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.”
It's easier to get enraged without the burden of relevant facts.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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:
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
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:
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.
I bet you also ask victims what they were wearing. Get fucked dude.