fanofzoo said:
tnt said:
In the "notorious gang rape situation," there was clear video evidence that the victim was lying. In fact it could be argued she was the actual rapist taking advantage of several drunk men (boys.) How she managed to become a "victim" again is beyond me. How Krakauer ignored that in his research is beyond me.
If there was evidence to that claim, wouldn't it be in police custody? Wouldn't the DA office acknowledge that? Sounds iffy to me but would be the holy grail.
It was. That is why, twice, the "DA" refused to press any charges. This was an outrageous charge from the get-go. The "woman" had apparently decided that she was going to have some "fun" downed, in rapid succession, a number of "shots," got into bed with her roommate and to the astonishment of the male guests, "did stuff," after which she invited the males to participate which she initiated by unzipping pants and "proceeding," laughing and taunting the entire time. She was not unconscious, she was not slurring her words, she was not passive.
She was, in fact, "in charge" and appeared to be having a "great time," and intended to. THEN, as the "shots" got into her system, she grew obviously tired and the "party ended."
The next day, she was in her "OMG what did I do?" mode, and the embarrassment gene finally kicked in. The angry boyfriend had something to do with it as enough people had witnessed the "evening events" that it had become "the talk of the town." As she notably has recently tried to do to Pabst, she reframed her own behavior as "their fault." "I must have been drunk!" "I could not give consent." Although, because of the roommate and the video, she also acknowledged that the guys likely "did not know she was not consenting." Not under those circumstances and not when she is physically grabbing the equipment and guiding them to their destinations.
Of course, Pabst, rightly so, was not in the mindset to pursue the angry needs of a vindictive and angry woman who wanted badly to punish everyone for her own conscious behavior. Likely, after everyone involved in the investigations reviewed the "evidence," said woman was treated "skeptically."
Well, "woman scorned," then makes it a public crusade. "I was mocked!" That was worse than rape.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the males involved were in fact all punished, under that portion of the University Student Conduct Code that says that "you can't have sex in front of your friends at a party with a happy young lady. You are required to say "No," even if she says "yes," because at the University of Montana, "yes means you need to say no." You have to have any sex in private, just the two of you, with the door closed, and with your clothes on. And, there can be no videotaping because that complicates the narratives that we must follow no matter how stupid, and it will be considered a "gang rape" if more than one male is in the room because here at UM, we love incendiary language designed to convict without the bother of due process."