Indeed. She never claims what happened to her was assault or that he assaulted anyone else. She simply says that she apologizes if by taking time to speak up that lead to him actually assaulting someone, not claiming whether such a thing actually occurred or not.
It's a huge case if misdirection/creating and attacking a strawman instead of what she's actually claiming.
And if get really wants to go "but what about the implication though," that's even more sad and creepy.
Because, oh, you suddenly want to talk about implications then?
Well, let's talk about implications.
Starting with the implication of not just taking a shower, but asking her to join you.
"But, but I never explicitly asked her to have sex with me"
Something that was never claimed and another huge strawman.
All she claimed was that he asked her to join him in the shower, no duh you didn't ask her explicitly for sex, that was never claimed to begin with.
How about the actual claim of asking her to join?
And moreover, since he's apparently an expert on implications, how about addressing the obvious implication of such an offer and addressing how it made her feel even if by some off chance you didn't actually mean it that way, even if that somehow wasn't an intentional implication, since you're nonetheless admitting to taking a shower anyway, why not just at the absolute very least go "now in hindsight I see how it could have been taken that way and though that's not what I intended intent only goes so far and I apologise all the same" or something like that?
Or does he truly only understand very particular implications and have nothing to say suddenly about ones like that?
But yeah, that's the insidious nature if this. That he actually does confirm large parts of her story, but then creates strawman after strawman instead of addressing what she's actually claiming.
And that's what's gets me.
Because if it's indeed all false, if it's nothing but lies, why not just say that to begin with?
Why create strawmen and attack those instead?
Surely it should be just as easy if not easier to address what she's actually saying and shoot it down?
Why instead put words in her mouth and shoot those down instead?
What reason could there be for him attacking strawmen instead of her actual claims?
Doesn't make sense to me any other way than she's telling the truth and he obviously doesn't want to admit it for obvious reasons and so play misdirection instead of having to outright lie.
And that's a consistent thing with his account. Where he pretty much admits almost everything happens just as she said it did... Until he gets to the "worst part" where he either avoids talking about it at all or only attacks a strawman of a claim.
He doesn't really deny any if her account. He either admits to it, or avoids talking about it entirely to attack something else instead.
That itself makes it pretty hard for me not to believe her and take her side because I can't really explain that, I can't really explain the respective claims and actions of both people unless she is. It's really the only way everything works.
