The Detective-Karens of TikTok Has a New Obsession to Shriek About

Oh good. The leftist Karens have decided on This Week's Hair-Tearing Freak-Out.

Two years ago, at Cornell, a woman arranged a sexual encounter with a frat brother. She showed up drunk, and then drank more at the frat, and then did ketamine as well.

She had a threesome with two frat brothers. She later told police the encounter was consensual and voluntary. She even mentioned that at several points some frat brothers attempted some light sexual behavior -- a kiss in one case --and she said "No" to it, and that behavior stopped.

Later in the night she had a second threesome with other dudes.

I imagine she got quite the reputation as a genuine slag over this behavior.

Although this became a scandal two years ago, and some frat brothers were expelled for drug use, no charges were ever brought. According to the woman's own statement, she voluntarily got drunk (mostly before she ever showed up), she voluntarily did ketamine, and she voluntarily engaged in two threesomes. In fact, she texted one of the frat brothers to tell him she enjoyed her threesome and she'd be up for more.

Now she says "I was raped." She's filing a civil suit and claiming that the frat brothers "drugged" her without her knowledge and that they had sex with her without her consent. Contradicting her previous statements.

But because this is a blue state (New York) where everything is gay and stupid, and the same TikTok Detectives who claimed Patrick Clancy killed his children are activated, the prosecutors are re-opening the case.

Prosecutors in upstate New York are defending their decision not to bring charges in 2024 after an alleged "gang rape" at a Cornell University fraternity.

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten described the allegations as "morally disturbing" but argued that the facts he knew at the time did not support a prosecution.

"If what was said on social media about this case was true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now," Van Houten told ABC News.

Van Houten argued that Jane Doe's account of the incident from 2024 suggested that she consented to the sexual activity. He said that she did not withdraw her consent, and that when she raised concerns, the fraternity members "stopped and did not pursue what they were doing."

"She clearly consented in the beginning, and there was never any indication that she changed that to the things that she participated in," he said. "There is a disconnect in the sense of how the community and how social media has understood this to have happened. If at any point Jane Doe had said, 'I don't consent to this anymore,' or in those words, or in any form of communication. If there had been continued sexual activity, contact by these individuals, that would be a crime. But that's not what was alleged in her statement."

Apparently there is a Snapchat picture which is referenced but not detailed. I guess it shows the frat guys in a compromising position. But I have no idea. The DA acknowledges the picture is "gross" but is not evidence of a crime.

...

"But the question that we analyzed was: Did Jane Doe consent to what happened, and was she unable to consent?" he said. "I'm not clear on exactly how that was given to us, or if anyone here looked at it. That was not critical to our analysis, as I mentioned earlier. The issue was her consent, and if you take that Snapchat being vile and crude and vulgar, that did not have any relevance to the issue of whether Jane Doe consented to what was happening," Van Houten said.

The DA's comments come a day after his office announced it would be reopening the 2024 case in light of Jane Doe's civil lawsuit alleging that she was drugged, assaulted and gang raped by seven former and current members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell.

Cornell's Chi Phi chapter was barred from campus after the alleged Oct. 19, 2024, incident, though none of the individuals allegedly involved faced criminal charges, according to the DA.

An attorney for Jane Doe responded to Van Houten's written statement on Monday, alleging his client's claims were not investigated thoroughly.

Because she literally said she got drunk by herself, voluntarily did drugs, and consented to a three-way. What is the crime, apart from her admitted use of an illegal drug?

There is one fact that makes this seem like it could have been a rape. Three weeks after the event, she said she consented to the first threeway, but says she did not consent to the second (and whatever other sex she had later), and said she was raped.

But she also admits to having memory gaps, due to being drunk and high on ketamine.

Jane Doe in Cornell University case told campus police, "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped," transcript shows

...

CBS News New York investigative reporter Mahsa Saeidi exclusively obtained a transcript of the alleged victim's interview with campus police from a source.
Jane Doe describes initial sexual activity, gaps in memory

The interview began on Nov. 14 -- more than three weeks after the alleged gang rape -- and continued the next day.

A campus police investigator led the questioning. A Title IX investigator, a victim advocate, and Jane Doe's adviser were also in the room for the first day of the interview.

According to the transcript, Jane Doe described drinking and using drugs the night of the alleged rape, and said she had gaps in her memory.

The transcript shows she distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later, and when asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, "Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there ... But I was pretty OK with all of this."

And then this claim comes:

Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."

According to the transcript, she said she didn't remember the end of the night "where I was raped" and didn't know how many people had sex with her.

When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Doe said, "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped."

The transcript shows that throughout the interview, the investigator asks questions as he prepares her written statement.

Before discussing what Jane Doe said when men asked her for sex, the transcript says the investigator warned her that his questions may sound accusatory, but said he needed specific answers to determine the right charges.

According to the transcript, Jane Doe said she swatted one man's hand away and told him she was uncomfortable, and she told another man no a few times or that she was too tired.

"Was it 'no' or was it, 'eh, I'm tired'?" the investigator asked, according to the transcript.

The transcript says Jane Doe responded, "I think it's 'I'm tired.'"

According to the transcript, the investigator later asked whether she got tired of answering the men's questions and gave in.

"Yes. It was coercion, yes," Jane Doe said, according to the transcript. She also said she was "completely and totally incapacitated."

The DA says he never saw this part of the police interview.

It wouldn't change the charging decision -- she admits she doesn't remember what happened and it's hard to make a rape case when she was clearly given consent for another threeway. No, consent does not "carry over" to other people, but as a practical matter it's hard to prove that a woman who was freely agreeing to sex with multiple partners later didn't consent to additional sex.

Just by admitting she has gaps in her memory and is "pretty clouded," she's signing the jury form stating "reasonable doubt." Her admission that she doesn't even remember how many men she had sex with puts an exclamation point after reasonable doubt -- how can she say she withdrew consent for some sexual encounters when she doesn't even remember them all?

And her current story -- that she was drugged without her knowledge -- expressly contradicts her statements that she took the drugs voluntarily, and showed up drunk in the first place.

We frequently say that women should be warned not to get pass-out drunk and then go off with men. That's good advice, and should be repeated, but we're always told we're "victim blaming" and "slut shaming" when we offer good advice.

But some advice should be given to men, too: Don't sleep with women like this. Don't even be alone with women like this.

Normal women don't agree to multiple three-ways with strangers. If a woman agrees to this, she is psychologically abnormal, and you may be signing up a for a lifetime of pain for five minutes of pleasure. You may be signing up for a lifetime of persecution by a mentally-ill broken woman.

At any rate, enjoy. This will be the the Karens' screaming conniption topic for the next month.

Jenin Younes @JeninYounesEsq

Sep 29

I've held my tongue for a while, but being from Ithaca, a Cornell alum and a former criminal defense attorney, and seeing how out of hand this story has gotten, I am compelled to comment on the lawsuit alleging a gang rape at Cornell.

I cannot purport to know what happened one night at a frat house in October 2024--any more than you can. However, here are a few basic principles much of the public appears not to understand.

A lawsuit is a series of allegations made by the plaintiff. It is not proof. Allegations made in lawsuit turn out to be untrue all the time, either due to mistake, intentional misrepresentation, or flat-out lies. Unfortunately, people often misrepresent the truth in lawsuits due to monetary and other incentives. In the past, there have been instances of fabricated rape allegations. About a decade ago, Rolling Stone published a piece about an allegedly horrendous rape that occurred on the UVA campus that garnered similiar outrage to this incident and turned out to be entirely fabricated.
I have read the DA's press release and the lawsuit itself. According to the cited portions of Jane Doe's statements to police shortly after the incident, crediting it as entirely true, there was simply no basis to charge the alleged perpetrators. Everyone involved was apparently extremely intoxicated. Jane Doe gave consent to the encounter at the beginning and does not explicitly recall any activity occurring after consent was withdrawn. It is possible that, due to her inability to recall, she had not given consent for some of the activity towards the end, but possible is not a basis for a district attorney to file criminal charges.

Her current lawsuit is fairly consistent with her initial statement--except it omits the portions where she told the police she gave consent. Is she lying? Did she later remember something she didn't initially? Is she mistaken? I do not know--and again, neither do you.

What I do know is that if we are to live in a society of laws, going after the jobs and reputations young men who may have participated in an entirely consensual incident, and the DA who made the correct decision not to charge, is mindless mob justice. We actually want prosecutors to decline to seek indictments when there's insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

None of this is to say I approve of what happened as reported in the initial statement to police. That's a cultural and parenting issue, though, not a matter for law enforcement. I encourage people to let the DA's office handle the case going forward, and not to participate in the witch hunt against either the prosecutors involved or the young men who, as of now, have not been charged or shown to have committed any crime.

Robby Soave @robbysoave

Sep 28

As someone who was involved in setting the record straight in the UVA / Rolling Stone rape hoax, I have serious reservations about reopening the Cornell case.

It's important to note that the victim's initial statements to police are radically different from the claims she made in her lawsuit. That's why the DA declined to prosecute: No crime was was even alleged--she described consensual behavior at every key juncture.

She has now changed her story completely.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 12:10 PM

| Access Comments