Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.
Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?
|
Nobody but EM knows what her experience or motives were. One possible explanation:
She consented to the acts in the moment, but in the sober light of morning felt shame, disgust, and anger at how she was treated. Before and after the settlement, people in the community knew her identity, and some regarded her as a gold-digger. She wanted to vindicate her reputation in her community, and see the players face consequences for their mistreatment of her. Her mother has also been (understandably) engaged all along to press for maximum consequences for the players - at the earliest stage EM herself didn't want to press charges.
No idea if that's the case. But it's one of the possibilities. As is the possibility she never believed she gave consent.
Edit: I see FlamesAddiction made pretty much the same comment.