Anonymous #1 19h

we really don’t know much of anything at the moment. I see so much vigilantism online recently and its kinda scary considering the legal system still has this as an open case and all these random people commenting on it is exactly how lindsay clancy had a mistrial a few months ago. we need to let the DA do their job and then if they are found guilty scalp them for all i care

-11

Anonymous #4 19h

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.

15

Anonymous #6 19h

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.

-1

Anonymous #4 19h

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.

5

Anonymous #4 19h

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.

11

Anonymous #6 18h

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

4

Anonymous #4 18h

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.

6

Anonymous #1 18h

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%

8

Anonymous #3 18h

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

293

Anonymous #8 18h

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.

126

Anonymous #4 18h

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.

151

Anonymous #4 18h

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

4

Anonymous #1 18h

No literally like it’s truly insidious

3

Anonymous #8 18h

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

52

Anonymous #4 18h

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.

-2

Anonymous #6 17h

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

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #8 16h

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 16h

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.

17

Anonymous #12 16h

holy shit can you send the link to this article

8

Anonymous #12 16h

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

23

Anonymous #4 16h

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

4

Anonymous #13 16h

thanks

4

Anonymous #4 16h

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.

5

Anonymous #3 14h

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.

8

Anonymous #4 14h

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.

-3

Anonymous #6 14h

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.

5

Anonymous #4 14h

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.

-2

Anonymous #12 14h

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

8

Anonymous #18 13h

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.

10

Anonymous #19 13h

We’re in a simulation 100%

4

Anonymous #13 13h

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.

2

Anonymous #19 13h

Here’s hoping, these bitches crazy!

0

Anonymous #13 13h

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

0

Anonymous #10 13h

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.

25

Anonymous #4 12h

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

3

Anonymous #4 12h

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

1

Anonymous #8 11h

members

7

shut the fuck yo

11

Anonymous #3 11h

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

5

Anonymous #8 10h

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

5

Anonymous #8 8h

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 8h

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?

7

Anonymous #4 8h

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

2

Anonymous #28 7h

fuck you die.

-1

Anonymous #21 7h

They literally are

3

Anonymous #27 7h

fuck you die

5

Anonymous #21 7h

Why you pressed she raped them

0

Anonymous #12 6h

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).

6

Anonymous #6 5h

It’s nuanced™ bro!

-1

Anonymous #30 4h

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.

1