They were too strapped for cash.

On top of which, all three of the initial were not independent of each other. The first two accusers were both ex-girlfriends who knew each other and agreed to both file reports against him. The third was urged to file a complaint in order to support the first two. My feeling is that only Emma would have reported him,…

I think one of the cases was his ex-girlfriend claiming that post-breakup, she realized he was emotionally and sexually abusive. Something like that. The party scenarios were the same alleged victim. If I’m remembering things correctly.

Well, it’s largely telling of how this campus deals with awareness of issues surrounding sexual assault, consent, drinking, etc. Even if he did do as the first two lodged complaints allege (kiss someone inappropriately, and follow someone into a room at a party then leave when told they were’t there to hook up with…

I absolutely think he’s deluded enough to think he’s the victim. Entitled people (read: people who think they can take sex from anyone) always feel like they’re the victim when they don’t get their way.

Well, you can defend against slander by proving the statement true. So, if he sues her for that she can basically put on a case to prove he did it (at a much lower burden of proof than a criminal trial).

Those were the cases? You are right, those are not the most compelling evidence.

Specifically, in order to win in a slander/libel case, the plaintiff (the person suing) must prove that the statement made by the defendant is false. In this case, Mr. Accused Rapist would have to convince a jury that his victim is actually lying in order to win his case.

Actually, the standard of proof in the Columbia investigations is “preponderance of the evidence,” a much less burdensome standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases. Under a preponderance of the evidence standard, basically if 50.0001% of the evidence favors you, you win. So if…

Sabrina Rubin Erdely, is that you?

She never named him. She gave the police his name when she filed a report. Then it became public record. But, from what I read in that Daily Beast article, by his own admission, no one on campus recognized him, most had no idea who he was. Yes, people called for his expulsion, but it was never going to happen. He…

They didn’t determine him as “innocent” at all! They determined him as “not responsible” which is way different. I’m not sure how many legs this lawsuit has to stand on.

The bigger principle at stake is due process. Colleges have demonstrated that they are completely incapable of dealing with accusations of sexual assault and rape. They either ignore the accusation and drag their feet in investigating, or they conduct ‘hearings’ where the result is predetermined (can’t review the…

Because it would be hard to win. He’d have the burden of proof, and even by a preponderance, it’s hard to win. He would have to testify under oath, she would have to testify under oath. He doesn’t have a smoking gun, other than circumstantial “friendly” texts messages that they sent to one another after the sexual…

Well, you can defend against slander by proving the statement true. So, if he sues her for that she can basically put on a case to prove he did it (at a much lower burden of proof than a criminal trial).

The suit accuses Sulkowicz of filing a “false complaint” with Columbia, and says she pursued a “scheme” to “brand Paul as a rapist.” It does not mention the other three sexual assaults Nungesser was accused of, including the two that went through the campus disciplinary system and found him not responsible.

It is about Columbia University as an institution, which was not only silent, but actively and knowingly supported attacks on Paul Nungesser, after having determined his innocence, legitimizing a fiction.

I am nearly 100% positive she never named him in any of her demonstrations or her art piece. I think I remember his name coming out when someone leaked all the paperwork from their university “legal” proceedings regarding the assault. That or he was dumb enough to point the fingers at himself.

Probably because even if a judge ruled in his favor, he wouldn’t get a lot of money out of a college student. Columbia, however, is another matter entirely.

It’s bad that, even though the content is horrendous victim-blaming, I was more distracted by the typo (reciporcate vs. reciprocate). You can’t even spell-check that shit, horrible lawyer?! (admittedly I have been marking reports all week, so my brain is in “poorly proofread” spotting mode).