She has said she didn't pre-emptively attack. What evidence do we have that she didn't? Your so-called "released facts" are her blog post, her story, and her word. Please explain in detail why we should believe her at her word.

No, that is YOUR definition and you want to use it because the real definition works against you. As to your hypothetical situation, you are setting up an impossible situation and saying "What if this impossible situation happened?" You may as well ask "What if all the oxygen in the world gathered at the north pole?" What if Snowden has a list of spies and has traded it for protection?

SHE stated she hit him with a coffee cup. Or, didn't your read that?

I love it when I get modded "Troll" for speaking the truth. How about you refute any part of what I posted?

Wow, look, you don't like the truth. Go bury your head in the sand.

Tell us, are you changing horses in mid-stream, engaging in straw man, or just not bother to read the post to which you replied?

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:

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.

You should learn the meaning of the term. He didn't expose criminal activity, waste, fraud, or abuse. He abused the trust his country put in him and his security clearance to take classified documents concerning secret programs which were authorized by and deemed legal by Congress and the court system, went to a foreign country with those documents, provided those documents and interviews about secret programs to a newspaper of the third country, and in the process damaged the national security, political capital, and reputation of his country. He has purposefully tried to damage the relationship and balance of power between his country and the country he fled to, a country known for launching cyber-attacks on his country, for his own gain. He stated that his country "was worth dying for", yet fled his country, provided the information to a news outlet in a foreign nation, and is seeking protection from other competitor nations to avoid prosecution.

His actions are not of a whistleblowing patriot. They are the actions of an arrogant, amateur, traitorous, free-lance espionage agent.

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.

No, you are just advocating that he be made a social and professional pariah without trial, with little evidence, based on the word of one person.

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.

Back the fuck up a second.

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.

Did you actually read what you wrote?

At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.

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.

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.

And, we should believe her why? Because she is a woman? Because women don't lie about rape?

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.

Far be it from me to point out that the "article" is just her blog post of what she says happened. They might have been interested in pursuing the case, but didn't have enough evidence, which is very likely because there were no other witnesses and both had injuries consisten with a fight. And, some or all of the reason they might not have been interested in pursuing the case is that they had a better case of battery and/or attempted murder against her than of attempted rape against him.