Jane Doe claims that she was gang raped by seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University in the early hours of October 20, 2024. She alleges that the men provided her with drugs and alcohol until she was too incapacitated to realize what was happening.
However, current evidence suggests that the 20-year-old woman arrived at the fraternity after consuming a few drinks, agreed to a threesome, and later in a text referred to the events as a gang bang, expressing a more approving view than one might expect.
Approximately two weeks after the incident, feeling shame from the campus community, Jane Doe spoke to campus police. During that statement, she still maintained that everything that occurred that night was consensual, including the drinking and illegal drug use.
It wasn’t until two years later, just weeks before a midterm election, that Jane Doe claimed rape publicly through a notable civil lawsuit, accusing seven Chi Phi fraternity members, now referred to as the Cornell 7, of drugging her in order to carry out the alleged gang rape.
Following this, various reports highlighted text messages that Jane Doe purportedly sent in the days and weeks after the event, which seem to contradict her claims. On Tuesday, a specific text message was released that raises doubts about her assertion of being incapacitated by drugs.
According to the timestamp, this text message was sent by Jane Doe during the same hours she now claims she was incapacitated and assaulted.
At 3:05 a.m. on October 20, 2024, a sorority sister texted Jane, asking, “You coming home tonight?”
Jane Doe replied, “idk.”
To clarify for anyone less familiar with texting lingo…
Are you coming home tonight?
I don’t know.
This makes me wonder: 1) Jane Doe hasn’t alleged in her suit that her supposed rapists took her phone, 2) nor has she claimed that one of them used her phone to send messages, so 3) what kind of rapist lets their victim keep her phone and communicate via text during an attack?
Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) appointed the state’s attorney general, Letitia James—who has faced her own controversies—as a special prosecutor for this case. While she can certainly bring about a criminal indictment, the situation with the Cornell 7 seems different. Perhaps additional evidence will emerge. But for now, it appears that these allegations may be fabricated, likely an attempt to influence the upcoming midterm elections.
