Wenner still doesn’t get it.

No charges were ever filed.

Jane Roe’s statement in today’s filing confirms that Yale broke its own rules.

Yes, it was a hoax.

The comparison to the Chamberlain case also extends to the forensics. In both instances the forensic experiments were performed sloppily, and some experiments were performed long after the principals had become suspects.

I have examined the electropherograms related to the bra clasp myself. There are a minimum of two men (one of whom is not Guede) who contributed DNA to the clasp besides the profile that could be Sollecito’s. This suggests that at least some DNA arrived on the clasp in a way that is unrelated to the crime.

Yes and Mr. Sollecito was held in solitary confinement for months. Although one can find good things to say about the criminal justice system in Italy, this case shows some of the not so good.

This is a fine article, but I have one quibble. The ordinary kitchen knife from Sollecito’s flat had Amanda’s DNA on the handle and was claimed to have a tiny (“low-template”) amount of DNA on the blade that belonged to Kercher. Independent experts in Italy carefully scrutinized the evidence and found it badly…

It was a paper plate. Was it boorish behavior? Yes, but was it sexual assault? To a large extent that is question on which this case turns.

Paragraph 121 of the filing: “As the [Yale University] fact-finder was careful to ascertain, Roe affirmatively and unequivocally communicated to Montague, by her conduct,that she consented to ‘sex.’” There is no similarity between this situation (in which the dispute is over whether other not this consent was revoked)…

The key question before the judge was whether or not the accused must show that Columbia had a discriminatory intent. The judge indicated that the accused did not need to do so. Scott Greenfield (a criminal defense lawyer) noted, “This is an age-old argument in the world of discrimination.” There is nothing new under…

That’s not an answer to the question. And the question deserves answering unless the number of false accusations is strictly zero.

“’Every woman who falsely accuses a man of rape makes the battle harder for women who are actually raped,’ she writes, in addition to unfairly tarnishing men’s reputations.” Does the author disagree with Ms. Herrick about this?

One hopes that someone who defends the Title IX processes will explain why it was OK for Yale to mislead the complaining witness and fail to follow its own guidelines with respect to the role of the Title IX coordinator.

Yale’s procedures preclude the meaningful participation of a lawyer in its adjudication (the lawyer can be present only if you give advance notification, and he or she cannot actually do much). FIRE reminds us why lawyers are important: [quote] FIRE strongly supports right-to-counsel legislation because the…

Given the 13 month gap in time between the incident and when the process began to move forward, it would be difficult to see how campus safety could plausibly be invoked.

Montague’s filing has an in-depth discussion to suggest that Yale’s own guidelines were indeed not followed.

Yale’s guidelines for letting a Title IX coordinator file a complaint are quite narrow, and the present case does not fit under them.

Justice Brandeis said that sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants. It will be nice to see the sun shine on Yale’s duplicitous conduct.

I am just reading Montague’s filing now. It shreds Yale on logical and factual grounds. How the case will fare in court is another matter.