Community contribution

I juat read the cornell decision again (i think the one i read before was incomplete or more redacted). Right throughout, it says she gave consent. It sounds like she was a bit fucked near the end (so to speak), but she was "talking nonsense", so still awake and looking and feeling happy. So same facts as her statement. But what i noticed is, cornell says there was no consent due to incapacitation! Thats bullshit! Intoxication and incapacitation are very different things. At no point did she not know that she was being offered an illegal drug, or being asked to suck and fuck. If you know what the fuck you are doing and the implications, the consent is 100% valid. A bit grey at the end, where she says she tried to avoid a third bang by saying she was tired, etc... But never an out right no. Legally this seems to be greyer, if the guys keep asking. But then 1) she was happy, chatty and eventually "presented" her pussy while sucking a dudes cock, so the boys woukd not have known there was a problem (allowing for them being oretty fucking high too) with consent so not rape and, ultimately, she was voluntarily intoxicated, so the consent question gets far more murky. Her best chance of claiming assault is threesome 3, but that involved Matt, the guy she declares she was obsessed about. He didnt make her obssessed with him, thats on her. Fucking bitch, i get worried i will see something that makes me doubt my take that she was not raped, but everything lines up. Even cornell said the first threesome was 100% consensual, but now she claims that was rape too. Bitch! I fucking hate this creature