative?

 

[Toni]

I would like to point out that Yu did have a hearing and he was allowed to question Walker. Just not as fully as he wanted. Because she was crying too hard.

Crying too hard doesn't prove anything. Some people can switch it on and off.

We have a relative that's very good at manipulating her parents. She can switch the waterworks on and off at will. If you hadn't observed her over time you would have no idea her crying was fake.

Up thread, I mentioned various possibilities for her crying, including faking.


You know what else doesn't prove anything? One person's side. Especially when that one person's side pretty much proves Vassar's case: he knows she was drunk enough that other people were concerned for her welfare. In other words: he knows having sex with her was a violation of the student code of conduct.

She doesn't need to be exonerated from anything. Why should she talk about this event?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Crying too hard doesn't prove anything. Some people can switch it on and off.

We have a relative that's very good at manipulating her parents. She can switch the waterworks on and off at will. If you hadn't observed her over time you would have no idea her crying was fake.

Does crying too hard indicated deception in all women, or just your relative?

You have it backwards. I'm saying "crying too hard" isn't evidence of her being raped.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Crying too hard doesn't prove anything. Some people can switch it on and off.

We have a relative that's very good at manipulating her parents. She can switch the waterworks on and off at will. If you hadn't observed her over time you would have no idea her crying was fake.

Up thread, I mentioned various possibilities for her crying, including faking.


You know what else doesn't prove anything? One person's side. Especially when that one person's side pretty much proves Vassar's case: he knows she was drunk enough that other people were concerned for her welfare. In other words: he knows having sex with her was a violation of the student code of conduct.

She doesn't need to be exonerated from anything. Why should she talk about this event?

We have her not taking any action until the last day when there's no reason to think that there would be a problem if she took action. We have her apparently friendly behavior without anything to explain it.

This case feels to me like some feminist got to her and convinced her she was raped.

As for her being exonerated--look at the poll: 6:0 against her. She has lost in the court of public opinion and is doing nothing to rectify that.

 

[RavenSky]

I would like to point out that Yu did have a hearing and he was allowed to question Walker. Just not as fully as he wanted. Because she was crying too hard.

Even by Yu's account, she was drunk enough to draw the concern of others, at least one of whom knew Yu really well and called campus security out of concern for Walker.

There are a few things about this case that do bother me - specifically the length of time before she filed a complaint through the university and more importantly the fact that her father was a long-time professor at the university which may have made it more difficult for Yu to get a fair hearing. There also seem to be issues with the disciplinary process itself.

At the same time, I think the contemporaneous reports to campus police regarding Walker's level of intoxication is why Yu was expelled, and if Vassar's policy is at all similar to most universities then he was forewarned not to be bopping drunk coeds no matter how enthusiastic they may appear to be.

 

[Toni]

Up thread, I mentioned various possibilities for her crying, including faking.


You know what else doesn't prove anything? One person's side. Especially when that one person's side pretty much proves Vassar's case: he knows she was drunk enough that other people were concerned for her welfare. In other words: he knows having sex with her was a violation of the student code of conduct.

She doesn't need to be exonerated from anything. Why should she talk about this event?

We have her not taking any action until the last day when there's no reason to think that there would be a problem if she took action. We have her apparently friendly behavior without anything to explain it.

This case feels to me like some feminist got to her and convinced her she was raped.

As for her being exonerated--look at the poll: 6:0 against her. She has lost in the court of public opinion and is doing nothing to rectify that.

Don't you mean 6:0 against Vassar? No, you probably do not. And so fucking what? The only side of the story out there is Yu's and it hardly exonerates him as clearly, clearly, clearly the woman was very drunk--as in too drunk to consent.

MANY victims of crime, especially but not only rape, do not report immediately. Or ever. Given the circumstances, it is unlikely she remembered much of what happened--or anything that happened. She is reported to have said she didn't want to get him in trouble.

I said nothing about the family member who assaulted me. For years. Even now, only two family members know anything about it at all, aside from him. My friend is still with the man who raped her and otherwise abused her. Another friend never reported it when her boyfriend responded to her breaking up with him by beating her and raping her. She just got the hell away from him, as far as possible.

You say 'some feminist' like it is a dirty word. How do you know that she isn't a feminist?

What grabs me the most is that other students saw her with Yu and called campus police because they were so concerned. They knew Yu. Now, Vassar isn't a large school and likely most students knew each other. But I do know that women tend to try to watch out for each other around certain guys much more than others. It might mean nothing: maybe they would have called security no matter who she was with. I really don't know.

Which is my whole point: We really don't know.

We know he had a hearing. He was allowed to question his accusor (or victim, depending on how you look at it). Questioning just wasn't as extensive as he wished it to be because she was crying. Imagine that: crying when questioned by the guy who took advantage of your extreme intoxication. And having to talk about it in front of your father's colleagues. Sounds pretty fake to me.

But we don't know.

We just don't know.

 

[credoconsolans]

Was derec happy with the result? That will tell me all I need to know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have her not taking any action until the last day when there's no reason to think that there would be a problem if she took action. We have her apparently friendly behavior without anything to explain it.

This case feels to me like some feminist got to her and convinced her she was raped.

As for her being exonerated--look at the poll: 6:0 against her. She has lost in the court of public opinion and is doing nothing to rectify that.

Don't you mean 6:0 against Vassar? No, you probably do not. And so fucking what? The only side of the story out there is Yu's and it hardly exonerates him as clearly, clearly, clearly the woman was very drunk--as in too drunk to consent.

Except we don't have evidence that she was too drunk to consent. We don't even have a good definition of "too drunk to consent".

MANY victims of crime, especially but not only rape, do not report immediately. Or ever. Given the circumstances, it is unlikely she remembered much of what happened--or anything that happened. She is reported to have said she didn't want to get him in trouble.

I said nothing about the family member who assaulted me. For years. Even now, only two family members know anything about it at all, aside from him. My friend is still with the man who raped her and otherwise abused her. Another friend never reported it when her boyfriend responded to her breaking up with him by beating her and raping her. She just got the hell away from him, as far as possible.

Remaining civil with someone that you have other ties with is understandable. There's no reason here, though.

You say 'some feminist' like it is a dirty word. How do you know that she isn't a feminist?

I'm referring to the ones that are determined to prove rape is widespread.

She had some stupid sex--she knew it wasn't rape. Someone convinced her otherwise.

Which is my whole point: We really don't know.

Which is no grounds to convict.

We know he had a hearing. He was allowed to question his accusor (or victim, depending on how you look at it). Questioning just wasn't as extensive as he wished it to be because she was crying. Imagine that: crying when questioned by the guy who took advantage of your extreme intoxication. And having to talk about it in front of your father's colleagues. Sounds pretty fake to me.

But we don't know.

We just don't know.

We know she submitted the complaint on the very last day. That makes me suspicious.

 

[Rhea]

MANY victims of crime, especially but not only rape, do not report immediately. Or ever. Given the circumstances, it is unlikely she remembered much of what happened--or anything that happened. She is reported to have said she didn't want to get him in trouble.

I said nothing about the family member who assaulted me. For years. Even now, only two family members know anything about it at all, aside from him. My friend is still with the man who raped her and otherwise abused her. Another friend never reported it when her boyfriend responded to her breaking up with him by beating her and raping her. She just got the hell away from him, as far as possible.

Remaining civil with someone that you have other ties with is understandable. There's no reason here, though.

What? They were on the rowing team together.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She had some stupid sex--she knew it wasn't rape.

There are two statements here. She had sex, she knew it wasn't rape. We understand that there was sex. Do we know that she was having sex?

Someone convinced her otherwise.

In order to be convinced otherwise, she would have had to have known she was having sex and that it was consensual. How exactly can she both know that and then be convinced it was rape. She, in all realistic sense, can only be convinced it was rape, if she didn't know what had happened. If she didn't know what happened, she couldn't have consented.

Regarding waiting to the last second, it can play both ways, in a multitude of ways.

- The stigma on campus of being a victim lessens, the later in the term she reports it.
- Those closest to her finally convince her to report it because otherwise, he gets away with it and he can make with another victim.
- She can come to better grips of it given time.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In order to be convinced otherwise, she would have had to have known she was having sex and that it was consensual. How exactly can she both know that and then be convinced it was rape. She, in all realistic sense, can only be convinced it was rape, if she didn't know what had happened. If she didn't know what happened, she couldn't have consented.

Given that she made the decision to stop having sex when the roommate came in, made it home on her own without any problems and had discussions with the guy about it the next day, it's safe to say that she knew exactly what happened and was coherent and in control of herself at the time. One can only speculate why she changed her story a year later, but she didn't change any of the evidence when she did so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In order to be convinced otherwise, she would have had to have known she was having sex and that it was consensual. How exactly can she both know that and then be convinced it was rape. She, in all realistic sense, can only be convinced it was rape, if she didn't know what had happened. If she didn't know what happened, she couldn't have consented.

Given that she made the decision to stop having sex when the roommate came in,

Maybe gave her the opportunity to get out at that point...?

...made it home on her own without any problems...

This is only inferred based on an alleged message from her.

and had discussions with the guy about it the next day, it's safe to say that she knew exactly what happened and was coherent and in control of herself at the time. One can only speculate why she changed her story a year later, but she didn't change any of the evidence when she did so.

I'd be curious about the roommate's testimony, if relevant.

Honestly, the problem with this case is not enough details are known. It'd be odd to just throw such an accusation out there when she did. What would be the motive?