I have only gotten 3rd party info from my wife. It appears 7 men may have drugged and raped a woman on campus at Cornell, and their punishment was writing an essay, rather than being dragged behind the barn and shot.
One of the guys had his lawyer make a statement that he was briefly in the room where the misconduct happened, but not when it happened. So, this is beyond some allegation, it happened, otherwise that statement doesn't make any sense.
That statement isn't sufficient for establishing any type of rigorous evidence.
I was in the room where the Declaration of Independence was signed, but not when it was signed. That doesn't mean I have any type of personal knowledge about what Ben Franklin wore to the debates.
As alignon below pointed out, that means you know it was signed. And he knows it happened. It IS evidence. He's affirming the event occurred. And he labeled it "misconduct". So he knew what happened there was wrong.
Well I assumed their lawyer is referring to the alleged misconduct at the time it allegedly happened.
So yeah if I was in the room briefly an hour before anything happened and I didn’t notice anything amiss it wouldn’t really be right that I was labeled as a rapist for something I had no knowledge of until after the fact and wasn’t a part of.
I haven’t seen the letter from the lawyer, but if it refers to the misconduct and not to the alleged misconduct, than that should be taken as evidence that his client knows about the misconduct that took place, regardless if he was in the room when it happened or not.
It would be hearsay if he wasnt there during the alleged misconduct. Even if he said 'misconduct' it's still hearsay because he couldn't know unless he was there.
There are so many questions here, and very few answers. The fact that something happened is well established, but not exactly what, who, or how.
For example, did she give consent? Did she give consent for all 7? Did she give consent before being put under the influence? Did they hurt her? There's 1000 more questions that courts need to answer with due process. Then, and only then can any guilt be assigned.
I don't have that article handy anymore, but I think the lawyer included that in his statement. That he was in the room, briefly, but was not there when the "misconduct" took place.
The evidence of the declaration being signed isn’t that someone else was in the room before or after it was signed - it’s that we have the signatures on the page. But someone being in the room later can’t testify whose signature is on the page, what order the page was signed in, or what the person was wearing with they signed it. All they can testify to, since testimony has to be based on personal knowledge, is that the room itself exists. Everything else needs to come from people that were actually present during the signing.
But it tells us more than that. It tells us that he knew an event occurred and he knew enough about the event that he labeled it "misconduct". He's not just confirming the room, he's confirming knowledge of misconduct that occurred in a room he was briefly in.
Presumably he knows of it because of the groupchat which he also affirmed existed and said he was a part of. So this is more than you make it out to be.
He didn’t know shit. It’s been labeled as “misconduct” by the investigation. All he knew is that a room existed. Everything else is an assumption, either on his part or on yours
So if a text is sent, that’s evidence something occurred? Again: if you don’t have personal knowing of something happening, you can’t present testimony that it occurred
It proves they knew it happened though. Also, that it happened is not under dispute by anyone involved. They admit it happened. This guy confirmed it. But no one is disputing that the incident occurred.
... my dear friend,there was a whole group chat of the men in there, theyve got the records for it as and when they happened
reddits not the place to get your info from when its all over plastered the entire instagram from students at cornell and including talks from the university president himself along with protest videos and comparisions, its already out there
You're arguing against a different point than the one I made.
The person above me stated: A lawyer made a statement that their client visited that room, but not at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the incident must have occurred, because otherwise the statement "doesn't make any sense".
I pointed out the flaw in this argument: presence in a room does not give you knowledge of any events that transpire in that space except during the time that you are there. Therefore, the lawyer's claim isn't evidence that something happened or did not happen.
I did not make a statement on the broader reality of the allegations, any of the other evidence that has been offered, and whether I think the event actually transpired. The limit of my argument was that the path of reasoning given in the previous comment was not a route you could take to reach a sound conclusion (and so they should probably pivot to other evidence like that which you specified, assuming it can be verified on the social media company's servers beyond the specious screenshots circulating around Instagram.)
I get your point, but I don't agree. He had knowledge of the event, and he's confirming it happened, he's saying he want in the room. But that's not the only way to know about it. There's the group chat that we know about and there are many other possible ways he could have reliable info on that, many directly. So, him saying that is confirmation of the event.
Again, that is different evidence than "My client was in that room on that day, but not when any misconduct occurred." The lawyer's statement is pretty standard CYA boilerplate to try and pre-empt any future evidence that comes out that his client was physically in that room (think like fingerprints or hair follicles, or more likely future testimony that someone saw him walk in that room on that day.) It was in no way a statement about the incident itself.
Sure, the client can testify to the existence of written messages between the perpetrators (or even better, cut out the vagarity of recollection and provide those physical transcripts if they actually exist!)
However, that is different evidence from the statement in your original comment, which is that he was in the room, therefore something happened when he wasn't in the room.
He said he was in the room, but not during the "misconduct". Also, no one is saying the "misconduct" did not happen, that's already established.
It's also already established that drugs and alcohol were involved, though I didn't see what specific drugs. I haven't seen the group chat, but it has been characterized as then planning this (lead by two of them mostly), and then inviting others to join. The two Scott guys say they did not...partake of the "misconduct"
BTW, I'm couching my language, what we're taking about here is rape. Trying to get someone so out of it they can't say no and then raping them and offering her to their friends. That's what we're talking about here.
If the police are lying about having the group chat, then they covered it up.
Yes, though, I'm not sure how that pertains to my post. He's saying it happened but he did not participate. He did admit he was on the groupchat and "briefly" in the room, but not while it was happening.
It does confirm he thinks it happened, and also, we have the group chat of them talking about it. He had many ways of having direct knowledge even if he didn't sit there and watch.
Right, the guys will say it was consensual, she will say it wasn't, it'll be messy. I think the contents of the group chat would be the big decider for me.
IDK if is was consensual or not, but I'm much more upset at the enablers than the frat guys. There will always be more guys trying to ply women with booze. But if they knew those guys raped her, then covered it up, that's making it okay to do it, and it's worse than it happening once, it's encouraging it. That's making rape systemic.
That's not what he said. He affirmed the event and labeled it misconduct. He had direct knowledge it happened, and did not deny it happened, but said that it did and he wasn't there. He was on the group chat. And he was in the building. Yes, this is evidence.
If you're at a frat party, and your friend is planning something on a group chat, then you go in the room and see her looking out of it, then leave and he tells you they are taking turns, and you decline, you know if the event directly. You don't have to watch to know what happened.
By definition he cannot know what happened in a room if he wasn’t there. It doesn’t matter what he says or claims. Either he was there or he wasn’t. And by his own admission, he wasn’t there when it went down. Therefore he can’t make any credible claims as to what occurred. Anything else is speculation or straight up lying.
She didn't say she was not drugged, she said she took the drugs on her own accord. That doesn't mean the guys weren't considering to get her drugged up and then raped her. If she was that out of it, she might not have been able to consent. That's why I'd like to see the group chat. If it is as described, that's rape.
Again, haven't seen it, but if they planned to get her drunk and pressured her to take drugs for the purpose of getting her to acquiesce to sex, then they should throw the book at them. That's rape.
I don't know exactly what they said, but it was described in at least two articles as them planning it ahead of time. Then, after she was messed up, they offered other guys a go at her. Sorry, to "jump the gun", but that sure sounds like a pretty egregious case of rape, and it sure looks like the cops covered it up.
Almost like waiting to see all the evidence in a fair trial before making a decision should be the default. But on reddit, the hive mind doesn't like that kind of thing
The statement affirms that the "misconduct" occurred. It specifically says he was not in the room when it happened, that means he understands it to have happened.
He also affirmed that the group chat existed, and that he was on it. That chat contains the frat guys conversation, of them planning it, and then inviting others to join in.
There's no one disputing that the incident happened, they are only disputing whether it was consensual.
I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of his lawyers statement.
This is what his attorney said - "While Scott responded to and made an immature comment on Snapchat, he did nothing else," attorney Jeremy Saland told Newsweek in a statement. "Nothing. For the few minutes he was in the room with the plaintiff, Scott did not see her in duress or undress, was involved in no sexual activity nor touched the plaintiff in any way and ingested no ketamine."
The same accused individual submitted to hair follicle testing for drug use and it came back negative.
This is a great example of a total numpty who has no idea what they are talking about spewing nonsense about an ongoing criminal investigation, and being upvoted by other numptys online.
The statistics on rape say otherwise. Maybe tell men to stop raping women (and other men) so much so that we can all work on that class war thing together.
Some men don’t seem to understand that misogyny isn’t part of the class war or something. Since you “get it”….could you tell your bros?
If it were as simple as telling all men that raping is bad, there would be no rape. Humans are still going to do what humans do in edge cases regardless of morality or punishment.
While I’d love to say we bring back cruel and unusual punishment for convicted rapists in an effort to deter rape, that would also subject those unjustly convicted to those same punishments.
I do “get” your situation, you’re forced to coexist with a population that harbors individuals who genuinely wish to harm you, but there is no moral way to distinguish between those and everyone else. “It’s not all men, but it could be any of them”
With that said, all we can do is punish those convicted and the sad truth is that class plays a part in the conviction rate of the accused because of the way our “justice system” works.
Nicely said. Cruel and vicious people will find ways to be cruel and vicious. People who are physically strong have different tools than those who are not. But it's still person-based, not gender-based.
Cruel and vicious people will find ways to be cruel and vicious. There are cruel and vicious men. There are cruel and vicious women. The ways in which they are cruel and vicious will differ based on the tools available to them. Physical strength, gossip, cheating, whatever - people who are cruel and vicious will find ways to be cruel and vicious. There are rapist men. There are rapist women. There are male abusers. There are female abusers. There are male victims. There are female victims. There are enbys on all of those as well.
The Y chromosome is not a curse, nor is male gender identity. Cruel and vicious men may more easily make the news, and are more likely to be talked about in female spaces, but cruel and vicious women exist. They're more likely to be talked about in male spaces.
Men are not evil. Nobody is evil by virtue of where they sit in intersectionality, whether they're a trans disabled POC woman or a heterosexual cisgender able-bodied white man. They are all people.
you are intentionally ignoring the overwhelming statistics that men are far and away the greatest perpetrators of sexual violence and physical violence. this isn't about headlines, this is about a system that props up sexual and physical violence by men. in fact your comment itself is an example of that very system.
Of sexual assaults, men are more likely to be the perpetrators, yes. Of rapes, the majority of rapists are men, yes.
My point about "cruel and vicious people" is to push back against the idea that it's as easy as telling men not to rape. Most men are good, decent people. There are others that might be a little confused, but they've got the spirit. Most men are good, because men are human, and the average human is someone who's generally decent, sometimes a little petty, has neighbors who think of them as a generally decent person, and gets along in life.
There are absolutely cultural factors that can lead to misunderstandings about what rape is, or where the lines of consent are, etc. The overwhelming majority of people (across genders) agree that rape is bad. Some people have a mental model where they don't see it as rape unless the victim is screaming and fighting back. That's a place where information and education can help. There are people who trivialize rape as "all they (usually 'she') needs to do it open her legs and get over it." That's a place where they have deep-set fundamental misunderstandings, and those fundamental misalignments are much harder to change.
This might be a case of that one XKCD for you, but I've seen some spaces where people take "the majority of rapists are men" (factual) and "rape is bad" (clearly) and morph it into "the majority of men are bad" (sexist and false). That is what I'm speaking against.
Men are generally stronger than women, on average. Men who are cruel and vicious will use the systems and tools around them to find ways to be cruel and vicious. That can mean rape. And those men will use the systems and tools around them to justify it, because everyone is the hero of their own story. Women who are cruel and vicious have different tools available to them; physical strength is less commonly an option (except perhaps teachers raping their students, or other circumstances of adult women abusing children), and so their actions generally take different forms.
I don't see it as "men are more likely to rape." I see it as "of the people who would be willing to rape, the men in that group are more likely to have the opportunity to act on it than the women in that group." And become some people flatten it into all men, I'm making a point that no, it isn't all men. While men may be benefitted by certain systems in society, that doesn't make all men evil or bad. Systems are made of individuals, and most of those individuals are good people who maybe haven't examined themselves very much but are still decent people.
While sexual violence by women isn't talked about as much, it does exist, and male victims of sexual assault or rape are generally sidelined. In some places, the legal definition of rape is worded such that men there cannot legally be the victims of rape. The cultures and institutions that place men in positions of power also generally make it harder for men who are victims to get help, since the justice system is rarely geared to cope with things where men are in positions of weakness to women.
To note: I'm not trying to go "men are the real victims" or sideline women. I'm trying to say that we all live in the systems of life and societies, and equality for all means equality for all.
Class does not play a very big role in rape convictions. Convictions for rape are at 2-4% across the board, depending on state. (Red states hovering around 2%)
If you don’t address the issues facing marginalized communities while you handle the class war, you never remove those dividing lines and you leave us all in a position to be easily divided again.
If you actually care about the class war, you’ll listen to those marginalized voices instead of telling them to shut up.
Religion. You won’t fully stomp out patriarchal ideals without killing off religion, and that’s not an option in a country that guarantees religious freedoms.
People getting away with it kinda is. Men are considered a higher "class" than women, along with upper class perpetrators getting away with rape and many other crimes. A simplistic explanation of patriarchy is the idea that men are a higher class than women.
In situations where wealthy women are raped by wealthy men, or anyone is raped, it’s still non consequential. They still are not punished.
Which means it’s a patriarchy issue transcending class. If it was just class, wealthy women would actually get justice. But generally, NO women get justice.
I've both been sexually assaulted and also accused of sexual assault when it was consensual. I have lost all faith in the majority of people because of what happened. If it was just those two people then I could say that in general people are good, but so many people that had no clue what happened thought they were experts. Just vile ignorant hate that they felt so justified over. Thank you for being one of the few sane people out there.
In a court of law sure. We're not though: the case ballooned to us, and the circumstances are disturbing at best and horrible ay worse. We are discussing this to being awareness that this not only can happen, but can be "mishandled" in ways that violate decency, both morally and legally.
Nah man, this is Reddit. We live in fairy tale land here, where anyone guilty is 100% confirmed to be so because we're just so angry at the crime. Who needs the rule of law?
The drugged her, then sent out a freaking group chat inviting other guys to rape her. One of the defendants has admitted to sending out that invite but denies ever touching her.
She said she did the drugs willingly and had consensual sex and how is “free p****y” rape? It’s saying that she is willing and consenting to multiple men.
they had a frat group chat where they advertised free pussy to like 50+ guys and apparently there's video and photographic evidence that the men took while assaulting her
People commenting on here have no clue what the facts of the case are. This has just turned into hysterical culture war bullshit where half the internet is plugging their ears and saying every single guy in a 1 mile radius of the crime should be in jail for rape and the other half plugging their ears saying it was her fault and she’s lying. Social media was a really bad mistake.
They should do as much as cooperating with law enforcement and reporting it to law enforcement if not done yet. Otherwise yes, nothing. That should not be the job of the university.
Why assume they hold the dumbest opinion possible instead of something more reasonable, given that they've said absolutely nothing which would cast such doubt over their judgement?
Why frustrate someone like that instead of just asking them what they think and judging the response/belief they actually share?
Revisionist history. They essentially had no evidence and thus no leverage. You can't expel everyone accused of heinous crimes without evidence—people will weaponize allegations.
Cornell has university rules and policies. It also has a full title 9 department specifically to enforce those polices. I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure rape is in violation of those
It is within their jurisdiction to investigate and punish students as they see fit for breaking their rules and policies
I mean we can all talk about their impropriety and their alleged acts but guilt is established by a prosecutor at a minimum level then a grand jury then a judge than a petit jury. Universities adjudicate administrative punishment as required by title VIII and aren’t required to establish guilt just provide procedural and substantive due process
The victim alleged they were raped by the assailants at the exact time that one of them who had drugged her invited the others for “free pussy”.
It’s established she was drugged and unable to consent based on the university expulsion of the two druggers for giving her ketamine.
it’s established that the men were specifically invited by the druggers for the purpose of having sex with this drugged woman (rape)
And it’s established that the time and place of the accusations line up directly with the victims claims
None of that evidence was present in the Duke case. In fact, the evidence there was directly conflicted with the alleged victims story, as opposed to matched it exactly like this one
Not until a criminal court decides it. And currently it's only a civil case. I hope this changes soon because the university has a huge hand in this and they need to be severly punished
Why does that pain you? If they put the university's reputation over the welfare of this woman, then they should not be in that job at the very least. If they were fired for helping a cover up, I wouldn't be pained at all.
I get it even though I don't particularly agree with it, I'm going to try and work my interpretation the best I can, but I'd appreciate issues with my wording being given some grace.
To start, I stand by whomever did these "punishments" being tried as accomplices, regardless of gender.
But
There is a certain frustration when you see that a wrongdoing against one minority group has any tangentially attached minority of a similar group because the narrative stops being about the perpetrators and starts being about "an internal minority issue" the headlines will stop saying "seven men drugged and raped a woman" and start saying "a woman defended another woman's rapists".
I don't see this as a man woman thing, I'd be just as mad if the victim were a man who was raped.
The act of covering it up is about people in power doing awful things with it to protect institutions instead of seeking justice. This isn't about gender, it's about corruption. Man, woman, it doesn't matter. They are supposed to be protecting their students, and rapists should be charged. If the police had this group chat, as was claimed, why was nothing done?
The idea that it's worse if it's a woman makes this seem like men are the problem, but that's not how it is. There are decent people and there are not so decent people.
1.6k
u/BlackHills-Op 14d ago
I have only gotten 3rd party info from my wife. It appears 7 men may have drugged and raped a woman on campus at Cornell, and their punishment was writing an essay, rather than being dragged behind the barn and shot.