New York prosecutors reopen investigation into alleged rape at Cornell fraternity
publishers 35articles 46first reported 26 Sep, 21:09 UTCdeveloping since 27 Sep · 5 editions
Prosecutors in Tompkins County, New York, have reopened an investigation into allegations that seven Cornell University fraternity members raped a student at the Chi Phi house in October 2024.
The former student, identified as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit on September 16 alleging that she was pressured to take ketamine and use marijuana before being raped over about seven hours while too impaired to consent. The lawsuit names seven men and accuses Cornell and law enforcement officials of failing to respond adequately. No criminal charges were initially filed.
District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said the lawsuit’s allegations differed sharply from the sworn statement Doe gave Cornell University police in November 2024. According to Van Houten’s summary, that statement described her drug use and sexual activity as voluntary and consensual. He said his office could not have based its original decision on allegations made in a lawsuit filed nearly two years later.
Van Houten said a senior female prosecutor would prepare the case for presentation to a grand jury once appropriate charges are determined. He added that new evidence can require prosecutors to reconsider closed cases.
Doe’s attorney, Thomas Giuffra, said she approached police because she believed she had been the victim of a crime and was not subsequently contacted by investigators trained to interview rape survivors. Her lawyers said Cornell expelled two fraternity members, while five others received lesser sanctions, including suspensions, workshops and essay assignments. Cornell’s handling of the case has prompted criticism from lawmakers and widespread anger on social media.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 3 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 18 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 35
- Source articles
- 46
- Given to the writer
- 8, 3 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 18 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →