It seems like 90% of the LC thread is now about the sexual assault case against the Cornell Frat Boys so maybe this deserves its own thread.
Here’s some new content
Some of the fraternity brothers later accused of sexual assault at Cornell University attempted to contain the allegations in the weeks following the incident, apparently worried about what would happen to their own reputations and futures on campus, according to text messages, phone calls, and other records reviewed by ABC News.
Students who later spoke to campus authorities described the efforts by some in Chi Phi as “damage control” to ensure the woman allegedly assaulted — now known as Jane Doe — was “not upset about the situation,” according to school records reviewed by ABC News.
The fraternity brothers’ efforts came as Jane Doe’s perception of what occurred that evening in October 2024 appeared to change from believing the sexual encounters were largely consensual to describing them in a phone call as a “gang rape.”
“They tried to contact [Jane] almost every day after it happened to, I guess, keep them on her good side and keep her happy and not upset about the situation,” Jane Doe’s friend later told campus authorities the following May, according to records reviewed by ABC News.
Those efforts apparently were unsuccessful. Jane Doe reported the incident to Cornell Police as a rape and the allegations triggered a response from the leadership of Cornell’s Chi Phi chapter, according to text messages obtained by ABC News.
“F—-,” one brother wrote in a group chat on Nov. 8, 2024. “Should I call [Jane]?”
“Wait a bit for me and [Executive Board] to figure out what we’re doing cuz there are a couple of other things going on,” the fraternity’s president wrote. “When was the last time you spoke to [Jane]?”
Summaries obtained by The New York Times offer a detailed look at the discipline meted out to the men accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student at Cornell University.
Expulsions were handed to Matthew Ingalls — whom Jane Doe originally went to visit at the Chi Phi fraternity house; and Jonathan Newell — the man who sent a Snapchat message to other fraternity members encouraging them to enter the bedroom where Jane Doe was undressed.
Suspensions and disciplinary probation were given to Winston Lee and Gillio Lopes. Jane Doe had accused Mr. Lee of inhaling ketamine off her body and forcing oral sex on her. She alleged that Mr. Lopes had sex with her without her consent. Both men also were ordered not to contact Jane Doe, and were required to study sexual harassment and to write reflection papers.
A persona non grata order was issued to Diego Sarabia, who had graduated by the time of the discipline panel’s ruling. Mr. Sarabia, whom Jane Doe accused of forcibly kissing her, was barred from campus for three years.
The remaining two men, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar, were ordered not to contact Jane Doe, to study sexual harassment, social media use and bystander intervention, and to write “reflection papers.” They were accused of being part of a group of men who entered the room after reading Mr. Newell’s Snapchat message.
What should the takeaway be? That we know exactly what happened without being present? This is all over my timeline on X and all over FB. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion and I don’t see how that’s reasonable
Again, there are so many ways it could’ve went down and I think the only reasonable position to hold is that we can’t know for sure
At least what I first read was that she hadn’t ever passed out which meant under NY State Law, she was never too incapacitated to be able to consent.
There are several different rape statutes at play here. First-degree rape requires that the victim either face forcible compulsion, meaning that extreme violence took place, or be “physically helpless.” Rape in the second degree applies when a victim is involuntarily drugged, such as a drink being spiked. Rape in the third degree applies where none of the above statutes apply, but the victim gives an express verbal declaration of nonconsent.
Being physically helpless is defined as being unconscious or physically unable to communicate a lack of consent. That word “physically unable” is really important because what that means is that it’s not enough if the person is severely mentally disoriented or confused. They have to be physically unable to speak, and case law basically says that means unconscious. That language excludes somebody who is severely intoxicated to the point where they are falling down, or when they are so disoriented that they don’t know where they are, or when their speech is slurred. None of those things is enough to deem a person incapable of consent if they are voluntarily intoxicated.
There is now a call to update this law
Legislation to remove New York’s voluntary intoxication exclusion has been introduced annually for at least the past eight years without success. Some lawmakers have been pushing for change for even longer.
Opponents have raised concerns that it’s difficult to nail down the exact point at which a person becomes too drunk to consent. Others have questioned whether a new law paving the way for more prosecutions would disproportionately impact people of color due to existing biases in the criminal justice system.
What would it take to close legal loopholes?
Changing these laws state by state has proven difficult – but not impossible. Last February, Summer Willis crawled to the Texas state capitol on bloody hands and knees to demand a change to the voluntary intoxication exclusion in state law that allowed her college sexual assault a decade earlier to go unprosecuted.
The lengths she went through to secure the win – that other advocates and lawmakers had repeatedly failed to achieve – paid off. The Summer Willis Act was signed into law later that year, changing the state’s sexual assault law and more clearly defining consent in Texas.
Willis made her way to New York last summer to throw her weight behind local advocates and survivors who were pushing to pass a similar law in that state. She told the story of her assault. They told theirs. But the bill was never called for a vote.
On Wednesday, New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat – who had repeatedly blocked the bill from going to the floor for a full vote – announced he is forming a legislative working group to examine New York’s sexual assault laws, tasked with developing legislative recommendations for the 2027 session.
Yeah it’s pretty close to non-responsive. You’re aware of your surroundings, but it’s an out of body experience. I was vaguely aware that I was tethered to some physical body that I didn’t want to let shit its pants. But that was about the extent of my connection to reality.
I remember thinking I was somehow solving great mysteries, while my thoughts were being monitored by some panel of gods or elders or something. I had unlocked some secret that was going to allow the entire human race to ascend to the next level. I distinctly remember the disappointing moment on the way down when I realized that there was no panel of elders, and humanity was not ascending to any next level.
My friend had a sore ankle and before we went fully into the k-hole, she was hopping around, saying she felt like Marshmallow Fluff. Later when everything wore off, her ankle was killing her.
Trump “personally” having to successfully write a letter of self-reflection would likely be the hardest thing he’s ever done and a harsher punishment than a jail cell.
I read about her giving head to a guy who was passed out. I didn’t read about anyone doing anything to her while she was passed out
She admits to being enthusiastic about some of it
All I’m saying is that I don’t know how anyone who wasn’t there the entire time can have a strong opinion one way or the other. My default is to tentatively believe her while reserving judgement before making ruinous accusations about others
I’ve posted about this a few times but viewpoints on consent are much different now than 20 years ago or whenever you were in your late teens/early 20s. If she was extremely intoxicated it’s basically impossible she consented regardless of what the LOL new york state laws say.
I mean with the poll question above I’ve thought many times about drunken/drug fueled sex i had 25-30 years ago where one or both of us obviously regretted it the next day. If I wake up with someone who I would never normally have sex with full of regret does that mean I was raped? If she wakes up and regrets having sex with me the next morning does that mean I raped someone? I mean I’m not really sure because in those scenarios where its coming home after the bar both hammered and having sex and passing out probably neither of us could actually consent. So maybe? In hindsight those situations were poor decision making and problematic at best.
My 1000 foot view of this case is you can’t consent if you are extremely intoxicated. She was. That makes it impossible to find the Cornell kids innocent here imo regardless of what else happened.
I think we’ve all had sex only to regret it the next day. And once someone I was not at all attracted to was coming onto me very aggressively despite my trying to brush her off. I finally relented and yeah.. I felt a little violated even for a guy tbh
I also answered no in the poll, but realized the vulnerability of a few situations.. We were at a party in a motel room and when it wound down there were just 3 of us guys and a female left. One guy starts making out with her and I said to the other guy that we should probably bounce. But she said no don’t go and the 3 of us did her and I guarantee she was into every second of it
Looking back, it would’ve been very easy for her to say we raped her and how the heck could we prove otherwise? Our word against hers? No thanks. I don’t ever want to be in a spot like that again. No more group sex for me unless everyone knows each other
