He did use it in his defense in the case. A stupid drunken college kid almost taking part in what he thought was an orgy is a far cry from a person who knowingly wanted to commit rape.
And if he knew it was rape, why in the hell would he testify that he wanted to participate at the time? That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to lie in a situation like that, you'd say you decided you couldn't go through with it....not that you were eager to do it but your dick didn't work.
Incorrect. The guy in the room with him was also acquitted. You can't be an accomplice to a crime if the crime didn't happen. This was in the articles on the case.
You're confusing me with someone else. I made no claim whatsoever about him being threatened or coerced into participating.
It was 22 years ago. He was acquitted. People have a tendency to put stuff like this behind them. How would you like it if someone dredged up the biggest mistake of your life 22 years later and publicly demanded for you to explain yourself?
Hopefully he's starting to realize that he should address it publicly.
Suffice it to say, he's also had quite a bit on his plate this week.
