Comment Deleted

0

LC's mistrial was three weeks ago. DA is revisiting charges as we speak. The truth is, the system protects the accused. LC is the accused; hence, the mistrial protected her. There are very few rights for victims in this country.

59

Anonymous #6 1w

yes that is my point. LC was protected by the mistrial because her situation garnered so much online attention it began to scew facts from fiction. i warn against jumping to conclusions and spewing false information about this case because i would rather not have seven rapists get away scott free.

9

Anonymous #4 1w

I disagree. There is too much nuance around her case, especially because local PD isn't ready to respond to scenes like that, unlike Boston Police or State Police. There was a lack of investigation, and there was also too much mental health history, which left the jury confused. The problem is that someone can be deemed legally insane but not criminally responsible; in today's age, I think both can be true, but the law doesn't see it that way.

33

Anonymous #4 1w

On the topic of Jane Doe and the accused. All Title IX reports should go immediately to the police department and the DA’s office, but colleges like to keep a tight lid on what happens on campus. Both systems failed her.

33

Anonymous #6 1w

all of that can be true and my point still stands the same. this case is very nuanced. she said it was all consensual, screenshots are out if her defending the frat a month later and saying “i love u king” to one of the brothers and now two years later she is recanting everything by saying it wasnt consensual. i was a victim once, i get being scared to tell the truth but this case isnt cut & dry and we need to stop this vigilantism until we know everything for sure

14

Okay but Lindsay did it she admitted it the 7 rapist at Cornell did it so once again the system will protect you if you are white/ white presenting and have some sort of status and or connections. Your comment was irrelevant to what I even commented.

7

Anonymous #1 1w

it is relevant, you said and i quote “all of us know these monsters at cornell did it” which is a dangerous precedent to set. do i think they did it? almost for sure. do i think it is way too early to start punishing and threatening violence onto these kids when nobody in this thread knows the full story. 100%

13

Anonymous #3 1w

Don’t forget every faculty member who decided that an essay was an appropriate punishment.

323

Anonymous #8 1w

ok ok this essay part is getting blown out of proportion by misinformation and it needs cleared up. the essay was not a punishment for the rape allegations. the essay was a school requirement because of the drugs discovered in 2024. Remember, back then she claimed all sexual activity was consensual, which is why the DA dropped the case. This is why i’m so adamant that misinformation and vigilantism can REALLY fuck up the process of cases such as this.

150

Anonymous #4 1w

So the school still *did not* properly evaluate the rape allegations and punish the students accordingly. I was under the assumption they were only made to write an essay and now you’re telling me they had no punishment at all. Thank you for clarifying.

162

Anonymous #4 1w

Did I even say anything about pushing violence no. That’s just your personal feelings so once again irrelevant. We all know the criminal system is not just it is shown time and time again. And as a criminology student I acknowledge that. I’m not telling ppl to go out and stone them I am make an inference on why they got coined the Cornel 7 in news and media it is a sociological tactic that’s all I’m going to say on that matter have a good day

10

Anonymous #1 1w

No literally like it’s truly insidious

3

Anonymous #8 1w

Two were expelled and the other 5 were suspended as well. Also it’s not the school’s job to evaluate or investigate allegations like that, it’s up to the police and DA. Those people told the school no crime had occurred. There’s really nothing else the school could have done based on what they were provided at the time. The police and DA are the ones that screwed up not the school

61

Anonymous #4 1w

When it comes to victims on college campuses, denial, apologizing, and defending what happened to them are all traumatic responses to what happened to them. Being blamed and shamed on a public scale warps one's perception of what actually occurred. It makes sense it took two years to file a civil suit. So she could actually process what happened to her that night without public scrutiny.

13

Anonymous #6 1w

none of what you just said is relevant to my last message. the point of our justice system is that a defendant is found guilty when reasonable doubt it foregone. Frankly, with one on one texts a month later saying she loves one of the guys that allegedly raped her, there is still reasonable doubt in this case. i get processing what occurred, thats how i felt when i went through something like this, but i would NEVER voluntarily message and defend the girl who did that to me

6

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #8 1w

this is not true two of them have been expelled for a while now and the other five (at least at the time) couldn’t be implicated further and henceforth received suspensions. Cornell Chi Phi as a whole was shut down in 2024 so all that remains of this case is whether they can get enough info to criminally charge these boys

20

Anonymous #4 1w

if you read the DA statement where he apparently claims that she said it was consensual, that's not even what HE said she said about it.

21

Anonymous #12 1w

holy shit can you send the link to this article

8

Anonymous #12 1w

like if you consider this behavior to be completely consensual you need to reevaluate what you consider consent to mean

34

Anonymous #4 1w

https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al

5

Anonymous #13 1w

thanks

4

Anonymous #4 1w

They don’t want justice they want their view to be the “right” view so bad they’ll make up anything and deflect. Good on you for calling out mob mentality but it’s only gonna get worse from here.

9

Anonymous #3 1w

This is a completely different sentiment though. Not doing something is bad but it’s also not equivalent to drugging and raping a woman. You can say they’re all guilty but objectively factually they are not all EQUALLY guilty. As for why it’s the Cornell 7, because it emphasizes that there were 7 fucking men in that room, which is a remarkable part of the case, plus catchy nicknames spread.

17

Anonymous #4 1w

Have you ever been through the system? Genuine question. I have; I went to trial, and my offender barely got time. A conviction doesn't guarantee justice. I'm lucky my case wasn't public or on campus. But my offender does live in my community and around my family. What I want to know is: if you have been through something like this, why are you judging the way someone else's trauma makes them react? Justice and reactions aren't the same for every survivor.

4

Anonymous #6 1w

i get that reactions aren’t the same among every person but my experience and jane doe’s experience is actually more similar than you’d think, and it took me two years to tell the full story to my friends at school. never did i ever think of the possibility of texting my offender and telling her that I love her or that i would defend anyone ridiculing her about what had happened. thats not a difference in traumatic reactions. thats not a traumatic reaction at all.

8

Anonymous #4 1w

I 100% understand why she did that. She was in denial, under peer pressure from her sorority to fit in in a setting where “just being cool with the guys” was easier than dealing with what she went through. You didn't answer my question above. As someone who has been through this system that is based on protecting the accused with very little room for victims' rights, respectfully, shut the fuck up. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

4

Anonymous #12 1w

i mean you are comparing the DA’s statement in 2026 to what I am saying about 2024. All of what is mentioned in these damning screenshots is from accusations in 2026, while this is what i was referring to

15

Anonymous #18 1w

I love how you say that they just ignore it or say you’re a rapist apology. There’s a clear definition of rape rape and this situation was not it.

9

Anonymous #19 1w

We’re in a simulation 100%

6

Anonymous #13 1w

No, I actually I love this though. Women are starting to give themselves a bad PR for literally everything and if it continues, society will eventually adapt and fix itself so I love the routes were going on.

3

Anonymous #19 1w

Here’s hoping, these bitches crazy!

0

Anonymous #13 1w

well, thankfully, half of the woman on the Internet who actually look into it also aren’t defending the guys but they can see what actually happens so at least that’s a plus

1

Anonymous #10 1w

Rape is a violation of every school’s code of conduct, as far as I’m aware. The school absolutely should have launched an investigation alongside the local police. But that costs money, takes time, and attracts press. So they swept it under the rug and hoped it would never get out.

29

Anonymous #4 1w

i think you must not have read the actual article. his preamble (of which your screenshot is like the first paragraph) ends with him saying that while he could release the full statement made by her in 2024, he instead was going to explain the facts using pieces of that statement. that was what i was taking screenshots from. the article is from 2026 but the screenshots are of quotes pulled from the 2024 statement, which is explained in the article

13

Anonymous #4 1w

to be very clear here, the above screenshot is from 8 paragraphs after the screenshot you included and directly contradicts your point that this is from the 2026 accusations, which is something you would have known from literally just reading beyond that one paragraph lmao

6

Anonymous #8 1w

members

9

shut the fuck yo

11

Anonymous #3 1w

literally shut up people were sleeping not everyone is watching the groupchat like a hawk and two guys intervened

15

Anonymous #8 1w

No. What ur not understanding is that she was not alleging rape at the time

7

Anonymous #8 1w

ideally sure but you would be hard pressed to find a school that actually does this. the second the problem isnt just reckless drunkenness or hazing they hand it off to city or state police

1

Anonymous #12 1w

why did he ever say this then? if she describes non voluntary sexual conduct in the 2024 statement why would he plainly say she didn’t?

6

Anonymous #4 1w

those questions arent meant to demean you’re stance, instead it is general confusion. sorry if the tone sounded aggressive

1

Anonymous #28 1w

fuck you die.

5

Anonymous #21 1w

They literally are

2

Comment Deleted

0

Why you pressed she raped them

0

Anonymous #12 1w

At this point, Doe "described her intoxication level as '5 or 6 out of 10' and that she was 'pretty okay with'" sex with 1 and 2. 3 did not have sexual contact with her until below the part you highlighted in message #1. Nothing here appears to have been illegal under NY law. Also, 5, 6, and 7 seem to have never actually had sexual contact with her, which highlights a major issue of saying Doe was raped by 7 people (which could even be defamatory to 5, 6, and 7).

16

Comment Deleted

0

Lawyers get paid huge sums of money precisely because the law is nuanced, and it requires reading through substantial amounts of material to get to the *likely* outcome. Without reading the details of the complaint and relevant law, one cannot accurately say who's right from a legal perspective.

30

Anonymous #22 1w

Who intervened exactly and how? And sleeping isn’t an excuse when you eventually wake up. Plenty could’ve been done even after the act to help her, like condemning what happened and speaking up on the incident. Apart from the screenshot leaker, what did anyone do to help her case?

-2

Anonymous #26 1w

Not rapists in New York using there law, but would be a rapist in my state. Funny how much it fluctuates by state. In New York, you can consent while completely wasted or high as long as you haven’t hit blackout. In my state, that level of drunkenness and drug use, regardless of blackout, would take away a person’s level to consent

1

Anonymous #26 1w

So sure, what she described sounded consensual in New York, but that doesn’t mean much when going one state over, that would be considered rape. Not to mention, her “participating” and “consenting” to 1 or 2 people doesn’t = consenting to be pimped out to the whole frat…

3

Anonymous #34 1w

What state r u in?

1

Anonymous #34 1w

She didn’t get “pimped out by the whole frat” lol. It was 7 guys and she was actively and willingly engaging in sexual acts with all of them. It was disgusting but it wasn’t rape.

-1

Anonymous #23 1w

Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Kentucky, etc (mine is mixed in but I’m not gonna specify which) are some where what she described would be non-consensual

1

Anonymous #23 1w

They made a post on a group chat inviting people to come get “free pussy”. It doesn’t matter if 7 or no guys showed up. That was an attempt to pimp her out. Or what else would you call inviting other people to use someone’s body without their consent? Oh actually, I know another word, gang rape

3

Anonymous #23 1w

“She was actively and willingly engaging in sexual acts with all of them” according to who? The people who tossed out her case because being wasted and drugged out is perfectly consensual in NY, or the victim who talked about how she 100% did not want those extra men there?

5

Anonymous #27 1w

u r the reason why rape cases keep getting dismissed fuck yourself

6

Anonymous #23 1w

“swatting” someone’s hand away when they try touching her vagina, saying “Hell No” to a foursome, hiding under the covers, having memory issues and having multiple brownout (in and out of consciousness which still allows for consent in NY) moments really sounds like she was “activity and willingly engaging”? Really??

5

Anonymous #6 1w

She blew a guy while he was passed out there's a picture of it. He was raped.

-2

Anonymous #35 1w

Source: trust me bro. No one knows who Jane Doe but you’ve definitely seen a picture of her blowing a drunk dude. And you can definitely he’s passed out based on a picture.

7

Anonymous #4 1w

Men complaining all the time about women sending mixed messages (e.g. “I really enjoyed meeting you” followed by being blocked). So yall understand that plenty of women “lie”/say things they don’t mean in order to avoid confrontation/uncomfortable situations. How doesn’t it make sense that she simply lied? Her sending that doesn’t prove that she was actually ok with what happened. It fully comes down to how people react differently to traumatic events

8

Anonymous #34 1w

*definitely tell he’s

9

There absolutely is nuance in every single case; no case is cut-and-dried, black-and-white like everyone makes it out to be. Take it from someone who was a star witness in a jury trial.

18

Anonymous #35 1w

If that’s true, John Doe can take his case to a civil lawsuit lawyer, and maybe the DA will open his case!

6

Anonymous #24 1w

No you morons are the reason. Blatant lying with all the evidence clear as day right in front of you but you perpetuate the lie and continue to insult the people speaking up about it. This is extremely harmful to women’s integrity and further cases.

2

Anonymous #33 1w

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I didn’t realize the United States switched to a Mob Mentality way of justice 🫣

2

Anonymous #34 1w

People that bring up this point kinda confuses me a little bit because i mean this in no way to demean her case but like those guys were drunk and off ket too so by the other states’ laws could they also not consent? genuine question

0

Anonymous #4 1w

my point is that the DA's definition of consensual is far too broad based on the things that she described.

9

Anonymous #29 1w

notice that i never made any claim about NY law. my point is that whether or not it was legal under NY law, it was wrong and it breached her consent. they should not have done that to her. so defending them in the court of public opinion because they might not be considered criminally responsible is wild to me. are we seriously saying that the things she described them having done are okay? that you consider that entirely consensual?

4

Anonymous #29 1w

and like obviously she was not okay with 2 touching her in the part i highlighted. whether she was "pretty okay" with a threesome before that, also while pretty intoxicated, doesnt mean that she was okay with having sex with 2 for the rest of the night nor that she was comfortable in that situation.

9

Anonymous #13 1w

don’t act like a guilty verdict would change a damn thing, because most of the people defending the rapists in question are the same people still defending Donald Trump despite being held liable for sexual assault.

0

Anonymous #33 1w

yall are mostly misogynists seeking to dismiss the severity of rape, and that’s how we all see you. there’s a difference between waiting for the verdict and actively spreading disinformation regarding the case, as well as weaponizing this case as a means to disparage all women and all cases of investigating rape (as you’ve implied in your earlier comments) you’re definitely in that classification, in my opinion.

1

Anonymous #33 1w

holy shit stfu no one cares about her anymore

0

Anonymous #33 1w

Read the actual case from the district attorney instead of info of TikTok. While you’re at it please try and get outside more, your brain has legitimately began to rot.

0

Anonymous #28 1w

oh you don’t care? that’s why you’re still commenting, right? take your illiterate ass someplace else if you don’t care

1

Anonymous #33 1w

a guilty verdict would change a lot, considering that probably means jail time or a physical punishment for their actions instead of online vigilantes reading info off tiktok and sending empty threats to their leaked and probably wrong addresses

2

Anonymous #13 1w

projection isn’t a good defense for your dogshit positions ;) especially when you’re doing it in an act of deflection. as I said, don’t act like a guilty verdict changes the slightest thing, because you don’t give a fuck whether they’re found guilty or not. you just want to dismiss the actions of rapists and exonerate them in the court of public opinion, and you’re not slick in your attempts to do so.

1

Anonymous #33 1w

Who in your life have you actually met that thinks this way? Not every person saying to look at the case subjectively and unbiased is defending or supporting something as horrible as rape.

8

Anonymous #4 1w

obviously I’m talking about perception, and not actual consequences. yes a guilty verdict results in much needed consequences, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m specifically talking about the hypocrisy of the statement “innocent until proven guilty” in this context, given the other prominent rapists that have been found guilty of their crimes in a court of law, and still continue to retain support.

-2

Anonymous #33 1w

I think Trump is more the exception that proves the rule, since he could afford to pay millions of dollars in damages and has a cultlike fanbase who would support him even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. The average convicted rapist is not going to have millions sitting in the bank nor an army of supporters lining up to get him another job once he gets fired from his first.

0

Anonymous #13 1w

because you’re being disingenuous, and your little comments weaponizing the case against women in totality or against rape investigations in totality provides evidence of that. otherwise, why did you deflect from the topic of whether Donald Trump is a rapist or not? You do acknowledge that he’s a sexual assaulter held liable in a court of law, in which the presiding judges stated was synonymous with being a rapist?

-1

Anonymous #29 1w

you’d be surprised how common it is for rapists to get off with minimum sentences in this nation.

1

Anonymous #33 1w

and that’s if they’re even convicted in the first place.

1

Anonymous #29 1w

but I do see what you mean given the cultlike support he has, in that he is quite unique compared to other similar cases.

1

Anonymous #33 1w

Because why get political? I’m not even a republican and voted blue every election I’ve been to. You disagree with my view of this case so you just try and find anything to attack me for. I’m sorry you’ve had a rough life with men but that doesn’t mean you have to fuel the fire over a case that’s easily understood to be nuanced.

-1

Anonymous #13 1w

as a litmus test to determine whether you actively support a rapist found guilty in a court of law… you genuinely can’t comprehend how that’s relevant? “why get political” give me a fucking break. what do you “not do politics” either?

1

Anonymous #33 1w

these statistics are from the 90s so a bit outdated…yes, that 1/3 that are convicted but receive no prison time is problematic, but most defendants just plead guilty and get 14 years on average. this is in line with many European countries that don't have as big an issue with rape prevalence nor with mass incarceration (even murder carries shorter sentences there).

2

Anonymous #13 1w

no, I disagree with your behavior and your rhetoric. waiting for a guilty verdict is one thing, and it’s whatever at this rate, but you’re actively using people’s discussion of this case as a means to target women and delegitimize discussions of rape. and that is how you respond to someone who was criticizing someone who SAID THAT SHE RAPED THE MEN. like I said, you’re a disingenuous fuck, and you’re a piece of shit for acting like you haven’t already gone mask off as the incel you are.

1

Anonymous #34 1w

that underscores the importance of discussing ways to reform the law, but if the sexual activity was legal under NY law, I also do not see adequate grounds for the perpetrators' expulsion from the school as has been suggested. I would guess that Cornell's sexual harassment training (if they require it) probably doesn't tell people they can't have sex with someone who's voluntarily intoxicated, so it would not be right to expel them for what essentially constitutes grossly "immoral" sex.

0

And that still makes it rape or what are you implying with this meme? A woman consenting to certain people = she’s consenting to all men? Her taking drugs suddenly means people can rape her? Genuinely what’s the “funny” part of this meme?

3

Anonymous #29 1w

we also need to remember how often rape goes unreported, and imo that’s a major factor in this conversation, but with all due respect the stats are really outdated as you mentioned, I found one that covers similar information (but again, this doesn’t incorporated estimates on unreported instances) holy fuck the average sentence for statutory rape was 43 months….

2

Anonymous #33 1w

avg sentence for rape was 192 (16 yrs), 27.5% of rape offenders carrying additional charges and sentences (their average was 353 (~29 yrs), but without additional charges the avg is 129 months (10.75 yrs) Abusive sexual contact average sentence 60 months statutory rape is the one far lower, I just wanted to specify the other averages too

3

Anonymous #29 1w

out of curiosity tho, do you mind sharing the source for where you got that info? I’d love to look into it as well. If you’re curious too, the one I cited is the us sentencing commission (and oh my god it wasn’t 2024, I’m sorry! It was FY2020)

3

Anonymous #1 1w

no we don't all know that they "did it" without a fair trial lmao

1

Anonymous #33 1w

likely because most federal statutory rape charges include some other crime (including interstate travel with intent to do so, which has an average sentence of 12 years), and the sentencing guidelines for federal statutory rape charges themselves say 27-33 (additional?) months.

0

Anonymous #33 1w

https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/soo-sum.pdf (from 1997)

1

Anonymous #38 1w

if the media did that, they'd be facing libel and defamation lawsuits, first from the three that did not have sexual contact with Doe, and later possibly from others if no conviction results.

10

Anonymous #34 1w

Two brothers attempted to shut it down while it was happening even though their attempts were futile due to everyone being intoxicated. I go to Cornell. We are outraged at the 7 perps and the admin, but you can’t put that same title onto all 57 men in that groupchat. What do you expect them to do the next morning if most don’t even know who the girl is? Further, most SA victims choose not to report, and as a victim myself, if someone spoke out publicly w/o my consent I would be furious as that

5

Anonymous #22 1w

is not actually helping victims. Many students supported her after it happened. If you think that all men in the groupchat are just as liable as those accused, you are diluting what they actually did.

1

Anonymous #22 1w

yeah ngl i’m in a frat and i am not the biggest partier ever so ill wake up in the morning, open the gc, then just skip through all the billion messages and pretty much not read shit. if something serious happened when i’m not there i’ll learn about it later

0

Anonymous #29 1w

The partial statement that they were given would be consensual under NY law and led to them interpreting the situation as consensual . But what they were given wasn’t the full statement.

4

Anonymous #29 1w

She said she was drunk, not blacked out, she took drugs and she consented to a threesome. That is not rape following NY law. And to a lawyer or judge who only heard that part of the story (reminder that Cornell did not disclose her full statement to authorities), it would be “voluntary, conscious, and consensual”.

4

Anonymous #29 1w

But that wasn’t the full story. What they released didn’t include the additional men that came or the group chat messages that solicited sex on behalf of her without her agreement/consent. That is where rape/SA comes in. The school failed to investigate and turn over the case to actual authorities (or at least give them the full context).

2

Anonymous #29 1w

i can see that part. i still think that media aside, we should not be referring them to a nickname that dumbs down the magnitude of the situation.

5

Anonymous #29 1w

Something tells me their sexual harassment training also doesn’t mention inviting others over without consent from all parties there, but that goes without saying right? If my job doesn’t explicitly tell me not to do something (e.g. light my workplace on fire), that doesn’t mean they can’t remove and fire me for doing it. Not everything has to be spelled out for it to be applicable

4

Anonymous #22 1w

and to add to my point, you don’t know what happened privately. you don’t know which of the 57 told off or took action against the 7 accused. How could anyone possibly know that if that would never be part of the case. This hive mind bandwagon is disgusting and is not helping JD, nor is it helping victims worldwide.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Intent and level of intoxication matters. 1) Intent: If I purposely get someone drunk to rape them, and then get drunk too, that doesn’t change the original intent. 2) Intoxication level: if we have 2 intoxicated people but 1 is able to function to a higher degree (walking, talking, sending coherent text) than the other (impaired movement, can barely form a statement), the one that’s higher functioning has more responsibility in that situation.

5

Anonymous #4 1w

Jane Doe, who had taken 10+ shots and multiple lines of ket throughout the night, was not at a comparable level of intoxicated as the men (reminded that women often have lower alcohol tolerance regardless) who were just arriving and took drugs off her body. And it’d be fair to assume the men on that group chat weren’t all as equally hammered when they got the message and decided to go

3

Anonymous #22 1w

Great on the 2 brothers. Now how many of the other 57 spoke up on it and condemned it? They had 2 years afterwards to show that it isn’t something they stand for and what did they do? This is giving “not all men”. The people who did do something after, know they’re not actually included in the “57 men” statements. And if ever called out, they can state what they did.

1

Anonymous #34 1w

The issue with your mindset is that you take assumptions based solely on what the public has seen. Brothers have spoken out and condemned these actions amongst university students. You wouldn’t know that or would’ve known what they had said. Most people don’t issue public facing statements in situations like this, especially when this wasn’t a national case until about a week ago.

2

Anonymous #22 1w

I know people in the 57 and I know people who knew the 7 and condemned them and kicked them out of student orgs. The reactions of fellow students to these crimes is not going to be in the lawsuit nor will it be national news. You can’t assume guilt and equate the 57 to the 7 perpetrators when you don’t know how they actually reacted.

6

Anonymous #22 1w

“Public facing statements” doesn’t have to be national news. It can be a post on their public platform (e.g. school org insta) condemning what happened. I don’t “equate” the 57 to the 7 in the sense that they’re all as equally guilty. But those who did nothing, are guilty to a degree. And again, if they did do something, they should know they’re not included and can speak on what they did.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

NY law bruh😭😭we are not lawyers idky they ignoring the clear lack of consent to support those men😭😭

1

Anonymous #43 1w

to DEATH but this case is not the hill to die on. I don’t care if I’m down voted but when this case ends up going no where then refer back to my comment.

3