NY gov appoints special prosecutor in Cornell frat rape case
Discussion
This is horrific, it reads like the like the oft told tale of frat boys in college because they have mega rich daddies getting away with things like..........well rape
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr1585y0y90go
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr1585y0y90go
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/co...
guardian article said:
she also wrote: non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal , and stated that she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine .
guardian article said:
her statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 2nd October 08:59
BikeBikeBIke said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/co...
she also wrote: non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal , and stated that she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine .
her statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
Why the bold?she also wrote: non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal , and stated that she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine .
her statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
We are seeing the weird, 'let's publicise our way of undermining the other party before the actual start' facet of US cases. It's just fluff in the main.
Lots to come out I assume. Or maybe not; this is the US legal system. But if she was drugged to insensibility, the texts, should they be real, have little impact on the accusations.
Only an indiot would make judgements on this specific case at this stage of course, but is anyone surprised at such an accusation?
Derek Smith said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/29/co...
she also wrote: non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal , and stated that she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine .
her statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
Why the bold?she also wrote: non[e] of the sexual stuff was illegal , and stated that she liked being with him and another man. Later, she suggested they smoke together again, but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine .
her statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.
We are seeing the weird, 'let's publicise our way of undermining the other party before the actual start' facet of US cases. It's just fluff in the main.
Lots to come out I assume. Or maybe not; this is the US legal system. But if she was drugged to insensibility, the texts, should they be real, have little impact on the accusations.
Only an idiot would make judgements on this specific case at this stage of course, but is anyone surprised at such an accusation?
That bold has a whiff of "can't rape a prostitute, she had a shirt skirt on".
There's been a lot in the US press about this. Cornell covered it up, made the accused write essays as punishment, and it seems there's a big culture of it there.
It's only come to light because the student press covered the story
And Attorney General Letitia James appointed, the person who successfully prosecuted trump for fraud
“New information has raised serious questions about how this case was handled, and I’ve lost faith in the Tompkins County D.A.’s ability to fairly oversee it.”
The Cornell 7 rape case was set up for failure.
It appears the Tompkins County district attorney’s office failed to properly follow up with standard practices for cases involving sexual assault allegations when the initial complaint was made in 2024.
https://www.ms.now/opinion/cornell-7-jane-doe-rape...
It's only come to light because the student press covered the story
And Attorney General Letitia James appointed, the person who successfully prosecuted trump for fraud
“New information has raised serious questions about how this case was handled, and I’ve lost faith in the Tompkins County D.A.’s ability to fairly oversee it.”
The Cornell 7 rape case was set up for failure.
It appears the Tompkins County district attorney’s office failed to properly follow up with standard practices for cases involving sexual assault allegations when the initial complaint was made in 2024.
https://www.ms.now/opinion/cornell-7-jane-doe-rape...
Lots of things missed off the BBC article.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
JagLover said:
Lots of things missed off the BBC article.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
Even if she consented to a threesome, is there any suggestion she consented to the other 5 getting involved? Or was even able to consented?Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
markh1973 said:
Even if she consented to a threesome, is there any suggestion she consented to the other 5 getting involved?
Suggestion? She explicitly stated it was *all* consensual and no offence was committed.I'm sure she'll win a ton of money in a civil case against the college but the chances of a criminal conviction against these guys is low.
BikeBikeBIke said:
markh1973 said:
Even if she consented to a threesome, is there any suggestion she consented to the other 5 getting involved?
Suggestion? She explicitly stated it was *all* consensual and no offence was committed.I'm sure she'll win a ton of money in a civil case against the college but the chances of a criminal conviction against these guys is low.
There is no suggestion that she was incapacitated by drink or drugs and under NY law if you are impaired by substances you voluntarily take you are still responsible for your actions.
JagLover said:
Lots of things missed off the BBC article.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
Nope, stuffs in their including the bit you mentioned.Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo
The messages were reportedly sent two days after the alleged assault.
In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
Other reporting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigative...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/cornel...
Byker28i said:
JagLover said:
Lots of things missed off the BBC article.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
Nope, stuffs in their including the bit you mentioned.Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo
Shame denzel wasn’t around.
Instantly reminded me of this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCxIHAbuAI&ra=m
Instantly reminded me of this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCxIHAbuAI&ra=m
When even The View is questioning the case you know there are issues.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...
Byker28i said:
The messages were reportedly sent two days after the alleged assault.
In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
Morally it is all rather unpleasant, but consenting adults get up to all sorts of things I find rather dubious or unpleasant. My advice to any lad setting off to university would be to never get involved in one night stands, particularly with alcohol involved. In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
That still doesn't make what happened here an SA and even less that there is any realistic prospect of a criminal conviction.
JagLover said:
Lots of things missed off the BBC article.
Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
What you’re describing seems to leave out some important details. Like how she only made this claim after they denied her a return visit to the same frat house. Also how she admitted to voluntarily taking the drink and drugs in her initial statement. Also how she said in her initial statement she consented to a threesome prior to consuming the drugs.
Also how said drugs were being snorted off each other's body parts. I could go on, but the reason why this was not prosecuted in 2024 was because there was never the slightest chance of a conviction back then and don't know how things have changed since.
After it happened she spoke to people who told her it sounded like rape/sexual assault and it sounds like she went on a (not unusual for a victim) journey of ‘that was fine right?’ to ‘I think I was sexually assaulted’
Part of that was being disinvited to an event at the chi phi house ‘for her own good’ - why would she need protecting if it was all fine?
Also, I don’t think a university (or many institutions, including workplaces for example) need a criminal conviction to make a judgement and take action.
I am, sadly, not surprised that the effort on this thread is to mitigate the actions of the men involved.
Byker28i said:
Nope, stuffs in their including the bit you mentioned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo
The messages were reportedly sent two days after the alleged assault.
In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
Other reporting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigative...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/cornel...
Rape is an extremely difficult offence to prosecute. Juries tend to demand the moral high ground from the victims. Defence briefs were, back in the day, completely amoral in the way they went about the defence, citing the 'it's my job' sort of thing while, at the same time, criticising the victim for their supposed lack of morals.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo
The messages were reportedly sent two days after the alleged assault.
In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
Other reporting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigative...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/nyregion/cornel...
It's not so long ago, and the younger element on PH might find this difficult to believe, when many blokes thought it an excuse to sexual intercourse without consent, if they got the woman drunk. I know I'm old but despair sets in.
I was ID officer in one case where the victim collapsed for some 7 minutes after seeing him. The offender's brief tried to block a screen going up between her and the offender who has a lifetime of sexual offences against him. Not mentioned until he pleaded guilty after putting her through the agony of giving the details in court of course.
The brief demanded an ID parade, despite there being overwhelming forensic evidence. Despicable behaviour.
He reoffended twice more and full surveillance was mounted on his next release - phenomenal expense - and he got an indeterminate sentence. He was released and then raped again, as everyone knew he would.
Latest sentence is 9 years minimum of a life sentence.
https://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex/news/cour...
We need fewer people sent to prison. There's ample evidence to show this reduces recidivism significantly, is much cheaper, even taking into account extra people to assist with the alternatives. It will free up spaces for offenders such as this to be given sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes and their effects on their vicitms and they friends, families and loved ones. For the case I was involved in, the offender, despite the sustained and repeated assaults on the 18-year-old victim, the actual punishment ammounted to less than 3 years despite the 7 year sentence. An aggravating factor should be the viciousness of the offence, and it should negate the possibility of being let out at half sentence.
On a positive, mildly so, side, the conduct of the prosecution resulted in a change in the Codes of Practice.
gregs656 said:
What you re describing seems to leave out some important details. After it happened she spoke to people who told her it sounded like rape/sexual assault and it sounds like she went on a (not unusual for a victim) journey of that was fine right? to I think I was sexually assaulted Part of that was being disinvited to an event at the chi phi house for her own good - why would she need protecting if it was all fine?Also, I don t think a university (or many institutions, including workplaces for example) need a criminal conviction to make a judgement and take action. I am, sadly, not surprised that the effort on this thread is to mitigate the actions of the men involved.
Considering the case hasn't even been heard yet it's probably a little early to be taking the moral high ground - we work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty after all. Given how murky the details of the case are I'd be surprised if it got very far - even though certain Democrat lawmakers (and potential lawmakers) have already decided the 7 are guilty. bodhi said:
gregs656 said:
What you re describing seems to leave out some important details.
After it happened she spoke to people who told her it sounded like rape/sexual assault and it sounds like she went on a (not unusual for a victim) journey of that was fine right? to I think I was sexually assaulted
Part of that was being disinvited to an event at the chi phi house for her own good - why would she need protecting if it was all fine?
Also, I don t think a university (or many institutions, including workplaces for example) need a criminal conviction to make a judgement and take action.
I am, sadly, not surprised that the effort on this thread is to mitigate the actions of the men involved.
Considering the case hasn't even been heard yet it's probably a little early to be taking the moral high ground - we work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty after all. After it happened she spoke to people who told her it sounded like rape/sexual assault and it sounds like she went on a (not unusual for a victim) journey of that was fine right? to I think I was sexually assaulted
Part of that was being disinvited to an event at the chi phi house for her own good - why would she need protecting if it was all fine?
Also, I don t think a university (or many institutions, including workplaces for example) need a criminal conviction to make a judgement and take action.
I am, sadly, not surprised that the effort on this thread is to mitigate the actions of the men involved.
Given how murky the details of the case are I'd be surprised if it got very far - even though certain Democrat lawmakers (and potential lawmakers) have already decided the 7 are guilty.
Given this is a civil case they are much more likely to be found guilty this time.
Not saying that it justifies the assumption of guilt of course.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff