Rotten Mango - Cornell 7: Jane Doe’s Initial Police Report Released, Everything She Told Police About That Night

Episode Date: October 14, 2026

There aren’t many reasons why a pedestrian gets hit by a car ends up being at fault. But at Cornell, a student whose foot was allegedly run over by university president Michael Kotlikoff’s car was banned from campus for a year. A few months later, Cornell faces another scandal. Jane Doe files a civil lawsuit against the university and seven fraternity brothers, alleging she was gang raped for seven hours. Her dream university becomes a nightmare, while some of the accused allegedly receive punishments like workshops and essays. Now, Snapchats, text messages and recorded phone calls are emerging. One accused says he was assaulted by Jane Doe, not the other way around. Some people have already picked sides. But like most cases, maybe it’s not so simple. This is the case of the Cornell 7.   Full show notes available at RottenMangoPodcast.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bada being, bad a boo. Very quickly, this is dubbed the Cornell 7 case online by social media netizens. There's a lot of points of pain that netizens were outraged by when Jane Doe's lawsuit goes live. The allegation that this entire incident lasted seven hours, people were likening it to, that's almost like a full work day. That's like a full school day. Then the fact that this allegedly happened at a fraternity house, that this allegedly happened at Cornell, who like every,

other old prestigious institution has a pretty dark traumatic history of sweeping essay cases under the rug. Oh, I'm so sorry. You mentioned that she's also suing her own sorority, right? Yes. So the allegation is that she is under age. Well, she is not a drinking age. And the sorority is on campus and they're serving vodka shots. They're watching her get drunk. And as she gets drunk, her sorority mom takes her in Uber to another bomb. another establishment where she's going to drink more. So it's like they had a reasonable responsibility to prevent her from drinking and getting intoxicated.

Now the punishment for some of the accused is allegedly writing essays that that's alleged in the Jane Doe lawsuit. And that's like a huge pain point for the internet. And that's just like naming a few pain points. It's obviously not an exhaustive list. But one netizen writes, Hey, Cornell, it's essay, not essay? I thought you were in Ivy League school.

The essay factor becomes a huge, huge point of contention. People are demanding Cornell to release the essays to see how wonderful they are that they would excuse such type of behavior. People are joking that we should have prisoners write essays and the best one gets out. To the point that Cornell has to release a statement in which they state that their Title IX process lasted months. It involved at least 12 hearings. They had a full hearing in front of a panel of trained faculty and staff

and all of the investigations ultimately led to sanctions, including students being expelled, suspended, and Cornell states, at its conclusion, the hearing panel issued a range of sanctions, which included expulsions and suspensions from Cornell. None of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement. They state any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved as false.

A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible. will make survivors feel less safe and supported and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. Okay, that last statement is already insane, but the wording is very interesting. Cornell says none of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays

as a sole consequence of their involvement. Okay, so we know out of the seven named in the lawsuit, Matthew Engels, Jonathan Newell, expelled. Winston Lee, Jiliot Lopes were issued suspensions and disciplinary probation. Winston Lee for allegedly inhaling ketamine off of Jane Doe's body and forcing oral sex on her, Jillio Lopes for allegedly having sex with Jane Doe without her consent. Now, we were able to find in the John Doe lawsuit against Cornell, which again, they have snippets of this Title IX investigation, right?

That Winston, Jillio, and then the three others that were not expelled or suspended. Right? So that's Diego and the two Scots. Their sanctions were no contact order with Jane Doe. Participation in a directed study through COCR focused on the issues of social media use and sexual harassment as well as bystander intervention. Basically a mandated study. And then respondent will submit to the Title IX office a reflection paper that engages with the specific circumstances for which he was found responsible and contains a detailed proposal for future university educational materials to train undergraduate students around the interoperate. section of social media use and sexual harassment as well as bystander intervention. The reflection paper must also include recommendations to the university's office of sorority

and fraternity life with respect to substance use prevention efforts in Greek life organizations on campus. It's worse. It's worse. So Cornell is like, no, guys, please stop getting mad at us. We didn't just say write essays, okay? So then you look it up and it's like, fine. They didn't say just write essays. They said you have to be part of this mandated study. And you can't contact Jane Doe, which seems fucking bare minimum, okay? But this essay is actually worse than I thought. The punishment is to become a fucking consultant and advisor. That doesn't even make sense. Yeah. Oh, but they do have a rule and a limitation. Use of artificial intelligence tools of any kind in the creation of this

reflection paper is prohibited. So to summarize, one of the accused is to not talk to Jane Doe, participate in a study focused on the issues of social media use and sexual harassment. Write a reflection paper. But again, that reflection paper should have a detailed proposal for future educational materials to train undergraduates. You want someone accused of gang essay to write a paper to help educate other students of what, how not to commit gang essay when they've been accused of gang essay. I'm not saying they've been found guilty, but I'm just saying I didn't go to Cornell, but like that can't be a smart thing to do. But I will say Cornell is not lying. the sole punishment was not just to write an essay.

There were other things involved. The included panel snippet in the John Doe lawsuit also continues, The hearing panel expects that respondent will take this educational opportunity seriously and apply what he learns to help improve the university Greek life community. The panel imposes this sanction with knowledge of respondents' lack of non-academic disciplinary record and with the intent that it can provide him opportunity for understanding and matriation as well as actively contribute to the safety of both Jane Doe and the university community as a whole. And again, I'm not saying that the accused are guilty and that they did

everything alleged in this lawsuit because, well, this is an ongoing case. And like, what am I, an open door for sees and desist? I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But it is, in my opinion, that if Jane Doe accuses an individual of something and the school decides that the sanction will provide this accused individual opportunity for understanding, and maturation, as well as to actively contribute to the safety of both Jane Doe and the university community as a whole, the language, the wording of that feels like a slap in the face. It's so strange to me that they would use this wording. And again, just to reiterate, a Title IX investigation is not a criminal investigation,

but I would still imagine that one would only get a sanction if the panel found that they did do something that required some sort of sanction, that they did break school, policy to some degree or break Title IX policy to some degree. If Jane Doe is like, hey, this person did this and this person wasn't even in the room. The panel isn't just going to say, hey, random person, I'm still going to give you a sanction. You still have to write an essay. They had what, according to Cornell a dozen hearings. Something compelled the panel to hand out this sanction. But this wording is just so weird. So Matthew and Jonathan expelled. Winston and Jillio suspended. There's some sanctions that are happening. The sanctions apply. It seems.

to Winston and Jillio. So they're suspended and they have to do this. The two Scots are not suspended or expelled, but they have to, like, I think they have to write an essay. Diego, the one that kissed Jane Doe without her consent, he's already graduated by the point that the Title IX investigation concludes. He's just barred from campus for three years. And now in 2026, after Jane Doe's lawsuit goes public,

Cordell makes a series of statements, all of which don't appear to get a ton of support from the community because, yeah, doesn't take it. an Ivy League education to understand why. And while netizens are demanding Cornell for answers, they're also turning to the local DA's office because Jane Doe went to Cornell University campus police to report what happened to her in November. Now, they are hired by the university.

They work for the university. They don't go and get to try their own criminal cases. There's no like criminal court inside of Cornell. So when they have a case, they hand it over to the local DA's office, which is the Tompkins County's DA's office, and it's run by district attorney Matthew Van Houghton. This gets passed off to the DA's office for potential criminal investigation. That's all CUPD can do. They're like, we investigated, we did some interviews, we got Jane Doe's full statement,

here you go, we can't really do anything else. Now the Title IX investigation is conducted by the school, but again, a Title IX investigation is not a criminal investigation. A Title IX investigation is not going to lead to any charges or arrest or even a grand jury investigation or indictment. That goes through the DA. Neither Cornell nor CUPD have any authority to bring criminal. charges. So what's going on with DA Van Houghton? Why were there no charges filed in

2024? But let's say that's too much. Why was there no open investigation in 2024? You didn't even investigate? Why did the case not go before a grand jury to let them decide if it was worthy that there should be charges filed against someone, many people, seven people, who knows how many people? Why wasn't it investigated? So the DA's office in 2026 recently starts getting a ton of backlash after Jane Doe's lawsuit goes public. And the DA's office, Van Houten, comes out swinging. I've never seen this before. He is so defensive.

He is swinging basically at himself and nobody else because he's the only one getting hit by all of his own statements. Like he's literally shooting himself in the own foot multiple times. He said that the decision to not bring charges was not even a close call. He said it wasn't even like I was debating.

It was night and day. They put out this memo statement and I've never seen anything like it. It's aggressive. It reads in short on September 18th, 2026. I learned of the civil complaint filed in New York County Court, alleging a series of heinous and despicable acts committed by members of the Kai-5 fraternity at Cornell University against a fellow Cornell student on October 19, 24.

He says that given the lawsuits very graphic allegations of criminal conduct, he's getting badgered with questions, basically, of why weren't they criminally prosecuted? He says, over the past two weeks, many people have called my office, left voicemails, sent emails about this case, some people have understandably sought answers. Others have simply insulted and sometimes threatened my office and my staff. While I generally refrain from commenting publicly on criminal investigations, the community outrage stemming from the incomplete news and social media coverage requires that I provide an answer to why the investigation resulted in a lack of criminal charges. He states, very boldly,

Jane Doe's sworn statement on November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or that she was ill. gang raped. He states, on the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. Okay, so a lot of people had feelings about that. So initially, when people read it, they're like, oh my gosh, this is the smoking gun. Jane Doe is lying. She lied about everything. Why did she say it was consensual in 2024? And then all of a sudden, in 2026, she wants to sue everyone. But when you think about it a little deeper, so he's saying she said in 24 is voluntary, conscious, and consensual. Then why would the four guys get expelled or even suspended?

Yes. But also, did the journal factory explode? Why is she telling CUPD any of that? Do students regularly on a basis just go to the campus police and tell them about their wild sexual encounters that they have as college students? It doesn't even make any sense. You're saying that she said everything was consensual. Why is there a report?

Why did she even report it? That's not normal behavior. It doesn't make sense. He says, my office 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. So he's saying like his decision was based off her original statements. He says, furthermore, I've never been contacted by Jane Doe's attorneys not to inform me that the original statement was inaccurate or to ask me to reconsider our decision. He says that he's the one that reached out to Jane Doe's attorneys after this new civil lawsuit was filed. It's a pretty argumentative statement.

I feel my interpretation reading it is it pretty much all but calls Jane Doe a liar. It's a pretty bold stance that they're taking, considering they didn't even investigate the case. It sounds like they already know what they believe happened, but they didn't investigate. They continue that they received a six-page single-spaced, typewritten statement from the Cornell University Police Department

of Jane Doe's statement. Now, Jane Doe made more than 20 handwritten notations to the six-page document. So they're like, okay, it's six pages. And then she's sitting there writing notes on the side. And then she signed it at the bottom, saying that this is an accurate statement and it's true and correct.

And I understand that making a false statement is punishable as a misdemeanor. And I will say, even like the framing of that message is just bizarre. It's not very friendly to the victim. Now, other people will counter that she's not really a victim based on what the DA shares. But that's also a bold statement,

but also, I guess, people are having their opinion. but considering the DA's office does reopen the case this year. This is like a weird, everyone's confused. And this very aggressive statement by the DA's office, you're telling me is not going to taint a jury pool based off his statement alone. So he came out, DA came out this year. First thing is denies. He came out with this aggressive statement.

And then very quickly, he reopened the investigation. And he's like, well, I'm getting new news. I want to see some new evidence. And he's like, yeah, let's reopen the investigation. but it's when a DA puts out that intense of a statement, how are you going to get a grand jury pool that's not going to be biased? So he was very defensive at first. So defensive.

It's all about like, no, we didn't do anything wrong. Yeah. In fact, she said she wanted it. He basically said she told me she wanted it. But he never even spoke to Jane Doe. So it seems like they're just under a lot of heat. And they're taking all this frustration out on Jane Doe. Now, some netizens do not believe that she is a victim,

but it still doesn't discount the fact that this is not, I think, a proper way that a DA's office should handle any case and any response. But they keep venturing on. The DA's office says, I've considered releasing a copy of Jane Doe's original statement. It very well may be that the statement is publicly available through the proper channels and ultimately have to be released. I've considered this, but decided against it at the stage for two reasons. So he's like, I really thought about releasing her six-page statement, right? But he's like, I don't want to do that because, well, he's saying like, then I would have to make the right redactions. We'd have to heavily redact a lot of things and like the proper time wouldn't work.

So instead of giving you a redacted version of her statement, I'm just going to give you like a paraphrasing of her statement, which I think probably takes longer than fucking redacting the statement. I mean, they redact stuff all day long. Yeah, exactly. For FLAAs, yeah. Exactly. Have a whole department. All they do is redact. And it's only six pages.

Okay, it's not the Epstein files, it's six freaking pages. But he's like, no, I'm just going to paraphrase it for the sake of efficiency. Okay? I don't know. Weird. Now, they refer to each, they don't refer to the accused names. It's like mail number one, mail number two, mail up to seven. But when you cross-reference Jane Doe's lawsuit, it's very clear who is being referenced.

But again, do your own research because these are redacted names and I'm just cross-referencing. And these are my conclusions of who I think it is. I can't give you 100% certainty, obviously, with anything that's redacted. And again, her statement is six pages long. The paraphrasing they do is obviously not six pages long. And I always find it interesting what people choose to highlight and include as details that are not pertinent to the crime itself. Obviously, when there are details that are pertinent to the alleged crimes, it's very important.

But the DA's office says, on the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walks approximately one mile. from lot 10 in the city of Ithaca to the Kai-Fi fraternity house at 107 Edgemore Lane to meet with her friend male number one, aka Matthew Ingalls, I think, right? Why do they include? I mean, what's relevant? Date, change of location, and purpose of change of location. She walks from lot 10 to the frat house, meeting with Matthew. They include the distance.

It's almost irrelevant. What does the distance have to do with anything, right? but I guess they're trying to subtly say this is pointing out subtly which she must not be that intoxicated because she walked the mile there. Or even more sinister, some people have been drawing the insinuation that I've seen gathered by netizens like, look how eager this girl is to go to this frat house. Who the fuck walks a mile to go to a frat house? Which a mile is really not that long.

Now, the inclusion of that very specific detail did make my brain itch a little bit. I don't know if it means anything I'm just saying it was interesting. the DA's office, they continue to paraphrase that on her way, her mile long walk, trek, journey, whatever, she's texting Matthew that she's on the way. And at this point, they say that she said her level of intoxication is five out of ten when she gets to the frat house. They say while there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. And again, this is like a very specific wording of like, I think they're trying to indicate that she was not that drunk when she gets there. She only has one beer when she gets there

and that beer could not possibly be roofied or drugged or the possibility is low because it was unopened, I guess, is kind of the insinuation I feel like they're making. From there, we get reacquainted with the details. We already know from Jane Doe's lawsuit about the dancing a little bit, the question that is being asked. And Jane Doe originally describes,

and this is included in this paraphrasing that she tells Cornell campus police that her relationship with Matthew was, quote, definitely flirtatious in nature. And they just include that. Okay, so it's lots of interesting things that they're including. Matthew brings Jane Doe to a quiet area, asks her about how do you feel about a threesome with another frat brother?

DA writes, Jane Doe agreed due to how attracted she was to Matthew on top of her drunken curiousness. When she learned that male number two, Jonathan, when she learned that Jonathan would be the third participant, Jane Doe remembered being excited because she thought that Matthew and Jonathan wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.

Just like very, again, very odd. And the inclusion of the detail is also kind of odd at this point, right? And again, I'm not saying that one version of events is truer than the others. I can't say that because clearly there was no really real in-depth thorough criminal investigation into the accused alleged crimes, right? Yeah, but it definitely reads more doubtful of Jane Doe's version. Yeah. You know? She walked a mile to see this guy.

She's texting him. She's flirting with him. They're dancing. She was excited. Yeah. Because this and that, yeah. It's like the framing is very specific. The DA continues to paraphrase that Jane Doe's statement,

stating that they engaged in a threesome with oral and vaginal sex in one of the fraternity rooms, the DA states, at the start of the relations, Jane Doe described her intoxication as five or six out of ten, and that she was, quote, pretty okay with having this threesome. End quote. The conduct ended when Jane Doe noticed that Matthew appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.

she told Jonathan that they needed to stop so that they can make sure that Matthew was okay Jonathan then stops having relations with Jane Doe so this is a little more in depth I guess like a little more details Matthew says that he's going to take a nap refresh himself and eventually stumbles to the bed while Matthew is sleeping the DA states

that Jonathan starts dry heaving like he's about to throw up and Jane Doe quote began to take care of Jonathan by patting his back while also waking Matthew every few minutes to make sure he's okay while consoling Jonathan on the couch telling him that it's okay if he has to throw up, which Jonathan apparently tells Jane that he's not going to throw up,

but he's pretty sure that he's not going to throw up. Okay, so this is really important, this whole like patting his back. And then Matthew is asleep. Because a lot of people use this statement as Jane Doe seems like the only sober one. So people who doubt Jane Doe and don't believe Jane Doe, they say it's kind of weird. Matthew can't even stay awake. How do we know he's consenting? And Matthew later says,

what if Jane Doe is the one that essayed me? Anyway, and then Jonathan, he's like throwing up and Jane Doe is not throwing up. In fact, she is taking care of two individuals who appear to be unwell to some degree, whether it's intoxication or what have you. I think that's like an unfair assessment, okay? Because I don't know how one person's ability to function

as it relates to another individual is some sort of indicator for their own intoxication level. Some people function better. Not better, but they maintain motor functions a little bit better while they're intoxicated, but they might be blackout drunk and still able to walk around

and behave like a normal person, right? That's true, yeah. So I think the relation is kind of strange. And also, a whole thing about ketamine, okay? I think a lot of people are saying that Jonathan is throwing us, because he's so intoxicated. He's so fucked up on whatever he's on.

Maybe the drugs, marijuana, ketamine, all combined. He's so intoxicated. There's no way he could consent to anything either. No one could consent to anything by that logic is what some netizens are arguing because he's throwing up like how intoxicated do you have to be to be throwing up like that. One thing that lots of netizens have been pointing out is that ketamine inherently makes a lot of people nauseous. And it doesn't matter how much ketamine you do, it could be the smallest bit of ketamine. Ketamine in some people's system, instant nausea.

Him throwing up should not be used as some sort of marker for how intoxicated he is. But it is being used like that. And Jane Doe patting him on the back is being used as she's not intoxicated at all. And in that same vein, if we're really to say that, oh, people are intoxicated. Okay, let's say Jonathan is so intoxicated. He's about to throw up. He's like gagging. Matthew's asleep.

But they somehow get it together to send Snapchat messages very quickly. Like, it's just kind of odd. Like, you have to, if you're going to apply that logic at one point in this timeline and storyline, you have to apply it later too. So it doesn't make any sense. Now, back to the DA, according to the DA, they say that eventually Jane Doe and Jonathan would start making out for a very short amount of time. And Jonathan kept reaching for her down there and she'd swanning his hand away.

Another fraternity brother knocks on the door. He is, this is Jillia Lopes. And this is kind of consistent with the lawsuit. Well, the one part that we do learn is that I believe this is Jili Ope's room. So that's how he walks in. So it's unclear if he walked in because of the Snapchat or it's like his room. It seems like it's because it's his room. But either way, he is accused of kissing Jane without her consent.

And then as he's making out with Jane Doe, Jonathan starts groping Jane Doe from the back. And eventually they end up in the bed next to where Matthew is asleep and they engage in more activity. That's the language from the DA, right? Quote, began to have a threesome. Matthew eventually wakes up and he says he wants to join two. So Matthew wakes up and he's like, oh my gosh, there's three of you, one of me, let's do a foursome. He doesn't say it like that, but he's like, let's make it a foursome.

And Jane Doe, according to the DA, says hell no. Jane Doe, quote, she didn't want a foursome because she knew that means that she would have to take part in anal which she didn't want. Now, I obviously don't have the full six page report, okay? but I have heard from mainstream media news outlets and while we were researching because they have gotten their hands on the six page report. They don't publish the full report. They're just like publishing like it's so annoying.

ABC News will publish one thing. Okay. And then you have to read and sign up for the New York Times, the fucking Atlantic, everywhere else. And then everyone's publishing like one sentence here, one sentence here from the statement. And then you're like trying to piece it together. And it's like, okay, now, you know, anyway, doesn't matter. But there is a lot of emotionally evocative statements inside of that six-page report.

There's a lot where Jane Doe is very firm that she did not like what happened to her. She did not consent to it. There's a lot of strong language. But instead, the language that the DA keeps wanting to include is that she didn't want to force them because she thought that that meant anal. She wanted a three-sum and was happy because she thought that meant they were gay. Like, it's very weird. Yeah, yeah, yeah. These are the quotes you want to put in.

Like, these are the thoughts that you want to put in. Like, what is the relevance to that, to the crime or the alleged crime, right? It's weird. Now, according to the DA's version of Jane's statement, Gileo then leaves the room and a group of other men enter the room. So you've got Winston Lee, Diego, and the two Scots. Jane is hiding under the covers. Jonathan is lying in bed next to her.

Matthew is sitting on the corner of the bed introducing all these men to Jane Doe. and then she remembers one of the guys had something really rude and mean to her and he apologizes and then just starts kissing her. So Jane backs off and makes him stop kissing her which based on the kissing, I think it could be Diego, right? But at this point, Jonathan is asking Jane,

do you want to do more ketamine? D.A.'s version. At that, Jane Doe remembered that she had taken ketamine at some point on the couch with Matthew and Jonathan during this night, but she couldn't remember where or when that took place. Jane Doe thought that she had already done ketamine once, so why not do it a second time? At that point, Jonathan poured a line of

ketamine on his erect penis, implying for her to snort the line off of his private parts. Jane Doe snorts the line of ketamine, which was a heavy amount of ketamine. And the other guys, I guess, watched it, and they're complimenting Jane Doe's body, according to her lawsuit and her statements, that she's so pretty and has a perfect body. And one of the guys asks her if they can do drugs off of her perfect body, which Jane Doe, according to the DA, responds, sure. So the men are doing drugs off her body. Jilio and another guy. So Jilio just had interactions with Jane Doe. He comes back with another guy and apparently says something along the lines of, okay, we're shutting down whatever the fuck this is, which I thought was also weird.

Like if I, mind you, we think Jilio is male number three, right? And then according to the DA, male number three comes back in. So according to this, he engages in a threesome with Jane Doe and is now coming back in afterwards to shut whatever the fuck this is down. What? Did he shut it down? Not really. He just said that and then left? Well, yeah, a bunch of the guys leave and then Winston and Matthew allegedly take her up to the third floor.

But it's just kind of odd. See, if I were a DA, do I have a logic? No. Okay. But if I were a DA and I'm reading that, I'd be like, I already just need to talk to some people because what do you mean? Like you just had interactions with her. You leave the room. Where'd you go?

And then you come back in with another guy. who's the other guy? I want to talk to the other guy. And then you say, we're shutting down whatever the fuck this is. Why are you so weird with the language? If everything was consensual, then you knew what the fuck this was. It was a consensual threesome. But then now you're saying, whatever the fuck this is, what do you mean by that? Like I'm not saying it's weird. I'm just I would like to investigate. I would like to interview these people then because it's just a very strange turn of events that doesn't make sense in my head. But the DA is like, makes sense. They continue paraphrasing. Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a preexisting

condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the ketamine use and the DA paraphrases that the two scots okay they're like even kind of being nice to her basically encouraging her to stay steed for as long as she needs eventually Matthew and Winston Lee bring Jane to an upstairs room and Matthew says let's do more ketamine Jane do remembers snorting more ketamine and remembers feeling extremely high Matthew apparently says he wants to have sex again because he wants a redemption for passing out earlier that night Jane says she's tired and asks Matthew, what happened to just you and me? And she can't remember how she starts engaging in a threesome with Matthew and Winston. The DA paraphrases, she described her level of

intoxication and eight out of ten at this point. Quote, the threesome continued until at some point around 5.45 a.m., Jane Doe said she was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with her as far as she can remember. The DA's office then later points out after this paraphrased statement that under New York state penal law, every essay requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the essay was committed without the consent of the victim, which they do not believe occurred here based off of Jane Doe's original statements. Now, here's the crazy thing, okay?

So the DA releases this very aggressive memo about like, I'm going to paraphrase her statements and I'm going to tell you what the fuck is up. And a lot of people just run with the DA statement. They're like, well, the DA said it, so it must be the version of events that is the truest to everything that occurred. Now, again, I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying the DA didn't investigate. So do you really put that much credibility on someone that didn't investigate? He didn't have a conversation with Jane Doe in 2024.

He never sat down with her. In fact, the statement that the DA's office received from Jane Doe back in 2024 was not even written by Jane Doe. It was written by Cornell University Police Department. So she's being interviewed. There's a transcript of the interview that the DA doesn't go through. She's being interviewed for hours. And the police officer that works for the Cornell University, okay, is like paraphrasing and like putting in her little statement.

It's six pages. He types it up and hands it to her and is like, is this true and accurate? Then she makes those little 20 little handwritten corrections. She's like, well, I thought I said that. I thought I said this. I thought I said this, right? And then she signs it. Now, at this point, you also have to understand

if everything happened as alleged in Jane Doe's lawsuit or even remotely similar, there's a lot of trauma. She's not going to sit there and say, actually, let me factually correct. It's like, you are not in the right state of mind. You're like, okay, I tried to correct. But at this point, you just kind of want to get it over with because I'm sure it probably was a lot of emotional trauma.

Yes. When police makes a statement like that, if she's correcting 20 things, yeah, that's very, very alarming. Imagine, because, you know,

we get police report all day long, you know, and that's basically the primary source as primary as it gets. And you're telling me there's 20 mistakes. Yeah.

What do you mean? Yeah. Right. But the DA is like, no, this is her statement and I'm going based off of her statement.

They don't make it abundantly clear that the six-page statement is actually written by a CUPD officer that did the interview and then Jane Doe signed it. So it's written from Jane Doe's perspective.

But it's written by the officer. So it's not Jane Doe's written statement. Now another thing is, this is an investigator that is described by many attorneys as, with all due respect, a regular schmigular campus police officer. Like, campus police officers are doing intake for things like car break ins. They're not handling something as sensitive as essay. Even most police departments. You think NYPD is like, these. most sensitive to sexual assault victims and know exactly how to talk to someone so that they can

feel comfortable and safe. Even these massive organizations, this is campus police. You know, people are saying they're busting up keg parties. They police football games. They give out traffic tickets. What do you mean? And so the way that they're interviewing Jane Doe is also probably not what is required to talk to someone and ask the appropriate questions to get them to accurately describe what happened to them because sexual assault victims have so much that they are unpacking in their minds. It is very hard to get a coherent, consistent statement in the very beginning. And that is like across the board that prosecutors and police officers have already spoken about publicly for decades. One former federal prosecutor says that's literally the norm.

It could be wandering the statements. It could be wandering all over the place because they suffered a trauma and they don't know they can't process or express it. She explains that's why prosecutors can't just sit down and say, all right, tell me what happened that day. She says prosecutors have intense training. They have sensitivity to navigate and investigate these sex crimes. She says this is like the 101 of trauma informed interviewing and clearly that did not happen here. Another thing to note is that CUPD never informed or got Ithaca police department involved. Okay?

So they find out about these insane allegations. Crazy, okay? Ithaca Police Department comes out in 2026 and is like, hey, guys, don't shoot us. We actually just found out through the media. No one told us. CUPD never came to us, passed off the case, nothing. Yeah, because why would they make this into the news, right? Because they work for Cornell.

And the Title IX investigation is made up of Cornell faculty and staff, right? So everything is kept inside of. of Cornell and the DA's office is like, we don't need to investigate. What is there to investigate? So, you know, some people have been bringing up the words cover up. So I'm just saying, I mean, I guess if it looks like a cover up, smells like a cover up, it's probably Cornell. Just kidding.

I don't know. But not only that. Not only that. The CUPD gave the DA's office a condensed version of the statement. When? The original one that the DA's office got, like the six page one, is already condensed. So they had like a statement from Jane Doe. She signed off on it.

And then it seems like it went through a further condensing. So this is like a very condensed version of events. Okay. Okay. Like a little super summary. What? Yeah. They read the super summary.

And they could just get the transcript from the initial interview that Jane Doe had because CUPD has it. The transcript, that interview is the basis of this written statement. So all you have to do is probably shoot one email. You get it. You listen to the statement. I don't know. Or you listen to the transcript and then you're done. Or you read the transcript. You listen to the, if it's an audio of the interview, you just, you get it done. That's it. And then you can make a better informed decision. But the DA's office claims they never got the transcript. CUPD is like, we gave them a lot of stuff. So it's like, we actually don't know who's. Yeah. But had they done that, the transcript reflects that Jane Doe stated to campus authorities that she was our worded. She did not know how many people had sex with her and quote I can say with a hundred percent confidence I was raped there was really no escape how do we know that I think ABC got their hands I don't know if it was ABC or CBS I know both of them have been getting their hands on these transcripts oh the original 2024 interview with the CUPD yes and they're releasing like

little snippets of it so her actual account does not match what the DA is claiming now. Yeah. So the DA is like, she said everything was consensual. But in the transcript, quote, I can say with 100% confidence, I was raped. There was really no escape. Okay? She later describes it as, quote, I felt like bait. I felt like lions around me.

It was just totally debilitating. It was a debilitating place to be in. In the initial statements, she tells CUPD that she agreed to a threesome with Matthew and Jonathan, but there are more than two men in the alumni room that started coming in and she started feeling used. She says that she could basically she's saying she went in there consenting to this threesome, but things start unraveling and she's no longer consenting. And so a lot of people are reading between the lines and they're like, oh yes, because withdrawing consent is a completely valid normal thing that everyone should be able to do and everyone should respect because yes,

you can say yes, I want a threesome and then decide what the fuck is. happening. I don't want this anymore, right? But because she did initially agree to the initial threesome and because the DA statement makes it sound so vague and weird, it makes it seem like she is upset after the fact. So it's weird. There are other text messages that people are also bringing up to kind of bolster that argument. People are very divided on this case, very divided. We're going to get into the text messages later. But she said that she could hear a bunch of guys talking about taking turns with her. That's what she reports. to CUPD in the transcript, okay?

She says, I will never know who all touched me. I will not know. DA's office, they don't get the transcript or they don't read the transcript. I don't know, okay? But they don't bother to ask for it or go through it. And this report that's typed up by CUPD that Jane Doe signs off on is like an abbreviated statement. And like remember how earlier the DA's office said the second time she did ketamine.

She was just thinking, oh, I already did ketamine. I don't remember when or where, but I just thought, you know, I already did it once. So. Yeah. Right? Yeah. But the transcript, if you get the transcript, the statement reads, I had become extremely uncomfortable with how this night was turning out.

So my thought was if I do ketamine again, maybe I'll pass out. And my thought was if I passed out, then if these men had sex with me, they would be charged with rape. So she's basically saying, like, I just want to pass out so that everyone will stop. And the DA translation is, I already did it. So I might as well do it. again. Yes. Now, is it it could be that he only

got this half-ass statement or it could be, I don't know, right? But it's just, that wasn't the transcript of the interview that the statement is based off of. Now, a lot of this, the DA's office is now, they put out this aggressive statement, okay?

CUPED is like, hold on. Wait, don't point the finger at us because like this is, what's going on? People, reporters, journalists are getting their hands. on the official transcript of the interview, and they're leaking little portions. They're like, well, this portion says that she was 100% confident

that she was our worded. So, like, what's going on? Now people are going back to the DA. These journalists are going back to the DA. And the DA is like, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. The DA is like, we didn't get all of this. We didn't get this information. We didn't get it in 2024.

And we haven't been getting it for the past two years, right? So. But it's very easy to get that information. Also, the DA kept referring to her state of intoxication as like a five, an eight out of ten, which eight out of ten to me sounds pretty bad. But like, just the whole storyline. But she said in the transcript, quote, I would say that it was the most intoxicated I've ever been in my life.

I felt like I was unable to make any decision based off of how intoxicated I was. To me, that felt like coercion. I also felt like due to my intoxication, they should have known how intoxicated I was based on how I was slurring my words. And even CUPD's very first open report, like their writing of the report, it reads, quote, a female undergraduate student reported

that she was recently raped by eight to 10 men at the Chi Phi fraternity house. I'm sorry, if that lands on a DA's desk, you're going to at least investigate, right? So did it land on the DA's desk? And the DA said, no. Or did it not get to the DA? But does it really matter?

So I think a lot of people are more upset with the DA. And a lot of prosecutors, former prosecutors, have even come out and said, what the fuck is that DA doing in much more legal words, nicer words? But they're saying, like, some of them have been more transparent saying, like, when you're dealing with campus police as a prosecutor, I mean, they're like mall cops in your mind. Like, that's what they're thinking. Like, you're not, you're not like, oh, I'm sure the campus police know exactly what

they're doing. And like, I'm just going to take their word for it because they're such great investigators. and like they really know how to do a case, right? Usually prosecutors are like, I don't think you know what you're doing. I got to at least talk to the alleged victim. I got at least talk to some people and figure it out before I decide if we bring this before a grand jury.

But no. They're like, what compelled the DA to just take this random six-page report and say, that must be all? But Van Houghton pushes back. He says, the transcript wasn't provided to me. Nobody, you know, knows this information about the transcript and that gives me something to really dig into because that changes the landscape for me.

Yeah. He says, you know, I'm going to follow up on this because this is news to me. That was an information that I had. First of all, so they're talking about like how Jane Doe told CUPD that she is 100% confident she was artworked, right? He said, you know, first of all, I'm going to follow up. That was an information I had. Second of all, that's a legal conclusion. Second of all, that's a legal conclusion.

Yeah. If she had said those words, we certainly would want to have explored that more. like I said that wasn't provided to me. Okay. Even now, she's saying I was R-worded. Okay, I'm 100% confident. I was R-worded.

Okay? He's saying that's a legal conclusion. Basically saying she can't arrive. Yeah, you can't arrive to a legal conclusion. You're not a lawyer. You're not the jury. You're not the grand jury. Right?

You're not anything. But if I had seen that, I would have investigated. Like, that's what he's saying. I would have explored. He doesn't even say investigated. He said if she had, said those words, we certainly would want to have explored that more. Explored that more.

He says that he never even saw the Snapchat messages in the Kai-Fi Snapchat group. And when he's asked about that, he says, well, that's disgusting. It's morally despicable. He says, the Snapchat is disgusting, vulgar, immoral. But the question we analyzed was, did Jane Doe consent to what happened? And this law in New York State is clear that if you are voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs such that your judgment is impaired, that does not legally, under the penal law, constitute your inability to consent.

Yeah. He says that is a very difficult concept, but it's a concept that I'm constrained by when I apply the law to this case. He says, if you take that Snapchat being vile, crude, and vulgar, that did not have any relevance to the issue of whether Jane Doe consented to what was happening. He's saying this Snapchat has no relevance. to the alleged crimes. What?

That, okay, wow. DA Van Houghten just states, it had become clear that we were not provided the full picture by the university. They were the first ones to be able to interview and have their questions answered and just let this young woman tell her story. Them sending a partial record over is in my judgment a failure. But also, he said in a previous interview, if what's said in social media about this case were true,

those fraternity members would be in prison rights. now. Yeah, but that would only happen if they're found guilty. And if they are found guilty, which again, they have not been found guilty. They have not been charged with anything criminally. But if they are guilty of these alleged crimes, yeah, they would be in prison, but nobody goes to prison without an investigation. And you chose not to investigate it. So I, he keeps like pointing the finger out and it's just like a very long finger that circles back and points back at him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Jane Doe's lawyer is confused saying it's challenging for me to understand how a thorough criminal investigation could have been conducted when

she never spoke with anyone other than the officer who took her original complaint. As for the DA's office, Jane Doe's attorney says, What more did Van Houghten need to do with thorough investigation and prosecute? He had a woman who told an officer she was raped and a group chat inviting sexual assaults. The failure to do anything is shocking. Neither I nor Ms. Doe have any confidence in DA Houghton'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 DA. But now, of course, he's reopening the case. In an interview, DA Houghton states that he hopes to speak directly to Jane Doe soon to discuss new evidence that exists about her claims, which, okay, again, some people believe Jane Doe, some people don't, which is, you know, I think this case has gotten pretty political now that, you know, a lot of right-wing commentators have taken up this case and really gone a town on it, have used this case as a way to try to tear down the Me Too movement. Trump has commented on this case.

There's a lot of political things that are happening in this landscape. However, I just think anyone who goes and reports a sexual crime and then the DA's office rips them apart and now the DA wants to talk to them, how would you ever feel comfortable talking to them about anything? Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't even want to be in the same room as you. Like, what are you saying? I'm sure she'd love to talk to you after your aggressive statement

where you said you basically don't believe her. And again, this is very important because this is the district attorney. Jane Doe's attorney says, The defensive posture I've gleaned from the DA's statements lead me to believe that they recognize that there were failures and they are trying to excuse them. While I do not care for the attempt to blame Ms. Doe for these failures, we appreciate and support any efforts to prosecute the parties responsible for the assaults

and will fully cooperate with the DA's office to hold these men accountable. But have no fear, because the DA's office gets taken off this case and the Attorney General of New York, Leticia James, is actually appointed as the special prosecutor. However, more on that later,

because one of the accused attorneys is demanding she stepped down as the special prosecutor. Based on... Before she was appointed the special prosecutor, she had posted on social media. About the case. Yes, and her wording was,

they believe, acceptance of James and... Doe's version of events. I see. Yeah. So it's getting tricky. And Leticia James has really longstanding, incredibly deep beef with President Trump. So he's been saying some crazy things about this case.

And it seems more so pointed at Latisha James and less so about, you know, justice for university students. But anyway, more on that later. But regardless of which side you're on, because again, like I said, this has become a politically divisive case. It's kind of like the Lindsay Clancy case where it spawned into almost like a gender war and then it kind of spawned into like a political thing. And everyone's like, oh, of course you're a liberal or of course you're a conservative because here's your view on Lindsay Clancy. Like I already knew who you voted for. Like it's almost become synonymous with politics.

So a lot of people are taking very extreme stances. And regardless, I just think this was, I mean, Lindsay Clancy was a bad investigation. In this case, it was the absence of an investigation, and I think it benefits no one. Jane Doe gets screwed, and if you think that the accused are not just innocent until proven guilty, but you think they're innocent because you think Jane Doe's story is changing, or you saw a text message Jane Doe sent after the alleged incident, right? What have you? The accused are also getting screwed because a thorough investigation is supposed to bring us closer to the truth and closer to justice, and there was no investigation at all. So whichever way you think the pendulum swings, it got forward.

forked up by the DA, I think. The former Kai Fi member that was hazed, remember, with the spicy mung on his private parts, he says, every pledge at Kai Phi went through a similar process. I don't know if all of them were sexually assaulted the way that I was, but I suspect that many, if not most were. Now that Cornell's Kai Phi chapter has become national news, I can't help but see a connection between the way I was initiated and the way the quote, Cornell 7 allegedly gang-raped Jane Doe.

For years after college, I fought depression and addiction. Today, with more than a decade of reflection and years of therapy bills behind me, I can see how the cycle of violence that men and boys force on one another binds us to silence and shame. This is a dark room to drop into, and it's here that violence begets violence. And that is where I leave you with the first part of this case. The second video, the final part I'm going to try to get up as quickly as possible, but it's just so extensive. We go through every single of the seven accused alleged

statements. So I was trying to piece together the John Doe statements of the Title IX investigation and what they stayed happened based off of their redacted names in the law. I'll get into all of that. But there are people that are wrongfully being docks, like wrong individuals being doxed as being the Cornell 7. Lots of Asian people with the name Winston Lee are getting doxed from just like everywhere. Some of the accused are reportedly fleeing the country, leaving the country, though I will say those are unconfirmed rumors. And right now it's not even clear if there's anything barring them from legally traveling or leaving the country. But you get it. Protests are being held at Cornell. There are calls for the president of Cornell to resign.

There's a social media campaign that some people have set forth to try and dox Jane Doe. And then a bigger social media campaign to protect Jane Doe's identity with women sharing, I am Jane Doe on social media to confuse the algorithm, to confuse people and who really is the real Jane Doe, while they also share stories of their own alleged essays, while they share their own stories of what they went through in university colleges or just their own experiences of being essayed. Meanwhile, Jane Doe has been apparently getting text messages and one has been publicized. It's been reported. Her house got swatted. What? Yeah. And she's getting very threatening text messages.

One of them reads, if you care about your family, withdraw the case. You're accusing my cousin of something he didn't do. Do you want to see redacted brains in front of redacted? So it seems like, do you want to see maybe like a family member, a loved one's brains in front of another family member? If so, don't withdraw the case. She recorded a phone call that she received in which there's a strange voice.

It's almost as if someone is using something to manipulate their voice. Hello? To be honest, man, I'm probably just going to like pull up to your house, bro, and shoot different people in your family. I don't really care anymore. Now, you're pissing me off by ignoring me. Like, why would you lie on my brother Jonathan's name, bro? So there's no indication that this individual is related to Jonathan Newell. But, you know, that's what they say. That's fucked. And you're just like ignoring me. Why would you accuse my innocent brother, Jonathan? Fucked up, dude. My boyfriend. My brother Jonathan man and you accuse him of something he didn't do, innocent, innocent guy. And you just sit there and be quiet. I'd be quiet too if I lied about something. You're fucked. I can hear you. I can hear you breathing. Instead of speaking out, you're just sitting there quiet. If you want to keep ignoring me, I can't guarantee you'll be safe, bro. Like seriously, I'm being very honest with you. Do you have anything to say for yourself or not? And all the while that's happening, the internet has become completely divided after new text messages have come out where Jane Doe tells one of the

accused that nothing illegal happened that night. Some netizens are arguing this is exactly what happens when someone is experiencing trauma. This is textbook for someone to be in denial about what they've endured. Other netizens are arguing this is proof that she is not being entirely truthful about her allegations. Why would she confirm nothing illegal happened and then say something illegal happened? Maybe this is not a case of essay and this is a case of remorse. Other netizens are passionately debating where is the line of consent? Is it just the words, no? Is it enthusiastic consent? Is it coercion? Like what is, where's the line? And also the Snapchat messages. But that is where I leave you with part one. Stay tuned for part two. Be safe. And I'm sure there will be a lot more

updates included in that one because it seems there is new breaking information every day on this case. Stay safe and I'll see you in the next one.