[USA] Ex-Cornell student sues fraternity members and college over alleged gang rape and claims several were punished with essay-writing

[Cray]

The allegation was investigated by Columbia and resulted in a finding that Nungesser was not responsible. It was subsequently reported to the NYPD and considered by the District Attorney's Office, which did not bring criminal charges. The contemporaneous communications are additional evidence that has to be assessed in that context.

Many actual rapes come down to one person's word against the other, just because the police decided not to take charges further does not mean that the rape definitely did not occur.

Calling her a rape victim also asserts that the rape actually occurred, that was not established by the available adjudicative processes. Unless the allegation is established, calling her a rape victim states the disputed conclusion as a fact.

Perhaps re-read what I said, I was making a point about how rape victims are supposed to behave.

And suggesting that a rape victim must behave in a certain way , that friendly text must mean that it didn't happen is bollocks as people react to trauma in different ways.,

I said "a rape victim". Whether she is a rape victim or not is irrelevant to the point that your are policing how potential victims are or are not allowed to behave if they want their claims to be believed.

 

[Crowley]

Many actual rapes come down to one person's word against the other, just because the police decided not to take charges further does not mean that the rape definitely did not occur.


Perhaps re-read what I said, I was making a point about how rape victims are supposed to behave.



I said "a rape victim". Whether she is a rape victim or not is irrelevant to the point that your are policing how potential victims are or are not allowed to behave if they want their claims to be believed.

#BelievAllWoman right?

Show me one actual rape where the victim carried on with friendly banter messages after the rape.

 

[ponder]

Many actual rapes come down to one person's word against the other, just because the police decided not to take charges further does not mean that the rape definitely did not occur.

It wasn't just the police, the Columbia investigation lasted 7 months, the NYPD and DA investigation lasted 3 months.

Perhaps re-read what I said, I was making a point about how rape victims are supposed to behave.

I said "a rape victim". Whether she is a rape victim or not is irrelevant to the point that your are policing how potential victims are or are not allowed to behave if they want their claims to be believed.

I did read what you said. The problem is that you've shifted the argument from this case to a general proposition about how “rape victims” may behave.

Nobody is saying that a rape victim has to behave in a particular way in order for her allegation to be believed. Of course people can respond to trauma differently. That's not controversial.

But that doesn't mean that a complainant's behaviour after an alleged assault is automatically irrelevant, nor does it mean that evidence can be dismissed simply because some genuine victims might behave similarly.

There is a crucial distinction between:

“A genuine rape victim could continue communicating with her alleged attacker.”

and

“Therefore, continued friendly communication with the alleged attacker has no evidentiary significance in determining whether this particular allegation is true.”

The first is obviously true. The second does not follow.

In this particular case, the post-allegation communications are one piece of evidence among many. They have to be considered alongside the seven-month Columbia investigation, the NYPD investigation and the subsequent District Attorney investigation. Columbia ultimately found Nungesser not responsible, and the criminal investigation did not result in charges.

So pointing out those communications isn't “policing how victims are allowed to behave.” It's discussing evidence relevant to a disputed factual allegation.

And there's another problem with your formulation: you're calling her a “rape victim” while simultaneously saying that whether she actually was a rape victim is irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant when we're discussing whether the allegation is true. That's precisely the issue being debated.

EDIT:
You have shifted the discussion from the specific facts and evidence of the Columbia University rape accusation controversy to broader generalisations about how alleged victims of sexual assault may behave, which does not directly address the evidentiary issues in this particular case.

 

[Cray]

#BelievAllWoman right?

Show me one actual rape where the victim carried on with friendly banter messages after the rape.

I mean it's an actual documented thing but am sure male MyBB experts know better...

http://psychologytoday.com/za/blog/...e-victim-is-kind-her-attacker-after-the-crime

When a Rape Victim Is Kind to Her Attacker After the Crime

Why don’t victims run to the police to make a report? For all of the reasons you might expect, including shame, confusion, anxiety, loyalty, or unwillingness to create drama among one’s peer group or professional colleagues, depending on in what context the victim knew the perpetrator. Is there a way to compartmentalize the trauma? For some victims, in order to survive emotionally, the answer is yes.

A piece in Vox uses an example of how one of Harvey Weinstein’s victims describes how an incident of forced sexual activity in a hotel room led to a romantic relationship between the two, which included subsequent consensual sex.[ii]

ne woman willingly went out on a date with a man who sexually assaulted her a few years beforehand. In a piece in The Cut aptly entitled “I Dated My Rapist,” Jessica Knoll tells her story.[iii] Two years after being raped at a party as a teenager, her rapist asked her out on a date. Her reaction? “I was grateful. I thought his renewed interest in me might actually spell redemption.”

Ever hear of Harvey Weinstein?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/there-no-right-way-respond-sexual-assault/607033/

As I read the coverage of Weinstein’s trial, I saw how his defense attorneys perpetuated common misconceptions about how women should respond to assault. “A true rape victim,” they said, certainly wouldn’t continue speaking with her rapist. But I did. Most sexual-assault victims don’t report their perpetrators—I didn’t—so the myriad ways that women respond are not usually made public. So many of us berate ourselves over the question “Why did I not have the right response?”

During the trial, Weinstein’s defense built most of its case around the fact that Haley and Mann maintained contact with the producer after he raped them. His attorneys fished through email and text messages between Weinstein and the women, dredging up supposedly compromising exchanges. Two years after the attack, Haley signed an email to him “Lots of Love.” She also texted him: “Hi! Just wondering if u have any news on whether Harvey will have time to see me before he leaves? X Miriam.” Mann also sent messages to Weinstein, such as, “I appreciate all you do for me.” His attorneys held up each message as if it undoubtedly proved his innocence. In a statement to the judge, the defense described the exchanges as “so unlike what one would expect to be communications between a true rape victim and her alleged rapist.”

Miriam Haley, a former production assistant, and Jessica Mann, an aspiring actor. (New York’s statute of limitations bars most of the women from pressing charges.) Haley says he raped her in 2006; Mann says he raped her twice in 2013. Yesterday, the jury found Weinstein guilty of a felony sex crime and rape in the third degree. He now faces a prison sentence of five to 29 years.

 

[Nerfherder]

#BelievAllWoman right?

Show me one actual rape where the victim carried on with friendly banter messages after the rape.

It does happen and its not an indication of the rape not happening.

Its a trauma response and survival tactic. Remember she was drugged during the assult.
She consented to part of the act but then was unable to consent to the rest, it can take time to process and respond to something that has just happened.

 

[Cray]

It wasn't just the police, the Columbia investigation lasted 7 months, the NYPD and DA investigation lasted 3 months.

The police investigation is the most important, and the DA would base their decision to prosecute on the police investigation, really not sure what your point is? Just because the DA made the determination that a prosecution might not succeed does not automatically mean thatnothing happened. An universtity does not have the powers to investigate crimes that the police. do.

I did read what you said. The problem is that you've shifted the argument from this case to a general proposition about how “rape victims” may behave.

But you and the OP inferred that "an actual rape victim" would never maintain friendly contact with their rapist.

Nobody is saying that a rape victim has to behave in a particular way in order for her allegation to be believed. Of course people can respond to trauma differently. That's not controversial.

But that doesn't mean that a complainant's behaviour after an alleged assault is automatically irrelevant, nor does it mean that evidence can be dismissed simply because some genuine victims might behave similarly.

if we have established that certain peope can remain friendly with their attackers, then how is it relevant to bring up her attitude towards him after the incident?

There is a crucial distinction between:

“A genuine rape victim could continue communicating with her alleged attacker.”

and

“Therefore, continued friendly communication with the alleged attacker has no evidentiary significance in determining whether this particular allegation is true.”

The first is obviously true. The second does not follow.

If we have established that some people maintain friendly relations with their rapist after their attack, what is the evidenciary value of bringing up her behaviour after the incident in question if not to muddy the waters based on a poor understanding of how different people handle trauma?

 

[ponder]

The police investigation is the most important, and the DA would base their decision to prosecute on the police investigation, really not sure what your point is? Just because the DA made the determination that a prosecution might not succeed does not automatically mean thatnothing happened. An universtity does not have the powers to investigate crimes that the police. do.

The DA did not simply rely on the NYPD's investigative file. The record indicates that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office conducted its own investigative interviews.

But you and the OP inferred that "an actual rape victim" would never maintain friendly contact with their rapist.

I did not say, “She continued communicating with him, therefore she wasn't raped.” I presented the evidentiary record as a whole:

Columbia's disciplinary panel found Nungesser not responsible;
the NYPD investigation did not result in criminal charges;
the District Attorney's Office conducted its own investigation, including its own interviews, and found insufficient grounds to proceed on reasonable suspicion; and
communications between the two continued after the alleged assault.

I am not suggesting that any one of those facts, taken in isolation, conclusively establishes what happened. The point is that none of them should be artificially isolated from the others either.

Your response takes one element of that overall evidentiary picture—the post-incident communication—and reframes it as though my argument were based on a claim that “a real rape victim would never behave that way.”

if we have established that certain peope can remain friendly with their attackers, then how is it relevant to bring up her attitude towards him after the incident?

Because “relevant” does not mean “conclusive.”

The fact that some rape victims remain friendly with their attackers means that friendly behaviour after an assault cannot reasonably be treated as proof that no assault occurred. I agree with that.

But it does not follow that the behaviour has no evidentiary relevance whatsoever.

Evidence can be consistent with multiple explanations and still be relevant. The question is what weight it deserves when considered alongside the timing, content and circumstances of the communications and the rest of the evidence.

For example, if someone claims that an event occurred, their conduct immediately afterward may legitimately be examined when reconstructing what happened. That doesn't mean there is a universal rule saying, “If they acted friendly afterward, they must be lying.” There isn't.

The proper conclusion is therefore:

Her behaviour does not disprove the allegation, but neither does the existence of other victims who behaved similarly make her behaviour irrelevant.

You are effectively treating “this behaviour can occur after rape” as equivalent to “this behaviour tells us nothing about whether rape occurred.” That conclusion doesn't follow.

If we have established that some people maintain friendly relations with their rapist after their attack, what is the evidenciary value of bringing up her behaviour after the incident in question if not to muddy the waters based on a poor understanding of how different people handle trauma?

The point is that I presented the evidence as a whole, not in isolation. I never claimed that friendly communication alone disproved the allegation.

I cited the Columbia finding, the NYPD investigation, the DA's independent investigation and its decision not to proceed, alongside the continued communication between them.

The question isn't whether a rape victim can behave that way. Of course some can. The question is what weight that behaviour has when considered together with the rest of the evidence in this particular case.

Saying that some victims behave this way doesn't make the evidence irrelevant; at most, it is an argument about how much weight it should be given.

 

[Cray]

The DA did not simply rely on the NYPD's investigative file. The record indicates that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office conducted its own investigative interviews.

Okay, not sure how that changes things, if it's a he said/she said without any corroboration, they most likely won't prosecute. Saying that three agencies investigated doesn't change that or make it more likely that she was making it all up.

I did not say, “She continued communicating with him, therefore she wasn't raped.” I presented the evidentiary record as a whole:

Columbia's disciplinary panel found Nungesser not responsible;
the NYPD investigation did not result in criminal charges;
the District Attorney's Office conducted its own investigation, including its own interviews, and found insufficient grounds to proceed on reasonable suspicion; and

People investigating is not part of the evidentiary record. If three organisations all reach a conclusion that there isn't enough evidence, that is not something you rely on court to determine whether a rape occurred or not, it's irrelevant to the facts of the case.

communications between the two continued after the alleged assault.

Yes, and it's been determined that rape victims do sometimes keep in seeming friendly contact with their rapists for a number of reason. Sure, include it in the trial, but it's not evidence of anything either way.

I am not suggesting that any one of those facts, taken in isolation, conclusively establishes what happened. The point is that none of them should be artificially isolated from the others either.

And I agree, but some in this thread have already inferred that a rape victim would never speak to her attacker after being raped. Sure, keep the discussion as evidence, but that fact that she talked to him after the invident is used by a lot of people as a reason in iteslf as to why it must have been a hoax.

The fact that some rape victims remain friendly with their attackers means that friendly behaviour after an assault cannot reasonably be treated as proof that no assault occurred. I agree with that.

Cool

But it does not follow that the behaviour has no evidentiary relevance whatsoever.

Evidence can be consistent with multiple explanations and still be relevant. The question is what weight it deserves when considered alongside the timing, content and circumstances of the communications and the rest of the evidence.

Also good, am not suggesting that the discussion should be excluded in terms of the evidencew, just that the discussion, in of itself is not proof of anything, either way.

For example, if someone claims that an event occurred, their conduct immediately afterward may legitimately be examined when reconstructing what happened. That doesn't mean there is a universal rule saying, “If they acted friendly afterward, they must be lying.” There isn't.

The proper conclusion is therefore:

Her behaviour does not disprove the allegation, but neither does the existence of other victims who behaved similarly make her behaviour irrelevant.

You are effectively treating “this behaviour can occur after rape” as equivalent to “this behaviour tells us nothing about whether rape occurred.” That conclusion doesn't follow.

Okay, knowing that people can be friendly with their rapists after an attack, how do you propose we can infer anything about whether a rape took place simply by examining that one piece of evidence? We know that this behaviour happens after a rape, we also know that this behaviour happens when no rape has occurred, so how would you infer anything about a rape happening by sim

The point is that I presented the evidence as a whole, not in isolation. I never claimed that friendly communication alone disproved the allegation.

I cited the Columbia finding, the NYPD investigation, the DA's independent investigation and its decision not to proceed, alongside the continued communication between them.

The question isn't whether a rape victim can behave that way. Of course some can. The question is what weight that behaviour has when considered together with the rest of the evidence in this particular case.

Saying that some victims behave this way doesn't make the evidence irrelevant; at most, it is an argument about how much weight it should be given.

Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, sure include the evidence as part of an overall pattern of behaviour. But it's not, as some people here have said evidence of anything either way in of itself.,

See post #282 to see how a lot of people dismiss rape claims if alleged victims dare to act different to how people thing they should.

 

[ponder]

Okay, not sure how that changes things, if it's a he said/she said without any corroboration, they most likely won't prosecute. Saying that three agencies investigated doesn't change that or make it more likely that she was making it all up.

You say we cannot draw conclusions from the investigations because we don't know exactly what evidence the investigators considered or precisely why they reached their conclusions. Fair enough—but that cuts both ways.

You likewise cannot characterize the case as merely an uncorroborated “he said/she said” allegation unless you can establish that this is in fact what the investigators had before them.

The point isn't that the investigations prove the allegation was fabricated. It's that we should be equally cautious about both conclusions.

If the available record doesn't allow us to say, “the investigators found it was fabricated,” then it also doesn't allow us to say, “there was simply no corroborating evidence and they declined to prosecute because it was a he-said/she-said case.”

What we can say from the documented outcomes is that the allegation was investigated, including by the DA through its own interviews, and it did not result in a finding of responsibility or criminal prosecution.

That is a materially different proposition from either “she made it all up” or “nothing could be investigated because it was merely he-said/she-said.”

People investigating is not part of the evidentiary record. If three organisations all reach a conclusion that there isn't enough evidence, that is not something you rely on court to determine whether a rape occurred or not, it's irrelevant to the facts of the case.

That's not quite right. The fact that an organisation investigated something isn't itself evidence that the underlying event occurred or didn't occur. But the statements, interviews, records and other evidence collected during those investigations can absolutely become evidence, subject to the applicable rules of evidence.

More importantly, your argument appears to conflate the investigation with its outcome. I'm not saying:

“Three organisations investigated it, therefore no rape occurred.”

I'm saying that the allegation was subjected to multiple investigative and adjudicative processes, each of which examined evidence and ultimately failed to establish Nungesser's responsibility.

The underlying evidence considered by those bodies is therefore relevant to assessing the allegation. Their conclusions aren't proof that no rape occurred, but neither are they irrelevant to the evidentiary history of the case.

So the distinction is:

The mere fact that an investigation took place isn't evidence of the rape. The evidence gathered during those investigations, and the conclusions reached after evaluating it, can be relevant to assessing the allegation.

Okay, knowing that people can be friendly with their rapists after an attack, how do you propose we can infer anything about whether a rape took place simply by examining that one piece of evidence? We know that this behaviour happens after a rape, we also know that this behaviour happens when no rape has occurred, so how would you infer anything about a rape happening by sim

That question sets up a standard I never claimed. I am not arguing that her post-incident conduct, by itself, establishes whether a rape occurred. I have explicitly said the opposite: it is one piece of evidence to be considered alongside the other evidence.

The fact that a behaviour is compatible with both rape and no rape does not make it evidentially meaningless; it means its probative value is limited and must be assessed in context. Evidence rarely has to be independently determinative to have evidentiary weight.

Your argument effectively moves from “this behaviour can occur after rape” to “therefore this behaviour tells us nothing about whether rape occurred.” That does not follow.

Perhaps irrelevant is not the right word, sure include the evidence as part of an overall pattern of behaviour. But it's not, as some people here have said evidence of anything either way in of itself.,

The fact that some rape victims remain friendly with their attackers means this behaviour cannot, by itself, establish that no rape occurred. But that does not mean the behaviour has no evidentiary significance.

The relevant question is what weight, if any, should be given to this particular conduct when considered alongside the other evidence in the case. Evidence does not have to be conclusive to be probative.

So the fact that the behaviour is possible after a rape does not by itself justify treating it as having no bearing whatsoever on the assessment of what occurred.

See post #282 to see how a lot of people dismiss rape claims if alleged victims dare to act different to how people thing they should.

Post #282 has nothing to do with my argument. I was not part of that discussion and did not make the claims you are referring to.

If you disagree with my argument, it should be addressed on the basis of what I have actually said, rather than attributing the views of other participants to me.

 

[Vrotappel]

Hope she gets locked up for a long time.

 

[Cray]

You say we cannot draw conclusions from the investigations because we don't know exactly what evidence the investigators considered or precisely why they reached their conclusions. Fair enough—but that cuts both ways.

You likewise cannot characterize the case as merely an uncorroborated “he said/she said” allegation unless you can establish that this is in fact what the investigators had before them.

The point isn't that the investigations prove the allegation was fabricated. It's that we should be equally cautious about both conclusions.

Cool, my initial gripe was that her claim was lebelled a hoax and that someone saw fit to mention her post incident communication as evidence of her having made it all up.

If the available record doesn't allow us to say, “the investigators found it was fabricated,” then it also doesn't allow us to say, “there was simply no corroborating evidence and they declined to prosecute because it was a he-said/she-said case.”

What we can say from the documented outcomes is that the allegation was investigated, including by the DA through its own interviews, and it did not result in a finding of responsibility or criminal prosecution.

That is a materially different proposition from either “she made it all up” or “nothing could be investigated because it was merely he-said/she-said.”

She never recanted her accusation and he always maintained his innocence. Assuming they didnt find evidence of violence, lack of rape kit etc., surely it is the very definition of he said/she said. Not saying that she was definitely raped just that many actual rapes are not prosecuted due to lack.of evidence.

That's not quite right. The fact that an organisation investigated something isn't itself evidence that the underlying event occurred or didn't occur. But the statements, interviews, records and other evidence collected during those investigations can absolutely become evidence, subject to the applicable rules of evidence.

100%, but unless there was someone else in the room when the incident occurred, it basically boils down to one version against another.

More importantly, your argument appears to conflate the investigation with its outcome. I'm not saying:

“Three organisations investigated it, therefore no rape occurred.”

I'm saying that the allegation was subjected to multiple investigative and adjudicative processes, each of which examined evidence and ultimately failed to establish Nungesser's responsibility.

All true, but an investigative failure could also mean that, if a crime was committed, it was done in such a way as to be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The underlying evidence considered by those bodies is therefore relevant to assessing the allegation. Their conclusions aren't proof that no rape occurred, but neither are they irrelevant to the evidentiary history of the case.

So the distinction is:

The mere fact that an investigation took place isn't evidence of the rape. The evidence gathered during those investigations, and the conclusions reached after evaluating it, can be relevant to assessing the allegation.

The evidence gathered by those investigations is relevant, the fact that three bodies investigated could be an indicator that no obvious evidence was missed and tends to rule out bias but again, it might just show that this particular crine did not leave evidence that allowed fir a prosecution.

That question sets up a standard I never claimed. I am not arguing that her post-incident conduct, by itself, establishes whether a rape occurred. I have explicitly said the opposite: it is one piece of evidence to be considered alongside the other evidence.

Okay, I agree.

The fact that a behaviour is compatible with both rape and no rape does not make it evidentially meaningless; it means its probative value is limited and must be assessed in context. Evidence rarely has to be independently determinative to have evidentiary weight.

Sure, examine it in context, but if you know a piece of evidence could exist in cases where rape occurred or did not occur, how does it influence a finding of either guilt or innocence. My objection was that people where claiming that her behaviour leans towards her having made it up.

Your argument effectively moves from “this behaviour can occur after rape” to “therefore this behaviour tells us nothing about whether rape occurred.” That does not follow.

You keep repeating that phrase but you havent shown why. If you accept that she could still be friendly with the guy even if he raped her then how is it useful in determining guilt or innocence. If that beaviour might have occurred in the case of it being a hoax or being real, what actual use is it in determing guilt?

The fact that some rape victims remain friendly with their attackers means this behaviour cannot, by itself, establish that no rape occurred. But that does not mean the behaviour has no evidentiary significance.

What is the significance of the bevahiour in determining whether she was raped given that you accept that she could have done it while still being a victim of a crime.

The relevant question is what weight, if any, should be given to this particular conduct when considered alongside the other evidence in the case. Evidence does not have to be conclusive to be probative.

So the fact that the behaviour is possible after a rape does not by itself justify treating it as having no bearing whatsoever on the assessment of what occurred.

Okay.

Post #282 has nothing to do with my argument. I was not part of that discussion and did not make the claims you are referring to.

If you disagree with my argument, it should be addressed on the basis of what I have actually said, rather than attributing the views of other participants to me.

Your very first reply to me ...

University disciplinary panel cleared him, NYPD found nothing, DA found insufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion. Friendlly texting between the two continued after the alleged rape.

Of all the things that you could have mentioned, the friendly texting is what you brought up in argument when i mentioned that I found the hoax label distasteful.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Oh god...Asmongold ?!?!?!

Cue another @Cray meltdown

@Cray I got you fam!

https://twitter.com/x/status/2107095380898791627

bonus post:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2107628072174260268

must admit my take is evolving quickly from:
- this woman was terrible at risk management and is paying a high price for it
to
- this is a proper fire-breathing whore and for some reason is now seeking attention

 

[ponder]

Your very first reply to me ...


Of all the things that you could have mentioned, the friendly texting is what you brought up in argument when i mentioned that I found the hoax label distasteful.

I mentioned the continued friendly texting because it is one part of the overall evidence relevant to this particular case. I have repeatedly made clear that I am considering it as part of the whole, not arguing that it proves anything by itself.

I did not use it to argue that rape victims are supposed to behave in any particular way, nor did I endorse anything said in post #282. You can't attribute the arguments of other people to me simply because I raised a particular piece of evidence that they may also have discussed.

I don’t think there’s anything further to add, so I’ll leave it there.

 

[White Guy]

Case closed.

 

[rietrot]

View attachment 1943424

What is this Leftist Asmon lore. What is the ball thing?

 

[rietrot]

#BelievAllWoman right?

Show me one actual rape where the victim carried on with friendly banter messages after the rape.

It's not just believe all women. It is a women can change her mind, 3 days later after other people start calling her a slut and she suddenly develops regret.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

I mean it's an actual documented thing but am sure male MyBB experts know better...

How dare you. Most of the famous scientist are male so of course men know better.

 

[Cray]

What is this Leftist Asmon lore. What is the ball thing?

I think the idea that he is living in a makeshft shelter in some back alley. Hence the raccoons

 

[Cius]

The internet can be a terrible thing. Accusations are out. People are all acting like judge, police, and executioner. These guys with no due process or trial are losing jobs, being targeted by death threats (as is Jane Doe). People should just calm down and let the law take its course and not get involved to the extent they have been. Seems Jane Doe's house just got SWAT'ed. This whole thing is becoming an absolute farce of justice.

 

[rietrot]

I think the idea that he is living in a makeshft shelter in some back alley. Hence the raccoons

That's obviously just stupid and wrong.