There is very little public information related to the so called “Cornell 7” gang rape allegation that reflects well on the alleged victim, still only known officially as “Jane Doe.” Even her own account of the incident as detailed in a civil suit against the accused (and other parties), at a minimum, raises questions, suspicions, and doubt about what she says happened.
All the TikTok women getting their information about this case from watching each other’s videos rather than, you know, viewing legal documents and news reporting, should do themselves a favor and read it. I’ll help.
Page 23 is where the suit relays Doe’s version of events that took place on Oct. 19, 2024, into the early morning of Oct. 20, near Cornell University, where she and the accused attended school. It says she was “in a very vulnerable situation when she was sexually assaulted” by seven men at the Chi Phi frat house. The suit says the defendants were “fully aware,” which is an interesting claim, given that by every indication, including details in Doe’s very suit, all parties involved were drunk and high, with no discernment as to who may have been more intoxicated than anyone else.
The suit says the Oct. 19 evening began with Doe having “consumed Tito’s
vodka” at her sorority’s house “until she was intoxicated.” Quick question: Is this the point at which Doe is no longer responsible for anything she does, or?
Doe next went to Moonies Bar & Nightclub where even though her hands had been marked to indicate she was underage, she was still served “at least” one drink. At around 10 p.m., she went with other sorority sisters to another bar, where the suit says she stayed for about an hour, though without stating whether she drank there. At 11 p.m., Doe “stumbled alone” to the Chi Phi fraternity house and “was visibly intoxicated as she had consumed about 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours.” Question: She was visibly intoxicated, according to who? Would Doe say anyone else present was also “visibly intoxicated” or does it only matter that she was?
Upon entering the house, Doe saw a male friend, one of the accused who the suit identified as Matthew Ingalls. He allegedly gave her a beer and after some time, the two went to a separate room, at which point the suit says Ingalls proposed a threesome to include another member of his fraternity. “In her drunken state,” the lawsuit says, “Plaintiff was incapable of consenting to this proposition.”
Well, that’s one opinion. The suit doesn’t say whether Doe, who was 20 at the time, said yes or no, or whether she had mixed feelings. It only claims she was incapable of deciding for herself. That’s someone else’s job, apparently.
The suit says that “[d]espite being incapable of consent,” Ingalls “led” Doe upstairs and the two eventually entered a room with another frat member, identified as Johnathan Newell. The two men then allegedly “pressured” Doe into consuming the drug ketamine, a curious characterization given that the suit never alleges the use of any force or coercion. To the contrary, in multiple places, the suit says Doe consumed the substance without any resistance or objection:
—”Defendant NEWELL then poured a line of Ketamine onto his erect penis and
commanded that Plaintiff snort it, which she did.”
—”Once inside, Defendants INGALLS and LEE made more lines of Ketamine and
instructed Plaintiff to snort one, which she did.”
The suit also alleges Ingalls and Newell “plied” Doe with “marijuana and ‘Jamaican Liquor,'” as if Doe hadn’t already been illegally drinking on her own — to the point of intoxication, according to her own account — just a few hours before.
This is all a long way of saying Doe planned on getting drunk on a Saturday night, she did in fact get drunk by her own volition, and then continued to drink and consume drugs with others. That’s true whether her judgement to continue those activities was impaired. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it was and yet there’s a clear distinction between a woman choosing to engage in risky behavior and a woman having it forced on her. The lawsuit doesn’t claim it was forced on her, only that she was incapable of being responsible for anything that happened. If nothing else, that’s convenient for a lawsuit and, perhaps, a woman’s unsettled conscience.
Anyone who wants to read more of the details about the alleged sexual assault and continued drug consumption can do that. But it’s what happened later, after Doe left the frat house, that’s really interesting. The lawsuit says she was “in a state of shock” immediately after leaving the house and that she “became aware of what happened to her” only after realizing it “was becoming public knowledge” on campus. Not until almost three weeks later did Doe “report the incident” to campus police.
Taken together, those details suggest Doe didn’t fully recall what happened and even that she wasn’t especially alarmed until it became school gossip. And yet nearly two years later she was able to recall that night in vivid detail, including the point at which she was no longer responsible for herself.
Since the lawsuit became public last month, a lot more information has been made public, much of which contradicts claims in the suit. But even if it hadn’t, the story laid out in the suit alone is enough to make any reasonable person doubt that what’s the claims they’re reading have some serious problems.
