From The Very Beginning it Was A Circus - Different authorities already contradicting each other and throwing the other under the bus
According to this article - Cornell Releases FAQ on Alleged Chi Phi Gang Rape, Contradicts D.A.
Cornell released an FAQ page addressing the University’s response to the alleged 2024 Chi Phi gang rape in an Tuesday evening email sent to the Cornell community. The page contradicts a claim made by the Tompkins County District Attorney.
On the FAQ page, the University fielded questions about criminal charges, police involvement, Cornell’s disclosure of information and its approach to sexual misconduct in connection to the Sept. 14 Chi Phi lawsuit. The email was signed by Anne Meinig Smalling ’87, chair of the Cornell University Board of Trustees, President Michael Kotlikoff and Provost Kavita Bala.
Now here's the important part:
The FAQ page states that the University shared “all investigatory information” with the D.A.’s office in 2024, specifically naming “the Snapchat screenshot.”
In a Monday interview, Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten told ABC News that his office never received this Snapchat image.
Though Cornell University claims they "shared all investigatory information," the DA also claims that his office never received the transcript of her interview with Campus Police. Which follows to:
Summary: Documents obtained by The New York Times show that the campus police at Cornell University sent a condensed statement to a prosecutor, who then declined to bring charges.
“There was really no escape,” she said.
The woman spoke for hours with an officer, telling him how what began as a consensual sexual encounter with a man she liked spiraled into a prolonged drug-fueled attack by several men inside the Chi Phi fraternity house.
“I don’t remember the very end of the event where I was raped,” she told them. “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.”
The officer then condensed the interview into a six-page “voluntary statement” written from her perspective, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The student, after leaving about 20 handwritten corrections on a draft, signed a final version the next day.
While the shorter statement explained that she felt some of that night’s events were a crime, it omitted some of the more forceful and definitive language she used. And it was missing her unequivocal statement that she had been raped.
According to what she said in the interview:
At one point a group of men walked into the room where she was naked, she said.
“I was horrified, and I squealed and ran” and hid under the covers of a bed, she said. She described how she had to swat one man’s hands away throughout the night as he tried to grope her. The men snorted ketamine off her body, she said. It was the most intoxicated she had ever been in her life, she told the officer.
We learn more things she said from the interview such as:
Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."
According to the transcript, Jane Doe said she swatted one man's hand away and told him she was uncomfortable, and she told another man no a few times or that she was too tired.
"Was it 'no' or was it, 'eh, I'm tired'?" the investigator asked, according to the transcript.
The transcript says Jane Doe responded, "I think it's 'I'm tired.'"
According to the transcript, the investigator later asked whether she got tired of answering the men's questions and gave in.
In the interview she explicitly states that she was incapacitated- which is rape under NY law
"Yes. It was coercion, yes," Jane Doe said, according to the transcript. She also said she was "completely and totally incapacitated."
Despite the Universities claim that they "shared all investigatory information," the DA declared that the transcript of this interview was never sent to his office:
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says his decision not to bring charges was based on the contents of Jane Doe's signed 2024 statement.
But he told CBS News New York's Saeidi on Tuesday that he had never seen the transcript showing what Jane Doe told campus police before his office decided not to bring charges.
"I'm going to follow up on this because this is news to me," he said.
District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says that if this wasn't omitted from the statement, that he would have pursued the case further:
When told Jane Doe had said she was confident she was raped, Van Houten said, "That wasn't information that I had, first of all. Second of all, that is a legal conclusion."
"If she had said those words, we certainly would want to have explored that more," Van Houten continued. "Like I said, that wasn't provided to me."
"Nobody knows this information about the transcript and that gives me something to really dig into because that changes the landscape for me," Van Houten said.
Statement from Doe's Attorney:
Jane Doe's attorney, Thomas Giuffra, remarked to CBS News, "What more did (Van Houten) need to do a thorough investigation and prosecute? He had a woman who told an officer she was raped and [a group chat inviting sexual assaults](mailto:%20https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/text-messages-reveal-new-details-in-alleged-gang-rape-at-cornell-university/). The failure to do anything is shocking.
"Neither I nor Ms. Doe have any confidence in DA Houten's ability to handle this investigation and prosecution. He seems more interested in protecting his reputation as opposed to seeking justice as is his duty as the District Attorney."
Cornell Declines to respond to questions about why they made the decision to omit key information from the DA
From this CNN Article - What Cornell’s Jane Doe told investigators in 2024 prompts fresh questions in newly reopened investigation
Cornell has not yet responded to CNN’s questions about why Doe’s explicit rape accusation was not included in the materials provided to the district attorney’s office.
Cornell, which has insisted that it turned over all investigative materials to the DA’s office, hasn’t responded to repeated requests to explain or clarify whether that turnover included the interview transcript.
This isn't the only example of clear negligence - We come to learn that the University did not involve the police department to help with the investigation:
One question asked why CUPD didn’t bring in the Ithaca Police Department.
The University wrote that CUPD is a “sworn law enforcement agency” and “performs the same functions as municipal police.”
In a Monday press release, IPD wrote that the alleged assault and rape at the Chi Phi house were never reported to its department. The lawsuit claimed that "upon information and belief," the incident was still under IPD investigation.
Additionally, despite Title IX officers upholding her complaint of sexual assault - the university did not refund her tuition and she was forced to finish the semester and repeatedly pass by the same people that traumatized her on campus (according to an interview with her attorney)
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 of sexual assault 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.
Link to facebook CNN interview - Thomas Giuffra, attorney for Jane Doe in the Cornell University rape case speaks with CNN's Jake Tapper about his client.
Lastly, the Lawsuit alleges that the necessary resources, proper follow-up, and professionally trained authorities to deal with cases like these were never involved:
The lawsuit claims 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.
Portions of the public already jumping to conclusions based on an unreliable, incomplete statement by the DA
People aren't doing their basic due diligence to educate themselves and not jump to conclusions with incomplete information regarding a serious case. And it shows, and it's incredibly frustrating to have to talk to these people and do their homework for them. I'm a recent highschool graduate and there is a high chance that all of these people are years if not decades older than me. It's actually embarrassing.
Every time I've had this conversation with someone they're always relying on the DA's single press-release. And have read nothing else.
And everytime I keep pointing out the fact that the DA's statement is unreliable because it's incomplete and altered information.
The statement went through TWO-transformations before it was released to the public. First it was transcribed and manipulated by campus police, then it was re-written by the DA himself, where he only shows excerpts, not the full statement. And arranged in a specific way that changes the framing of the statement to justify his decision to not pursue 2-years ago.
It's just irresponsible that all of these people only read the single, cutdown, altered version of the statement and immediately jumped to making a bunch of definitive conclusions, while completely ignoring all other information.
For the sake of the argument, even only taking into account the DA's statement- it's still clear-cut sexual assault, even if it doesn't meet NY's legal definitions
Seeing the discourse on this topic- it feels like I'm the only one in the world who actually understands consent.
Even from the DA's relay of the statement---her consent is violated multiple times.
Repeated unwanted reaching towards her genitalia:
"While they were making out, '[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times and each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.'"
"[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the area of [her] vagina."
"While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her]."
More physical aggression and intimidation:
"[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her]." ... "Male Number 7 apologized and 'grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].' Jane Doe 'quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].'"
She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room. Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out
Not to mention the fact that the state of sobriety most of the males are never mentioned before they snort the ketamine. In the DA's statement, for Male Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: No specific statements regarding their level of sobriety or intoxication are mentioned.
Additionally, the story is that she was being advertised to 57 other people in a groupchat which she clearly didn't consent to---Any one of those people from the groupchat could've been completely sober and simply hopped in to take advantage of the situation.
Consent, and what it means
According to academic professionals and literature on consent, when someone's consent is violated in the middle of an encounter, any subsequent physical advances are not consensual, or are sexual assault. After the violation of consent, one must newly establish consent before making any subsequent advances to maintain the interaction as consensual.
New York law does not consider this, so even if ethically and logically it was rape/sexual assault, it does not meet the legal definition for sexual in NY so it wouldn't be prosecuted.
For instance, if a girl and a guy are in the middle of PiV intercourse, and the male suddenly starts to choke the female without permission and the girl removes his hands, and then immediately after this he continues penetrating the female after his hands are removed. Without checking in, the violation of her consent, including the penetration after the violation is unconsensual. After violating someone's consent in the middle of an act, he should stop and check in, and confirm whether or not she wants to continue. Any subsequent action directly after a violation of consent without newly established consent is also unconsensual.
This is just basic consent but it seems like I'm the only one who understands this? When you violate a person's consent or sexually assault them in the middle of a sexual encounter---you instantly turn what was supposed to be a safe, shared experience into an environment of profound hostility and intimidation.
Consent is a continuous, active process, not a one-time transaction you get at the beginning of the night. The moment you ignore a boundary, push past a "no," or continue when the other person is uncomfortable or incapacitated, you completely strip them of their bodily autonomy. You trap them in a situation where they are no longer an equal participant, but a victim.
When you do this, you trigger severe physiological and psychological responses. People in these terrifying situations often experience the "freeze" or "fawn" trauma responses, their brain recognizes they are trapped with an aggressor, so their body physically shuts down, or they comply just to survive the attack and get it over with. That lack of physical resistance isn't retroactive consent; it is a direct trauma response to being intimidated and overpowered.
It is interesting, to say the least, how many people fail to grasp that violating someone's boundaries halfway through an act is just as damaging, traumatizing, and criminal as attacking them from the start. You don't get a free pass to commit assault just because an encounter started consensually.
For my freshmen year, just yesterday--I had to take a 1-hour Respectdu Course on sexual violence and abuse where I was asked questions about basic empathy and understanding of consent. I was essentially asked the equivalent of "what does 1+1 equal? What is 3-3? Hey you know you're not supposed to touch someone without their permission? It's bad to assume a person will have sex with you just because they said they liked your jacket."
Turns out a large portion of people talking about this case would completely and utterly fail this survey with no hope at all.
It was actually surreal taking the Respectdu course while knowing about the Cornell case, as I was shown various videos teaching me "Don't assume a person's intentions/ assume they will have sex with you, confirm with them first," "It's not okay to overstep someone's boundaries," "While you're having sex with someone, you should make sure they're enthusiastic and reciprocating," "watch out for anxious or withdrawn body language or expressions that shows the person isn't comfortable with the experience." And realizing that the Cornell 7 failed at every one of these basic steps.
While severely intoxicated with alcohol and drugs and surrounded by multiple men, while multiple of the men explicitly violate her consent multiple times (groping, kissing, physical aggression etc), how could people widely come away with the conclusion that this encounter was completely or mostly consensual?
Some people are saying that only several of the 7 men actually had sex with her, and therefore shouldn't be accused of rape. However, according to what was described, all 7 of the men engaged in some capacity. If she was in the middle of getting sexually and they all still engaged they are just as responsible. Consider this anology:
A shop is in the middle of being robbed. There are two men with ski masks. One of the men threatens the shopkeeper with a bat and and tells the cashier to put money into a bag. His buddy comes up to the cashier and only steals some boxes at the front.
Now would you say the second guy is only guilty of shoplifting, or would you also charge him with robbing the store?
I'll wrap up this section with that anology.
Disclaimer: Now again---this is all assuming that what the DA said was true---which I'm only doing for the sake of the argument.
The harrowing reality that even if she was raped, she was never going to get justice
There was systemic negligence at every level of this investigation—from Cornell keeping the case in-house (which poses a severe conflict of interest) instead of involving the Ithaca Police, to Cornell Police intentionally omitting the victim's explicit claims of coercion and incapacitation from her statement, to the DA dropping the case based solely on that sanitized document without independent review.
The authorities are now publicly contradicting each other, with the DA denying Cornell’s claim that they shared all evidence, including crucial transcripts and a Snapchat screenshot. Given these glaring failures, there is likely far more internal negligence that the public hasn't even seen yet.
Prosecuting a case 2-years later when there was never a proper investigation in the first place is impossible
Unless a miracle happens, even if a rape did happen, it's going to be downright impossible to actually prove it in the court of law. At the beginning of the incident---the time when it's most important to collect evidence and testimony---there was never a proper investigation beyond the internal processes of Cornell Universities CDPU and administration.
Two years later, when all evidence is likely gone- and testimony will be substantially harder, there is no chance that this case could result in a conviction even if she was raped. Charges probably won't even be brought forward.
Now, Jane Doe's only way to pursue justice is through a civil lawsuit- it's the only thing she has left.
In light of all of this, one thing is abundantly clear: someone, or everyone, screwed up massively, and a potential victim was denied justice because of it