Photo by Gage Skidmore
Introduction:
Accusations of inappropriate behavior and sexual assault are serious and require careful examination. This article focuses on the specific incident where Jane Doe confronted Pete Hegseth, highlighting significant gaps and raising essential questions about the validity of her actions and claims.
“DOE was at the Hyatt Hotel in Monterey, California on 10/7/17 attending a Republican women’s conference. On 10/7/17 she was drinking at the hotel after the conference and remembers approaching PETER HEGSETH, who was a speaker at the convention, and commented on how she did not appreciate how he treated women. DOE then remembers leaving the hospitality room and going to a hotel room. She sees the suspect, HEGSETH, and remembers his dog tag necklace. DOE then remembers HEGSETH ejaculating on her stomach. HEGSETH told DOE “clean it up”. Doe than found her way back to her own hotel room.”
The Alleged Incident:
When the emergency room nurse asked Jane Doe if there were any pictures of her with Pete, she said yes.
JANE DOE stated she observed HEGSETH acting inappropriately with the woman at the conference. HEGSETH would rub the women on their legs and JANE DOE thought that his actions were inappropriate. JANE DOE had texted that HEGSETH was giving of a “creeper” vibe. The women thought HEGSETH was “dreamy” and wanted pictures with HEGSETH. JANE DOE
stated she had also taken a picture with HEGSETH, earlier in the day because people were commenting [……………………………………..]? HEGSETH.
Discrepancy in the Account:
Confrontation at the Pool: Jane Doe stated she left the bar alone and Pete Hegseth must have followed her and that she confronted him about his behavior towards other women near the pool after 1:15 AM.
Surveillance Footage: Surveillance footage shows Pete and Jane Doe leaving the bar hand in hand at 1:15 AM, walking towards the pool.
“I continued to search the video surveillance footage. I located additional footage of JANE DOE and HEGSETH together. The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking from the inner entry/exit door of Knuckles Bar. The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking together, with arms locked together. HEGSETH seemed to be talking and JANE DOE was smiling. Both did not have an unsteady gait. HEGSETH and JANE DOE are seen walking out of the lobby, still locked arms and headed towards the pool. The time stamp was 10-8-17, at approximately 0115 hours.
There was no video footage inside Knuckles Bar and near the pool.”
This contradicts her claim of walking out alone and Pete following her.
Questions Raised:
Unwarranted Confrontation: Jane Doe had only met Pete earlier that day and had no personal or professional connection to him. It raises the question of why she felt it was her responsibility to confront him about his behavior.
Was it the comments from others earlier? The blacked-out sentence in the report suggests that people were commenting about Jane Doe and Pete Hegseth. Possibly implying that they made a perfect couple? This could have influenced her decision to take a picture with him. Other women found him dreamy and she did not like his attention on other women who were taking pictures with him? And few hours later near the pool she confronted him about his behavior with women, a man who was a guest she met for the first time in that event.
[…]? stated she wore […]? and walked into the hotel lobby with HEGSETH and JANE DOE,
prior to entering Knuckle’s bar. was the female seen on the video with JANE DOE and HEGSETH.
While at the bar, HEGSETH sat next to […]? They had drinks at the bar and conversed.
During the conversation,
[…]? stated HEGSETH placed his hand on knee made it clear that his hand on her knee was not acceptable. Despite the touching, stated she was not uncomfortable.
[…]? stated HEGSETH had invited her back to his hotel room. stated she politely declined the invitation.
[…]? stated she gained the attention of JANE DOE and had JANE DOE
become a “crotch blocker.” A crotch blocker is a street term used to describe someone’s actions used to prevent someone from having sex. By having JANE DOE join and HEGSETH’S conversation, was hoping that JANE DOE’S presence would detour HEGSETH’S attempt to have sex with her
The bar began to close and left the bar. stated a group of people left the bar together. did not know it JANE DOE and HEGSETH were amongst the group of people. Stated she did not pay attention to HEGSETH and JANE DOE, when she left the bar.
stated JANE DOE did not look or act intoxicated when she last had contactwith JANE DOE. walked back to her room and talked to her roommate
Questions Raised:
Jealousy? Was Jane Doe genuinely concerned about Pete Hegseth’s behavior, or was there an element of jealousy involved? (Was she disappointed that she was not his primary interest?) Was she disappointed she was only called a ‘crotch blocker’? Not exactly what she was implying to her husband? Her actions and the reactions of other women suggest a complex dynamic.
Timing and Context: Confronting a drunk man, especially after midnight at 1:30 AM, is unusual. A man whom she met for the first time a few hours earlier? Given that Jane Doe had a husband waiting for her, it seems odd that she would choose to engage in such a confrontation instead of returning to her room.
Witness Accounts: According to witnesses, Jane Doe was sober while Pete was drunk. This further complicates the narrative, as it raises questions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of confronting someone who is intoxicated.
Implications:
Credibility of the Accusation: The discrepancy between Jane Doe’s account and the surveillance footage, along with the unusual timing and context of the confrontation, raises questions about the validity of her claims. It suggests that there may be more to the story than what has been reported.
These inconsistencies highlight the importance of a thorough investigation. It’s essential to gather all relevant evidence and examine the details carefully to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the situation.
Conclusion:
The details of Jane Doe’s account and the surveillance footage raise important questions about the validity of her claims against Pete Hegseth. The inconsistency between her narrative and the video evidence, along with the unusual timing and context of the confrontation, is significant and warrants further scrutiny. It’s crucial to approach such cases with a critical eye, ensuring that all parties receive fair treatment and that the investigation is thorough and unbiased.
