Each of the police reports has a newer unredacted copy that will come up if you click on the redacted version (I appealed the redactions and they gave me a less redacted version). I had some technical difficulty redacting the name of the victim unless I converted it to a Word file. However, the Word file looks like something I could have typed up myself, so I left the redacted pdf file as well.
Is there a reason you have not responded to my post where I specifically point out that your statements referring to Lewan are factually inaccurate and worded in a way that implies that Lewan threatened directly to the girl that Gibbons would rape her again if she pressed charges, when in fact he made an inappropriate comment stating that Gibbons didn't rape her in front of third parties who apparently repeated his comment to the alleged victim? If you cannot give me an argument as to why this is properly presented in your "article," please alter or remove this section. It is intentionally misleading and dishonest.
You also need to quit saying there were two threats. The first threat entailed Lewan misidentifying a girl, asking if it is her, and then saying the girl he mistook for her must not have been smooshed like that before. I am not sure on what planet that is a threat to the alleged victim. It's not a threat to anybody. It's not even threatening language. It's beyond dishonest to refer to there being two "threats" towards her, as there is clear evidence that neither statement was made with the intention of threatening her as she was not present for either comment.
Your assertion that Lewan's "threats" were the cause of her not pressing charges is also not supported by the evidence. In her original police statement she says in numerous different ways that she does not want to press charges and go through a trial. The alleged "threats" were not addressed until about two weeks after the incident. It seems hard to imagine the "threats" being the cause when she declined to take action for two weeks after the incident after expressing her desire to not pursue legal action from the beginning.
Your concept that she would have been afraid of losing her scholarship is also beyond ridiculous on so many common sense levels it's incredible that you would even suggest this. The local media was aware of the allegations and the fact that an arrest had been made was known, but the only information lacking was official confirmation of the suspect. Had she pressed charges, nothing would have prevented this information from being common knowledge. Nothing. How can you or anybody else reasonably believe that the school would be so dumb as to kick her out after it is known that her alleged rapist has been charged publicly? The only explanation would have been if her identity was completely unknown, but the police reports make her identity as a freshmen track athlete clear. No school administrator would take away her scholarship knowing it would be found out. That's borderline psychotic to think that could happen. This also brings me to my next point:
I am curious if the alleged victim approved of the way you presented information about her in your "article." You have given away her year, athletic team associations, and home state in your version of the police reports. About 30 seconds of searching on Mgoblue.com allowed me to unquestionably discern her identity. I have no doubts that countless other people have now done the same and harassment may be directed towards her as a result. I hope you had her permission because otherwise you just outed the alleged victim. Not a very smart thing to do.
Please stop responding to medical assertions and address the factual issues I have raised above.
