206
Exclusive video obtained of Cornell fraternity's text chain in alleged gang rape investigation (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The excerpts below are from the following sources

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/cornell-university-rape-allegation-chi-phi-snapchat-conversation/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/cornell-texts-rape-investigation

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-cornell-university-gang-rape-lawsuit/

https://people.com/cornell-student-says-frat-group-chat-critical-evidence-da-did-not-see-until-recently-12146190

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 102 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (6 replies)
    • load more comments (9 replies)