These kids today say I love you all the time. It doesn’t mean they love each other in an attachment sort of way. But, it would be an odd way to talk to a rapist after a brutal attack. We are never going to know for sure. No matter what. Which is probably why I don’t care much about hearing from him. I would be much happier never to have heard any of it, really. There is no resolution for this kind of drama.
I think Emma Sulkowicz is telling the truth overall. I mean, sure, the text messages are bizarre - I completely agree with that. Maybe he and Emma stopped talking to each other because she was angry. But why would 3 women come forward and accuse the same alleged perpetrator of sexual assault? Out of malice? It’s hard to believe, if you ask me.
Also, it’s not like Paul Nungesser didn’t have the chance to speak before all this happened. Emma Sulkowicz went public with her case early last year. Where was Nungesser in all this mess? He was in Europe studying abroad, and even when he came back to CU for his senior year, he tried to dodge the public by studying abroad again. That’s just downright suspicious. The guy hasn’t really come to his defense until now, so that’s what makes me think that he’s guilty. (And his comments in the original NY Times article are also odd.)
From the article:
First, it was their 3rd hook-up. Second, the “briefly” sounds more like a sneak attack than a “mutual consent.” Not willing to get graphic here, but it realistically can’t be the way he thinks.
@marie1234 “There is no resolution to this sort of drama.”
Actually there could have been. When I was in-house counsel we often had messy disputes that had the potential to generate negative publicity and a lot of legal bills if the matter went to outside counsel to be litigated. If you had a good enough understanding of each sides ultimate goal and a reasonable in-house counsel on the other side, you could sit down over dinner and parse together an agreement where each party got enough of what they wanted to end the matter. 7 out of 10 times it was successful.
Columbia had a golden opportunity to make this whole mess go away. Emma made it clear that all she wanted was him permanently off campus. Paul wanted the same thing as he petitioned the university to extend his study aboard to include his senior year. Problem solved. Both parties get what they want, no one is carrying a mattress around campus, both graduate with their degrees and Columbia avoids all this negative press. Whose bright idea was it to deny Paul’s request based on the technicality that his request was made a few weeks beyond the stated deadline?
CF: I don’t think she had an attachment to him. I think they were friends that got together from time to time. Where did I say she was attached to him? She was asking to hang out and talk, not become involved. Many girls say Love you in a casual way that doesn’t mean love in a real way. And i don’t even think I used that example.
“Briefly” could just as well describe anything constituting intercourse, for many people, much of the time. Especially with something like that. Especially in college. Whether it was consensual or not, “briefly” is one of the believable elements of all these contrasting narratives.
Harvest that’s an excellent point and I feel for the young man that Columbia couldn’t seem to accommodate him…he certainly deserved protection from the gang mob mentality and to get away from this wacky woman. But perhaps in a perverse gesture they were trying to tell Emma that she didn’t prove her case…two times…so they were unwilling to give her what she wanted. How ironic that our dysfunctional government actually invited her to the Address to the Nation. Doesn’t say much good about how our nation is functioning IMO. Columbia did what they were supposed to do…two times…he did what he was supposed to do and yet she gets invited to the White House - it’s is truly bizarre. It’s shameful behavior from an elected official - but something I’ve sadly come to expect. I’m sure it made much behind-the-door conversational fodder for Columbia administration.
You could be right @momofthreeboys. But then it could have been the opposite . Columbia found him “not responsible” because there was clearly not sufficient evidence to find him guilty. But perhaps they believed or suspected otherwise and was not going to let him escape to Europe. Instead they made him stay on campus to face the music.
That’s what I’d like to know. It seems like a boneheaded decision. The only justification I can think of was that they hoped he’d quit or transfer to another institution, preferably on another continent.
It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall.
Two different perspectives on “Trial by Media”.
- For the sake of fairness towards victims, make media less objective and less dependent on hard evidence (written by a woman)
http://flavorwire.com/502931/the-smearing-of-carry-that-weight-activist-emma-sulkowicz-begins
- For the sake of fairness towards accused, make media more objective and more dependent on hard evidence (written by a man)
http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/02/03/better-media-coverage-sexual-assault-survivors
Perhaps Columbia was simply following the rules. They have a lot of random written rules and policies and seem to have no clue what they are doing and no-one really has any authority so they all just kind of sit in a circle and read the rule book and try not to deviate much so they can say the procedure was handled correctly. That’s my theory.
Columbia did not handle the case well. It was a kangaroo court. Columbia has changed its procedures since Emma’s case was decided.
It was a he said she said case. These cases are hard to prove. Doesn’t mean the rape did not happen.
Many sexual assault crimes are not provable…even 51 percent proof is hard in many cases. The sexual assaults still occured.
People can pretend to know what was in Emma’s mind but they don’t know. It is just speculation. The speculation is really about the posters’ thinking… Not Emma’s or the guy’s thinking.
Columbia said there wasn’t evidence or enough evidence in this case to prove the guy was responsible.
Due process was lacking in this case. This was not a court of law. Columbia can consider the fact that there were multiple accusers. Columbia could have expelled the guy, or suspended the guy or let the guy study overseas or do what the school did. Columbia did not let the mention of three accusers come up in Emma’s case. If Emma was my daughter, I would be angry at Columbia. I think three accusations is relevant. I would let the guy bring up whatever he wanted to also.
Looks like Emma and the guy could have worked out the conflict better than the school.
What I like about this case is we learned that some people who complain about due process don’t really care about due process.
I never thought they did care. It was a convenient argument when it looked like the guys were getting screwed.
I also learned that getting hit, strangled and the rest isn’t really brutal.
I just watched that scene in Deliverance just to confirm that is ridiculous…and it is.
I think cases with celebrities are quite different. Celebrities attract all sorts of negative attention and crazy people. Jodie Foster and James Hinkley, the false paternity charges against Justin Bieber, the woman stalking David Letterman, we could go on and on. It’s just not relevant to ordinary people.
Well if Oberest dropped his lawsuit based on those objections then he is as ridiculous as Ostendorf.
I read Harvard dismissed two students today for sexual misconduct. Does anyone know the stories?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/4/students-dismissed-sexual-misconduct/
Dsatrak can you explain how due process was not followed here? If it is the other 2 accusations not being let in, then we disagree. But except for the parents letter, I didn’t read anything that indicates there was evidence that was not allowed or other violations. Columbia did postpone the hearing to allow the accused to go home for the summer which may be considered unfair to Emma. But not a breech of due process.
Agree that these cases are hard to prove, but still not sure how to overcome that hurdle and get to the truth.
That’s your key takeway from the snippet?