Everyone is getting the Jane Doe/Cornell case wrong. No, we shouldn’t automatically assume seven young men are guilty and destroy their lives before they’ve even been charged. But there’s also an important part of the story many on the right are missing: Jane Doe apparently DID tell Cornell Police... in 2024 that she believed she was assaulted. This case is far more complicated than either side wants to admit. And it raises a much bigger conversation about alcohol, consent, personal responsibility, and why we’re doing young men AND women a disservice by pretending these situations are always black and white. Let’s talk about it.show more

what part of this do you find confusing? "The law in New York State is clear that if you are voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs – such that your judgment is impaired — that does not legally, under the penal law, constitute your inability to consent,"

I don't find anything confusing. You didn't watch the video and didn't look into this.

You are confused: The enough is enough law requires universities to adopt certain rules. consequences of violations of those rules are things like suspension, expulsion, or transcript notations. The rules do not supersede state law. state criminal law applies in cases of rape.

Here is a simple proposition, for society: Want less of this to happen? Tell girls to stop leaning on drunk boys to act like gentlemen, if you don't act like a lady when you are drunk. Simple. Stop complicating things.

It also emphasizes why we shouldn't spread names and information on people related to as case before we know all the details.

"The law in New York State is clear that if you are voluntarily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs – such that your judgment is impaired — that does not legally, under the penal law, constitute your inability to consent,"

You didn't watch the video. New York’s Enough is Enough law (Education Law Article 129-B) explicitly states "Consent cannot be given by a person who is incapacitated by drugs, alcohol, unconsciousness, or sleep." It's not for New York state more broadly, just for their campuses. I'm not pro-Jane Doe, but she may have a case due to that law. No idea. I'm not a lawyer.

Um, sorry Nat 👇🏾👇🏾

The unfortunate part is, she only did so after being slut-shamed. Meanwhile she was sending texts to her "rapists" talking about how people are jealous of them and need to grow up. She gave consent, regretted it and latched onto "i was raped" to save her reputation.

This imho is the most damning statement against her. She basically is saying she was into it then changed so purposefully took more drugs in attempt to pass out and change it from consensual to r*pe like mid …shenanigans. I just think if I was a young man and mid …ya know… and the girl is thinking…if I drink mid or do drugs mid and just play dead then later I can say he graped me… I’d be pissed. But all of this is gross imho. The group thing never been my scene lol.

imo, we should hold all of the colleges liable for all the degenerate garbage students do there. The vast majority of students waste money they don't have to basically party for four years and not learn anything useful (along with all the commieslop brainwashing).

She texted "man 1" that she didn't think anything illegal happened She later texted man one it was crazy how many people knew but she didn't care because they were too caught up in old ways about sex and she enjoyed herself She then later texted him how hurt she was people kept attacking her and how she got banned from a party. She then texted him she can't talk to him anymore and went to the police The statement she gave the police described consensual sex. She believed it was rape because she was intoxicated but that isn't how the law works in NY. That statement was given under oath and under penalty of law if she lied. 2 years later she has a new story that isn't under oath suing for millions The left want to believe the last story and completely ignore everything before it. Because the left loves the idea of frat boys being rapists

What no one is talking about is the sexual drug and alcohol debauchary culture that has taken over universities and no cares about until bad things happen and people die, are assaulted, etc

It doesn't matter that she claimed to have been assaulted. That's a legal conclusion. Unfortunately for her what described to police did not meet the elements of the crime.

Where were all you guys when Graham Platner was being falsely accused of rape? Because I don’t remember you standing up…

No idea who you guys refers to, but I've never supported blindly believing women accusers. That said, Platner belongs to the Democrat Party which set the standard of "believe all women." You reap what you sow.

The Democrats have never believed all women. They didn’t believe Tara Reade, or Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick.

Agreed completely. It's why I have been taking a wait and see approach since I first heard about it.

Because she was getting shunned

Let’s start with the fact that it was 4 men having intercourse with her and not 7 @grok explain

it's not complicated she wanted to party and get dicked, that's what happened. she was fine with it, told the dudes she wanted to get her pussy pounded even harder next time, then only regretted when her friends found out. in other words, women are irresposible fools.

Then, there are texts afterwards as well.

Natalie, the correction you made does not do the work you think it does. Jane Doe telling Cornell police in 2024 that she believed she was raped, and saying she was completely and totally incapacitated, is her conclusion. It is not the fact the penal law uses. Her own explanation of the night is what gets tested, and that explanation is what takes the charge out. She told them she consented to a lot of it and felt okay with it. She put herself at a five or six when the first encounter started and said she was pretty okay with the threesome because she was attracted and curious. She had already gotten herself drunk. She snorted the drug. Nobody administered it without her consent. When the investigator asked whether she said no or said she was tired, she said she thought it was that she was tired. She called giving in coercion. The district attorney who had her signed statement says that each time she asked for the sexual conduct to stop, it stopped, and that the statement described the drugs and the sex as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. His office assumed those facts were true and still had no charge. That is not a story that changed into rape because she used the word. That is a story that never met the elements. New York does not treat voluntary intoxication as inability to consent. Mental incapacitation under the penal law means a drug or intoxicant administered without her consent, or some other act committed on her without her consent, rendering her unable to appraise or control her conduct. Physical helplessness means unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness. She was communicating. She agreed. She distinguished tired from no. She had the conduct stop when she objected. Pestering until someone who already said yes gets tired and gives in is not forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is physical force overcoming resistance, or a threat of immediate death, physical injury, or kidnapping. Tired is acquiescence. The six page statement is not the mystery you are building. She signed it. You say you do not have the statement or the transcript and cannot compare them, then you float Cornell covering itself, a change after signing, or her being pushed into signing. The CBS quotes already let you compare them. The spoken line is her theory of the night. The signed facts are what she says happened. Both can be accurate. Leaving the word rape out of what went to the district attorney is the element check she did not do. It is not proof the facts were buried. A person can believe she was raped and still describe a night the statute does not call rape. That is this case. The 2026 complaint is the actual change. The lawsuit says she was incapable of consenting to the initial encounter. The 2024 interview says she was pretty okay with that encounter. Using the word rape in both does not make them the same account. The part a prosecutor can use is the part that moved. Education Law 6441 does not reopen the crime. It makes colleges put an affirmative consent definition in the student code. Words or actions that give clear permission count. Depending on degree, intoxication can incapacitate for a campus hearing. That hearing is preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt, and it does not rewrite Penal Law 130. A conduct finding would not make these men guilty of rape. You slide from she might have a campus case because she was drunk to the district attorney now looking at charges, as if the interview label supplied the missing element. He reopened because the lawsuit and the transcript publicity forced a second look. His position is still that the 2024 facts, taken as true, did not support a charge. The hitting line is the one fact that could matter, and you do not ask the question. If she was hit as force to make her continue after she refused, that is a different analysis. Being hit during a night she has already described as sexual conduct she joined is not self proving. The same interview has her answering questions, swatting a hand, saying she was uncomfortable, saying she was tired, and having it stop when she asked. Those are communications. They cut against physical helplessness. Until someone specifies what the hitting was, it does not convert the rest of her account into rape. You are right that the seven men should not be named and posted before a charge. You are right that she was not drugged against her will. You are right that a drunk man is a bad reader of a drunk night, and that impairment cuts both ways if the claim is that nobody could appraise what was happening. That is a moral observation. It is not how the penal law works, and it is not a defense the education code accepts, because 6441 still requires consent from the person who initiates even if he is drunk. The penal law does not ask whether he should have been a gentleman. It asks whether lack of consent was proved. Her account supplies agreement, voluntary drugs, fatigue she herself separated from no, and stoppage when she objected. The suits against the bar, the sorority, and the school are a different case with a different burden. They do not establish the crime. The pedestrian analogy and the biology close do not either. A woman can be physically smaller, and still have described a night that is not rape. Telling young women not to get that drunk is a risk point. It is not an element. You keep merging the two, and the merge is what makes the video feel like both sides are missing something. The criminal side is not missing. Her explanation already answered it.

"Jane Doe apparently DID tell Cornell Police in 2024 that she believed she was assaulted." From where and when did she get that idea?

First law of #MeToo

She sent a text to the boys and said "let's do it again, just not with 50 people"

Women, don't do a line of ketamine off of a guy's dick if you don't want weird sex stuff to happen to you. Men, stay far away from the type of girls who would let 2 guys bang her at the same time.

It will go nowhere!!!! A talented defense attorney will shred her to pieces in deposition. She’s lying and she’s going to most heavily for this

Seems like you like the drama. The fix is simple. Down with frats & up with girls accountability. I always told my daughters that snorting ketamine off a guy's member is to be frowned upon. Do not fafo. Run away from compromising situations. Too bad this girl had a weak father.

"believed" she was assaulted.. 🙄

The issue is that the accuser gets to remain anonymous while the accused get named. The torch and pitchfork mob are already chasing them down, filming them and determined to ruin their lives and they haven't been charged yet.

Yeah her texts the day or two after saying she didn’t mind him and the other guy but the next time let’s leave the 15 million other guys out of it just sealed it for me. She was actually talking about doing it again just with not so many guys 😭

her text messages are very fucking revealing

Just before the elections I call b*******.

I believe I am a billionaire, because my bank account shows $100.0000000 Does it sound right to you?

It was 3 weeks later after she was slut shamed.

Thank you Natalie explains and with facts and transcripts and so reasearxh

Thanks.

Alcohol and drug use contribute to people doing stupid things. I know from experience. And the funny thing is, people often drink/take drugs because they WANT to do something stupid - young people especially. I've seen brothers and best friends get into vicious fights while drunk. I've seen husbands/wives cheat on their spouse, then try to blame the alcohol or the drugs, as if it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. In my experience, that never flies. Idk if this girl was assaulted. Maybe so, maybe not - sounds like maybe not. But both guys and gals need to look after themselves better than this, and this girl is certainly no saint.