The excerpts below are from the following sources
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/cornell-texts-rape-investigation
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-cornell-university-gang-rape-lawsuit/
The woman, identified only by a pseudonym in the lawsuit, filed the complaint Sept. 16, saying she was sexually assaulted at the Chi Phi fraternity house on the Ivy League campus in October 2024 after being pressured into snorting ketamine, smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. She became completely incapacitated while frat members were sexually assaulting her, the lawsuit alleges.
Two of the alleged perpetrators were subsequently expelled after an internal investigation by Cornell – while the other five were allowed to resume their studies at the Ivy League institution after writing an essay, attending a workshop, or serving a short suspension.
None were ever arrested or charged, and outrage over the treatment of the alleged offenders grew when the woman’s lawsuit was made public.
CBS, meanwhile, also claimed to have a video of Snapchat messages exchanged on the night of the alleged assault by numerous members of a group called Chi Phi Actives. One of the messages, sent while the woman was in the since-closed fraternity house, allegedly stated there was “free pussy upstairs”.
According to CBS, a later message sent by a group member asked: “Shop still open?” The response was, “Yea”.
Attorney Thomas Giuffra, who represents the woman, confirmed to CBS that his client – named Jane Doe in court documents – exchanged text messages with one defendant after the alleged assault. But Giuffra said he could not be certain the screenshots that CBS News saw were authentic.
The woman’s lawyer says Cornell University Police had the fraternity messages in 2024, but prosecutors say they didn’t see them until she filed a lawsuit recently
Over the weekend, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned what she called a “culture of rape” that is protected at elite institutions.
“When I read what happened at Cornell, those men posted in a group chat. That means it was normal to them. That means it was acceptable to them. This is a culture,” she said Sunday at a forum packed with young people near Cornell’s campus.
“And what we must do is understand that we cannot protect those spaces any more.”
Frats are so cringey. And it’s even more cringey how frat bros graduate and then are staffing each others’ corporate shitholes with each other like “hey I know that guy, he was on my gang rape group chat, let’s hire him”.
They are gonna turn this into “she went there willingly and these poor boys misunderstood her intent, they really thought she was there to get gang raped. Is it really worth destroying their whole lives over this” won’t they? fucking lawyers, fucking privileged rich kids…
Pretty much what the DA said
these poor boys
Don’t call them boys, they’re old enough to be called “promising young men”.
I’ve already seen this argument in tiktok comments.
the job of a lawyer is to defend their client, they would be horrible lawyers if they didn’t try every excuse in the book.
What I listed are lies and logical fallacies not really excuses. But that is law far you, so I suppose congratulations on a job well done?
also this (https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al ) seems to more or less say that she did (at one point) say that it was consensual.
What part of this is consensual for you
“[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.
A group of other men – later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male Number 6 and Male Number 7 – then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of the bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the corner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.
Provided the statement is accurate, calling other people to the room and them making sexual advances on her after the point where she said “no” is a sexual assault, period. Anything that frames this as consensual because she used drugs and said yes to a threesome is victim blaming.
Did the statement say “calling other people to the room”? She was offered a foursome and said “no” to that. That doesn’t imply “no” to taking turns or an audience. The rest is your embellishment.
An argument showing the relevant legal standard for “lack of consent” (stated in the DA’s statement) is satisfied would be compelling. This isn’t.
The fact that these “kids” aren’t being at the very least criminally charged when so many children of poor families get thrown in prison for a lot less, I think that’s yet another effect of wide wealth inequality. It’s radicalizing.
It’s easier to get enraged without the burden of relevant facts.
Individuals who are accused of committing a crime must be prosecuted based upon evidence and not public opinion, especially not public opinion based upon false information.
Public opinion is easily misled, and reading the DA’s statement entirely changed my opinion on this matter.
I think any logical person would be compelled to draw the same conclusion in the DA’s position when presented the same facts & laws.
I suggest everyone read it before indulging superficiality.Jane Doe’s account objectively determined criminal charges unviable.
The DA’s statement makes it quite clear that the facts alleged in Jane Doe’s signed, 6-page statement to police did not support “lack of consent” as defined in New York’s penal law.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.
Under New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, lack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05.
Under New York State Law, “forcible compulsion” requires proof of the use of physical force to compel someone to engage in sexual conduct.
Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent.
Under New York State Law, “physical helplessness” occurs when a victim is unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness to act.
Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act.
Her account (described in detail) eliminated every one of those possibilities.
No prosecutor’s going to pursue charges that don’t legally fit and reasonably expect a conviction.
Moreover, anyone who reads the account might be reasonably unpersuaded the events described constitute a crime.
The account includes multiple periods where she can’t remember what happened. The DA should have questioned if she was concious throughout, and for further investigations. I also doubt a 6 page statement can sufficiently detail 7 hours of events from 7 suspects and other people present alongside the drive home and texts after.
There’s also multiple things in her statement indicating lack of consent including hiding her head in her hands, saying she felt coerced and rejecting multiple sex acts. She also details someone walking in saying get were “shutting down” the incident and of course there is the “free pussy” snapchat. This should have lead to professional curiosity from the DA. There is of course the transcript that the DA says they didn’t receive where she clearly says she was raped.
Failing to review transcripts is substandard practice: serious fault in the DA there. However, unless significant allegations in the transcript are absent from the statement, it’s unlikely to resolve the statement’s contradiction of a crime.
A confident claim is not a conclusive legal determination drawn from alleged facts. According to the reported transcript, she was confident about the statement, too:
On the second day of the interview, Jane Doe reviewed the revised six-page statement. The transcript shows her adviser asked if she wanted her and another adviser to review the statement.
Before signing, the transcript shows Jane Doe said, “I’m very confident about this.”
When the only allegation recommending a criminal charge alleges facts that not only fail to support that conclusion but negate key statutory elements of the crime, that eliminates every prosecutable theory and legal basis for an investigation. Such a contradiction is not resolvable through further investigation. At least some plausible basis for a crime needs to be articulated for an investigation to justifiably proceed.
The DA gave the complainant notice of his determination and an opportunity to review it together. That was another chance to raise any allegations the DA could have missed & explain how they arrived to their conclusion when alleged facts reviewed so far didn’t support it. The complainant apparently waived the opportunity.
The “multiple things indicating lack of consent” are worse than you wrote, yet they don’t satisfy the element of the crime. A feeling lacking clear expression is not a fact supporting the legal standard; she had the liberty to reject, exercised it, and was met with compliance
According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped.
Shutting down events and distasteful language in snapchat obviously don’t qualify.
Much that you mention or that comes up in these stories is already in the statement, too. Some allegation that actually meets the legal standards is needed.
Just so I understand, are you saying that it doesnt matter that:
- The transcript confirms she said “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped” stating she did not consent
- She can’t remember large chunks of time, during which she may have been unconscious
- Several things she did indicated lack of consent
- Other people attempting to stop the incident may mean they were concerned
- She was offered out in the Snapchat, and there’s no suggestion she agreed to this
And you don’t feel the DA should have shown professional curiosity regarding any of this for example asking for the rest of the chat thread or asking for the account of the person that intervened? Just want to clarify
I don’t feel her waiving speaking to the DA indicates anything, she may just not have been able to cope. “I’m very confident about this” could mean she’s confident she was raped.
While they seem to right in their analysis, we need to have studies to determine at what point of being intoxicated, informed consent is no longer possible. Even in her early stages of the account, she seems little hazy on what she consented to and what she didn’t. On top of that, she demonstrates difficulty in remembering certain parts of the night like she forgot for some time that she had already done ketamine with [Male number 1] and [Male number 2]. She also explicitly mentions having trouble remembering later parts of the night. In such a case, maybe the law should consider it a case of mental incapacitation, even if the drugs were taken consensually
This is an issue with a lot of these kinds of cases (where a lot of drinking and drugs are involved). Based on the summary of her statements, the first two guys she willingly hooked up with were probably too intoxicated to consent by most people’s standards. One passed out basically during sex and the other was dry heaving/throwing up shortly after.
At the end of the day, the biggest issue is you’re going to struggle to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any person’s story is reliable.
Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.
She alleged cognitive capacity (understood what she’s doing), volition (willing choices), not incapacity to control her conduct, compulsion, inability to communicate willingness, expression of nonconsent, etc. Throughout the recollection, she was understanding, rejecting & accepting requests, choosing offers, conducting choices. She exercised autonomy.
The legal standard of “mental incapacitation” isn’t an incapacity to recall, it’s an incapacity to control one’s own actions (with conditions). Memory‑formation failure is not a loss of volitional control. People are still responsive to stimuli, can have full on conversations, can conduct willful choices. Their failure to recall it later is retrospective. That does not mean people weren’t cognizant at the time and making willful choices. The law doesn’t say black-out drunks lack a choice when they commit a crime. Dumber, less inhibited choices aren’t a lack of willing choice.
I doubt the structure of the law & its standards would support your suggested interpretation of “mental incapacitation”. It explicitly rejects voluntary intoxication, and she alleges legally significant capacity to understand & choose her conduct. New York already rejects intoxication as a defense for criminal liability. Consistency with that is unlikely to support constructions for consensual intoxication as a substantial incapacity to understand and control one’s own conduct (which would excuse liability).
But if the law does that, I assume the law would take into account the intoxication levels of the men too? Or you might not have thought this all the way through?
I bet you also ask victims what they were wearing. Get fucked dude.
Can’t have the promising futures of soon-to-be lawyers, judges, doctors and whatnot be compromised by some silly little thing like gangrape, let boys be boys!
/s if it wasn’t obvious enough
And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they all came out the sameAnd there’s doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the sameAnd they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to schoolAnd the children go to summer camp
And then to the university
Where they are put in boxes
And they all come out the same
this has been happening since…well…forever and it hasn’t radicalized the population yet. Unfortunately this won’t do it either. us peons are kept in our place by design. there are so many institutions, policies, rules, etc stacked against us to prevent us from radicalizing and rioting and placing the 1% head’s on pikes. I could stand on street corner with a megaphone yelling that we need to kill the rich, we the people need to take back what’s ours, and try to rally people to my cause but we all know I’d be viewed as a crazy person and/or arrested. Potential leaders to lead a radicalized people are promptly put down.
Serfdom never went away. it was repackaged.
A writing assignment for rape?
That poor woman.
This whole story is fucked.
Is it admissible in court if it leaks like this?
Totally depends on what a trial judge decides but it would be really insane if a key and irreplaceable piece of evidence like this got thrown out for such a flimsy reason. Defense attorneys always talk about pre-trial publicity biasing juries but rarely does anything come out of it.
Totally depends on what a trial judge decides
I don’t know how I feel about this. There should be some rules that decide what is admissible 😳
There are rules that decide what is admissable. Just because you don’t know what they are doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
You’re not going to learn law from Lemmy comments.
Just because you don’t know what they are doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Alright, man. Nobody really said they don’t exist. But that’s great to know.
You’re not going to learn law from Lemmy comments.
To your surprise, perhaps, I actually learned some things regarding this from these very Lemmy comments. 🙂 Not from your comment, but from others who explained things.
Thank you for your comment though. Take care, friend!
Oh I’m sure there’s tons of rules, but it still always comes down to how a judge interprets them
Like, to grab an example from the federal rules of evidence, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
What does “unfair prejudice” mean? There’s literally thousands of cases of judges deciding “this is unfair” and “that is not” to guide you, but ultimately every single court case is a new set of facts that requires a new set of judgment calls, which is what we have judges for.
(Unrelated silly question that just occured to me - was including undue delay, wasting time, and needlessly cumulative evidence all really necessary or did they just decide an example of what they were complaining about was necessary?)
undue delay, wasting time,
Interesting that you mention this. There’s rules in badminton where you cannot cause “undue delay” in certain situations as well. And what that means isn’t exactly defined. 😅 So, also up to the referee, or players in lieu of a referee.
Some second-hand, third-hand ‘I found it on the internet’ stuff like this? Maybe, sort of, probably not. If this is the best source of it you’ve got, some judge might allow it as an exhibit of evidence, but defense lawyers could and would try to poke holes in it as doctored or entirely faked, and without clear chain of custody, you can’t prove otherwise.
But the original text chain would be very admissible in court, if you can find (or compel through discovery/subpoena) a reputable, direct and verifiable source for it, such as the files from a confiscated phone, or company records from the messaging app they were using.
Are Snapchat groups still non-e2ee? Could probably get it from Snapchat during discovery, then, maybe?
It’s definitely allowed if providence can be proven.
Hell, illegally obtained evidence is permitted as long as the people provably doing the crimes weren’t cops or lawyers. That is very well established case law.
Hell, the “chain of evidence” for a group text or, in this case, Snapchat, is taking the time stamps to a provider and asking for verification. That this was recorded and then the video was posted creates its own separate but possibly very relevant chain.
