Tupac seemed to believe that one of the other men involved in the situation, Jacques Agnant, was a government informer who had set him up, but I'm not exactly clear on how this process worked in Tupac's side of the story. It's hard for me to come up with a motivation as to why Jackson would lie in her testimony just to include Pac in the story. merely that he was not in the room at the time. Tupac's defense doesn't seem to be that the gang rape never occurred. This makes it hard to take a stance on what the jury believed actually happened.

Tupac was not actually convicted of the gang rape which allegedly took place, but instead 'an apparent compromise verdict, convicted of two counts of sexual abuse-specifically, forcibly touching Ayanna Jackson's buttocks'. This website has the most information on the case that I could find, and includes both Pac's and the alleged victim's sides of the story. feminists pointing this case out, despite its potential to be an illustrative example of how if a man is popular and beloved enough by his community, the world can via powerful acts of cognitive dissonance forget the fact that he is a convicted rapist, a la incidents like Steubenville.

Of course Tupac fans are biased and will be eager to find evidence for his innocence, but I rarely see even e.g. If they do, they will usually write it off with something like 'the verdict was very controversial' or 'there's reason to believe he was set up,' but reading into it more deeply, it's hard for me to find concrete reasons to doubt the jury's decision. I was reading about Pac's life today, and it's bizarre how infrequently people mention this incident. If you are not aware, in 1995 Pac served nine months in prison for 'first-degree sexual abuse'.

Ayanna jackson tupac