I'm just disappointed...

[HaleyBaron]

That case should have been dropped and her laughed out of the police station. She has no standing case, and it's clear it's just MeToo resurgence to further ignite female fanbase. Unfortunately, it's at least working socially. Anti rape and Jane Doe propaganda plastered all over social media. Hate this timeline.

 

[Sega Genesis]

That case should have been dropped..

The DA did initially drop it when first presented to him in 2024 for lack of evidence according to her written statement. I don't know all the facts but it's been said he's been railroaded and pressured into reopening.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Then it's clear that it was politically motivated. Right on schedule.

 

[klh]

'Jane Doe' consented to the threesome [... with] Matt Ingalls. ... At one point she had said "stop" and they stopped.

Yes, the first threesome was consensual. Then 7 guys read Snapchat and eagerly ran up for "free *****". Ingalls later lied that men entered the room because the party was crowded. In other words, Ingalls secretly and deliberately set her up. I have seen (possibly fake) Snapchats online that they previously set up other women.

She pushed Diego Sarabia away and he respected. But then 7 men "commanded" her to do more ketamine, she was too intimidated to leave because she was surrounded and naked under the covers, and she felt coerced to do more drugs. Finally, Ingalls and Lopes took her away for another threesome. I am concerned that Ingalls took advantage of involuntary intoxication. No mean no; it does not mean give her more drugs until she is incapable of saying no. This might not pass the threshold of criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt and I would not throw defendants in prison for years. But dang, the girl dropped out of Cornell and at least deserves a tuition refund.

New York law says consent is too damn hard to figure out after the fact. So if a New York woman got voluntarily drunk, then the criminal law does not protect her (unless she was unconscious). Other states have different laws about intoxicated consent.

 

[Sega Genesis]

But then 7 men "commanded" her to do more ketamine, she was too intimidated to leave because she was surrounded and naked under the covers, and she felt coerced to do more drugs.

Where did you get this information? I am not saying it's incorrect but I have been following closely and I have never heard or read this.

No one coerced her and it was her idea to take the ketamine off one man"a penis later during the night. She has admitted this in text messages to Matt. And other written statements

In fact, in one of her texts to Matt that has been discovered, she stated that the sexual stuff that night was not illegal, she enjoyed her time with him and xxzz (another defendant) and expressed interest in doing it again. That she loved him and he was her King.

She may be claiming now two years later she felt coerced and intimidated but I dunno the evidence doesn't really support this as it stands now.

Also Matt Ingalls has claimed and the others corroborated, that HE was so drunk at one point and in and out of consciousness and SHE proceeded to s*ck his c0ck and tried to wake him up.

Since he was actually incapacitated would it be fair to say that she sexually assaulted him? He is now claiming he was and considering filing his own lawsuit

I don't know and hopefully the entire truth will come to light as the investigation continues or during trial.

I know the burden and laws are different in each state. In CA for example where I live, if a person is simply intoxicated there can be no consent. In New York the bar is higher.

 

[nicksaiz65]

Where did you get this information? I am not saying it's incorrect but I have been following closely and I have never heard or read this.

No one coerced her and it was her idea to take the ketamine off one man"a penis later during the night. She has admitted this in text messages to Matt. And other written statements

In fact, in one of her texts to Matt that has been discovered, she stated that what happened that night was not illegal, she enjoyed her time with him and expressed interest in doing it again. That she loved him and he was her King.

She may be claiming now two years later she felt coerced and intimidated but I dunno the evidence doesn't really support this as it stands now.

Also Matt Ingalls has claimed and the others corroborated, that HE was so drunk at one point and in and out of consciousness and SHE proceeded to s*ck his c0ck and tried to wake him up.

Since he was actually incapacitated would it be fair to say that she sexually assaulted him? He is now claiming he was and considering filing his own lawsuit

I don't know and hopefully the entire truth will come to light as the investigation continues or during trial.

I know the burden and laws are different in each state. In CA for example where I live, if a person is simply intoxicated there can be no consent. In New York the bar is higher.

Oh wow. Thats the law in CA? I’d have to do more research. So what does this imply about two drunk people, similar to what Ingalls is claiming?

 

[Sega Genesis]

Oh wow. Thats the law in CA? I’d have to do more research. So what does this imply about two drunk people, similar to what Ingalls is claiming?

">>Under California law, sexual activity with a person who is too intoxicated to give legal consent is considered rape or sexual assault (California Penal Code Section 261).

What the Law Says

• • Legal Definition: According to the California Legislative Information for Penal Code 261, rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is prevented from resisting by intoxication, and the accused knew or reasonably should have known the person was intoxicated.

 

[BPH]

I want to clarify and ask a question to forum members. There is a lot of exculpatory evidence. But the Snapchat "free ***** ... store is open ... just whip it out" followed by drugging looks like a premeditated and possibly nonconsensual train.

In some states, a girl who is so drunk that she does not recognize her partner cannot give consent. But in New York state, a girl who voluntarily got intoxicated must be essentially unconscious to claim rape. This will make criminal conviction very difficult. For example, it might require showing that the girl was involuntarily coerced or tricked into doing more ketamine.

My question is: If you believe that the men are innocent, what evidence would convince you that this is rape? Conversely, if you believe they are guilty, what would convince you that they are innocent? Again, it will be hard to prove beyond reasonable criminal doubt. But it is easier to prove civil damages with preponderance of evidence.

Not saying "everything was consensual" in her original statement would've been a good start.