Anonymous #1 13h

I do believe VICTIMS babe she isn’t one!

-6

Anonymous OP 13h

You literally don’t know who she is. 😂

12

Anonymous #1 13h

I know how to read statements and think logically you don’t have to know who she is that logic can justify for the whole situation so saying that is not a good response and works both ways

-5

Anonymous OP 13h

You are such a weirdo. Like just stop already. Coming into a community of women and screaming that someone wasn’t raped, is just such a bizarre, out of pocket thing to do. Even if you’re just trolling or whatever. Go touch grass.

9

Anonymous #1 13h

Or I can have a different opinion do you seriously believe no women think that she wasn’t raped? You’re a weirdo for trying to say I’m a man because I have a difference of opinion… you literally don’t know who I am babe! Victims don’t try to go to a party of their rapist days later and state they enjoyed it so much

-5

Anonymous OP 13h

I ask again, why are you yelling about this in a community of women/many survivors of rape? What is your point?

4

Anonymous #1 13h

Go yell at Jane Doe if you have so many issues with her behavior. Oh wait!

9

Anonymous #1 13h

My point as I said multiple times is people like you make it hard for actual victims and survivors to get justice or taken seriously I saw a post about it on here so I started commenting on the situation simple as that… if it’s a community a community allows those that have different opinions and etc to be together in one place it’s called “girl talk” not survivor land?

-4

Anonymous #1 13h

But you’re here yelling at me? And not knowing who she is has no weight here you’re continually contradicting yourself?

-4

Anonymous OP 13h

It's also not called dipshit island but here you are 🧍

9

Anonymous OP 13h

People like me? Dude, I haven’t obstructed anyone’s justice. I was raped by my own family members when I was 3. I’m now studying to become a lawyer. You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about or whom.

11

Anonymous whorehome 13h

Ok “whorehome”

-2

Anonymous #1 13h

And neither do you? Again every time you talk you contradict yourself because you’re doing the same thing to me?

-5

Anonymous OP 13h

Bro that is my whole point. None of us know her. I’ve asked you why you’re here and you still won’t answer. I don’t claim to know the specifics of what happened to her or anything about her, but I also see zero merit in casting doubt on victims when so few victims actually get justice.

18

Anonymous #1 13h

Everything you say is a contradiction and works both ways? Do you even hear yourself babe?

-4

Anonymous #3 13h

The facts? Again we’re talking about “rape” here not if the guys were wrong or gross or etc but rape there’s a difference

-2

Anonymous OP 13h

Explain how I’m contradicting myself!

1

Anonymous OP 13h

You're talking in circles with literally no explanations dude. They are not contradicting anything. It sounds like you just ran out of an argument.

12

Anonymous whorehome 13h

Ty Ms. Home 🙏

17

Anonymous whorehome 13h

I’m not talking in circles. You’re just joining the conversation after the relevant comments. I’m saying #1 claims she doesn’t know the specifics of what happened, while simultaneously treating the conclusion that this woman was raped as established and framing any challenge to that conclusion as attacking victims. That’s what I’m calling contradictory.

-2

Anonymous whorehome 13h

I’m not saying nobody can believe her. I’m saying that if we’re admitting we don’t know exactly what happened, then evidence that conflicts with her account has to be addressed rather than dismissed by saying ‘believe victims.’ That’s literally the point I’ve been making the entire time

-2

Anonymous #1 13h

Nobody personally knows her. That’s completely irrelevant. We’re discussing an incident with hundreds of pages of investigative transcripts, contemporaneous messages, witness interviews, her police statement, the men’s statements, and a prosecutor’s original decision not to bring charges. I don’t need to personally know Jane Doe to read and evaluate that evidence. Neither do you.

-2

Anonymous #1 13h

That’s why your argument contradicts itself: when I point to evidence that challenges the allegation, suddenly it’s ‘you don’t know her’ and ‘none of us know her.’ But you don’t know her either, yet you’re comfortable definitively calling her a victim and criticizing me for reaching the opposite conclusion from the public evidence. You can’t make personal familiarity necessary for MY conclusion while not requiring it for YOUR conclusion. That’s two different standards.

-2

Anonymous OP 13h

I understand. However, I think they're trying to say that victims should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. There have been cases of rape where after coming forward and witnessing the backlash from people around them, ("you're ruining his life," etc type shit) people change their mind and choose to say "nothing happened." Her saying that in a statement doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, I also believe victims should be given the benefit of the doubt.

14

Anonymous whorehome 13h

YES. This is literally the distinction I’ve been trying to make this entire time. I agree that someone saying something afterward doesn’t automatically mean the alleged event didn’t happen. But that works both ways: someone later saying they were raped doesn’t automatically establish that every part of the allegation happened that way either. That’s why I’m talking about evaluating the evidence, not personally knowing her or attacking victims.

-2

Anonymous whorehome 13h

If there are contemporaneous statements, messages, the police transcript, subsequent behavior, etc. that appear to conflict with the later account, those things should be examined rather than dismissed with ‘believe victims.’ Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is one thing. Treating the allegation as established fact and refusing to examine contradictory evidence is another. THAT is the distinction I’ve been trying to explain.

0

Anonymous whorehome 13h

After looking at that gc, it's not hard to tell that they were taking advantage of the situation. It's 7 vs 1. Even if she consented at first (which I doubt), she has the right to withdraw consent at anytime. The likelihood she voluntarily agrees to one and then just accepted the 6 more that were invited in for "free pussy" is NOT LIKELY.

3

Anonymous #3 13h

No Show me where they admitted the sexual act was nonconsensual. An admission that sexual activity happened or that they behaved badly is not automatically an admission to the specific crime of rape

-2

Anonymous OP 13h

Anything is possible. However the benefit of the doubt is the BARE MINIMUM that victims deserve even if they have contradictory evidence. That's what they were trying to say. It's better to risk believing them than risk letting a monster roam free.

5

Anonymous whorehome 13h

But you’re proving my point. You’re saying ‘benefit of the doubt’ means we should still believe the rape allegation even when there is contradictory evidence. But I’m talking about the entire record INCLUDING HER OWN WORDS. You can’t say ‘give her the benefit of the doubt even if there is contradictory evidence’ and then use the possibility that she’s telling the truth as the reason we should dismiss the contradictory evidence. That’s circular

-1

Anonymous whorehome 13h

At what point does the benefit of the doubt end and actual evaluation of evidence begin? Because if contradictory statements, contemporaneous messages, her own descriptions of the encounter, and the other witnesses’ accounts can all be dismissed simply because a later allegation exists, then you’re not asking people to evaluate the evidence you’re asking them to accept the allegation regardless of the evidence.

0

Anonymous OP 13h

Anything other than an enthusiastic "YES!" is rape. No answer? Rape. "No"? Rape. If they started as 1v1 and it changed to 1v7 and she changed her mind? Rape. It sounds like you're trying to find excuses for these men. A court outcome is not always the correct one.

4

Anonymous OP 13h

When the evidence is he said/she said, I think the victim deserves the benefit of the doubt. And I already explained that rape victims have been known to change their mind about their statements before after receiving backlash from their peers and community.

6

Anonymous whorehome 13h

And no, ‘anything other than an enthusiastic YES is rape’ isn’t a statement of New York criminal law. Even New York’s affirmative consent college standard says consent can be communicated through words OR actions that create clear permission. The actual question is whether consent existed, whether it was withdrawn, whether she was incapacitated, and what the people involved knew or reasonably understood at the time. You can’t replace those factual questions with a slogan.

0

Anonymous whorehome 13h

You’re also calling this ‘he said/she said,’ but that’s not what I’m arguing from. We’re talking about her own statements, contemporaneous messages, the police interview, the men’s statements, and the investigative record. That’s evidence that has to be weighed not erased because an explanation for contradictions is possible.

-1

Anonymous OP 12h

Unless there is alabis for their whereabouts elsewhere (which there's not) or a camera showing what happened. It IS he said she said. The only evidence is words. That's what that means.

7