╌>

Cornell rape accuser's attorney says the school and law enforcement failed a young woman

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  one month ago  •  45 comments

By:   Abigail Brooks

Cornell rape accuser's attorney says the school and law enforcement failed a young woman
The DA vows to pursue any additional evidence after the woman's lawsuit prompted him to reopen the case.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Sept. 28, 2026, 8:46 PM EDTBy Abigail Brooks, Adam Reiss and Alicia Victoria Lozano

The attorney representing a former Cornell University student who said she was gang-raped for hours in 2024 after she was pressured to take ketamine decried the initial investigation and accused both law enforcement officials and the school of failing his client.

"She was a young woman who went to Cornell with high hopes, thought that this was her dream come true, and then that didn't happen," Thomas P. Giuffra told NBC News on Monday. "Now she's not in college. She's not pursuing her goals, and she's just trying to hang on."

In a written statement Monday, the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she hopes "to recover from this trauma but it is extremely difficult. It affects every aspect of my life. It will haunt me and be part of me the rest of my life."

In a civil lawsuit filed this month, Doe alleges that Chi Phi fraternity brothers sexually assaulted her and that one sent a message encouraging other members to participate in the attack.

The fraternity chapter was subsequently barred from campus, but no one was criminally charged. According to the lawsuit, some of the students were able to "mitigate their conduct" by writing essays to the university.

"Any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false," Kyle Kimball, Cornell's vice president for university relations, said in a statement.

Giuffra told NBC News that in the days following the alleged assault, his client was "traumatized, numb and unable to function or accept the horror of what had happened." She was in "self-preservation mode," he said, and had faith that university officials would investigate her claims thoroughly.

"She wanted to give Cornell the opportunity to make this right, because this was her expectation. So she didn't want to start a lawsuit," he said.

She filed the civil lawsuit, which names the Chi Phi chapter, Chi Phi National and Cornell University among others, this month.

01:59

Why a 2024 Cornell sexual assault case was reopened

00:0000:00

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said that prompted him to reopen the case and consider whether to bring charges related to the 2024 allegations. The university said Monday that it supports Van Houten's decision to have the case heard before a criminal grand jury.

"Now that this lawsuit has been filed, that raises the question that Jane Doe believes there's additional evidence," Van Houten told NBC News on Monday. "We want to talk to her. We want to flesh out with her what that additional evidence is."

He promised to pursue any new evidence "zealously."

"We understand that with human beings, especially processing trauma, it takes time sometimes to fully grasp and understand and process something that happened to you, and so we recognize that even though it's been two years and we haven't heard from her since then or her attorneys, that it's never too late to reopen and pursue justice when there is additional evidence," Van Houten said.

He said he looks forward to working with the woman before the case is sent to a grand jury. "We want to prepare with her, so she's comfortable and feels confident that we are going to cover all the bases with her and support her," Van Houten said.

According to Giuffra, his client went to the Cornell University Police Department after the alleged attack but did not speak with anyone beyond the first person who took her report. University officers failed to follow up on key pieces of evidence, including the group chat, Giuffra said.

"That available evidence was there. They could have utilized it," he told NBC News. "What they should have done is investigated who was on that group chat and interviewed witnesses and developed evidence. That's what investigators do, and that was not done at all."

Ithaca police did not immediately respond to a request for information about their involvement in the case. The Ithaca Police Department is actively investigating the allegations, according to the civil lawsuit. Cornell police referred NBC News to the university's previous statements defending how it handled the allegations.

Cornell pushed back on the suggestion that those involved in the incident faced few consequences at the time, saying in a statement Monday that the university's Title IX proceedings resulted in a range of sanctions, including expulsions and suspensions.

The lawsuit names seven Chi Phi fraternity members. Scott Kretzschmar is among them. An attorney for Kretzschmar strongly denied the accusations and said his client welcomed the new investigation.

"The lawsuit against Scott Kretzachmar is not only intentionally dishonest but morally repugnant," attorney Jeremy Saland said in a statement. "While Scott responded to and made an immature comment on Snapchat, he did nothing else. Nothing."

NBC News tried to contact the six others named in the lawsuit but was not immediately able to reach them or did not receive responses.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
1  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Writing essays.  Jesus.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Relevant omitted information :


 Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual," Van Houten's statement said. "My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago
Relevant omitted information :

The complaint alleges the friend and another fraternity member gave her more alcohol and pressured her into snorting a substance they described as ketamine, and that she was then sexually assaulted while “incapable of consent.”

Nothing in Doe’s original statement indicated she was drugged without consent or had sex against her will, Van Houten said. 

The trouble with this is that with drugs and alcohol in her system, she would have been unable to give proper consent.  The fact that she may not have said "no" during the assault, does not mean that she said "yes".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    one month ago
this is that with drugs and alcohol in her system, she would have been unable to give proper consent.

That is a moral question. Under New York law, if you voluntarily ingest substances, you aren't mentally  incapacitated and unable to give consent. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.2  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one month ago
Under New York law, if you voluntarily ingest substances, you aren't mentally  incapacitated and unable to give consent. 

This is where it often comes down to how good your lawyer is - (bold mine)

With this crime there are two issues related to consent: consent related to taking the drug and consent related to the sex act. If you can show that you did not administer the drug to the person without that person’s consent and that the person willingly and knowingly took the drug, you have a defense to the charge. However, you still could be charged with a crime related to having sex with a person who was mentality incapacitated or physically helpless if the person was intoxicated by drugs at the time of the sex act. To avoid being convicted of any sex crime, you must show that the sex act was consensual.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one month ago
That is a moral question.

Bullshit!  It is a medical question.  Can someone under the influence of alcohol, ketamine, and possibly other drugs make an informed decision?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    one month ago

No

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    one month ago
Bullshit!  It is a medical question

Lol. 

Can someone under the influence of alcohol, ketamine, and possibly other drugs make an informed decision?

The state of new york and every other state i'm aware of thinks so.  I guess you believe everyone who everyone who has sex after taking a drug or a drink has been raped. You must think she's guilty of rape too,

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one month ago
The state of new york and every other state i'm aware of thinks so.

Maybe you should make yourself more aware before answering...

AI Overview
All 50 U.S. states have laws establishing that individuals who are incapacitated by alcohol or drugs cannot legally give consent to sexual activity. [ 1 ]
However, a distinction is made in most state legal codes between being merely intoxicated and being incapacitated . [ 1 ]
Intoxication vs. Incapacitation
  • Intoxication: Simply consuming alcohol or drugs does not automatically eliminate a person's legal capacity to consent. If a person has been drinking but remains conscious, aware of their surroundings, and capable of making rational, informed choices, they can legally give consent. [ 1 ]
  • Incapacitation: When drug or alcohol use reaches a level where a person is unconscious, asleep, incoherent, unable to walk unassisted, or lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the sexual act, they are legally incapacitated and cannot give consent. [ 1 , 2 ]
Legal Nuances by State
While incapacitation laws exist nationwide, how state criminal statutes treat voluntary intoxication versus involuntary intoxication has historically varied. [ 1 ]
  • Some states previously required a victim to be incapacitated by a substance unintentionally administered (such as a drug slipped into a drink) to meet specific statutory definitions of "mentally incapacitated". [ 1 , 2 ]
  • In recent years, several states (such as Illinois and Minnesota ) have updated or expanded their criminal codes to clarify that voluntary incapacitation from drugs or alcohol renders a person unable to consent, closing legal loopholes that previously hindered prosecutions
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.6    one month ago
Maybe you should make yourself more aware before answering...

Lol.  Talk about a dishonest post. You originally claimed  " under the influence" of alcohol. To quote you "Can someone under the influence of alcohol"

Which as I said is complete bullshit and said that every state agrees with me.

And than you quote AI to prove that I'm correct while bizarrely pretending otherwise.

"Simply consuming alcohol or drugs does not automatically eliminate a person's legal capacity to consent. If a person has been drinking but remains conscious, aware of their surroundings, and capable of making rational, informed choices, they can legally give consent."  

 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.8  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.7    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.7    one month ago
Talk about a dishonest post. You originally claimed  " under the influence" of alcohol. To quote you "Can someone under the influence of alcohol"

You cannot make a claim while asking a question.  Are you that ignorant of the English language?

Which as I said is complete bullshit and said that every state agrees with me.

I provided AI evidence that you are wrong.  Now it is up to you to provide CITATIONS backing up your claim that every state agrees with you.

Buh bye....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

Evidently there are next day text messages by the guys that serve as a sort of confession. 

They are going to claim it was consensual but I think it is a minute if not microscopic percentage of young women who would consent to taking part in a "gang rape" situation. 

Where was the human decency on the part of the boys ?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago
a minute if not microscopic percentage of young women who would consent to taking part in a "gang rape" situation. 

According to her, she did.  Per her statement, she was dictating who was involved the entire time. 

There's definitely a tension here between promoting sexual permissiveness and then criminalizing regret. You can't have both. 

. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    one month ago

If she was not on drugs would she have consented to having sex with a half dozens guys in one setting?  I think that is pretty unlikely.  Where was one decent guy to step up ? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

Don't you just love it when somebody defends rapists?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago
e was not on drugs would she have consented to having sex with a half dozens guys in one setting

Maybe. Maybe not. she chose to take the drugs.  some people take substances to lower their inhibitions. She chose to have sex with the guys. She admitted all this. 

here was one decent guy to step up ? 

That's another issue entirely. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    one month ago
ou just love it when somebody defends rapists?

So having sex with a woman who consents is rape? The girl's probably coming forward because she's been slut shamed by her friends who can't believe a woman would consent to group sex and have now bullied her into now claiming "rape" as a self protection mechanism. Nothing beats victimhood.[✘]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    one month ago
Don't you just love it when somebody defends rapists?

... it's the primary republican political platform now.

GOP = guardians of pedophiles

MAGA = molesters are getting anonymity 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @3.1.5    one month ago

And they still believe they are the party of family values.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.7  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    one month ago
Anyone who actually reads her statement and the amount of control she exerted over what happened and thinks its rape has serious issues with equality for women. 

It's interesting that you believe the one statement while also calling her a liar. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.7    one month ago
eresting that you believe the one statement while also calling her a liar.

[✘] I believe statements made closer in time to an event tend to be truer. Maybe she was lying in her statement and in her texts (including texting one of the participants days later how much she enjoyed it) Maybe she's telling the truth years later. It's possible. Given her complete 180 , how can anyone possibly prove it was rape beyond a reasonable doubt without evidence they don't have access to right now?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.9  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.8    one month ago
Given her  complete 180 , how can anyone possibly prove it was rape beyond a reasonable doubt without evidence they don't have access to right  now? 

That's what the investigation is for. They must have found something credible enough to re-open the investigation. I suggest letting that play out first.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.6    one month ago
And they still believe they are the party of family values.

1920x0.jpg

MAGA believe using their breeding stock as they see fit is "family values".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.9    one month ago
at's what the investigation is for. They must have found something credible enough to re-open the investigation. 

Not at all. Politics is enough to re-open the investigation. There's zero evidence of anything new other  than her changed story.   The DA certainly didn't suggest there was.

suggest letting that play out first

Since I'm not denouncing people as rapists, it might behoove you to suggest that to the pitchfork brigade who is trying to destroy lives based only their hopes and wishes when, as you must admit, the public evidence we actually have  makes convictions for rape pretty much impossible. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.6    one month ago

... trump family values.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.11    one month ago
the pitchfork brigade who is and trying to destroy lives based only their hopes and wishes

maga!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.14  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.11    one month ago
Politics is enough to re-open the investigation.

It might be. You're assuming too much without any evidence.

Since I'm not denouncing people as rapists, it might behoove you to suggest...

You're denouncing a young woman as a liar, and a slut, while holding the boys to no responsibility. I myself suggest nothing but to wait to see if new facts come to light. How about we stop pointing fingers at either side until that happens? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @3.1.12    one month ago

well fuck 'em fuck the ones who keep supporting rapists and pedophiles

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @3.1.14    one month ago
You're denouncing a young woman as a liar, and a slut, while holding the boys to no responsibility.

and that's the kind of shit that is going to make me say something and get bounced out of here

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.14    one month ago
t might be. You're assuming too much without any evidence.

What do you think you are doing when you claim there must be secret evidence? 

You're denouncing a young woman as a liar,

Everyone who accuses the men of rape is calling her a liar.

and a slut,

Now you are making things up. I said she, like all adult women, are capable of agreeing to group sex.  Are you saying they aren't?  

My guess is the actual slut shaming came from the people who are now holding her up as a victim.  She was probably made to feel guilty and changed her story  to escape the bullying from her friends and family who couldn't accept she did it voluntarily. Look at the reactions from some here. 

 holding the boys to no responsibility.\

Because I believe what she said and under the law they have every right to engage in group sex. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.18  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.17    one month ago
What do you think you are doing when you claim there must be secret evidence? 

Don't you ever get tired of building strawmen? I said I was waiting for facts - either she lied, or she didn't. One of those will be a fact, one will not.

Everyone who accuses the men of rape is calling her a liar.

Take that up with them.

Now you are making things up. I said she, like all adult women, are capable of agreeing to group sex.  Are you saying they aren't?  

You are correct. My apologies.

My guess is the actual slut shaming came from the people who are now holding her up as a victim.  She was probably made to feel guilty and changed her stories to escape the bullying from her friends and family who couldn't accept she did it voluntarily. 

You like to guess a lot... 

Because I believe what she said and under the law they have every right to engage in group sex. 

It's true adults have the right to consensual sex. Still taking drugs and pulling a train is risky behavior...  Again, you've taken what you believe is true. The people pointing at the boys believe what is true. Somewhere in there will be the facts I'm waiting for.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @3.1.18    one month ago
Don't you ever get tired of building strawmen

Lol.. You said, and I quote, "They must have found something credible enough to re-open the investigation."  You have zero evidence of this secret, "credible" evidence. 

Take that up with them.

I did. Why are you afraid to?

You like to guess a lot... 

And I admit when I am. Contrast that to pretty much every other post here. 

Again, you've taken what you believe is true

No, I know it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a rapist.  And I know that's pretty much impossible when the supposed victim gave a sworn statement that says otherwise. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.16    one month ago
that's the kind of shit that is going to make me say something and get bounced out of here

just say it to me, no bfd, I can take a joke ...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4  Trout Giggles    one month ago

I've watched just enough Law and Order to not have acquired a juris doctorate...but...I've seen many episodes where a woman who may have consented at first but then became very intoxicated is said to have been raped because she was not in any condition to consent....or something like that

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Participates
5  Veronica    one month ago

So anytime a woman has a drink she consents to sex/gang bang?  Is that the new way of looking at things?  Does that work for men as well?  If he has a drink he consents to having sex with his football teammates?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @5    one month ago
anytime a woman has a drink she consents to sex/gang bang? 

No, when she consents to a gang bang and sets out the rules about who can participate, she does.  Especially when she admits that what she did. 

  If he has a drink he consents to having sex with his football teammates?

If he tells his teammates he wants to have sex with them and then directs them as to how many and who he will have sex with, then yes.  Because he's bullied or ashamed about it afterwards doesn't change what he said at the time. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @5    one month ago

That's the way it seems to one particular person here

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Participates
5.2.1  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    one month ago

Since I can't see his comments his opinion means jack shit to me.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @5.2.1    one month ago

you missed nothing of any consequence ...

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Participates
5.2.3  Veronica  replied to  devangelical @5.2.2    one month ago

I didn't think so.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @5.2.2    one month ago

as usual

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.3  evilone  replied to  Veronica @5    one month ago
So anytime a woman has a drink she consents to sex/gang bang?

Yes. The number of drinks she has is directly proportional to the number of men.

Is that the new way of looking at things?

No. It's been like this since Jesus walked with the dinosaurs.

Does that work for men as well? 

Oh, you sweet summer child...

If he has a drink he consents to having sex with his football teammates?

That would be gay and being gay is communist. 

Geeze V... If you don't know how this works, find the nearest alphamale and ask him to explain it to you. /s

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Participates
5.3.1  Veronica  replied to  evilone @5.3    one month ago

I get the sarcasm.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Since people are having trouble understanding anything other than their own biases, here's what the DA wrote:

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.  The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe 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. 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. 

Under New York State Law, “physical helplessness” occurs when a victim is unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness to act. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was rendered unconscious. While the statement unquestionably describes excessive and illegal drug use by multiple participants and the effects on those participants such as falling asleep (of Male Number 1), dry heaving (of Male Number 2), and dizziness (of Jane Doe), there is no evidence in the statement that Jane Doe was unconsciousness or unable to communicate. (The failure to remember certain events days later is not sufficient evidence of unconsciousness at the time.)   

Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped. Thus, with no evidence of a “lack of consent,” criminal charges simply could not be sustained. To instruct otherwise would have been to violate my prosecutorial obligations under New York State Law.   

While the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and morally reprehensible, the foundation of the criminal justice system is that criminal prosecutions must be based upon evidence and not emotion.  As the elected District Attorney, I am personally responsible for the decisions made by my office.  The decision made in November of 2024 that the evidence did not support the filing of criminal charges was legally correct.  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. 

Not that this will stop the witchunt we can already see beginning.....

 
 

Who is online




CB
Freefaller


137 visitors