My interpretation is that it sounds an awful lot like she had sex within a 48 hour window and the defense wants it to be 24 hours after and the prosecution wants it to be 24 hours before, and frankly I don’t care which it was, nor do I care how many people she had sex with in the first place - other than to the extent that it impacts the likelihood that her injuries were caused by a rape.
Like, various people are arguing various points of the case with me, which is putting me in a position to make the argument that his defense made, which is not really what I set out to be doing.
Getting back to my main point here: you list all the facts in one place in a neutral light, and it is clear to me that you can create a lot of narratives by picking and choosing which ones to focus on. People in this thread keep taking the ones that look the worst for him, putting them in the worst light for him, and pushing those.
I tried to push back toward neutral on those, and I’ve tried to avoid arguing his side too much, but I keep getting drawn into those arguments.
My stance is not that he’s innocent. My stance is not that he didn’t make mistakes. He clearly made a bunch of mistakes. My stance is not that he couldn’t have raped her, nor that it’s unlikely he raped her. My stance is that we don’t know, and that the two most likely things would be that he raped her on purpose or a miscommunication that led to her having revoked consent and him having failed to understand that - it’s on him, but it’s not an intentional violent rape.
That’s it. A few people here want to make it out to be 100% that he did the worst possible thing given the facts, and I think that’s unfair and an inaccurate portrayal of the facts. To me the argument would be more like “Was it 70% likely that there was a miscommunication or 30%?”
But, even on that, I don’t care. Either way he did something bad, it’s a matter of degrees. Settling on some % of probability doesn’t change her reality at all, and it doesn’t do much for anyone else. Call it 90/10, for all I care, I just don’t think that he should be judged 100% for something he is not 100% likely to have done. I think any reasonable likelihood that he didn’t do the worst possible thing here is pretty substantial and has a pretty big impact on how he is/should be remembered.