>>>5. The allegations of torture, stalking and intimidation of the woman involved in the case are absolutely untrue. Neither Mr. Parker, Mr. Celestin, nor any members acting on behalf of the Black Caucus ever stalked or harassed the young woman. As a routine part of the university and police investigation into this matter, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin had bail orders that barred them both from certain parts of campus and from approaching the young woman involved. Had those orders been violated, both would have been arrested before their criminal trial. Neither the Black Caucus leadership, nor the group’s academic adviser was ever contacted about any supposed harassment of the young woman by black student members.

I never saw a claim that said Parker or Celestin made direct contact with her. The piece cited members of the wrestling team in the harassment, and for hiring a private investigator to find info on her. So no Black Caucus members were reported for harassment. Bet. But what about members of the Wrestling team?

6. From the date of their arrest until after their trial, both Mr. Parker and Mr. Celestin were under strict bail conditions to have absolutely no contact with the young woman. Had they violated that order, their bail would have been revoked. Claims of harassment were used to support a civil suit filed against Penn State University for payment after the criminal case. Neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were named in the civil lawsuit, neither Mr. Parker nor Mr. Celestin were ever interviewed or contacted about that civil suit—nor were they able to defend themselves in that suit and were not aware of its existence until it was settled.

Ok.

7. Contrary to repeated inaccurate media reports, there is nothing to suggest that the ruling had anything to do with prior intimate contact with the young woman involved. The jury made no mention of this when they rendered their verdict. The jury’s decision was based on prosecution and defense witnesses and evidence in the court record that indicated that the young woman was both conscious and engaged during the evening in question.

From the article: "court transcripts show the jury had questions about what constituted consent." If the jury had questions about what consent is, how was the verdict based on the certainty of her consciousness and engagement?

8. Misinformation suggests that a spiral into depression was triggered by the alleged incident in 1999. However, court records and testimony by medical professionals revealed a history of chronic depression that dated back to childhood and the use of antidepressant medication that preceded this event.

These aren't mutually exclusive though. She had depression and was on medication for it before the alleged assault, and the events after the alleged assault had a negative impact on her mental health. The Daily Beast article said that her depressed pre-dated the incident.

I legit have these questions. I appreciate that they appeared to have taken a restorative justice approach with Parker and Celestin. The letter seems to be responding to the spin-off/think pieces about the incident, but it doesn't challenge much of what has been reported by reputable outlets.