I always preface these cases by saying the following.
Anderson should be presumed innocent and his accuser should be presumed she is telling the truth. Until more evidence arises, both of their stories should be taken at face value.
The accuser filed an emergency protection order against Anderson. Here is what she said happened.
In the protective order filing, the woman said she was drinking at a bar on Nov. 16 when she met Anderson for the first time. She said she was planning on taking an Uber home, but Anderson’s friends “were insistent that he take” her home.
The woman said that this past weekend, through a conversation with a friend, she started “recalling images and feelings of him forcing his fingers” inside her and biting her. She said she tried to get away to put clothes on, but he followed her and asked what she was doing.
Anderson’s lawyer tells a different story.
“Mr. Anderson first learned of [the woman’s] request for a civil protective order late yesterday evening,” attorney Derek Chance said in the statement. “Mr. Anderson is shocked and disturbed by [the woman’s] claims. Mr. Anderson did not, nor would he ever, force himself on any woman. There are undoubtedly true victims of sexual assault, for whom Mr. Anderson carries a tremendous amount of compassion. However, there are those accused of sexual assault which they unequivocally did not commit — as is the case for Mr. Anderson.”
One thing I advise young men is if a woman in inebriated don’t make assumptions on consent. I am not saying this is the case with Anderson, but as a general rule if someone is so drunk they don’t remember what happened to days later, it is probably wise to just make sure they get home safely and go home yourself.