I am certain you think I am one of those 'rape apologists', because I don't automatically assume a claim of rape was necessarily an actual rape until investigated and evidenced.
I read both reports in full. They practically read like two different incidents.
In the police report, the victim claims to have been drunk, flirtatious, and not sure if rape actually occurred. clear, verbal, and physical consent was given by the victim to have sex with two other men at the same time, however the victim appears to have thought there were three people when there were only two. As the incident continued, more men appeared on the scene and the testimony, photographs, and video footage taken by others nearby confirms the victim was outwardly welcoming and 'good natured' about it.
In the University report, a completely different story is written. In that story, consent was not given, she was held as a prisoner in a room with many men in it, and outwardly protested both verbally and physically. No physical evidence was provided that supported these claims, including the physical examination at the hospital the following day which did not reveal the expected injuries that would have occurred given this second version of the story.
My opinion after reading through over 100 pages... a three-way got out of hand in that it began to invite onlookers and additional participants and the woman did not say 'no'. The women acted coy, saying things like, "I can't take you all on" in a sarcastic tone, etc... The woman later regretted the event because many pictures and video of the event were taken, and uploaded to snapchat, instagram, and tinder... and people used her phone and account info to link it so she was clearly identified as the woman in the photos and videos...
She should have put limits on the encounter, didn't, and regretted it. This was 'retroactively rape, due to regret'.
The evidence collected by police was insufficient to arrest anyone for rape, because it wasn't
No evidence was collected by the U, but the new testimony was sufficient for them to apply their Sexual Harassment Policy.
And this is why I haven't bothered with reading the university "report". We have one group trained at finding the truth. We have another group of amateurs with an agenda. It's like the BBC vs Weekly World News.
Okay, where to begin...how about with Loren...no Loren, this isn't the reason you did not read the report. The reason you did not read the report is because you are a lazy cunt of a debater, in that you only read sources that agree with your conclusion when you even bother to read any sources at all. You have pretty much always 100% disregarded any source that you know is counter to your beliefs since I've been around here. Until you read the two reports you really should stfu about this case, just like everybody has said. You have nothing to say here because you literally know next to nothing.
Malificent - Yeah, you would have a good case if only you hadn't left out multiple pertinent points.
1. More than one of the accused told the police and the University, they either felt what was happening was wrong or heard the girl say something was wrong and she wanted it to stop. It's NOT just her saying this. It's people that have a lot to lose by admitting this happened and they did nothing saying it happened.
2. Witnesses including the accused stated to police and the University, that one of the accused told several people, without the girls permission that they could fuck her.
3. The same accused as #2 also sent her texts saying what happened wasn't cool and allegedly met with her to make sure she wasn't going to tell.
4. Witnesses, including more than one accused told the police and university that at various times accused persons were harassing her chanting things, flashing lights off and on and discussing who was going to fuck her next as more and more men, whom this girl couldn't even know where present decided who was going to be next.
5. Witnesses told police and the University that at various times the lights were off and/or the door was locked.
6. It doesn't matter if she agreed to a threesome. What matters is that at some point, several parties agree the girl did not want sex with some of these men and they still made her do it/and or did nothing to stop it.
7. More than just the accuser stated there was "rough sex" and it's known that there were multiple large football players having sex with her, two of the accused also said so. The fact that she didn't have massive trauma when she was examined is an oddity no matter whose story you believe. It doesn't make one version any more believable than the other.
8. The girl did not say she was out of her mind drunk to either police or the University.
9. She admittedly and clearly had lapses in memory at the beginning and began to remember details later, hence why with new information and memories her story changed slightly. The police officer that treated her told her that was likely to happen in cases like this, you evidently believe it's grounds to dismiss everything else.
10. It's pretty coincidental that in every case where she's describing sex acts with her version the actual sex acts nearly match up 100% of the time only the guys versions in 80% have excuses. Like it wasn't that one guy tried to coerce her when she said no to sex and said just do oral and eventually pushed her head to do it...his excuse for only having oral for a short period of time and then leaving was because he thought of his girlfriend. You found his version more believable. That says more about you than it does about the evidence.
11. In both stories she says she either thinks or knows she was raped. When she's saying she isn't sure at first it's because she knows she volunteered for sex with multiple partners and is feeling somehow partially culpable. She probably thought that she knew some of these people and knew their lives would be wrecked. It's not completely abnormal for victims to feel sympathy for shitty people. I've seen parents of children that were murdered hug and forgive the killer in court.
12. What doesn't differ in the story is that at least two accused stated she said no more, no, felt something was really wrong with what was happening and that she wasn't "feeling it". That another one said he walked in the room with her and wasn't down with the vibe and left. Why would they lie? If they were not lying and at ANY point that night she did not want to have sex and had to anyway, she was raped. Period.
13. Witnesses including the accused stated they heard her say "no more, do not send in any more" after yet another male entered teh room and the asshole from #2 said "this is the last one". That's rape.
14. You added the "sarcastic tone" to I can't take you all on. That was only you. None of the witnesses including the accused said anything like that about that statement. That says more about you than it does about the evidence in this case.
15. Multiple witnesses including the accused stated that they tried to stop the last person in the room because even they thought it was wrong and she did not want to have sex with that person. If those persons are being honest then a rape was occurring at that point, or at least they believed it was. Because they said they thought she did not want to have sex and that when they told the asshole from #2, he told them not to worry because she was "straight". And then that the raper would be the last one.
16. She does say 3 at once in the video, but the police, she and both the males in the video all say there were just her and the two males. So your point here is just fucking stupid as shit. Why would you even state it when you know what I'm saying is true, since you actually read the whole thing!? Because you are being a deceptive cunt, and only adding to the ignorance of a dumb shit like Loren who basically grunts and goes "see! I don't need to read, coz it's all bullshit! confirmed by a person!" when you do this. It's ignominious...shameless at best.
17. Not a single one of the males stories match another males, or hers. You choose to pick parts of their stories that don't conflict and believe that's what likely happened by summarizing it for...the stupid to chow down on as brain fodder.
18. "I am certain you think I am one of those 'rape apologists'" Now why in the fuck would you assume that?
