Sadly, I dont’ think they’d work as deterrents but I get it. OK - thanks for your comment.
1 Like
This is the key issue. I posted above somewhere a woman’s experience with title IX at usc and it left a lot to be desired.
We should be beyond the point where someone’s sexual history should have any bearing on whether of not she was raped in a particular incident - regardless if it is a title IX investigation, a criminal investigation etc.
5 Likes
8 Likes
I agree with the premise of article. If you reduce the substance abuse, the SA problem will be significantly reduced.
4 Likes
Drugging someone without their consent is already a felony in New York and presumably other places. Whether it is typically prosecuted may be another matter.
Thanks for sharing the article. If what said is true in this article, I can see why there are many unclear/gray area in this case, and not optimistic about the outcome of lawsuit.
Also not understand why the sorority is being sued. It has nothing to be with what happened to her in the Frat house. She might have drinks in the sorority before when nothing happens.
1 Like
Deep pockets
1 Like
I appreciate the article - it seems a balanced way to view things. And a lot of facts, if true, that most seem to have missed, myself included.
I can see the sorority being sued - no means no but she liquored up there and she was allowed to leave. Whether or not they are guilty - they can still be sued by OP and that will have to be settled in the courts (or outside with a settlement).
No means no but her drunkenness, even keeping someone awake during the time may be (I’m not a lawyer)) held or used against her in a trial. Others find it insensitive to say but it does potentially pave a path toward doubt, especially when one can’t remember things.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I appreciate the article and how in depth it was.
2 Likes
In this world anyone can sue anyone. How the lawsuit will play out is a different story.
2 Likes
Tri-delta sorority has banned alcohol in their houses and victim was underage, yet victim had 9 shots of vodka (according to Slate article) while at sorority house. House mother of sorority observed victim was intoxicated, yet still took victim to tri-delta sponsored event at Moonies / Lot 10 where she was supplied more alcohol in spite of being given an “under 21” wristband and in spite of tri-delta supposed to have “sober monitors” tasked with monitoring for safety (according to lawsuit). Immediately following these events, the victim walked from Lot 10 to the frat house. The lawsuit argues that none of the subsequent events at frat house would have occurred, if not for tri-delta actions (or lack of actions) above.
6 Likes
How do we know that the House Mother observed that she was intoxicated? And you’re saying that the House Mother took her to Moonie’s? I’ve read reports that she took an uber.
Doesn’t the fact that she walked a mile from Moonie’s suggest that she was not significantly impaired and therefore not visibly intoxicated? How does someone walk a mile and successfully get to their destination if that person were on the state that her lawsuit suggests.
Finally is she not an adult? Underage for drinking certainly, but fully an adult otherwise. As I understand it - and correct me if I’m wrong - her lawsuit against the national sorority is that they failed to protect her. From whom? Herself? At this point in the evening sexual assault isn’t even part of the story. And as an adult, she chose to violate the law - with full knowledge of what the law is - not just at the sorority house but again at Moonie’s. She says that she was served, but Moonie’s says that she was not. In my experience, it’s common practice for a 21-year-old college student to buy alcohol and to then provide it for an under age friend. Is this what happened? Is she protecting her friends and putting the blame on Moonie’s? It will be interesting to see if a trial produces witnesses verifying that in fact she was served by Moonie’s staff.
Her lawsuit alleges that both the sorority and the bar are liable for her condition to the point that they should pay large sums of money for damages. Does she not bear any responsibility for her actions at this stage of the evening? I’m not talking at all about the rape. Her lawsuit goes far beyond accusing just her attackers.
2 Likes
This is the issue. Everyone, all of us certainly, are speculating every time new info comes out.
The article @Mwfan1921 posted is long and detailed. Factual ? I dunno.
The lawsuit states, “the house mother employed by TRI-DELTA NATIONAL
observed Plaintiff in that intoxicated state and nevertheless took Plaintiff to MOONIES.” It’s unclear if this is solely based on victim’s word or if corroborated by others in sorority.
This is an example of how lawsuit and DA statement use different language. DA statement says “walked” with self-described intoxication of 5 out of 10, lawsuit says “stumbled” and being “visibly intoxicated” after having consumed 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours. I don’t think being able to walk is inconsistent with being “visibly intoxicated.”
When there is shared responsibility, it can make a lawsuit more complex; but it does not mean the lawsuit is null with no criminal charges possible. I also have no idea whether this particular charge will be successful. Even if finding liable is not likely, the sorority might choose to settle and reduce visibility.
2 Likes
Makes you wonder what her motivation here really is. 
1 Like
How do we know what is fact and what is not? That’s what makes a case like this so hard to successfully prosecute. What is the evidence that anyone took ketamine? One of the men was tested and was found to be negative for ketamine. What does that mean? It doesn’t prove anything, but it does raise questions.
According to numerous attorneys whom I’ve seen interviewed or have read their comments, the biggest problem for gaining a criminal conviction in this case is that she signed a sworn statement back in 2024-25 which contradicts her current claims. The DA claims that after this statement was submitted, she and her lawyer were contacted again and asked whether the statement was accurate and if she would like to add or change anything. He says that she failed to respond. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high bar. She may have better success with the civil suit.
1 Like
It’s interesting that you say that. We were out at dinner with two other couples over the weekend. This topic came up. One of the others is an attorney. The attorney’s opinion was, “This is a money grab. I see it every day in my office.” That attorney is a woman.
2 Likes
There is limited information about the accused students interview statements, but in a portion that is public, one of the accused students mentions taking ketamine, aligning with Doe’s statements. As you mention the lawyer for a different accused student said that particular student did not to participate beyond writing messages on the group chat including not snorting ketamine off body (as accused). With the hair sample ketamine test, the title IX investigation found that there was not sufficient evidence that this particular student took ketamine – not everyone, just this student.
The initial statement and recent lawsuit describe the same events and rarely directly contradict each other, but the recent lawsuit strikes me as using language to make the events sounds as severe and criminally liable as possible, including being selective about what details are mentioned and not mentioned.
For example, the DA statement makes the first threesome sound more consensual including the victim saying she was “pretty okay” with having the first threesome (not later events), and stopping when the victim said they needed to stop to check if one of the males was okay.
In contrast the lawsuit states the victim was “incapable of consenting” in her drunken state, and as such describes all events in the first threesome as “without her consent” and “forced.” The lawsuit does not mention stopping to check if one of the males was okay – choosing not to mention this, rather than directly contradicting.
1 Like
By choosing not mention it, the lawsuit’s version of events is in fact contradicted by the initial statement which does mention it. After all, they had a copy of the first statement, so they knew it was there. It’s not like they forgot about it or overlooked it. So, they are providing a different and contradictory version of the events.
She reportedly had 9 vodkas at the sorority house and 10 drinks at Moonie’s. But the men at the frat house had no knowledge of this. She had just managed to get herself to the frat house under her own power and was clear headed enough to successfully find her way there. She did not become disoriented and get lost along the way. If she stumbled along the way over during her mile long walk, the men at the frat house had no knowledge of this, so it’s irrelevant in terms of making the case that she was visibly intoxicated. When she arrived at the frat house, she sought entry and according to the first report, at some point she and the man she went there to connect with began dancing seductively with each other. So, she was sufficiently in control of her faculties to engage in this activity.
The lawsuit says that she was incapable of consenting in her drunken state. Okay, that is their conclusion. But it is one of the men who passed out (“fell asleep”). He would seem to be the one who was most obviously incapacitated. How will a jury know that she was in a state that was obvious to anyone else that she was drunk? After all, she had just walked a mile, asked to be let in and then engaged in dancing. With no knowledge of her drinking in the previous 5-6 hours, how was anyone who just encountered supposed to know her condition?
The other problem that her attorneys will have in court is that their entire case depends on her testimony. If she was so mentally incapacitated that she was incapable of giving consent, how can her testimony be considered a reliable description of events? The inherent contradiction between being incapacitated to the point of being unable to give consent but being clear eyed enough to provide a detailed description of events is why every attorney I’ve heard describes this case as “unwinnable”. And the standard for prosecuting a case in any DA’s office in the country, they say, is the belief that you will in fact win at trial. Under NY state law, being voluntarily intoxicated does not automatically qualify as being mentally incapacitated. They’re going to need more than that to find the first 3 men in this case culpable. To bring a criminal rape or sexual assault case under NY state law the prosecution must prove that the victim was either physically helpless (unconscious) or was drugged without their knowledge.
2 Likes
I would be surprised if anything comes from the criminal case (despite Hochul & James’ voracity over their perceived guilt of the accused men). She’s sued a lot of parties civilly - again I doubt anyone will want to go to trial on that and see their explicit texts and snap chats on a big screen in a court room. Regardless of guilt, there may be settlement offers to be had there in order to keep it from going to trial.
She also opens herself to be sued civilly by the men she is accusing, but again, that keeps the case in the public eye and who is going to hire someone who is going through a trial of this nature, regardless of guilt?
If this is true, I’m not sure how she was even upright. She has been allegedly doxed and identified, and she is a very small woman.
1 Like
57 men received the appalling text message. 57. Not one alerted authorities or intervened to help. Texts have been released showing the fraternity brothers were actively engaging in trying to dissuade Jane from talking to police and intentionally giving her misinformation.
There was a drug arrest at the frat house the very day before Police allowed this party to happen the very next day. This house was a problem when I was a Cornell student in the stone ages so very hard for the university to argue they didn’t know there was an issue there.
Doe left school because she didn’t feel safe. The university refused to refund tuition.
This case is exemplifying problems with state laws around rape, underage drinking and drug use, and how universities are ill equipped to handle rape investigations.
The discussions about if there is enough evidence for Doe to win her case is completely tone deaf.
13 Likes