Nov. 13, 2022: Every Knouse-Sabatini text message from the WIBR report...as well as the ones she "forgot" to give investigators (those are the photocopied ones)...
https://twitter.com/mTOR_Leaks/status/1591956253105848322
April 13, 2018: The week before their first sexual encounter, Sabatini and Knouse both discuss the fact that they will be staying near Washington DC. Knouse says that she will “pack a flask” for the Uber ride from the hotel to the whiskey bar that they will visit.
April 18, 2018: The day of their first sexual experience. Sabatini’s colleagues fail to show up to a planned dinner. Knouse states that she flew to DC “just for Jack (Rose, the whiskey bar).”
April 18, 2018: While at dinner, they both tweet about their mutual love of whiskey.
April 19, 2018: The morning after text. In the WIBR report Knouse characterizes this exchange as “clearing the air” because she “felt dirty.” She also in her counterclaim filings mischaracterizes Sabatini’s comment that “only a young chick (could go for a run the morning after so much drinking and sex)” as gloating over having bedded a younger woman.
August ?, 2018: One of the more contentious events in the WIBR report. Based on a likely prior inside joke, Visiting Postdoc 1 (who was allegedly a friend of Knouse’s from medical school) left a note on Knouse’s office door. Knouse objects to Sabatini, who says VP1’s behavior is not acceptable.
September 20-21, 2018: Here they plan a tryst at the 2018 Whitehead retreat. At first Knouse says it is too risky because of “Aggressive policies…target on my back, residence at bottom of food chain…” They try to meet up but decide it’s too risky:
Knouse is worried about timing and being seen together. His reference to “(getting) out of the shower with a raging boner…” is met by Knouse saying that “between the two of us we have the serum T(estosterone) of 6 16 year old boys.”
Finally they find a time:
November 1, 2018: Sabatini suggests that she stop by the WIBR for sex.
November 24, 2018: Some more bi-directional horny talk. Curiously, in Knouse’s counterclaim documents, this text is portrayed as a horny old man texting about his “half chub in pants.” What that portrayal fails to report is that Knouse responds that she “won’t be out late tonight if you can make that full and get permission to wander downtown.” Knouse also adds that her “fellow outing outfit less amenable to rug quickie.” In other words “I guess it is okay that you can’t come over because my outfit would get messed up if we had sex on the rug.”
November 25, 2018: Sabatini suggests sex at the Whitehead, which Knouse declines because the venue makes her nervous. Sabatini says “okay let’s not” as being anxious “defeats the whole purpose.”
December 26, 2018: The coercion continues? Knouse tells Sabatini to come to her place: “Tuck your parents in and get in an Uber,” and “God dammit now I’m crazy revved. Been insanely revved the past week. Fuck you too.”
January 15, 2019: A text from Knouse to Sabatini describing her existential crises: “What is the point if I’m never satisfied and everything is meaningless anyway and all of my female science role models are either dead/dying/falling off the wagon so clearly I’m next.”
February 22, 2019: Knouse laments an existential crisis (We speculate that this may be in response to her mentor Angelika Amon’s battle with ovarian cancer as in the above text). Knouse claimed to investigators that these “crises” were instead due to feeling trapped in a “coercive relationship” with Sabatini.
March 3, 2019: Again, they plan a sexual encounter. Knouse invites Sabatini over to her place.
April 20, 2019: Once again they plan a sexual romp. Knouse leaves the back of Whitehead (WI) to visit Sabatini’s nearby apartment.
January 14-16, 2020: Knouse texts Sabatini that she wants to hear from him more and expresses concern that she has a “growing feeling that you don’t care about me in the way that I care about you.” Displaying a profound lack of awareness for how women respond to the word “crazy,” Sabatini says “I am sorry but you are being crazy.”
January 17, 2020: Their conversation continues. Sabatini asks for space and explains that he is interested in another woman. Knouse expresses her belief that the other woman will not offer Sabatini the “same intellectual/ambition connection…like we have” and asks Sabatini for clarification when he knows more. She then tells Sabatini that her adviser Angelika Amon recently told her that Amon was "worried you’re just as insecure and intimidated by me as all the other guys I’ve dated.”
NOTE: Knouse supplied investigators with a Fall 2019 text between her and Amon that she characterized as Knouse relaying to Amon the harassment that Sabatini put her through…but in this exchange is making clear that Amon and Knouse discussed her relationship with Sabatini in early 2020?
January 18-19: The discussion continues. Sabatini reports that after seeing the other woman, they want to explore the possibility of a relationship. Sabatini asks that Knouse “can see to being my friend first and foremost just as I am for you. And realize that the closeness we share is there for the long term.” Knouse suggests some distance, which Sabatini then agrees to. Knouse’s last statement is ominous.
Less than a month later, Knouse then reversed the essence of that story, and texted Whitehead Fellow 3 that SHE “asked for space” and that it was “poorly received.” In fact, it had been Sabatini asking for space, with her arguing in favor of them continuing a relationship. She even says she is in “close contact” with Amon…who just weeks ago she had claimed thought David was “too intimidated” by Knouse as had been all the “other men she’d dated.”
April to August 2020: In friendly exchanges during the first months of COVID, they gripe about institutional COVID policies, Knouse invites Sabatini to her beach house, paddleboarding, and to drive her new Audi.
April 4, 2021: This text is apparently about MG19, Knouse’s graduate student who Sabatini had some role in mentoring as Knouse was not an MIT Faculty member. Sabatini then tells Knouse that her application to an MIT Biology faculty position will be successful. These two message were then construed by the WIBR report as “threatening.”
I'm very confused at why you're posting this. The texts plainly show that DS invited KK to have sex at work, in his office building, in their workplace. Per my reading, the texts also show that they did in fact have sex at work. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual, having sex at work is a fireable offense for anyone, isn't it? I would wager that any employee in America, at any professional level in any kind of job, can understand the basic concept that having sex in your office is justification for the employer firing you. I've been following this case in the news, and until you posted these texts I actually didn't know that DS had sex at work. I'm really confused now as to why (a) you would post these, and (b) DS would sue MIT. It's preposterous that an MIT professor could actually believe that it's his right to invite junior colleagues to have sex at his office building then actually do so without being fired -- consensual or not is irrelevant. Besides being a normal workplace, MIT is also an environment where students learn and a workplace that is under strict regulations by funding agencies when it comes to being non-sexualized and harassment-free. Regardless of whether the relationship was consensual between KK and DS, a student or anyone else could have walked in on them having sex at work and seen the two of them naked mid-sex. Or maybe the students could have heard them moaning, etc. Why should MIT tolerate any of that, from any professor? Employees can be fired for having sex in the walk-in-refrigerator at Applebees, why should MIT be held to lower standards? The timeline and facts also show that it was obviously within MIT's discretion to treat KK differently: while both of them had sex at work, DS was substantially senior to her and was in a clear position to influence her career (by his own admission in the text you shared here about her faculty hire), and the texts also plainly show that HE invited HER to have sex at work while she pushed back at first until she gave in. The difference in seniority and influence would be justification enough to fire him, and not her. But besides that, she is apparently the also one who subsequently 'fessed up to MIT and asked for an investigation. In that sense, one of the two parties is not like the other. Whether the sex or relationship was arguably consensual has nothing to do with the crux of this matter. The professor had sex AT WORK. I'm really puzzled by the fact that you've gone to all this trouble to create a Substack and twitter account to defend a high-level professor who was deranged enough to think that having sex in his literal office building was just fine, with a junior colleague no less. The hubris is almost unbelievable that he sued MIT after this? Last I checked, MIT and the Whitehead are not porn sets or brothels. So, employees should not have sex there? Is that not obvious to literally anyone and everyone? I'm further perplexed at what kind of toxic culture the author of this Substack must live in to have them setting up a website to defend a professor who had sex in his office building. How is that not "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," a.k.a. the literal definition harassment, to anyone who shared a workplace with DS? Whether he and KK were in a consensual relationship has literally nothing to do with why DS's conduct was 100% inappropriate.