The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.
She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did. She wanted round 3. She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.
There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning. I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation. And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...
At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.
So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police. But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO? Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...
Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...
No worries, at least we know each others positions. All is good.
Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-
We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused. Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?
If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask. At least, that's my perspective.