USC Student Says She Was Raped, The Nightclub Video Determined That Was A Lie

[jono]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

 

[7figz]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

The video shows her pulling him to her room, and making a circle with her hand and sticking a finger through it, to her friend, behind the dudes back.

To reasonable people, that's saying she's bringing the man to her room to fuck him.

 

[jono]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

The video shows her pulling him to her room, and making a circle with her hand and sticking a finger through it, to her friend, behind the dudes back.

To reasonable people, that's saying she's bringing the man to her room to fuck him.

The video does not show her initiating sex. So again....

 

[CapitalB]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..

so we got her story..

his story..

and the goddamn video..

the bitch lost..

if this tramp dont remember shit aint nothin for her to have to get over then..

lets move along.

 

[jono]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..

so we got her story..

his story..

and the goddamn video..

the bitch lost..

if this tramp dont remember shit aint nothin for her to have to get over then..

lets move along.

This is why we have trials. Not people throwing out cases because of videos that...again...doesn't contradict the argument.

 

[7figz]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

The video shows her pulling him to her room, and making a circle with her hand and sticking a finger through it, to her friend, behind the dudes back.

To reasonable people, that's saying she's bringing the man to her room to fuck him.

The video does not show her initiating sex. So again....

You're asking for a video showing her "initiating sex" now ?

So what are you saying - only a video of her climbing on top of this dude would show consent ?

The dictionary definition of consent is an agreement to do something. If this chick is saying "we're going to fuck" to her friend, then the only one who could've NOT agreed to the situation would have been the guy.

 

[jono]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

The video shows her pulling him to her room, and making a circle with her hand and sticking a finger through it, to her friend, behind the dudes back.

To reasonable people, that's saying she's bringing the man to her room to fuck him.

The video does not show her initiating sex. So again....

You're asking for a video showing her "initiating sex" now ?

So what are you saying - only a video of her climbing on top of this dude would show consent ?

The dictionary definition of consent is an agreement to do something. If this chick is saying "we're going to fuck" to her friend, then the only one who could've NOT agreed to the situation would have been the guy.

That would literally contradict her argument. Otherwise there is contradiction.

 

[7figz]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..

so we got her story..

his story..

and the goddamn video..

the bitch lost..

if this tramp dont remember shit aint nothin for her to have to get over then..

lets move along.

This is why we have trials. Not people throwing out cases because of videos that...again...doesn't contradict the argument.

It contradicts the charges they brought against him as well as perhaps her being too drunk to remember.

It contradicts the story they were trying to paint.

It probably also shows the truth - which is that she fucked because she wanted to fuck and is lying about being raped.

 

[jono]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..

so we got her story..

his story..

and the goddamn video..

the bitch lost..

if this tramp dont remember shit aint nothin for her to have to get over then..

lets move along.

This is why we have trials. Not people throwing out cases because of videos that...again...doesn't contradict the argument.

It contradicts the charges they brought against him as well as perhaps her being too drunk to remember.



It contradicts the story they were trying to paint.

It probably also shows the truth - which is that she fucked because she wanted to fuck and is lying about being raped.

No it doesn't. There's no sex at all in the video. You can't make a determination of whether sex even happened from that video

 

[7figz]

Like I said, it contradicts the charges they brought against him:

- Can't prove "he drugged her" if she was already drunk on her own.

- Can't prove rape if she initiated the sexual encounter with him.

Besides those charges:

- Can't prove she was too drunk if it looks like she wasn't too drunk to do certain things in a video.

- Can't prove that she didn't want to or intend to fuck if a video shows she wanted to and intended to fuck

I ain't saying it proved behind a shadow of a doubt, but it damn sure leaves a lot of fuckin doubt. It is what it is, don't know why you're reaching here.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

Her statement wasn't just lack of consent though. Her statement was that she didn't remember what happened and thus she didn't consent. That's not even a logically sound statement. The guy she accused said from the start that she was the initiator of the sex, so the consent was implicit. The video doesn't show them commencing with the sex, but it does show that she was the one initiating and is more supportive of the accused than the accuser.

Of course the ruling is based on the judge's opinion. All rulings are based on the judge's opinion.

 

[LordZuko]

Niggas gotta start fuckin with go pros on just to prove they didn't rape a bitch.

@jono. It's silly as hell to demand someone prove a negative. She has to prove he raped. He doesn't have to prove he didn't. Based on the video evidence it was going to be nigh impossible and a waste of money to try to concoct a narrative where the girl dragging the guy and making fuckin gestures to a friend was raped by same said guy.

 

[deadeye]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.

I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.

What it does do, is call her credibility into question.

It really all comes down to accountability.

Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.

What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "rape" and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with drunk driving and vehicular homicide.

All that.................."I was too drunk to realize what I was doing"................bullshit wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.

 

[jetlifebih]

That gesture behind his back saved him from the fuckery....

 

[blackgod813]

Outside of swinger clubs I BOYCOTT THESE WOMEN.

I dont engage talkings

I dont pay drink

I barely stare at them.

Less money spent

Less stress

If she approaches i tell her that im chillin, i dont want to talk... UNLESS YOU BUY ME A DRINK.

If she shows sexual interest, i give her the adress of the sauna or i tell her to order a hotel room so she couldnt charge me for rape easliy.

Yea its fucked up brothers and sisters, but one have to adapt to his society.

The pressure and legal risks are too high. Rather play safe.

U hard in the yard

 

[Go figure]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

I'm guessing the evidence contradicted either her story or the prosecution's charges.

Think about it like this, either she said he raped her or the prosecution says he raped her and she doesn't deny it. They ask if she gave consent and she says "I don't remember anything" - essentially go ahead and charge him with rape. The prosecutor says well we'll prove you didn't give consent and and charge him with getting you drunk and raping you.

Then this video comes out. Now it's clear that she's drunk, leading him to her room with intent to have sex (consenting and initiating). Now they have to prove that she revoked consent because clearly she originally gave it, not to mention they originally charged him with drugging and raping her. After seeing the video, what reasonable jury is going to believe that ? Shit, at that point - the judge probably just came to terms that she simply wasn't raped.

Bottom line, the video probably proved consent.

The video does not contradict her statement of lack of consent.

So you're saying the video doesn't show that she consented ?

It doesn't.

the video doesnt shot she didnt give consent either..

so we got her story..

his story..

and the goddamn video..

the bitch lost..

if this tramp dont remember shit aint nothin for her to have to get over then..

lets move along.

This is why we have trials. Not people throwing out cases because of videos that...again...doesn't contradict the argument.

It contradicts the charges they brought against him as well as perhaps her being too drunk to remember.



It contradicts the story they were trying to paint.

It probably also shows the truth - which is that she fucked because she wanted to fuck and is lying about being raped.

No it doesn't. There's no sex at all in the video. You can't make a determination of whether sex even happened from that video

"Based on the evidence....." which supports the guys version more than hers. Its actually hilarious how well the footage worked against her and how nonchalant he was to her 'aggressive' advances.

Oh and u actin like thats your girl in the footage

 

[blackrain]

and somehow we still don't know "her" name.

There should be legal consequences for her.

Some white girl just got charged with lying about being raped and kidnapped by 3 black dudes last week. As said before it all depends on what that department and that DA wants to pursue. It's not hard to find stories of women being charged for filing false rape claims.

That's part of the problem.

It shouldn't have to "depend" on anything.

If a woman is proven to have intentionally lied about being raped/sexually assaulted...........she needs to be prosecuted for it.

And her name and identity should be made public.

I agree, but unfortunately that's not how that works in all cases but there are instances where women do get charged and jail time for lying about rape. It's not that it doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen alot which is why it isn't emphasized as much...which ironically is along the same line of logic of the previous debate before about trying to emphasize the admittedly lower instances of false rape claims on the same level as the number of legit rape claims.

 

[blakfyahking]

@jono is correct tho

the footage just undermines shorty's credibility.........it doesn't truly disprove whether or not she was raped

if there are laws where if a woman can say stop in the middle of intercourse, and the man can be charged for rape if he continues

then it's possible that she still could've been raped.......I think that's the point that @jono has raised

bottom line is ol boy is lucky as shit that some DA/judge wasn't pressed to try to prove a point

dudes gotta be smarter about fucking with drunk chicks........I learned that shit personally in the Army, seen it go bad way too many times in the barracks

 

[blackrain]

I don't see how this proves she lied about rape. This is the judges opinion based on events from a different time of the night.

I'm assuming she accused him of rape, said she was too drunk to consent, but the video shows not only did that she initiated the encounter (pulling him out of the bar and everywhere else), with a predetermined motive to have sex with him (the sex gesture to her friend), couldn't be too drunk (signing him into the building), etc...

She wanted it to be one way... but the video showed it to be the other way.

The video doesn't contradict lack of consent. Even if she led him to her room it still doesn't equal consent.

C'mon bruh...........that's a stretch.

I mean, it's possible...........but not likely.

What it does do, is call her credibility into question.

It really all comes down to accountability.

Women need to stop using alcohol as an excuse for bad judgment.........and the legislature and/or courts needs to stop enacting/enforcing laws that help enable this foolishness.

What's ironic is the fact that..........if she got behind the wheel of a car immediately after her "rape" and ended up killing someone.........she'd be charged with drunk driving and vehicular homicide.

All that.................."I was too drunk to realize what I was doing"................bullshit wouldn't fly in that situtation........so it shouldn't be taken seriously in this situation either.

I wouldn't say it shouldn't be taken serious because being drunk doesn't negate the fact that the possibility, though in this instance seemingly very slight, that she was raped but it should be taken into account when trying to immediately recall the details especially since its known that rape in itself is traumatic enough that some victims process the trauma by blocking out certain details or only being able to recall them later when they're memory is triggered by something

 

[konceptjones]

Its fucked up that they would conceal this bitches identity

@reddit @4chan

workin on it...