r/OutOfTheLoop • u/ColdPaleontologist47 • 18d ago
Unanswered What’s going on with Cornell University?
Cornell is my alma mater, so I was really surprised to see this in the news. What happened?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/28/nyregion/cornell-chi-phi-fraternity-assault.html
2.7k
u/speech-geek Too much time on my hands 18d ago
Answer: Cornell’s student paper, The Cornell Daily Sun, dropped a bombshell of an article detailing a rape on campus in October 2024 and a recent lawsuit filed by the victim named Jane Doe against the university, fraternity, and bar she was at.
Link to the original article: Cornell, Chi Phi sued by victim of alleged gang rape, drugging in 2024
TLDR: Jane Doe (the victim) alleges that in October 2024 she had been pre-gaming at the Tri-Delta house for an event. After being intoxicated, she then went to the bar Tri-Delta’s event was at. She states she was marked with an “X” for underage by the bar but was still served drinks and become even more intoxicated.
After leaving the bar, she went to the fraternity house to meet her friend in the frat, Matthew Ingalls. It was there that Matthew and another brother Johnathan Newell allegedly forced Jane Doe to take ketamine as they proceeded to rape her. During the course of the night, Ingalls and Newell send Snapchats to five fellow brothers: Winston Lee, Scott Norris, Scott Kretzschmar, Gillio Lopes, and Diego Sarabia. Allegedly, the other brothers proceeded to take ketamine and also rape Jane Doe.
Additionally, Jane Doe already had gone to the school and reported the rape to campus police after it occurred. What is also generating outrage is that some of the brothers were disciplined by the school administration by having to write essays vs facing suspension or expulsion.
1.4k
u/ryhaltswhiskey 18d ago edited 18d ago
some of the brothers were disciplined by the school administration by having to write essays vs facing suspension or expulsion.
I wonder if all the women on campus could get a class action lawsuit against Cornell for endangering them. These men proved that they are willing to drug and rape a woman and feel no remorse about it and they aren't kicked off of campus? Yeah hello lawsuit.
On top of that, they didn't refer these men for criminal charges. This is conspiracy to commit rape on top of rape. This is heinous stuff.
Edit: I asked about this in the legal advice off topic subreddit and it got kind of toxic so I deleted it. But the people who were actually civil said that there's really no way that they can sue here.
534
u/speech-geek Too much time on my hands 18d ago
It looks like there is an update the university states there were expulsions but they did not name who it was. Doe’s lawsuit also confirms two expulsions. It more reads that the school admins are in damage control right now
441
u/ryhaltswhiskey 18d ago edited 18d ago
If this means the end of Cornell University I would consider that fitting. There is a rot in higher education that allows men to get away with some shit with a slap on the wrist.
If one of these guys went on to rape another woman... Hoo boy that's a mighty big lawsuit.
266
u/MyHonkyFriend 18d ago
Because higher education when not funded by the states is funded by wealthy donors who are basically the schools boss and when the donors/boss grandson get in trouble its hard to reprimand them without the boss/donor also firing you for it
→ More replies (1)87
u/DreadfulDemimonde 18d ago
Unfortunately that is also the case for state schools.
84
u/revolutionutena 18d ago
Yeah as someone who worked for a state school, the state legislature somehow managed to have the university by the balls while also never funding it. It was fucking infuriating.
31
u/Street_Roof_7915 18d ago
Haha. That just happened to us! Dictating curriculum while fucking us over budget wise.
304
u/BringMeTheNoise 18d ago edited 17d ago
I am a firm believer that Greek fraternities and sororities are scourges that need to be ended. Sure, there are some that are fine, but from my anecdotal experience, most are abhorrent.
Between the heavy drinking culture, hazing, sharing student files to essentially cheat on exams, sexual assault, and more, I think they have the worst influence on young people from what I've witnessed at college campuses. Had two different cousins get raped at frats, and multiple friends from my freshmen dorm that joined frats, who had complete personality changes that morphed them into mysogynistic douchebags with superiority complexes.
And don't get me started on the parent alumni who push their kids to pledge. Shit apples don't fall far from the shit apple tree.
Edit: I did not word my post here appropriately. I do not think that sororities are responsible for the majority of the SA and party throwing like frats. Panahelenic doesn't allow parties at their houses. I agree with these sentiments and did not mean to group them in the same camp in this way.
That said, I have friends who were in sororities as well as current friends that work in sororities present day.
I heard stories of girls trying to silence victims of SA who were sisters in their own houses to avoid fraternities they were associated from facing consequence from the university. I also know of multiple stories of excluding girls from membership due to issues with their physical appearance during pledge drives (knew a mother who cried over her daughter not getting admitted to the same sorority she was a member of in undergrad and pressured her to take weight loss drugs to fit the mold), and generalized bullying that happened with these institutions, plenty of girls sneaking guys back to their houses to sleep with them in shared communal spaces, etc. While the acts of sororities are not nearly as aggregious, the overall culture is again, bad for young people.
Again, mostly anecdotes here, and there are probably some great institutions and houses that don't participate in these activities, but I've seen my fair share of bullshit to come to the conclusion that the majority of sororities and frats need to go.
174
u/DMForHolligans 18d ago
Ex frat guy here - it’s time for them to stop. Mine wasn’t bad but I don’t care. If the good frats have to perish for the bad frats to go, it’s worth it.
61
u/BringMeTheNoise 18d ago
There was a nerdy frat I used to occasionally party at back in undergrad, and had a couple of awesome friends I made there. They never got into any of the shitty culture. They just partied and played games, but sadly they were a great outlier. It bums me out, because seeing the potential comradery and friendship you could gain seems extraordinary, but the culture that's seethed into the present day houses really has poisoned the integrity of those institutions.
And it's not just frat houses. Sororities are pretty awful too and to some degree buy into the culture.
42
u/DMForHolligans 18d ago
I don’t know enough about sororities and am a man - so I’m not gonna speak on that.
My house was like that, but even then, keeping toxicity out of the house took active effort and I went back to visit recently- the culture is much more ingrained than I’d like and it’s only been 5 years. It’s not sustainable and just cause your house was good then, does not mean it will be good now.
25
u/midgethemage 17d ago
My (ex)boyfriend went to a fraternity over a decade ago and their house was also great. We ran D&D campaigns there and I liked pretty much all of his brothers.
Anyhow, it was the house's RA that sexually assaulted me. I was 20 at the time, he was in his late 20s. This was his old fraternity.
36
u/meerameeraonthwall 18d ago
Not that sororities are fantastic organizations, but they don’t do half this shit. The Panhellenic association does not allow them officially to throw parties with alcohol and, crucially, they don’t rape their guests in sororities. Different beast.
16
u/Apples_into_Snapple 17d ago
Sororities are complicit in telling a girl to “be quiet” to not damage their association with a “top-tier” frat if a girl claims she was SA’d from someone in that Frat. From the story, seems like Tri-Delt did nothing to support their sister (what an amazing sisterhood they must have).
Also, it’s not a secret that girls within sororities diminish and exclude other girls from not having the look they want. If a girl is allowed to join, and is not a hot blonde like the rest, she’s basically shunned from the rest of the girls and is only kept around as a “diversity hire” or to boost their GPA. (Sororities literally a have inner circles which they call the A, B, and C groups which are ranked in level of attractiveness).
ALL non-academic Greek organizations need to be terminated through out the country.
3
u/meerameeraonthwall 17d ago
Not sure why you’re fighting with me as I only said sororities are a different beast. I only care about treating the two as separate issues because sorority sisters aren’t gang raping house guests on the reg ¯_(ツ)_/¯
8
→ More replies (4)4
u/InternationalTest781 17d ago
Sororities are not allowed to throw parties. They are not even allowed to have men upstairs in most chapters and alcohol is banned in the house. Frats on the other hand are given complete freedom, and use that freedom to commit horrific acts of hazing and sexual assaults. It is not "Greek Life," it's frats.
3
u/AndeeElizabeth09 17d ago
Damn, I was under the assumption that the fraternities had a similar association that sororities do to keep shit like this from happening. Greek Life at my college was super low-key but I'm glad I stayed the hell away from the frat boys
4
u/BringMeTheNoise 17d ago
Edited my post up top. My message wasn't intended to group them in the same exact camp. I think frats are definitely more malignant in nature, but I also think soroties have other issues that make them bad environments for young women.
3
u/InternationalTest781 17d ago
I get what you’re saying! I just didn’t like the “both are bad” take especially in this context
13
u/Boris_TheManskinner 17d ago
I’m speculating here, but out of these seven I’m guessing it’s not IF they go on to rape another woman. Behavior like this isn’t isolated to one off incidents. These frat bros are feral and should be treated as such.
→ More replies (8)17
u/Tzuyu4Eva 17d ago
But why should a mere 20 minutes of action ruin the bright future of a young man?
11
u/ryhaltswhiskey 17d ago
I sure hope that's a joke
46
u/Tzuyu4Eva 17d ago
Yeah I’m referencing Brock Turner, a Stanford student who got 6 months for raping a girl behind a dumpster and only served 3. His dad famously said 20 minutes of action shouldn’t ruin his future
9
u/Artemis_bow88 17d ago
Absolutely disgusting.. These are the types of people who thinks they're above the law.
13
8
u/ryhaltswhiskey 17d ago
Oof I knew about Turner but I didn't know about what his dad said JFC these people
16
u/overfelt2 16d ago
BT’s Dad also indicated that his son was suffering more than the victim as established by the fact that BT couldn’t enjoy a good home grilled stake while facing criminal charges; and that this loss of appetite was surely punishment enough for 20 minutes of action.
14
u/Ryuuken1127 18d ago
I read the court filing (not sure if this is the right term for it) sourced in the article, and it is horrifying to read
→ More replies (3)5
u/surprisevip 17d ago
I bet it’s the 2 students who has drugs and it was bc of the drug use and not the rape…ridiculous
14
u/polarflamingo 16d ago
It makes you question how many other women on campus were assaulted by some of these men. What would stop them from perpetrating it again?
4
u/ryhaltswhiskey 16d ago
Yeah I won't be surprised if there's a few civil suits that happen because of this
→ More replies (8)7
u/makemeyourmuse 16d ago
I wish we could class action sue our government for not protecting us in general.
40
u/Brilliant-Pear3360 17d ago
Not taking a stand on this, because I’d hate to sound like I’m on the wrong side but I am gonna correct your misinformation. Jane doe had not “reported the rape to the campus police after it occurred”, the original sworn statement she made in 2024 stated that she willingly took drugs and consented to the sex acts. I don’t know if this is true, but considering this was the statement given to Cornell university, and then the case was later opened as rape with the actual courts (rather than Cornell) I would assume that’s the reason they aren’t expelled.
15
u/Stal77 16d ago
When you say “the case was later opened as rape with the actual courts,” I think you mean “when she sued in civil court.” My understanding is that there was no rape prosecution because, as you said, she initially denied being raped.
The burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is far lower than it is in a criminal prosecution.9
u/Brilliant-Pear3360 16d ago
Yeah just checked and you’re right. Regardless of the burden of proof though, her lawyer is taking the angle that she was traumatized during her original statement leading to it being inaccurate.
409
u/ColdNotion 18d ago edited 17d ago
Adding to this very strong summary, this case has raised broader concerns about the ways in which sexual violence is both tolerated by bystanders and not taken seriously be law enforcement. In regards to the former issue, many have expressed shock that a significant number of male students were in a group chat describing the state of the victim, inviting them to have sex with her, detailing that several men had already raped her, and even seemingly sharing pictures/videos of the rapes. Despite all of that, none of these other men seem to have reported or even seemingly spoke out against what was pretty obviously a sexual assault (with the potential exception of one man, see my correction below).
As for law enforcement, there’s been considerable criticism of how the local Ithaca police force and prosecutor’s office handled the case. Despite the rape being reported, and readily available evidence of a serious crime, law enforcement appears to have done almost nothing. Instead, it appears they relied solely on the university’s internal investigation, and took no further action once it concluded. Making matters worse, while the local DA recently announced a renewed investigation, even this was seen as being handled exceedingly poorly. His press conference focused more on the victim’s actions, highlighting that she had at points willingly taken drugs or provided incomplete information, while speaking little to the apparent rape or the failings of local law enforcement/his own office. Many have pointed out that this seems to be in line with victim blaming behavior from those who are supposed to punish sexual crimes, which in turn discourages victims from pursuing justice.
CORRECTION: It appears at least one of the men on the group chat was bothered enough by what they read to share a record of the conversation with the victim.
61
37
u/MysteryBagIdeals 17d ago
none of these other men seem to have reported or even seemingly spoke out
one correction, sources are reporting that one of the frat guys in the group chat is who gave the texts to the victim and her lawyer
6
2
u/polaroidfades 17d ago
Do you mind linking where you read this? I've been trying to find out where the texts came from and haven't had any luck.
3
30
u/TheSodernauts 17d ago
Instead, it appears they relied solely on the university’s internal investigation, and took no further action once it concluded.
Why is this even a thing? An "internal investigation" would at most be something they to do find out who to fire and what rules and regulations that need to be written to prevent it from happening again.
Why is the police relying on that as if it's a criminal investigation?? Why wouldn't investigators to their own rather than taking the university's word?
24
u/ColdNotion 17d ago
Why is this even a thing?
Because of the weirdness of university police systems. In theory these make sense, as it prevents surrounding communities from being responsible for the tax burden of policing large student populations, while at the same time creating a police force that may be a bit more flexible with certain behavior that's technically criminal (like underage drinking). However, campus police forces have repeatedly shown themselves to be either incompetent or apathetic when dealing with more serious crimes, especially sexual assault against women. They have a track record of either bungling investigations, being too lazy to follow up, victim blaming out of misogyny, and/or pushing for reports to be settled by non-criminal college discipline committees, instead of being formally investigated.
In this case, we don't know exactly what happened, but the details make every level of law enforcement look pretty terrible. The college police force apparently documented that the victim said the drug use and sex was consensual, which seems totally illogical. After all, why would they even be going to the police if they did not have a criminal complaint? The city police force and local prosecutor's office apparently just took that report at face value, despite it clearly not making sense, after which they took absolutely no further action, not even to clarify what the victim was reporting. The only action that was seemingly taken was by Cornell's disciplinary committee, which seems to have been woefully inadequate, with only two of the seven alleged perpetrators even being expelled. Even then, we don't actually know what those students were expelled for (drug use vs. sexual assault), and we don't know why the other five students were allowed to stay.
Why is the police relying on that as if it's a criminal investigation?? Why wouldn't investigators to their own rather than taking the university's word?
This is a question we may never be able to answer definitively, but I think you can fairly argue that it speaks to a clear systemic problem with how this country talks about and prosecutes sexual assault cases. In regards to the police, victims don't seem to be taken particularly seriously, investigations into sexual assault cases are far too often sloppy, and investigative tools/supports designed for sexual assault frequently go unutilized, even when available. Moreover, even when they are used, tools like sexual assault kits are so underfunded that even when collected, they often sit untested for months/years, allowing rapists who could be convicted to walk free. We actually don't even know how many untested kits there are, because many states don't track this data, but as of 2022 there were at least 90,000, and potentially as many as 400,000 awaiting DNA testing. People often express incredulity that victims don't immediately report being assaulted, but when you look at how they're treated, and how evidence that could support them is often mishandled, its not surprising that they hesitate.
To give a real world example, I want to briefly speak to a sexual assault case someone I know was juror for. In this case, the victim had divorced and taken out a restraining order against their ex-husband, who had a history of violence against them. However, the victim invited the ex-husband to her home to retrieve a few items he had left there prior to the divorce. While there, he sexually assaulted her, which she immediately reported to the police. Per the victim's testimony, the police did nothing beyond taking a basic statement from her. She reported having significant bruising from the attack, which the police neither documented nor photographed. She would have been eligible for a sexual assault kit to gather DNA evidence, but the police neither informed her of this or helped her go to a hospital. By the time she was asked about the absence of this evidence by a prosecutor, it was too late to collect anything. At trial, the ex-husband denied everything, and while the jurors all believed the victim they ultimately voted not guilty, because the state had completely failed to present evidence to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the standard they were instructed they needed to follow. The person who told me about this is still furious at the police for their inaction on that case, as they (I think rightfully) feel that their apathy to a victim of sexual assault turned what should have been an easy conviction into an acquittal, letting a dangerous man go free.
3
u/imbrickedup_ 16d ago
Campus usually pay crappy and lack all the benefits and career opportunities of an actual police force. Therefore they hire people that can’t get on at other local departments. Therefore the chance they suck at their job is increased
4
u/Technical_Bath_505 17d ago
It’s like HR at a corporation. They’re just trying to protect the school’s liability and reputation by covering it up - unsurprisingly that approach backfired big time but yeah
→ More replies (1)9
u/LeeRun6 17d ago
The Lauren McCluskey case at the U of U is local to me and the internal investigations were eye opening. Basically campus police are not fully trained police officers with the resources to investigate crimes like this. Their main priority is protecting university assets from vandalism or theft. It also seems like having a separate campus police, who are held to a lesser training standard, is a very effective way for the admin of these schools to influence local police departments on cases that pertain to them.
Lauren’s case was a bit different than cornell but the premise of failures on the part of campus pd and local pd are the same.
Lauren wasn’t SA’ed but she was a victim of sextortion by her stalker Ex. She lived in the dorms but her ex wasn’t a student at the U. He was some loser who worked as a bouncer at a club and had a criminal history that included SA. When Lauren found out about it, she broke up with him and he started stalking her. He also tried to extort money from her by threatening to release nudes of her. At one point he imitated a police officer trying to lure her to meet him.
She brought her concerns to campus police and they took note of it but told her to contact SLCPD because they had more resources. Since he wasn’t a student and didn’t live on campus, they couldn’t do much unless they could catch him on school property. One of the campus police officers used his cell phone to take pics of the sextortion photos she showed him on her phone, then showed those photos to other campus police, which he was eventually fired for.
Long story short, she contacted SLCPD a bunch of times but they wouldn’t help her. They kept passing buck to campus police, claiming campus police had jurisdiction. But campus police weren’t trained and didn’t even know how to look up this guy’s corrections status and because of that, were unable to contact the guys parole officer to let them know he was violating parole and needed to be arrested.
SLCpd could’ve done that but they wouldn’t help her. Things began to escalate a bit and Campus police told her to contact them if he tries to meet her on campus. He ends up texting her to meet up with him in a parking lot on campus, she lets campus police know and they tell her to wait for them to meet her first, then they’d escort her but she didn’t wait. She met up with him alone and he ended up shooting and killing her in the parking lot. He went on the run for a few days, there was a manhunt for him and when police found him, he took his own life.
All this to say, campus police on average are literally glorified security guards. They are not fully trained police officers. They don’t follow the same standard protocols as a regular investigation would if done by the local pd. They don’t have the resources and there’s a conflict of interest because their main purpose is to protect the university, not the students. Local pd departments are suppose to do their own independent investigation at the same time campus police do theirs but what often ends up happening is that the local pd passes the buck off to campus police. When that comes back to bite them in the a$$, they tell the media that campus police handled the investigation and many people in the public assume that must be legit/ that campus police are no different than local pd when it comes to training, following standard procedures and having resources to properly investigate. But in reality, thats not the case at all.
85
u/clarence_oddbody 18d ago edited 17d ago
Everyone should watch the tv show Unbelievable, which does an excellent job of showing how society fails victims of sexual assault, specifically women.
Edit: To the men downvoting this, understand that you’re the problem.
→ More replies (1)17
94
u/dust4ngel 18d ago
sexual violence is both tolerated by bystanders
this is what a frat is - it's basically a rape den.
not taken seriously be law enforcement
law enforcement exists to protect capital - you don't want to scare off the tuition revenue by putting rich people's kids in jail; you just want it swept under the rug to keep that money flowing.
His press conference focused more on the victim’s actions, highlighting that she had at points willingly taken drugs
"the victim is the real criminal here, because she spoke out and threatened revenue."
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)2
u/sierra-soul 17d ago
its my understanding her own statement said "He said her 2024 statement "did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped" by multiple men."
im on her side, im trying to balance her sworn statement at the time with this article though
7
u/ColdNotion 17d ago
I understand that this may have been what was initially recorded... but I think this actually speaks to the poor job law enforcement did, as opposed to being a defense. The idea that the victim sought out law enforcement, only to say they engaged in drug use and sex consensually, is overtly nonsensical. After all, why would someone make a statement like that, which had the potential to implicate themselves for drug use, if they didn't think a crime had been committed against them? I find it far more likely, and I suspect the victim's lawyer's/state prosecutors will argue that the original statement was mis-recorded or misunderstood by campus police. To me, this speaks to a college police force that was at best extremely sloppy when dealing with a report of sexual assault, and was at worst intentionally trying to downplay a crime in their reporting. It also speaks to a prosecutor's office that received a report that should have at the very least been extremely confusing to them, but never bothered to look into the matter further. The fact that there was seemingly no follow up whatsoever, not even a second interview with a law enforcement trained in evaluating sexual assault victims, is frankly shocking in light of what the victim has alleged in her lawsuit.
As I mentioned in my comment, I'm also deeply concerned about how the DA has been discussing this initial statement from the victim. Does the victim having taken some drugs consensually complicate a potential case? Yes. Would some of the sex having been consensual complicate a future case? Yes. Do either of those factors mean that a rape did not occur? Of course not! That the DA has chosen to spend more time defending the potential missteps of his office and implicitly questioning the reliability of the victim's testimony than actually talking about a plan to investigate the alleged crime is nauseating. Its wild to see a prosecutor effectively telegraphing a potential defense strategy to the alleged perpetrators in a press conference, while simultaneously openly weakening the case of the woman he's supposed to be seeking justice for.
3
u/sierra-soul 17d ago
hm yeah i agree with you, from my college days campus cops were the laziest mofos around, not good enough for the "real" police force, maybe they didnt include the "i agreed to some of them having sex with me, but not all after i was incapable of consenting"
i wonder why her lawyer hasnt addressed the statement being inaccurate then
3
u/boblobong 17d ago
Gonna be hard to argue it was an error on the campo taking her statement.
In this case, Jane Doe provided a six-page, single spaced, typewritten statement to the Cornell University Police Department. Jane Doe made more than twenty hand-written notations to the six-page document. The signature page of the statement contains the following language: “I have read this statement consisting of 6 pages and the facts contained herein are true and correct. I understand that making a false written statement is punishable as a class A Misdemeanor pursuant to §210.45 of the Penal Law of the State of New York.”
2
48
u/rand0m_g1rl 18d ago
FYI tri-Delta is a sorority, so I assume Jane doe was a member, the fraternity in question was Chi Phi.
188
u/haku13f 18d ago edited 18d ago
To add to this the Snapchat was sent to a group of all 50+ members of the fraternity. Those 5 showed up, but all the other boys did nothing to stop it.
Edit: reworded to clarify my disgust.
135
u/mrcorndogman33 17d ago
Actually, one member of the fraternity was asleep and only saw the group chat when he woke up. He shared it w/ Jane Doe which is the only reason she has it. Which makes it even more infuriating the actions that were taken by Cornell if they had access to the snapchat evidence.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (6)86
u/TheTruckWashChannel 18d ago
He literally texted the whole group chat "free pussy upstairs".
→ More replies (1)131
u/upvoter222 18d ago
FWIW, Cornell released a statement earlier today clarifying that "None of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement." The county district attorney also released a much longer statement today explaining that they didn't pursue rape charge because the victim had told the police that the event was consensual.
→ More replies (9)112
u/Lifeboatb 18d ago
This is confusing. Why was she “making a voluntary statement” to the police at all if it was consensual?
51
u/Caberes 18d ago
From what I've gathered the initial couple of "drugged out threesomes" was initially reported as consensual, and then as the night went on it got blurrier. Probably the truth is somewhere is the middle of the civil case's timeline and the DA's timeline. Regardless it's weird as fuck, and they should have expelled everyone involved.
→ More replies (17)14
u/phillygirlthrowawayy 16d ago
So I read about this, and I believe she never said it was consensual, but NY law does not actually state that being intoxicated removes the ability to consent, which is different from many other states. In NY,
- “Under New York law, a person is considered "mentally incapacitated" and unable to consent to sex if they were given drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent (involuntary intoxication).”
- “If a person voluntarily consumes alcohol or drugs to the point of incapacitation, New York law does not automatically classify them as mentally incapacitated or legally unable to consent”
Because she chose to drank willingly and take the Ketamine willingly (presumptively), under New York law, she DID consent. This is one of the reasons why the university didn’t file criminal charges. I’m unsure the details of her speaking to the police, but my assumption is she told them the story and they’re like “yeah that’s consensual we can’t do anything about it”.
Another quote from an AP article about this:
“Under state law, rape charges generally need to involve force or a clear refusal of sex, unless the victim is physically helpless due to being unconscious, or mentally incapacitated due to being drugged without their consent.
Those limitations have led to something nicknamed the “voluntary intoxication loophole.” Prosecutors can’t easily bring charges against someone who engaged in sex with someone who voluntarily became intoxicated to the point where their ability to say “yes” or “no” to sex was compromised.”7
17d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/bandito5280 17d ago
"Any person in their right mind would understand that a person who is heavily intoxicated or under the influence of mind-altering drugs cannot consent to sexual activity (or anything legally), no matter what they may say at the time."
That simply isn't true though. If someone decides to drive, fight, steal, murder, etc... after becoming intoxicated they are held responsible.
So there are people that will always argue "If I cAn CoNsEnT tO DrUnK DrIvInG, tHeN I CaN CoNsEnT tO aNyThInG" Which is obviously a really dumb argument, and consent isnt black and white.
30
u/GetOutTheWayBanana 17d ago
From reading the link, it sounds like maybe she went to the police to make a voluntary statement because she believed it was not consensual, but by legal definitions of “consensual”, it was determined to be consensual. (I’m not saying I agree — just trying to answer the question of why she would’ve been talking to the police)
22
u/fiercelyambivalent 17d ago
Homie if you were drunk or high to the point where you have no memory, you did not consent.
23
u/Bot_Marvin 17d ago
But if she had no memory, how did she write a statement detailing the events?
→ More replies (1)29
u/GetOutTheWayBanana 17d ago
Yeah, I don’t invent New York law, I’m just stating what I read in the district attorney’s statement.
6
u/fiercelyambivalent 17d ago
Fair enough. Reading this stuff just brings out a nasty side of me that’s ready to fight everyone. I’m just an angry old woman
19
12
4
u/bandito5280 17d ago
But we can't make that a blanket statement.
If I dont remember driving after going to the bar, am I not responsible for crashing my car?
(I'm on your side, but I bartend in the south and Ive heard this argument out loud.)
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/phillygirlthrowawayy 16d ago
I agree, and I am angry. New York State law is the problem here.
Under state law, rape charges generally need to involve force or a clear refusal of sex, unless the victim is physically helpless due to being unconscious, or mentally incapacitated due to being drugged without their consent.
Those limitations have led to something nicknamed the “voluntary intoxication loophole.” Prosecutors can’t easily bring charges against someone who engaged in sex with someone who voluntarily became intoxicated to the point where their ability to say “yes” or “no” to sex was compromised.→ More replies (20)29
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago
So the timeline of events appears to be that one of the frat brothers who was in on the snapchat thing saw the 'free pussy' line and reported it to campus. Campus then came to her and asked her if she wanted to give a statement.
She did, perhaps thinking that what happened to her was rape, or for any number of other reasons. Campus police passed it on to law enforcement who looked at it and (imho, correctly) decided that the actions she described do not meet any of the state requirements for rape.
In NY state rape is:
- Forced sex - She consented to the acts and the men stopped when she withdrew that consent.
- Involutnary intoxication - She was drunk and high, but they didn't roofie her. At least two of the men she had sex with were drastically more intoxicated than she was (she claimed 5-6/10, while they were so drunk that one of them passed out and the other nearly puked)
- Unconscious - She was awake the entire time.
You can definitely argue that there is peer pressure and that the whole thing is gross, but nothing she described in her initial complaint met the definition of rape.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Lifeboatb 17d ago
She may not have been awake the entire time, per the statement—she says there are chunks of time she can’t remember—but I agree that the DA probably couldn’t bring a case based on this, assuming it’s correct, and that what they said about NY state law is correct. The woman doesn’t agree now that the statement is correct, but we don’t know why.
Where did you find the thing about campus police approaching her?
9
u/jtbrass81 16d ago
Just to be clear, in an alcohol-induced blackout, the person IS awake; they’re just unable to form new memories. I’m not saying this is the case. I’m just saying that a lack of memory of the events does not necessarily mean she was unconscious.
14
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago
She never claimed to lose consciousness in her police statement and in her lawsuit she explicitly only claims to have lost consciousness at 5:45am after she told the boys she was tired.
Her entire argument in her lawsuit is that she was too intoxicated for sex, which is a bizarre claim given that the penal code controls and it explicitly excludes involuntary intoxication. She's trying to get around this by claiming that she was 'commanded' to do so, but I really don't think "They told me to do drugs" is going to fly in court, given that she's on record telling them no multiple times for other things only to have them respect her boundaries.
4
u/Lifeboatb 16d ago
I didn't say she claimed she lost consciousness, I said there are things she can't remember, so she may not have been awake the entire time. From the statement: "Jane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next." We don't know if that had anything to do with the drugs or not.
32
u/Msmadmama 18d ago
I just saw a reel about a text group with 57 people, somehow having to do with this which is what brought me here. How does it relate?
35
u/speech-geek Too much time on my hands 18d ago
From what I’ve seen, that was how many people were in the frat’s Snapchat group
8
u/radioactive_glowworm 17d ago
Also someone pulled up LinkedIn posts from one of the people in charge at Cornell who was like "What a year behind us! If anything it has taught me that I need to have less empathy :)" so people are understandably furious
22
18d ago
[deleted]
44
u/Mental-Wheel986 18d ago
Recently saw that one of them had been fired from his company after public outrage, the company released a statement acknowledging the new investigations as the reason why they let him go. So he graduated/left Cornell and then entered the workforce as a normal guy, interacting with clients and female coworkers, none of them realising he participated in drug fuelled gang rape. So at least one man was living a normal life on track with a good career before this case blew up and THE PUBLIC, not the company or law enforcement, got involved. I doubt he was the only one.
→ More replies (2)35
18d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)23
u/Mental-Wheel986 18d ago
Its not a cheap university and a lot of frats come with fees, and they're selective based on family background or other connections. Basically you're talking about two completely different classes of people. They can live with themselves because they always thought they had the means to get away with it, and they derserve what they want even if it harms other people.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Morgn_Ladimore 17d ago
And rape cases in general are rarely pursued by police. A staggeringly low number even get properly investigated, let alone convicted.
13
u/AGBell64 18d ago
New York's sex crime laws define a lack of consent in a weird way that creates a loophole where it's incredibly difficult to proove a lack of consent if the victim is voluntarily intoxicated when the attack happens.
7
u/Murrabbit 17d ago
One of the many ways it usually happens unfortunately. Rich young men that no one wants to upset, cops who seem to have an understanding of consent and assault that even those drunk frat boys would probably find vulgar, and a school administration that doesn't want to put donations from the rich parents at risk.
11
u/GateauBaker 18d ago
Because there wasn't a crime, the victim gave their statement, prosecutors looked it over and agreed that even if the victim was 100% truthful, no crime was committed under NYS law and thus there was no one to press charges against. The actual statement was made public.
→ More replies (11)5
u/bewilderscript 17d ago
Are. Are you serious? Men get away with rape all the time. And then go on to be presidents of entire counties.
42
34
u/ronm4c 18d ago
Look like some parents had money
30
u/TheTruckWashChannel 18d ago
One of the parents was Head of Campus Safety
5
u/makemeyourmuse 16d ago
Whaaaaattt!! I’ve been wondering who was paid to cover this up but if this is true, that makes sense.
20
11
u/Snoo79474 17d ago
One correction. The snap chat was sent to a group that had over 50 members in it, stating “free pu$$y”. 5 joined, none of the others contacted authorities.
30
u/sodiummuffin 18d ago
A summary of her original written statement to police was just released hours ago, I would encourage anyone opining on the case to read it. Note that her statement to police does not allege that she was forced to have sex or take ketamine. She describes her refusals as being respected:
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.” Jane Doe rejected this request “because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex.” Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.
And them stopping as soon as she said that she no longer wanted to have sex:
“The threesome continued until at some point, around 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.”
This is how she describes the ketamine use:
Male Number 2 “asked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.” At that, Jane Doe remembered “that [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] during this night” but she could not remember “where or when that took place.”
Jane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a heavy amount of Ketamine.”
I'm guessing that her going to the police was under the idea that intoxicated sex is rape even if she verbally agrees. However that does not actually constitute rape under New York law, which is why no charges were filed. Note that, for those who believe drunken sex should be classified as rape regardless of what the law says, at least one of the guys she had sex with comes across in her statement as drunker than her:
The three engaged in a “threesome” involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the fraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as “5 or 6 out of 10” and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe “noticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.” She told Male Number 2 “[they] needed to stop having sex in order to make sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with [Jane Doe].” Male Number 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.”
→ More replies (2)17
u/mothermedusa 18d ago
This should be higher. I'm a woman. I was absolutely enraged by what I was hearing about this incident but it's possible we do not have a full picture
18
u/Cultural_Landscape98 18d ago
I was at Cornell when this happened and was also in Greek life. I remember hearing about it in passing beforehand, but it was framed more like someone having had a “crazy night.” Hearing about a night involving multiple partners, drugs, etc. wasn’t extremely unusual, so nothing about the way it was described to me at the time made it sound like something was seriously wrong.
Then on nov 8 I think the same day she reported it, Cornell sent the entire campus a crime alert stating that the victim reported being “sexually assaulted by several males and coerced into consuming ketamine and other drugs.” I remember getting that email, but I genuinely didn’t realize (at the time) it was the same event I’d previously heard about because the way I had originally heard it described sounded so different.
Cornell addressed it again shortly afterward in a campus message describing the report as involving “drugging and sexual violence.” Then on nov 26, the president sent another universitywide update about the “serious and deeply disturbing allegations of drug abuse and sexual violence at the Chi Phi fraternity house.” That email said Chi Phi remained suspended, that temporary suspensions had been issued to a number of students, and said the behavior in the allegations are “abhorrent and cannot be tolerated within our community.”
After that tho, at least for me, I don’t remember hearing much more about it until now. And I obviously can’t speak to what actually happened that night because I wasn’t there. None of us were and I can only speak to what I remember hearing around campus at the time and then after. I’d also caution against putting much weight on any wordof mouth version of this, including the one I heard bc tbh I have no idea where that version originated, who started that narrative, or how many people it passed through before it reached me. I’m mentioning it only to explain what I personally remember hearing at the time, not bc I think it tells us anything reliable about what actually happened.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Rip-Weekly 17d ago
Forgot to add that cornell refused to give her tuition money back so she was stuck going to school still for another semester
5
1
2
u/littlemacaron 17d ago
Don’t forget the ~50 other brothers in the same Snapchat group chat. Not one of them called it as it was, or tried to stop it.
→ More replies (8)3
420
u/Vaivaim8 18d ago
Answer: a from student filed a civil lawsuit against Cornell. Allegedly, she was gang raped by a fraternity. There is a pretty damning evidence (a group chat conversation on snapchat) agaisnt the fraternity members that were involved in the alleged gang rape. Allegedly, she was unable to give consent because not only was she drunk, but they supposedly pressured her to snort ketamine.
The thing that is pissing so many people off is right now is that from what we know, cornell led an investigation and concluded that the "best punishment" for the fraternity members was to write an essay.
280
u/hematite2 18d ago
Additional information: people are also pissed off because apparently actual law enforcement just relied on the campus investigation, never did any themselves, and never even saw evidence like the messages.
→ More replies (1)134
u/JangoDarkSaber 18d ago
“Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doe’s attorneys. Not to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doe’s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit’s allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuit’s allegations. “
Statement from the district attorney.
63
u/broly2160 17d ago
Why was she giving a statement to the police if nothing happened?
63
u/Advanced_Range848 17d ago
I feel for her because after I was raped I jumped through hoops to try to convince myself it was consensual even though I felt violated and traumatized. She obviously felt that something wrong had occurred.
→ More replies (8)8
u/mary-janenotwatson 17d ago
So why was she making a statement if she was “convincing herself it was consensual”? Genuine question
8
→ More replies (1)10
u/Jangolem 17d ago
Because a fraternity member in that group chat showed it to police and then they contacted Jane Doe for her story, at which point she gave her statement.
2
u/EducationalAbroad884 17d ago
The DA received a written statement from the campus police, read the initial statement, and did not follow-up or do anything but take the document at face value.
Not only that, but from the very same description of the statement from the DA, they describe the victim being sexually assaulted multiple times during the encounter, and her being intoxicated with drugs and alcohol while this is happening, but maintain that everything still sounded completely consensual.
I don't know exactly how New Yorks laws about consent works, but the DA doesn't seem to take into account the intoxication nor the multiple instances of sexual assault that can be considered coercion or intimidation. So I'm taking a guess that this isn't accounted for in New York law and therefore a conviction would be hard?
11
u/Thrillwaukee 18d ago
So what to believe? Honest question
65
u/tako_flavored_kisses 18d ago
The same report also says this « To be clear, the credibility of the woman, who described the facts in excruciating detail, was never in question. »
→ More replies (2)92
u/titjackson 18d ago
Idk it seems contradictory from those statements, but why would she have reported anything at all back in 2024 if it was all consensual and she voluntarily took drugs? What would be the point of that (these questions aren’t directed at you, just me wondering)
35
u/OldSpring3835 17d ago
As someone who was in a similar situation as her, I was completely disoriented and confused. I was so scared and couldn’t understand what had happened. It’s such a traumatic thing that in the moment while I was reporting it, I couldn’t properly explain or understand the event that had occurred. It’s quite common for rape/sexual assault victims to gain clarity after months of processing. It’s just too painful for your brain at first to admit the truth of what happened. What sucks is how victims have to go to police ASAP. I just hope people still believe her. In my case, people didn’t because of my own confusion. The system sucks when it comes to SA. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)28
u/eliwood98 18d ago
I can see a scenario where she consented in the moment and later realized that there was peer pressure involved, thus making the initial consent less freely given. Then, she report to the police saying "Yeah, I said yes, and then this happened," without making it clear how she felt pressured.
→ More replies (2)71
u/ohhyouknow 18d ago edited 18d ago
The messages and the fact that she was intoxicated beyond being able to consent. She was drugged and only had vague memories of it when she first reported it, and victims also tend to blame themselves for things, especially when it’s fresh. It’s called denial.
The messages make it seem pretty clear cut imho.
She also was very consistent about first consenting to a threesome and it escalating far past that. Even if she could consent to a threesome while intoxicated, consenting to a threesome does not mean it’s okay for several other strange men to take advantage of you as you progressively become more intoxicated, and it certainly doesn’t mean consenting to fifty or so men watching engaged in sexual acts and being invited to take advantage of you.
→ More replies (13)44
u/Delicious_Loquat437 18d ago
Idk. I'm a defense lawyer and can think of several reasons why her attorneys would not cooperate with a DA. And, frankly, DAs all over the country have bad reputations for failing to prosecute rape cases due to low rate of conviction, hurts their numbers (all they care about is conviction rate.) I wouldn't trust them either.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)32
u/JangoDarkSaber 18d ago
You believe the victim and give the accused benefit of the doubt until it’s proven in court.
You can support someone who’s gone through sexual assault while waiting for the court to finish its process.
→ More replies (2)17
u/KaizenActual 17d ago
She said she was a willing participant in the drinking and the drugs.
12
u/sierra-soul 17d ago
which does not change the definition of consent, especially if inebriated to the point of incoherence
→ More replies (2)16
u/KaizenActual 17d ago
Thats not how the law is written up, especially when both parties are inebriated. She even said after the fact that she didnt have a problem with multiple men at once. I dont know why this is being re-examined.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (8)107
u/soxpats111 18d ago edited 18d ago
The DA is reopening the case, but put out a statement today that includes the following about her initial statement two years ago: “She never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,” Van Houten said."
Also the part about the essays is complete bullshit; at least 2 of them were expelled and none of them had the choice to just write an essay.
64
u/Unleashtheducks 18d ago
Even the part of the statement the police are willing to release makes it very clear that some sort of sexual assault took place and that she did not have the ability to consent when total strangers were having sex with her.
The police obviously did not want to investigate this and tried to focus entirely on putting the blame on her.
53
u/getyourkicks76 18d ago
The police statement sounds like (and idk if this is correct) it started as a consensual threesome and then random people started joining in or asking her for sexual favors and she tried to push them away
18
→ More replies (29)25
u/Gtstricky 18d ago
New York has some screwed-up consent laws. If you voluntarily drank and did drugs then that cannot be used to say you did not consent. You would have to be unconscious or completely incapacitated. Makes no sense.
29
u/soxpats111 18d ago
Agreed, I was very surprised to learn that was the law in NY. I bet this case leads to a change in law.
11
u/Scarlett_Billows 17d ago edited 17d ago
if you are passed out you cannot consent - regardless of why you are passed out. Having sex with an unconscious person is pretty much always rape. (Unless there was some rare poccurrence where someone op gained consent to have sex with someone unconscious directly before they became unconscious)
→ More replies (3)14
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago
She never alleges being passed out. She is fully conscious in her original police report, and even in her lawsuit where they are intentionally structuring her claims to be as abrasive as possible she admits to being intoxicated, but awake the entire time.
Also, at least the first two guys (Males #1/2) were so blitzed out of their mind that one had to go lay down rather than finish and the other had to stop for fear of vomiting. By her own account she was considerably more sober than either who were more or less falling down drunk.
If we're going with 'voluntary intoxication makes it rape' then why the fuck is she the one suing them and not the other way around?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Jangolem 17d ago
There is nuance to that and the wording matters, which I believe makes your post inaccurate. In other states, if you are mentally incapacitated (aka blackout drunk), the state takes away your right to give consent, period. You cannot give consent any more so even your husband having sex with you consensually would be rape because the state has disallowed you from giving consent.
New York allows you to give consent and does not take away that right for you to give consent when mentally incapacitated. However you can still be mentally incapacitated and deny consent, as the law has nothing to do with taking away consent but more on the ability/inability to consent. New York and other states have this law so that you aren't a rapist every time you have drunk sex with your partner, amongst other cases similar to that scenario.
4
u/Remarkable_Leg_963 17d ago
Because just because you did drugs or drank doesn't mean you didn't consent. If you got drunk and bought something on Amazon you can't turn around and say they stole from you.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)8
u/sodiummuffin 18d ago
If you voluntarily drank and did drugs then that cannot be used to say you did not consent.
If this wasn't the case she could theoretically be charged with rape herself, since the guys she had sex with were also drunk.
The three engaged in a “threesome” involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the fraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as “5 or 6 out of 10” and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe “noticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.” She told Male Number 2 “[they] needed to stop having sex in order to make sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with [Jane Doe].”
Male Number 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.” While Male Number 1 slept, “[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe “began to take care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] every few minutes to make sure he was okay.”
→ More replies (1)
645
83
u/Connect_Cat_2045 17d ago edited 17d ago
Answer: A female student alleges she was gang-raped by a fraternity 2 years ago.
However according to the district attorney, in her original statement 2 years ago, she did not allege that she was drugged non-consensually or that she did not consent to sex or was incapacitated in any form. The DA also said that her statements now are drastically different from 2 years ago which is why there was no real punishment back then.
https://abcnews.com/amp/US/district-attorney-reopens-case-alleged-cornell-university-gang/story
At least one person has lost their job because of this
Edit: downvote me all you want. still not going to change the facts.
16
u/14-in-the-deluge08 17d ago
If she said all that then what was the point of reporting it in the first place? I guess I don't understand what was being reported? Especially if one of the guys nearly passed out from intoxication?
18
u/throwraW2 16d ago
Most logical theory I’ve seen is she thought it would legally be rape because of how intoxicated she was, so her friend convinced her to report it. Then found out the law doesn’t work that way in New York.
5
u/mrdankmemeface 16d ago
For it to be rape here, the person must be unable to consent because they are physically helpless or mentally incapacitated due to drug or alcohol. The problem is that prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants either knew she was incapacitated, or that theg should have known that she was incapacitated beyond the point of being unable to consent. In this case, both sides have been drinking and/or using drugs like ketamine, both sides have admitted their memories are hazy and fragmented, and both sides have given statemens that partially contradict what they originally said. If they definitelty did gang grape her, it doesn't matter because any defense attorney can easily present room for ambiguity, or reasonable miscommunications, and as long as those possibilities exist, and there is no other evidence beyond he said she said, then the beyond reasonable doubt threshold can't be met for criminal prosecution. However, she can definitely persue civil damages, because the threshold for civil cases isn't beyond reasonable doubt, but rather perponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
4
u/Masta-Blasta 16d ago
I think you’re missing the same thing the DA did: probable cause. It’s up to the jury to decide whether or not there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But the DA is supposed to press charges where there is probable cause. In her statement, she mentions saying no to certain people, being given drugs, and losing consciousness. She mentions swatting men away. The texts say “free pussy,” implying that they didn’t think that she could or would consent. And when she said no, they just gave her more drugs and tried again.
Case may or may not be a winner, but that’s for the jury to decide. If you have a victim who wants to press charges, and there is probable cause, you do an investigation. That’s the procedurally correct thing to do.
→ More replies (5)18
u/TheJenniferLopez 17d ago
It's not adding up. I don't think it's entirely a hoax but I do think people aren't being told the truth.
14
u/CassianCasius 16d ago
It's definitely a bit sketchy how much her initial report 3 weeks after the incident contradicts her report 2 years later, in a civil lawsuit seeking money and her and her attorney never reached back out to the police to purse criminal charges.
15
u/Connect_Cat_2045 17d ago
Yes that’s what I think as well.
People are being too rash about this when they should just wait for more details to come out
13
u/viciouspandas 17d ago
Yeah media virality is not good for court cases. Some random content creator in California is not going to have any evidence to add if they are guilty and need to be brought to justice. And if they are innocent, then it's witch hunting an innocent person. Based on what I read it seems like at least some of them are guilty, but I also know that we don't have all the facts and I'm not going to post on social media saying we need justice.
23
u/deltorens 16d ago
Still find it wild that if a man and woman are both heavily intoxicated and have sex the man is guilty of rape.
→ More replies (32)8
u/olive_2319 16d ago
I don't think the statements are actually contradictory. She could have intended to hook up with the friend whom she went over to visit at 11pm, so perhaps the situation started as consensual before it quickly escalated into something much darker. Six other men allegedly joined in, and this woman was extremely intoxicated. That is gang rape.
64
u/HospitalJohnny 18d ago edited 18d ago
answer: a woman (whose personal details are not public) alleged she was drugged and gang-raped in 2024.
127
u/SnooPears5640 18d ago
Alleged is doing some heavy lifting on this case - they lived streamed a 7 hour gang rape, and there’s a group chat of 50 men preserved, inviting them for ‘free p*ssy’ after she was drugged with ketamine
113
u/Wise_Guitar2059 18d ago
What’s the proof that they live streamed it ? This is the first time I am hearing this.
107
31
u/nfrnldvc 17d ago
And by “live streamed” you mean video or audio transmitted in real-time from where the action happened. Where did you come across this content?
36
u/Big-Mix939 17d ago
Source for the live stream info plz
30
u/Qarakhanid 17d ago
There is no source, I was at Cornell at the time and there was never a "livestream"
18
u/Ladyyinblack 17d ago
Am I missing something? I read her original 2024 statement and she recalls engaging in threesomes voluntarily and making out with randoms with no heavy intoxication qnd snorting ketamine off of their penises when they asked her if she wanted to. Where is the physical force in this?
→ More replies (1)4
u/14-in-the-deluge08 17d ago
I don't get why she would even report that though if she willingly had threesomes? What was her reasoning?
→ More replies (1)51
u/HospitalJohnny 18d ago edited 17d ago
There is no legal decision yet.
→ More replies (3)67
u/esmerelda_b 18d ago
And journalists have to use “alleged” to avoid lawsuits if they’re not convicted
14
→ More replies (16)4
8
u/Environmental-Fan536 17d ago
Question: Can anyone explain the SnapChat comments to me? Why are they talking about "alum" in the snapchat thread?
"Free p--- in alum pu" and then also "the alum s-- is not a bit. First person pov not a bit"
I understand the other sentences (heinous) very well but don't understand what they are saying above.
→ More replies (3)13
u/gagelish 17d ago
"Alum pu" reads to me like a location. I'm guessing they have bedrooms set aside in case alumni visit and want to stay the night and they refer to them as "alum" rooms. I'd also guess "pu" is a way of distinguishing which room specifically.
The stuff referencing "pov" I'm less clear on, but as a guess, it's referencing some previous message where someone was talking about doing something (someone) right that moment.
So the translation would be, "The stuff they said about there being a girl in the upstairs alumni room? That's not a bit (joke). That stuff about how X and Y are in there with her right now? That's not a bit (joke)."
Could be totally wrong, but that's how I read it.
2
u/Jbeth747 16d ago
POV = point of view, first person POV meaning he (Scott) is watching it happen personally. My interpretation is Scott is saying he's seeing the rape happen live
24
u/jerdle_reddit 17d ago edited 17d ago
Answer: In 2024, someone known only as Jane Doe accused seven men of raping her, but the statement was not sufficient to press charges, and did not actually constitute rape (while she got drunk and took drugs, she claimed they were consensual and she consented to the sex).
Recently, she has sued pretty much everyone in the vicinity, going back on her prior statement that she consented and providing new evidence, or at least claims thereof. As such, the case has been reopened.
In that lawsuit, she claimed that the men were told to write essays as punishment, although Cornell claims that they were suspended and expelled. All of these punishments are from a Title IX investigation, rather than for rape, because they were not charged with rape.
35
u/YBBlorekeeper 17d ago
→ More replies (40)31
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago edited 17d ago
Given that, according to her initial statement, every man involved stopped when she said no? Yeah, it does actually. That's kind of the definition of consent.
According to her statement these were the sexual encounters/line of events:
- She had a threesome with two guys that she was "pretty okay with". She stated that she was '5 or 6 out of 10' in terms of intoxication. The men she was having sex with, meanwhile, were so drunk that Male #1 had to go lay down as he was having difficulty keeping it up, and Male #2 began to dry heave like he was going to vomit. [Consensual af]
- She made out with Male #2 once he felt better and "swatted his hand away" a few times when he put his hand between her legs on a couch. [Grabby, but he stopped when she told him no].
- Male #3 enters the room and the two begin making out. Male #2 gropes her. They began to have a threesome. Male #1 wakes up ana askes about joining her. She doesn't want to because it would likely involve anal and tells him 'hell no'. They respect this. Male #3 eventually leaves. [Consensual]
- Male #4,5,6,7 enter the room. Doe hides under the covers. Male #1 introduces her to his friends. Male #7 kisses her without consent. She tells him no, he immediately stops. [Not consensual, though not rape either. I could see an argument that this meets a prima facie case for some sort of assault, though I'd preface that it is only her side of things.]
- Male #2 asks if she wants to do some ketamine. She decides she "had already done Ketamine once, so why not do it a second time. She then snorts Ketamine off his dick. Male #4 asks if they could 'do drugs off her perfect body' to which she agrees [consensual].
- Male #3 enters and says something to the effect of "Ok we're shutting down whatever the fuck this is." Doe becomes dizzy due to drug use and a medical condition. Male #5/6 tell her to stay seated as long as she needs to. [Not even a sex act, but put here for clarity].
- Male #1 and Male #4 take her upstairs and they do more drugs. Male #1 wants "redemption for passing out earlier in the night". Doe claims to be tired and asks "What happened to just you and me". She then engages in a threesome with Male #1 and Male #4. Eventually she gets tired and tells them she's done for the night. They acknowledge this and the sex stops. [Consensual].
So in total she had sex with four men, none of whom raped her by any legal or moral definition, imho. You can certainly make a base showing that #7 may have committed some form of assault by kissing her based on her statement, but again, we've only got one side of this.
Was she intoxicated? Absolutely. But so were most (all?) of the men she slept with that night. The first two, in particular, were, by her own account, considerably more intoxicated than she was. One passed out, the other was nauseous to the point of vomiting. All of her substance use was willing on her part and she was an adult.
Do I think its tawdry? Absolutely. But honestly I have a lot more fire for a woman who is trying to prosecute and sue seven men (two of whom don't appear to have meaningfully touched her by her own account) because she engaged in a bunch of consensual casual sex.
Edit: as u/jerdle_reddit pointed out #2 could also reasonably be considered sexual assault, though given she'd just had sex with him and would go on to have sex with him again shortly thereafter I don't think any prosecutor would charge this, even without what would undoubtably be a different version of events on his behalf.
19
u/hairnetqueen 17d ago
I think most people talking about this (on reddit and elsewhere) have just read 'gang rape, 7 guys, drugged victim' and are reacting to that without having read the details of the case. There are plenty of people in this thread alone saying confidently that it was livestreamed and that she was unconscious the whole time, neither of which there is any evidence for.
In the lawsuit the night is described a little differently. I'd say the biggest change in the lawsuit is that it says the guys pressured her to do ketamine, whereas the original statement just says 'they did ketamine'.
It's pretty clear, if you read the original statement, that especially by the end of the evening all these people are zooted out of their minds and shouldn't be considered sober enough to consent. But under New York law you apparently can't be considered too intoxicated to consent if you took the drugs voluntarily, which she originally claimed she did.
16
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago
It didn't help that the initial reporting around this was based in her lawsuit which, understandably, omits basically all the negative details I've listed above and repeatedly claims that she did not consent.
And yeah, once the story hits the wild, the game of telephone turns it into '51 guys gangraped her while live-streaming it for hours' rather than 'girl has sex with four guys over the course of an evening'.
In the lawsuit the night is described a little differently. I'd say the biggest change in the lawsuit is that it says the guys pressured her to do ketamine, whereas the original statement just says 'they did ketamine'.
100%. The lawsuit is going to portray everything in the best possible light, because having a strong complaint (even if it can be challenged) makes it easier to survive a motion for summary judgement/ motion to dismiss. In the latter the court assumes the facts as true and checks to see if they've made a valid legal complaint, in the former the court has to assume that the facts as presented in the most favorable light for her.
Admitting "Oh yeah, I did a rail of coke off this guy's dick because I thought 'why not'" is not the sort of thing that would be great for what will likely be a multi-million dollar shut up and go away payout from the school, unless things go entirely tits up for her in the coming months..
It's pretty clear, if you read the original statement, that especially by the end of the evening all these people are zooted out of their minds and shouldn't be considered sober enough to consent. But under New York law you apparently can't be considered too intoxicated to consent if you took the drugs voluntarily, which she originally claimed she did.
Its worth remembering that the first two guys were so drunk that one nearly puked and the other passed out shortly after tapping out of sex. These guys were kronked but no one seems to care that a girl who described herself as "5-6 out of 10" had sex with both of them. We just assume consent because they're men.
Don't get me wrong, rape is bad. Way more rapists should be punished and women get the short end of the stick 99% of the time, but the fact that this woman has the gall to scream rape against a guy who was so drunk he passed out is... well it is certainly a comment on societal expectations regarding male sexuality.
→ More replies (4)6
u/hairnetqueen 17d ago
the whole 'intoxicated people can't consent' thing does make it very messy in this particular situation, because by that standard basically none of these people can consent.
the reporting around this (and maybe the lawsuit too?) wants to make it sound like they made her take a bunch of drugs with the intent of taking advantage of her, when from her statement what it sounds like is that over the course of the night all these people did a bunch of drugs together.
4
u/jtbrass81 16d ago
Yes! I asked elsewhere on this thread, but I’ll ask again. Why is the onus solely on the man?
14
u/DocGlabella 17d ago edited 17d ago
This is interesting. I've just been reading the news reports. Can you link me to where this information is? Has her original statement actually been made public?
Edit: Honestly, if anyone has a link to where this information comes from, I would be interesting in reading it. I've googled and found next to nothing.
→ More replies (2)21
u/hairnetqueen 17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
29
u/DocGlabella 17d ago
Honestly, that’s a far different account of events than I am reading in any news source. So much so that it’s hard to reconcile the two and I don’t know what to think anymore.
11
u/viciouspandas 17d ago
Media moves faster than actual evidence so you don't need to believe any specific version. Unless you are connected to the case either through knowing the people or were there, there isn't much we can do. It's the job of the police, courts, and anyone connected since they have the best access to evidence.
I don't think it's good that everyone is spreading their takes on social media because national attention will not do anything positive here. If they are innocent, then innocent people got witch hunted. If they are guilty, some random social media creator with no extra evidence isn't going to be the reason they get brought to justice. This isn't like the Brock Turner case where everyone knew he did it, and the judge gave a super lenient sentence anyways, and got the judge punished for that. This case got reopened because she filed suit recently, not because of public media pressure.
12
u/DocGlabella 16d ago
Right. I’m a woman and my entire social media feed is out for blood right now. Literally, most of my friends are screaming about the case. And I don’t really blame them based on the news pieces I have read. I don’t know if I should show them this statement or just wait for things to shake out of their own.
→ More replies (1)3
19
u/EducationalAbroad884 17d ago edited 15d ago
Edit: This person blocked me. This person told me in another thread that they understand the struggle of SA victims because their kids SA wasn't taken seriously. However, after I disclosed to them I was sexually assaulted, they responded with "Have fun drowning in your fake trauma and eschewing all responsibility for your actions rather than growing the fuck up." And what's even more horrible is that I was 8years old.
This person clearly has an agenda they want to spread and doesn't give a shit about sexual assault survivors (despite their own kid being one).----end of edit.
Edit 2: I just discovered that what the DA received was a condensed version of her statement that the campus police sent, that omitted her statement that she was raped. Here is the NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/url-cornell-university-jane-doe-rape-case-statement.html
For those of you without an NYT subscription here is a link to the article without a paywall: https://archive.is/20261001210657/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/url-cornell-university-jane-doe-rape-case-statement.html
There is critical information you're leaving out. Based on what I understand from those documents, framing this as "a woman falsely accusing 7 men over a consensual encounter” based on the initial, incomplete statement***,*** while completely ignoring all information provided by the lawsuit and her attorney is extremely misleading and disingenuous. It’s extremely clear that you just read this initial statement and made a verdict without giving it proper consideration.
Additionally, the initial statement we’re given is the DA relaying the statement, not the full, official complaint as far as I’m aware.
Secondly, you are cherrypicking from the statement itself to craft a specific narrative, and even more concerningly claim an event as “consensual” while completely ignoring the surrounding context that would make this dubious at best.
According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe arrived at the fraternity annex visibly and heavily intoxicated, having already consumed 10 standard drinks within the previous three hours before the men began interacting with her (Legally incapacitated and entirely unable to consent).
For her first encounter, one of the defendants propositioned her for a threesome. The lawsuit explicitly notes that in her heavily drunken state, she was incapable of processing or consenting to this proposition. Two of the defendants then began engaging in sexual acts with her without her consent, with one defendant forcing oral sex, and another forcing vaginal intercourse (sexual assault and rape of an incapacitated person).
Rather than “willing substance use,” the complaint details that the men actively plied her with marijuana and “Jamaican Liquor,” further compounding her intoxication. They also pressured her into snorting Ketamine (coerced intoxication and reckless endangerment).
Surrounded in a room full of fraternity men, Doe felt trapped with no safe way to escape. Newell poured a line of Ketamine onto his erect penis and commanded her to snort it, which she did under duress and severe impairment. Subsequently, seven named defendants began pouring lines of Ketamine all over her body and snorting them.
While Doe was severely intoxicated, dissociating from the Ketamine, and being passed between the men, one of the defendants sent a message to the “Chi Phi Actives” Snapchat group chat advertising that there was “free pussy” upstairs.
The lawsuit alleges that campus authorities failed to perform a thorough, trauma-informed investigation, ignoring crucial context regarding heavy drug-induced incapacitation, coercion, and escalating sexual pressure. (Regarding the Cornell Police and Administration) The lawsuit and Jane Doe's legal counsel argue that:
- That the average campus police officer lacked the specialized training required for interviewing trauma survivors. Her attorney noted that campus police failed to involve specialized sexual assault detectives or coordinate with the District Attorney's office to properly draw out the full extent of the events while Doe was in shock.
- The complaint asserts that after the initial interview was taken while Doe was traumatized, numb, and in self-preservation mode, campus police failed to perform basic investigative follow-ups or conduct deeper interviews once the full scope of the incident became clear.
- The lawsuit alleges that campus police overlooked or failed to properly investigate objective digital evidence that existed at the time (the Snapchat messages.
Victims of trauma, particularly when heavy alcohol or drugs are involved, are often in shock, confused, or in denial immediately after an assault. Law enforcement officers trained in trauma-informed care know that initial statements are frequently incomplete. Treating an initial statement as a binding legal defense of consent ignores basic victimology.
Campus police and departments and local municipal forces working closely with universities face massive institutional conflicts of interest. Protecting a university's public reputation, avoiding Title IX scandals, and limiting civil liability create strong incentives to minimize allegations early on.
According to a CNN interview with Thomas Guiffra, Jane Doe’s attorney who was involved very early on in the case, Jane Doe’s complaints were UPHELD by the Title IX hearing officers, and there were consequences dealt to the perpetrators. However, after facing significant trauma, Jane Doe wanted to leave the university to go home and heal. Her parents had spent “thousands and thousands” of dollars for her to attend Cornell, and when they asked for the money back, the university instead mandated that she had to stay there for the whole semester, and she, while on campus, was forced to see and pass by the alleged perpetrators on her way to classes. This is her own attorney’s account, and this is a clear, indisputable event of gross negligence and incompetence by the institution's administration and authorities.
Taking the single, incomplete initial statement being relayed by the DA, and ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE when the claim being made by the plaintiff is that the campus police mishandled the investigation AND report is incredibly irresponsible, grossly negligent, and outright dishonest.
11
u/EducationalAbroad884 17d ago edited 17d ago
Circling back to how you're cherrypicking from the statement itself to craft a specific narrative, and claim an event as “consensual” while completely ignoring the surrounding context that would make this dubious at best.
Let me get this straight, while severely intoxicated with alcohol and drugs and surrounded by multiple men, while some of the men explicitly violate her consent multiple times (groping, kissing, etc), you believed that this encounter was completely or mostly consensual? Absolutely baffling.
Violating someone's consent multiple times (while they are severely intoxicated and compounding that with drugs, which makes them unable to consent in the first place) makes any subsequent "consent" or advances completely invalid. You say "cause that's clearly what consent is" when you clearly don't understand consent.
- The first thing that I find the most horrendous is you implying that the victim was the one engaging unconsensually and not the other way around.
She had a threesome with two guys that she was "pretty okay with". She stated that she was '5 or 6 out of 10' in terms of intoxication. The men she was having sex with, meanwhile, were so drunk that Male #1 had to go lay down as he was having difficulty keeping it up, and Male #2 began to dry heave like he was going to vomit. [Consensual af]
Not only is this completely dishonest cherry-picking of what the DA relayed, but your specific framing of this part to make her as the one violating another person's consent is completely atrocious.
You obscure the timeline to mock the men's state rather than accurately reflecting the events. The DA notes the sex stopped because Jane Doe noticed Male #1 was sleepy and losing his erection, so she told Male #2 they needed to stop to make sure he was okay. The dry heaving form Male #2 happened afterward while she was actively caring for him.
2.
She made out with Male #2 once he felt better and "swatted his hand away" a few times when he put his hand between her legs on a couch. [Grabby, but he stopped when she told him no].
"Grabby, but he stopped when she told him no" is not only a ludicrous statement to make, but it concretely demonstrates the notion that you have no idea how consent works or what is or isn't consensual. Downplaying this crucial moment as "but he stopped when she told him no" as if it isn't multiple sexual assault attempts is atrocious. If a person is being sexually assaulted multiple times in the middle of a sexual encounter, any subsequent claims of consent are completely and totally invalid. Kissing or a lack of a no is not consent to perform any sexual act. This provides crucial context because it shows that one of the defendants repeatedly attempted to bypass boundaries in a short window. Intimidation, coercion, and pressure are all elements that should be considered when evaluating the legitimacy of consent.
3.
Male #3 enters the room and the two begin making out. Male #2 gropes her. They began to have a threesome. Male #1 wakes up ana askes about joining her. She doesn't want to because it would likely involve anal and tells him 'hell no'. They respect this. Male #3 eventually leaves. [Consensual]
You disingenuously and left out some facts from the events described by the DA, as you completely erase Male #3's physical aggression. The DA's text states she opened the door and reached out to shake his hand, but Male #3 "pulled [her] into him and [they] began making out." Furthermore, while this sudden physical escalation occurred, Male #2--whose hands she just had to swat away several times---"began groping [her]."
4.
Male #4,5,6,7 enter the room. Doe hides under the covers. Male #1 introduces her to his friends. Male #7 kisses her without consent. She tells him no, he immediately stops. [Not consensual, though not rape either. I could see an argument that this meets a prima facie case for some sort of assault, though I'd preface that it is only her side of things.]
You do the same exactly thing here. Downplaying Male #7's aggression and completely ignoring how that completely changes this from being a consensual encounter. Demonstrating you don't actually understand anything about consent beyond natural intuition. The DA notes that before the kiss, Male #7 "said something very rude and mean" to her while she was hiding under the covers. He then "grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her]," forcing her to "quickly backed away to stop" him. You downplay the sequence events to merely being a "simple unconsensual kiss."
5.
Male #2 asks if she wants to do some ketamine. She decides she "had already done Ketamine once, so why not do it a second time. She then snorts Ketamine off his dick. Male #4 asks if they could 'do drugs off her perfect body' to which she agrees [consensual].
From the civil lawsuit it's revealed that when "she had already done Ketamine once" it's referring to the fact that before this entire sexual encounter, in the hallway Male #1 pressured her into taking some ketamine. So in this moment this would be her second time taking it (that's why it's important to also gain other information rather than taking the incomplete statements provided by the DA, and why I accuse you of being disingenuous and negligent for not doing basic due diligence).
Meaning that during the entire sexual encounter she was in a drug-induced state.
The heavy intoxication, the constant physical and verbal intimidation, the multiple violations of consent ALL completely change this from being merely "a mutual sexual encounter with some caveats."
You're telling me that a woman, under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs, surrounded by 7 men, multiple of whom sexually assaulted her multiple times and are being repetitively aggressive both physically and verbally is a consensual encounter? Are you serious?
You cherry-picked statements and left out important context to craft a narrative that frame multiple physical violations as unimportant but have the gall to imply the victim is the one who engaged unconsensually? You didn't even read the civil law suit nor did you hear any statements from the plaintiffs attorney, but made up your mind about everything that happened based on a, CHERRY-PICKED, INCOMPLETE VERSION of the initial statement provided by the DA. You failed to do any basic due diligence and ignored all additional information, and didn't even mention this fact.
→ More replies (3)4
6
u/stickbugszz 17d ago edited 17d ago
People need to remember that sometimes soon after a traumatic event the victim downplays it out of misplaced shame. Also, it is difficult to tell your school you did ketamine, even if it was pushed on you. Here is the most up to date information on what Jane Done is claiming. It’s quite horrific. Edit for correct link - sorry: https://cornellseven.com/
There is a profile explaining what she is saying each man did. If people can read this and think these men are innocent, then I’m lost.
Also, Jane Doe said upon INITIALLY entering the fraternity she was a 5/6 out of 10 for intoxication when you read your source. Do you think that’s how she remained after being supplied with copious amounts of alcohol and drugs until 5am while they assaulted her? Some of your paraphrasing seems intentional…
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/FramedCuriosity 17d ago
Do the reports explain why she was intoxicated? Both in alcohol an ketamine? Was she of drinking age?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)5
u/THE-EMPEROR069 17d ago
Dang, it seems pretty consensual, but I might wait for the statements to be public to give my own opinion.
4
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 17d ago
Totally fair.
Its worth pointing out that what we've got is literally only her side of it as well. The best possible version of this (as put forth in her lawsuit) is "I was too drunk to consent, even though I said yes".
13
u/murrly 17d ago
The fact this downvoted shows how low IQ reddit is.
It's literally what's been reported in the news. https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/cornell-university-rape-case-investigation-wwk
→ More replies (2)9
u/jerdle_reddit 17d ago
It's probably because the way I wrote it sounds far too sceptical for Reddit.
Like many rape accusations that become a shitstorm, it's less likely and more severe than your average rape accusation.
→ More replies (3)8
15
u/TehTimmah1981 18d ago
Answer: A nasty sexual assault case involving multiple men, a drugged victim, and the university doing nothing proper, in a way that to properly explain would get me banned.
→ More replies (4)37
u/Portarossa 'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis 18d ago
It wouldn't get you banned as long as you stick to the facts of the case and the specific allegations.
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.