Slashdot Mirror
Security Researcher Attacked While At Conference
New submitter fineous fingers writes "U.S. computer security researcher Georgia Weidman has revealed on her blog that a fellow speaker at the Confidence security conference in Krakow, Poland attempted to rape her. The attack occurred in her hotel room in the early morning hours of 28 May. Luckily, Georgia was able to fend her attacker off by clocking him in the head with a coffee mug. I was personally at this conference, but was staying at a different hotel and found out about it after the fact. It was Georgia herself that told me after she gave her fantastic talk on Leveraging Mobile Devices on Pentests. That she was able to give a flawless presentation later that day and had the courage to talk about the attack on her blog shows how awesome she really is."
He denies it. She presented no evidence. He presented none either, even though he is under no obligation to. No charges files. Her word against his.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
was he running a whistle-bower website by any chance?
Mr. Potato Head, backdoors are not secrets.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Let none denigrate the usefulness of humble convention swag again.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
like offline?
Thank you Georgia for your brave heart and your humanist approach. As a male I feel ashamed that such a male exists among us.
if someone tried to rape me it wouldnt be a fucking coffee mug. it would be his head against the corner of a table, over and over and over, until his blood spurted out all over my shirt. then id cut off his dick and mail it to his mother.
i commend her for her restraint.
joshua
except for the international nature of the conference, they could look at the guys hands, etc, and substantiate the claims of the accuser.
from what she said, he attempeted to kill her. i would not blame her for blasting his fucking head and splattering it all over the room.
i know this is slahsdot, where the fucking shit bag Hans Reiser got defended even after he told the bodies where to dig up the disfigured corpse of his dead wife, but i dont fucking care. fuck slashdot and all the rapists and murderers who think they are too cool for justice.
when it comes down to your nerd rage rape fantasy veruses my dead body in a gutter, if someone attacks me and triees to kill me, im going to decpaitate them and stick their head on a fucking pole in front of the nearest tech convention and not feel bad about it. someone in the IT community needs to get the fucking message, and reasoned argument doesnt seem to persuade them.
He was just really into Ayn Rand:
http://jezebel.com/5490207/a-welcomed-rape-sex-and-ayn-rand
http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/atlas-shat-ayn-rands-manifesto-of-rape-and-terrorism/
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/08/23812/
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/10/internal-affairs-how-ayn-rand-followers-rationalize-welcomed-rape/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021259973
So please. Your oppressing him because of his philosophical belies.
Fucking libs !
Luckily, Georgia was able to fend her attacker off by clocking him in the head with a coffee mug.
See? Java skill will always come in handy for the code warriors in every unexpected situation.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
But she was drunk and she did invite him in so where on the rape scale should this be? Would any fright wingers care to fill in the blanks? ...
0 being not rape
1
2
3
4
9 being legitimate rape.
From victim of assault to stupid and ignorant. You claim to remove Bias, then subtly introducing yours.
How ignorant of empathy are you, Anon?
It's guys like you who we can miss like the plague.
-- Cheers!
I come here to /. to read about computers, software, and technology in general.
Yet what do I actually encounter? Some article about a bunch of drama that allegedly took place at some obscure conference in eastern Europe a month ago.
But what's worse is reading through comments and encountering one like this one from "decora". Why is a comment talking about violently killing somebody, then butchering the victim's genitals, and finally mailing them to the victim's mother modded up to "5, Insightful"?
Come on. That's the kind of crap I expect to see modded up at a place like reddit. And that's exactly why I don't visit reddit, but come here instead. We shouldn't have to encounter nonsense submissions like this one, nor utterly stupid (if not outright disgusting) comments modded up so highly.
Can /. please go back to focusing on technology, rather than junk like this?
Ask Whoopie. I hear she's an expert on what is and isn't really "rape rape".
Can't be more than 0 since his plow did not enter her field.
The lack of sympathy in these comments is as awful as the blog post.
or do you just choose to defend the rights of attempted murderers?
Mod parent up.
its called "self defense", to kill someone who is trying to kill you.
this man was trying to kill her. he beat her in the face. she had no idea how many times he would do it, or how far he would go.
she defended herself.
you are saying that she shouldnt have.
its life or death situation. you protect your own life, not the life of a scumbag criminal sociopath.
attempeted murder is attempetd murder, and self defense is self defense. why would i post someting so strong?
its called a "pre-emptive strike" against all the rape apologists on slashdot and in the tech "community" in general. hit them fast, hit them hard, hit them first. you either believe people have a right to defend themselves against a violent assault, or they dont. its not drama, its not a disagreement. its a fucking attempted murder at a security con.
if you dont want to talk about attempted murder in the "tech community" then go fucking read ars technica. you can find a great new review of the hottest new video game.
that Hans Reiser was an abusive asshole. i mean, where was the hard evidence? other than her bloody body lying in a trash dump a few months later, how was anyone to know the guy was guilty?
yes, why not have millions of people calling you a fucking whore piece of shit slut lying cunt bitch, on the internet? its a great career move for her small business. to beat herself in the face and then lie about it.
From her blog (her post is long and detailed):
From his blog (he wrote very little):
What disturbs me here is the knee-jerk suggestion that she invented the story for some unspecified reason. Statistically, only a very small number of rape accusations turn out to be fabricated. Of course I don't know for sure what happened. I've never even heard of these people before. But based on the little evidence I have seen, I know who I believe.
Do you mean we can miss folks like Julian Assange ? He is in the same boat.
It became assault when he did not stop when ordered to.
So, such convention are reserved to real men, and women have to be their sex-slave ?
Who would have thought a coffee mug was so effective against an attacker :-)
Two people go into a hotel room, apparently uninjured.
They subsequently leave the hotel room with documented physical injuries.
The physically weaker person provides a detailed account of their version of events, claiming that the physically stronger person attacked them, they were luckily able to fight off the stronger person and escape, but that the local (foreign) police did not pursue this case due to a lack of conclusive evidence.
The physically stronger person responds to these allegations with a blog post titled Lies, nuts, and the quest for attention, which focuses on ad hominem attacks and how very, very butthurt he is that people are even considering these allegations. The blog post does not provide any alternate explanation for the events that resulted in injuries to both parties, or any new information at all.
I'm having difficulty coming up with a rational explanation that doesn't include the stronger person being a predator who engineered a situation where they expected to face no consequences for their actions due to the victim being in an unfamiliar environment with limited support, the disinclination of local law enforcement to become involved in a dispute between foreign nationals, and engineered absence of conclusive evidence.
My opinion? I have no doubt that her story is substantively true. The argument that 'the polish police did not arrest me, so I must not have done it' is about as convincing as tissue paper to anyone who has seen the inconsistent results of even well-trained and well-equipped police forces-- if what we've seen so far is all he has to offer then he should be rightly shunned by the tech community and then some.
Given the alleged crime and narcissistic tone of the blog post, there are likely similar victims out there. Hopefully they will come forward as well.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Now is this an actual rape attempt, or a guy just trying to woo a fellow tech geek?
Some of those tumblr "feminists" classify even a guy trying his latest pick up line on a girl a "rape attempt".
I've seen way too many prejudiced destructions of lives of people falsely accused of rape, and way too many sleazy women lying and using it to blackmail men, to just blindly jump to a knee-jerk reaction.
Of course actual rape must be treated as such. Duh.
(In other words: INB4 sexist feminist or white knight falsely accusing me of being pro-rape just because I am *not* a rampaging brain-dead knee-jerk sexist.)
What I'm saying is: GET THE FACTS!
Statements by humans are NEVER facts. No matter the side. PERIOD! (I've worked with too many social engineers to not know how easily the human mind is fooled.)
Find out what actually happened!
And if you can't, remember that it's *innocent until proven guilty*. For both sides! ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTION.
Your missing OP's sarcasm I believe..
Here's what we know
- Gont sported a black eye and other injuries around his eye the day after the attack.
- Polish police found Weidman's possessions in Gont's room after the attack.
- Gont has been arrested for rape in 2011.
Dude sounds like a crazy ass rapist.
No, that's a troll. Trolling was invented here on slashdot, I don't care what 4chan might have to say on the matter, or some usenet post. We even dedicated organisations (the GNAA) who made trolling their raison d'etre, people who put significant time and effort into trolling (like setting up an image gallery mirror that randomly displayed offensive pictures, that one even got a few solid members modded into oblivion), frosty piss remains a cherished goal. 90% of the misogyny in these discussions is from the same people who will try to rick roll you into clicking on a goatse picture.
Never blame malice when incompetence is sufficient, and never blame incompetence when some halfwit getting their kicks from people clutching their pearls is sufficient.
ut she was drunk and she did invite him in so where on the rape scale should this be? Would any fright wingers care to fill in the blanks?
And she did make a point of mentioning both the drinking and invitation. And that is probably exactly when the Police lost interest.
When she mentioned these things, I saw more than a little self doubt being expressed. No doubt she's second guessing the choices she made that night.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It was sarcasm. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
Deuteronomy and your assertions. Viva Hans Reiser (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22, 2013 @05:01PM (#44080579)
If she is an unmarried (woman without a master) / unbetrothed female the book of deuteronomy would not harm the man for the alleged attempted rape. Unmarried whores don't get protection.
Hans Reiser did nothing wrong. He executed his adulerous wife as the book of Deuteronomy commands.
If men rape little unmarried/unbetrothed girls still in their father's house and are discovered the man keeps the female child and pays her father (read the hebrew in deuteronomy 22 28-29).
Also note 2 samual 12 (little lamb: uriah was a pedophile and took a young girl in).
Also note Isaih 19 or so. The egyptians will be like women: cowering as God raises his hand.
Women are beaten when they misbehave or disobey.
Your bravado about killing a man will be blunted by his fists or the back of his hand.
Death to women's rights, viva men's liberties, marry little girls because they are adorable.
--Mike3Usa--
People like that are the ones you the plague doesn't miss.
insert hope please
Quote
"" US law is not a religion. It is an attempt to codify a set of rules to ensure a safe and productive life. According to the constitution, it should in no way dictate anything about about belief systems or fundamental truths.""
US law is not a religion. It is an attempt to .... be (like) a religion. You can BELIEVE in your HEAD whatever you want to believe. But you must OBEY the non-religion "attempt to codify a set of rules to ensure a safe and productive life". In no way is this not-religion in any way similar to the religions of Islam or Ancient-Ieudiasm. It is totally different. Also you cannot escape US-non-religion, US-non-religion has international reach, if you violate one of it's great NOT-sins(see not a religion) and are a criminal(not sinner!), the US not-clerics and not-inquisitors will hunt you down and capture or
kill you.
The great not-sins of the USA not-religion, where the USA will expend resources to capture you internationally,
in level of severity of punishment are:
A man having a girl rather than a grown woman (as a wife, wives).
Owning or creating base-line useful weaponry as or for civillians.
Selling or cultivating cash crops.
Not tithing enough money to the king.
A man taking his children to another country against the will of the woman.
Taking money out of the country without the consent of the king.
A man having relations with his women or girls (wives) without or against their consent.
For most of these, if you are a culture in violation, you will also be hated, invaded, and bombed by the acolates of the United States Non-Religion.
Before the US religion was promulgated across the globe, all those things with the exception of not paying the king whatever he wanted to be payed were acceptable and allowed. The US religion changed all this and is currently crusading to rid the world of the greatest sin in its list, aswell as the others to a lesser extent.
(As an aside: Sin means to violate the law, the law in that case being the law of the religion of the books of moses.)
A criminal has sinned against the religion of the united states.
A terrorist or enemy has actively fought against it.
Some people are imprisoned for blasphemous thoughts against the United States Religion, usually for 10 or more years. Evidence is gathered that prove the thoughts going on in their head. Some international people are simply killed for other anti-US religion thoughts or publications.
The alleged incident happened in a hotel room between two adults, as such it has nothing what-so-ever to do with computer security, or conferences in general.
"I hit him with everything I had, and I got him right in the temple. And guess what, he let me go. He keeled over in pain clutching his head swearing at me. Even in the dark I could see the blood gushing from his face".
"In all my passport, wallet, iPad, one of my test phones, one shoe, and my Tag Heuer Carrera watch were stolen"
Is there any corroborating evidence for any of this. Who at this conference was injured in the temple sufficient to require medical attention.
my bad.
Let me put it this way, if it had been two men and one was accusing the other of assault; the one accused was found in possession of stolen property from the person who approached the police', with physical injuries confirming the presumed victim version of events, do you think the prosecutors would go slow on it?
Do you think swarms of males (here and elsewhere) would rise to the defense of the attacker, or would they just say "let's see what comes out during trial".
Why the difference then?
Yes, there is corroborating evidence for all of it. For fuck's sake, go read the links and comments.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
That she was able to give a flawless presentation later that day and had the stupidity to talk about the attack on her blog shows how ignorant of the law she really is.
And you have a degree in Polish law? Oh no, you are in fact as ignorant or more than she is, but complain because you find her truth to be inconvenient. Why?
Learn to love Alaska
So she was almost raped.
I have no doubt that her story is substantively true.
I can think of at least three rational alternative that while unlikely prevent any claim of "no doubt".
None of these are particularly likely given what we currently know, but it is absurd to have "no doubt".
Why is this modded down, when obviously sarcastic? +1 insightful.
Why do peoply get angry about women wearing burqas when that's really exactly what we seem to want. We want to be able to live in freedom but when someone is nearly raped she always asked for it.
The lad was obviously just conducting a penetration test... /bad joke
His take is on his blog: http://blog.gont.com.ar/2013/06/lies-nuts-and-quest-for-attention.html. Offering no insights on what happened (he's entitled to that stance).
My take: He did go to her room. There was some sort of skirmish and both got wounded. The rest is unclear. BUT, if I were invited to someones room, and things started to get out of hand, with fighting and violence and whatnot in the air, I'd GET THE F OUT! Even if there's no attempted rape involved, you don't fight with a woman in her hotel room, even if it's just to avoid accusations. Okay, so that doesn't prove anything, I know, but you know, it is a little weird.
She contacted the police immediately. The police indicated a lack of will to pursue the matter.
And why is that, exactly?
Are we going to pretend that Poland is some sort of ooga-booga sketchy-european criminal-justice wasteland compared to the US? Because Poland, 6th largest state in the EU, has half the rate of sexual assault of the US. In fact, looking down the list, I don't see a single crime that is more common in Poland than the US.
Please help metamoderate.
'She was probably asking for it by attending a convention primarily consisting of dysfunctional nerdy men.' :)
If you're going to accuse somebody of a criminal act, it's always a good idea to get their side of the story. http://blog.gont.com.ar/
When she was contacted by the Consulate, I'm sure they informed her of this:
If you decide to pursue your case through the Polish judicial system, the initial step is
filing a police report. It is best to do this at the police station (komisariat policji) closest
to where the incident occurred, although a police report can be filed at any police station.
and
In Poland, police stations are required to take your report regardless of your nationality or
resident status. Police stations are also required to provide translators, although this can
take some time to arrange; the U.S. Embassy does not provide translators. If, for any
reason, you have difficulties filing your police report with a Polish official, please let us
know immediately.
Her blog states:
The US Consulate was great though. It was a night and day difference between dealing with them and the Polish police. I’d recommend getting in touch with them to anyone who has an incident in a foreign country. While ultimately they aren’t able to force charges against him, having someone on my side was nice.
So, was a police report filed? This seems pretty straight forward and that the Polish Police have to take a report. According to the blog they were "blah blah" So, according to the blog, no. If she had any discussion with a member of the US Consulate they would have had this discussion. If she felt so violated then why didn't she file a report? It's her right and the consulate would stand behind her. why? Also her comments "Blah blah" regarding the police and not being interested are contrary of the US government's position and own documents. Sorry, this looks like a he said/she said unless there's anything else that wants to put out there.
Speaking of putting this out there, without anybody else coming forward with something, a picture a copy of a police report a criminal court proceeding, maybe Fernando her getting hauled away in cuffs perhaps? No? Why not? There's camera phones, there's other people involved who are still not being named, maybe they don't exist? I'd love to see the video, where is the video that everybody supposedly has seen? Wait, only her word?
I'm sorry she got hurt, bruised... It sounds like she gave as good as she received though (bad choice of words?)
Again, don't put this guy on trial without evidence and statements from witnesses. Also, who here thought DSK was guilty of assault on that maid in NYC from just the press reports? Was he ever on trail for it? No. He was acquitted.
I'm going to now go get some popcorn and watch the twitterscape on this one. IMO, she's an intelligent person, well respected in her field and in terms of handling this episode, as traumatic as it sounds, she really didn't handle the situation well and now she's using the web to try her case. I haven't looked anywhere else but does anybody have something more than a twitter posting about this from somebody else that was there? How about some pictures.. I'm putting on my Don Henley music now.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Your argument sounds a little too like he is a man so she must be telling the truth.
Perhaps it is both. She is a liar and he is a rapist. Any takers?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Looks like her system is secure against penetration.
Her blog says that the Polish police have a report. But they aren't going to do anything about it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Georgia Weidman raped me a couple of weeks ago. I contacted the police but they didn't believe me. I am the victim!
See how easy that is?
Penetration testing?
What's the point of this story? Some chick fought off a guy coming on to her hard and is having problems getting police to respond? That happens how many times a day around the world? Why should I give a rats ass about this particular one? Because both people involved liked computers?
Actually, looking at Georgia's pics, I am no longer sure who was the weak party in this conflict. She sure looks like she could beat the living snot out of that back-eye fellow!
She invited him into her room. She did not invite him to have sex with her.
I'm glad we live in a world where social contact doesn't mean an invitation to forcibly fuck. I rather like having interactions with women that are based on something other than sex.
So maaalllleeeessss should obey women's orders eh?
Women that think that should be murdered.
They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.
Now, I'll make a brief consideration here. We don't know what was actually said in the room, if anything. Her blog says:
Perhaps I was not making myself clear, “No!” “Stop!” “I don’t want to do this!”
But since we're being constrained by the evidence here, let's just be fair and admit that we just don't know.
So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever. And then he loses his temper, and hits her. Maybe the violence continues in some way, maybe not, he eventually leaves.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure. But rape? No.
But there's yet another distinction to be drawn. Maybe she really does believe she was going to be raped. I'm not ruling that out. And maybe you'll say "Well, if she was refuting him, it must have been rape". But let me make another consideration: Rape has to do with the state of mind of the violated party, at the time the events were happening, but it also has to do with the actions and perceptions of the perpetrator. Like I said, we don't know what happened or what was said, and that's the crux of the matter. I find it perfectly possible that she may have said or done something that he didn't think was really supposed to make him stop, and in a perfectly understandable way. This is where the "no means no" thing comes into play, and where rape gets into the grey zone: If a man walks up to a complete stranger and tries to have sex with her, the most reasonable assumption is that any form of "no" means "no". If you're talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend having sex, I'll find it completely understandable if she's saying "stop" but really means "keep going". In a lot of scenarios in between, the line gets blurry. If you've had drinks with a guy and invited him up to your hotel room at the end of the night, I'm afraid it doesn't get blurry in your favor. Or yet, maybe she didn't say or do anything at all to make him stop, until she had an unreasonable reaction of assaulting him. Again, there's no evidence of what happened in the room.
By the way, what is this "engineered a situation" that you speak of? He engineered getting invited back into her room? He engineered the conference being a place that was familiar to neither of them? And, by god, how does one engineer the absence of evidence? To me, that can only mean that it would be reasonable to expect to find certain pieces of evidence which were, against such reasonable expectation, not there - and I can't think of anything in this story that fits that.
Other thoughts I have about her story in general:
- Her post is rather "verbose", as someone else here described it, yet there are only three paragraphs dedicated to what would have actually constituted the attack.
- I agree with another poster who said that, on the photo posted elsewhere here, he's missing the cut on his temple he is supposed to have from her account.
- Who the heck tries to rape someone, fails, and then thinks "Well I may as well leave with her passport, iPad, a cellphone, and whatever?" And is even dumb enough to keep that shit in his own room later. And is dumber yet to personally return that stuff later.
The physically weaker person provides a detailed account of their version of events, claiming that the physically stronger person attacked them, they were luckily able to fight off the stronger person and escape, but that the local (foreign) police did not pursue this case due to a lack of conclusive evidence.
Actually, her story has several... weird points. Like when she, in the middle of this supposed rape, was texting on her phone, but deliberately trying NOT to tweet about it. Or how she stops and "tried to explain I’m a boring person who likes to get to know someone before intimacy. Also I like to begin with kissing and work my way up to the pants down action he was trying to initiate." Who 'tries to explain' to their rapist??
Or the fact that she says he "threw" her phone, but later says "it took me hours to realize the SIM was dislodged in the fall". Was it "thrown", or did it fall??
She says "Hotel staff pulled the security tapes. Someone I thought was a friend of mine watched them with hotel staff. The general jist I got from the interaction was because I was on the tape letting him into my room, walking in the hallway with him, etc. I must be lying." ...But no mention is made of the security tape of him LEAVING her room. She claims she "hit him with everything I had, and I got him right in the temple", and that he "keeled over in pain clutching his head" and that "Even in the dark I could see the blood gushing from his face". Yet, no mention is made of the video tape showing him "keeled over, head-clutching, gushing blood" as he left. Funny that. No mention of the hotel having to clean his blood off the floors, or the linens in his room.
The physically stronger person responds to these allegations with a blog post titled Lies, nuts, and the quest for attention [gont.com.ar], which focuses on ad hominem attacks and how very, very butthurt he is that people are even considering these allegations. The blog post does not provide any alternate explanation for the events that resulted in injuries to both parties, or any new information at all.
He states, near the beginning "The accusations were originated by someone who ...for reasons that I didn't and don't understand, has been repeating blatant lies, every time magnifying it a bit more -- which nobody in their right mind could believe.". It's not that he "does not" explain, he CANNOT explain.
Her account is detailed, and there are images that show the respective injuries. What, you think she attacked him and he simply defended himself by punching her in the face? His account is what I would expect coming from an asshole who does things like this and expects to get away with it. Items missing from her room just happened to "magically appear" in his room after he denied taking them? Yeah.
The Polish police do have a report, but they aren't doing anything about it. And given that they are both foreigners from different countries, it is unlikely they ever will do anything about it. Pretty typical actually if you have ever dealt with foreign authorities, even in first world countries.
Her story is far more credible than his. His story sounds more like a sociopath. The circumstantial evidence appears to be in her favor.
At the very least, hopefully other female tech experts attending conferences with this guy will be on their guard.
~X~
There's always a tough line between consensual and forced. If she was obviously lucid when she admitted him to her room, and if no penetration occurred, the facts of the fight simply can't legally be established, especially if he was the one with the near concussion. Is she simply a drunk with a mean disposition? The defense attorney would hammer that home and probably successfully. I've seen women who like the forceful pursuing part of the equation. Remember "Go easy on the broad" in Once Upon a Time in America? It can be difficult to tell the difference between 'no' and seriously no. In this instance, he has as much a defamation case as she has an attempted rape case, but neither has any chance of winning in court.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I've read on this thread. (and that's saying a LOT). First of all, this is real life. After an attempted rape in a foreign country I can't imagine anyone spent the time to sit down and educate themselves about judicial process in the country they're in. And no, there is no guarantee the consulate would have walked her through the process. I also can't imagine anyone taking cell phone pictures while being attacked. Your insinuation is ridiculous. If there is a police report, there's no way she would have it (the police would have it, it would be in Polish, and she could probably only get a copy if she got a lawyer to ask for it, which she clearly hasn't). Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
You are correct that this is a he-said she-said deal, but that's almost ALWAYS the case with rape - it's how it works. Hotels don't place security cameras in private rooms. So far she-said is fairly believable. What he-said on his blog is basically just a serious of ad-hominem attacks and threats of lawsuits. This is standard activity for the guilty when accused - attack the system, attack the accuser, and resort to character assassination rather than addressing the accusations themselves.
While I've never been to Poland, I have spent significant time overseas in non-English speaking countries. I have never, and I mean never felt as helpless in my life as I have when trying to go about normal business in a foreign country. Even when I speak the language fairly well, the constant feeling of not knowing what's going on, not being able to adequately express myself, and feeling completely at the mercy of others for help is a very disorienting one. Add to that the emotional ordeal she'd just been through, and there's no way she's thinking "hey, I should get some cell phone pics of the scene for the commenters on slashdot and reddit to analyze". She's also clearly not thinking about her legal standing (her decision, not yours), and so she didn't think to sit down with someone and ask about the ins and outs of the Polish legal system.
Try re-reading it as "little doubt", and you'll do better.
Human beings often use black and white terms to simplify communications, rather than hedging every single statement that they make. You can focus on the main point, which is that the most plausible explanation is that her story is substantively true, or you can respond to something trivial (like the poster writing "no doubt" instead of "almost no doubt"). If you choose to focus on the main points, and interpret the post reasonably, you'll seem like less of an asshole.
You're probably not an asshole, but you're doing a thing that assholes often do, and it's not very helpful.
You could have written a better post by starting with "I agree that her story seems plausible", rather than _just_ arguing against someone who has said that they happen to believe it.
Yeah all that I can probably say is one: Poland may not be the best place if you're a woman traveling alone (include India and Brazil in that as well) two: If you're wronged, even in a foreign land, if the local authorities choose not to prosecute, get a lawyer or get your Consulate involved. (I've actually had to do both at one time, ahhh those crazy days of youth anyway.) If they choose not to prosecute call attention to their inaction wherever you can but I don't see any statements or blogs or twitter postings that say she's pushed the issue other than her blog and now it seems crossposting over to the infosec
20 years ago, this may have been a news item in the local paper and maybe a story in the hometown news. Now with Twitter and the blogosphere out there, it seems you can do character assassination with very, very little proof other than a "credible story." If everybody believes this guy initiated an attack, I would think a few e-mails to the local Polish authorities and the US Consulate in Poland may shake a few things loose. I don't know if there's a statute of limitations but at least somebody up the food chain in that country should be able to give the lady a reason, and maybe the rest of us since we're now invited to watch, a reason as to why one or both of them wasn't arrested? No more than two years ago we watched a guy who had a womanizing 'history' get the full on character assassination bit. The world watched as a guy, with a lot of power being in charge of the World Bank, was torn up in the press by statements and circumstantial evidence. He walked, but he lost his career (at least as World Finances are concerned). Yeah the guy is a sleezebag, but who isn't in High Finance? Being a sleezebag isn't a crime. Now he's up on prostitution charges or some such, anyway, at least that's in front of a judge, with witnesses and evidence and all the other things that guarantee an accused of a fair trail.
Just like last year when two guys joking together were called out as being "offensive" and "sexist" and plastered all over the Internet. That's not right, if the comments and actions were directed and the person calling "foul" then yes, she had a right to feel indignant but if you don't like the content of the conversation and you're not involved in it, why should you take offense over it's content if it's not hurting anyone? I will say in that case, at least she had photos and a bit more detail.
I'm not saying this lady doesn't have a case but again, rather than pushing the process, she's trying to shame the guy. So ladies if you go to a conference by yourself in another country, don't let strangers (or strange men) into your room.
Also, after all of this, the one bright spot in me reading all of this and stumbling on a cross-post on the Infosec News blog. is this John McAfee YouTube Video on how to uninstall McAfee software
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
It's too bad that her writing is so hard to read. I tried. I really did.
If there are any community leaders in Infosec now would be a good time to step up. Right now it just looks like a bunch of trolls hiding behind shell scripts and Internet egos. This prick who attacked her looks like one of your "respected" members that you allow to submit proposals to the IETF. Really? Hi reply: http://blog.gont.com.ar/2013/06/lies-nuts-and-quest-for-attention.html Appears she is still getting victimized too. https://twitter.com/georgiaweidman/status/348598347076087808
Police your ranks becuase all of IT looks stupid over this.
With just a little bit of googling, the guy's married and has a kid. Even if it was a 'mutually abusive situation', what kind of guy steps out on his wife? Especially after she just gave birth to their daughter in the last 18 months? The guy's integrity is blown at that point, so it's all downhill from there. Now, add to the situation that the girl's property was found in the guy's room? He's a cheating husband AND a thief at least. Not the best position to be in when it comes to establishing credibility. As for the girl, she's a single lady and what does she gain by publishing her side of the story? I just don't see why there's so much skepticism on this forum about what's going on. The bigger issue here, the number of women getting harassed at conferences is increasing at a number of different venues. http://www.democraticunderground.com/121835860 Until it is clear that this type of behavior is unacceptable and there are consequences for their behavior, cads like Gont will continue to think they don't have to be accountable for their actions while they are traveling.
All we know for sure is that a woman is claiming a man violently attempted to rape her, and the man is apparently denying any such thing happened. As far as the other 99.99999% of the world is concerned, either side could be telling the truth. We have no way to know. We have no appropriate way to find out, unless people are advocating a Boston Marathon type witch hunt. And given what happened there, I am surprised and disappointed that Slashdot posted this.
Shame on Slashdot, and shame on anyone else who engages in the actual debate. Each side may be making public posts about what happened, but that does not make it our responsibility to indulge them in the wrong way to approach this. All this can do is serve to muddy the water to make it harder for any sort of proper official investigation.
I have no doubt that you are 1) unable or unwilling to parse a sentence correctly and/or 2) unable and unwilling to correctly respond to a statement. The original post did not say that there was no doubt for everyone or no doubt in the court system. He claimed a personal right to an opinion of "I have no doubt that her story is substantively true."
You on the other hand have decided to play silly bugger and argue that since you can come up with three scenarios that "prevent any claim of "no doubt"" - How in any reasonable mind can your self admitted unlikely scenarios give you the right to claim that any and all other personal opinions of "no doubt" are invalid? I can see you claiming that your personal opnion that there are unlikely scenarios that present doubt, but I can not see how you can conclude that you "prevent any claim" to a personal opinion.
Had the poster written "There is no doubt that her story is substantively true" I could see the point of your response, but they did not.
Yes I'd love to hear his side of the story, thing is he doesn't provide one, he simply calls her a lying crazy person, hardly an explanation of what happened from his perspective.
You need to give at least some credibility to the Police - do not disregard them just because they are from Eastern Europe. That said, they have arrived at the scene when notified, looked at the facts and......... we actually do not know, Georgia claims they have ignored her, but she is not very specific here. 'Blah blah' is just not good enough when you are accusing someone of pretty serious stuff. And, btw, US Consulate is not any kind of authority in Poland and they cannot do jack for anyone in criminal matters. Police can. Why is US consulate thread even surfacing in this story? Why did not Georgia try to cooperate with the Police?
But wait a second..... it gets better and Georgia leaves the country. She does not pursue the case, she just bails. And then posts accusatory stuff on the net.
Whatever happened to her in that rooms must have been a truly horrible experience for her and I wish she had never experienced it. BUT it supposedly did. If so, then she has the responsibility to communicate the facts to the Police, present as much evidence as possible, and cooperate.
Now try it with your real name attached, you disgusting asshole.
Perhaps Last Thursdayism is true, and none of this ever happened.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Poland may not be the best place if you're a woman traveling alone (include India and Brazil in that as well)
Ignorance of posters here is really staggering...
Thank God Slashdot posted a story like this. I feel so much better about myself now. I can go on with life!
Woman and man have a wonderful night. Both are into rough stuff so they have an injury and both go their separate ways. Soon after the US government trying to prosecute a man outside their jurisdiction strong arms the woman into getting the man arrested in a country with an extradition treaty?
That would never happen right?
Who the heck tries to rape someone, fails, and then thinks "Well I may as well leave with her passport, iPad, a cellphone, and whatever?"
The "who could be that stupid" thought, especially when the person in question is smart enough to be a researcher, is why my first thought on hearing about Nina Reiser was that Hans Reiser couldn't have murdered her because that would be such an unbelievably stupid way for a successful and even somewhat famous person to handle difficulties with another. No one smart and determined enough to create a good, viable file system used in the Linux kernel could possibly fail to think of all sorts of other courses of action, such as divorce, or could possibly choose a way so likely to end just the way it did, with him behind bars, his reputation hopelessly ruined, and his file system, his life work rotting away. As we all now know, he did indeed choose poorly. Yes, people, even very intelligent people, really will do very stupid things.
So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him.
Do you even understand what you are saying? She said "no". That means, no touching. It sure as hell is attempted rape when he continues the "handsy" business. Stop kidding yourself on this point. We all understand very well what he was trying to do. If you touch someone, volutarily touch someone, after they told you not to, they are fully justified in considering it an assault at the least, and using whatever force is necessary to stop you. That's not assault, that's self defense. And I think the law agrees on this point. Touching is the line that you do not cross. Also, it occurred in her room. He was never confined to her room, he was free to leave any time. For so long as he remained in the room in spite of being told to leave, I'd say she was fully within her rights to fight back in any way she could.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Given the relative attractiveness of both persons involved it seems rather improbable that the male would pursue romantic interest towards female. The vice-versa scenarium looks much more plausible.
...manage to pull her pants down, and his own pants down, while simultaneously holding her arms down with his hands? Did he have four arms?
How do we know any of this actually happened?
...
<disableOprahficationOfAmerica_PCFilter>
"Fighting on the Internet is like running in the special Olympics, even if you win you are still retarded." - Anonymous Quote
</disableOprahficationOfAmerica_PCFilter>
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Actually, we don't know that. All we know is what she said. We have only one side of the story and it could be completely false from the point he enters the room to the time he leaves.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
do not ever take anything a woman says at face value.
Women are 'more equal' than us men and are thus entitled to gaming the system. Combine that with decision making processes which revolve entirely around how certain scenarios and outcomes make them 'feel', and you have a recipe for disaster if a male is ever accused of anything by a female.
Let's get some facts and evidence. Let's align the guy's punishment according to the facts and evidence.
'Woman says it would make her feel great if man was jailed because of (reasons)' should not be the sole determining factor in any justice process.
You forgot: Woman gets drunk and invites man up to her room. They get along and sex starts. Woman has second thoughts, discovers he is involved with someone else, etc and decides to put a stop to it by clocking man in the head with a coffee cup and claiming rape to protect her reputation.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.
At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.
Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do you even understand what you are saying? She said "no". That means, no touching. It sure as hell is attempted rape when he continues the "handsy" business.
In some cultures, it is expect that a woman will say that even if she wants it to continue. You also seem to have missed the part in the example where they are "making out" on the bed, thus touching. And, there is no guarantee how the "no" was stated or taken. The "no" could have been taken as "no, don't do stick your hands down my pants" and, because they continued to kiss, he tried something else such as sticking his hands up her shirt. At that point, she might have, as the GP states, "physically assaulted" him.
As to him being in her room, you are assuming that her physical attack to him becoming "handsy" during the make-out session wasn't to hit him with the coffee cup. From his point of view, things could have gone from making out with a cute woman to having same said woman trying to kill him.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So, the evidence shows who attacked whom? For all you know, the "physically weaker" person launched a sneak attack on the "physically stronger" person using a weapon, say a coffee cup to the head from behind.
You want an explanation? He is invited up to the room. He misunderstand her invitation. She rejects him. He calls her a teasing bitch. Insulted and pissed off, when he turns to pick up his jacket from the bed, she grabs a coffee cup and hits him in the side of the head with it. He goes down, she presses her attack and he defends himself. He is able to grab his stuff and inadvertently grabs some of her stuff too and make his way out of the room. She claims he tried to rape her to cover her ass.
Your argument requires law enforcement not only failing to do a proper job but actually destroying evidence. To me, it sounds like you have watched too much TV and are biased against police seeing them as incompetent at best and malicious malingerers at worst.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Unmarried whores don't get protection.
On the bright side, an ice pick shiv in your back would produce just as sufficient results as it would in any other.
In some cultures, it is expect that a woman will say that ("no") even if she wants it to continue.
"Continue"? There is no "continue" here, there is only start. How is she supposed to signal that she does not want it to start? Not invite any men up to her room for just talk, nothing more, and definitely no make-out sessions? Only men can meet for a bit of shop talk in hotel rooms without it leading to a "misunderstanding"? Or is she not supposed to have any say at all, and these cultures you refer to are these extremely patriarchal cultures that treat women like slaves? In many cultures, it's customary for the man and the woman to get to know each other first, even, you know, wait until marriage before having sex.
The "no" could have been taken as "no, don't do stick your hands down my pants" and, because they continued to kiss...
Bullcrap again. How is she supposed to say "no" so it will not be misunderstood to mean "do something else" instead of "don't do anything"? They didn't continue to kiss, it was he started groping her. She didn't so much as want to start anything, let alone continue. When she fought back, he didn't stop to inquire, but tried to force her. Yeah, on the basis of all of an hour or 2 acquaintance, he just magically knows what she really means, knows all about her wants and expectations? No way!
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
In the post to which you replied, s2v16 puts forth an hypothetical course of events that could have let to the divergent stories of the parties. In that hypothetical situation is the following:
They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.
In that situation, the one to which your replied, it is stated explicitly that the parties were initially in mutually welcome contact. However, you are not arguing against this. You are effectively stating that we should accept that what she has said occurred happened exactly as she stated and we have no reason to do so. If you have any reason we should do so, besides the fact that she is a woman and is making the claim, I would love to hear it.
I would also like you to confine your arguments to the situation to which you replied, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
experience has taught me that when a woman publically accuses a man of attempting to or successfully raping her, she is almost always lying, the man faces severe consequences, and when it is shown that she was lying, she faces none and he receives no recompense.
my gut reaction to this is to murder her with a crowbar. and i would happily do this without losing a wink of sleep were i reasonably confident i would get away with it. (for example. if i was going to do it, i wouldn't be posting this comment)
You are referring to this: "They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed." That's NOT what happened. They did not start, he started. She did not want to start. She told him that she did not want to start. No account I have heard gives us any reason to think otherwise. Not even his account.
But let's, as you say, talk about this hypothetical situation. It is ridiculously unlikely that a woman would want to have sex with a stranger she only just met, so already the hypothetical situation is shaky. I realize prostitutes may do just that, but it cannot be said to be freely willing and only because they want to, they do it for money or because a pimp coerces them. But let's run with it anyway: They started, and then she changed her mind. She clearly told him to stop. Clearly. But he did not stop. He's in the wrong. Both have every right to break off anytime, and the other party is obliged to stop. Both must have a clear way to signal "stop", there can't be any of this bull about no really meaning yes but in a different way.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
well, don't go into 3rd world countries. seriously.
Back the fuck up a second.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
I'm not actually sure what you're criticizing here. I'll assume it's the fact that I said that my scenario wouldn't constitute rape.
So let's review what I said: "Rape has to do with the state of mind of the violated party, at the time the events were happening, but it also has to do with the actions and perceptions of the perpetrator. Like I said, we don't know what happened or what was said, and that's the crux of the matter.". That was actually slightly wrong, since it really should say "actions of the perpetrator and what he should reasonably have been expected perceive". I also said: "If you've had drinks with a guy and invited him up to your hotel room at the end of the night, I'm afraid it [the 'no means no' line] doesn't get blurry in your favor."
So with that I'm mind, what I was trying to show was that the person I was replying to was wrong: the current evidence does support reasonable doubt. We don't know that she said anything at all for him to stop. We don't know that, if she did say something, he should have reasonably be expected to perceive that as a sign to stop, because we don't know what, how or in what context it was said. Basically, I was providing an alternate explanation as to how two people, one with a bigger build and significantly more strength than the other, might enter a room and come back out with bruises without it being (attempted) rape.
she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.
At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.
I didn't want to get into the details of it in an already-too-long post, but like you said, depending on local laws. In my scenario, I didn't exclude the possibility of her actually believing she was going to be raped. Now, the actual answer as to whether she hitting him first would constitute assault and/or battery might depend a little on how much leeway is given in the law or by the courts to self-defense. Let's work a modified version of my scenario: They're getting along, kissing and whatnot, she's a little too drunk, and maybe she was fine with everything up to this point, or maybe she thought that what she was saying was enough to dissuade him from moving towards sex (even though, it shouldn't reasonably have been expected for him to see it this way), but at this one particular moment she realizes he took of both his and her pants, and he's going to lie back down on top of her. A switch in her head, because she really wasn't ready to have sex with him, and she, legitimately afraid for herself, hits him.
Like I said, it depends a little on how much or little leeway is given for self-defense in a particular place, but even in this scenario, it could be (and I'll venture that in most places with high proctetion of "human rights", it will be) construed as self-defense under the law. The "how much leeway" part is important here.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.
Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.
So with the first part explained, the second part is easier. For an action to constitute self-defense, there mu
Wow, slashdot let me know you had replied to my post, and I thought your first point about Hans Reiser was a rather fair one, but as far everything else goes, it seems you really can't respond to a clear argument. Read back on your posts and notice how in every one of them you completely take her account for granted. You said "No account I have heard gives us any reason to think otherwise. Not even his account.", but notice he actually chose not give his account of events (except, as he stated, to friends, family and whatnot). Notice, also, how I said there was absolutely no evidence to support the idea that she even told him to back off at all, other than what she said. And now you're saying no one ever goes up to their hotel room to have a one-night stand with a stranger? (and more to your point, notice she had actually met him on previous occasions, as per her story). Just sad.
Just one phrase: "Adria Richards"
Did he or didn't he? I don't know.
Is she telling it like it is? I don't know.
http://www.cotwa.info/
There's just too much other stuff to rely on a single person's allegations as evidence enough to convict.
Often I am very proud of my male techie compatriots, today is not that day. You sound like petty thoughtless children, arguing as if this were a debate over the rules in some D&D game, rather than an attempted rape, that through pure luck and forthrightness the woman was able to escape. I'm not entirely sure why your first thought is to disbelieve and come up with reasons why it might not be true, regardless of the fact that her claim is more likely to cause her harm than good and her entire motivation is to make sure nobody else suffers the same fate. In fact I'd go as far as to say you'd be pretty foolish if you think she's likely to come out of this smelling like roses and go on to have an even more successful career because of it, you'll also be struggling to explain to me how a woman can manage to punch herself in the face and steal her own possessions. For the purposes of balance I went over to his blog to see what he had to say for himself, what did I find? No explanation of the events of the evening, which he described would be 'adding to the drama', but he did take the time to question her sanity, call her a liar, and suggest she has a mental disorder, rather than mentioning that he went to her room, he merely describes her as someone he just happened to be at the same conference as. On reading her recollection of the events of the evening they seem sensible straight forward and level headed, his blog post seems ranty, unhinged and smarmy. But to be honest I'm not sure why slashdot's first response is to take his word over hers especially when he has yet to actually give his word, you might want to seriously question why this is, you might discover something about yourself that you need to address. Sometimes people we thought we knew, turn out to be bad people, yes it's difficult, yes it's unnerving, but perhaps you should man up and face it, because when revelations of other incidents surface and they have already started to, you're going to feel pretty shitty that you were arguing pathetic pseudo legal points about how we can never know who did what to whom.
I claim to know as little as you do about the situation.
However, I can guess that she didnt file a report with the police because the rape did not occur. If that happened, then there would be more reason for her to stay in Poland for a long time and remain as a witness. Also, she probably recognizes that she does not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction for assual.
But its interesting to note that she is the only one publicly stating how injuries occurred to both of them and a story of what occurred in the room and apparently the only one who contacted the police. You would think if some girl at a conference clocked you in the head with a mug without good reason and hard enough to make you bleed, that the first think you would do is contact the police.
She has stated publicly enough for this man to charge her with liable. So the ball is in his court. I certainly wouldnt stand for someone accussing me of attempted rape. But to do this, he would need to prove that what she claims happened did not happen. Both parties would have to state the events of the night under oath. Something one of the parties does not want to do... because one of them is lying and could be found out.
So in the court of public opinion, it certainly doesnt look good for him. She has stated enough for him to bring her to court, and yet he only says "she wants attention". And it appears he will do nothing to defend his good name.
I know nothing about either of them. But my opinion is: she is telling the truth and he is behaving as if she is too.
It amazes me that when we find a bad guy in some group it's a shock? Bad guys are everywhere. Democrats, Republicans, cops, even cleaning crews, church deacons. You name it.
So why didn't he tell us his side of the story, if it's one of those? How is the truth going to hurt his case if he's innocent?
That he has no explanation is telling.
More evidence needs to be shown before you can pick a side. So far the one who posted on her blog first seems to have won.
Was there a report? From her blog: ." So your statement there was no report shows you simply aren't paying attention.
"The Polish legal system, while they have a report refused to take any action on the grounds that I had no proof . .
Was there a video? Fernando Gont's blog mentions the video also: ." Again, not paying attention.
"Ironically enough, the people that had access to hotel security video recordings and other sort of information are now also accused for 2not[sic] taking action . .
With those kinds of injuries obviously someone objected strongly to what was happening in that room. I have a hard time believing it was the guy.
Word, testify! I hope if my daughter is ever attacked by a creeper she ruins his day just hard enough so that she doesn't have to go to jail, and leaves a nice obvious defensive mark (like the claw marks in the pics linked in this forum) so that everybody knows a creep got his comeuppance and was whupped by a girl. If I was that woman's father I'd be damn proud of her.
Now he can spend the next ten or twenty years trying to redeem himself. I hope he succeeds, too, I sincerely hope he has learned at least one lesson from her that his mother should have taught him before he could grow a beard.
You're assuming the statistics come from the police.
Please help metamoderate.
You're right... if she made it up... he should sue her for libel or he must be guilty.
You fucking asshole.
Penetration Testing!
The funniest part of this story is when a "security expert" was not able to call 112 using her mobile, not knowing that she doesn't need a SIM card to call emergency number and that emergency number operators understand English and that there will be a recording of the call, which could be an evidence at trial.
No, instead she "took to Twitter for help." This was so ridiculous, that I literally laughed. In Poland, every little girl knows that you need to call 112 and the first thing to say - your location. But of course, our security expert was wondering how the name of the hotel would sound in Polish.
And do they have a trial? Do they know the freedom and democracy? That's exactly what comes to the mind of the girl who is about to be raped.
And the most funny thing is her ignorance about Poland. This country gave world people, who discovered radiation, invented helicopter, hell, even the last pope was from Poland. It's part of EU, after all, where they really DO have democracy and do not have Prism.
So, overall, I don't believe this story, as one should be extremely stupid to want such woman.
... but are there male slashdot participants hear definding/supporting the ongoing violence against women? Here a woman has publicly denounced a violent act and not shrunk/hidden away from reporting, and doing in a way to shine a light on what continues to be a very real fear for women: violent rape by men. I find it sad that so many "professionals" in this group continue to mindlessly fall in line with the same norms that allowed generations before us to treat women as less than equals sexually. If we, as the "educated" half of America continue to unconsciously follow this path, nothing will ever really change.... My apologies in advanced for the soapbox, but come on "guys"... if we change, as Gandhi said,the world will change......
She may or may not be lying, but Google shows he claims expertise in communications protocols security. Let's take a look at his claims in that light, since this is a personal security issue and has many of the same features.
"for reasons that I didn't and don't understand", which is an attempt to make that seem the level-headed response...which he directly contradicts a few paragraphs later when he claims that she is mentally ill and attention-seeking.
"which nobody in their right mind could believe", by which he means that no sane person would possibly believe that attempted rape is a possibility, which is an incredibly naive belief for a security professional to have, and one which, alone, should put him to professional shame.
"Ironically enough, the people that had access to hotel security video recordings and other sort of information are now also accused for 2not taking action'", by which he implies that insufficient proof of events is the same thing as an informed declaration of the lack of an attack, which must be a really wonderful security stance for clients who rely upon his work.