In Ithaca, New York, a renewed investigation concerning an alleged rape case involving Cornell University students has begun. The case, dating back to 2024, has resurfaced after the alleged victim, identified as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York earlier this month. She asserts that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by multiple men for over four hours at a fraternity house associated with Cornell in October 2024.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten issued a nine-page statement announcing an effort to reexamine the case. His office plans to determine suitable charges to present to a grand jury. A senior prosecutor with expertise in sex crimes has been appointed to lead the inquiry.
Cornell University released a statement expressing support for the renewed investigation. The institution defended its handling of the case from two years ago. Kyle Kimball, vice president for university relations at Cornell, stated that a comprehensive Title IX investigation had taken place, lasting several months. Although no criminal charges were filed, a hearing conducted by trained faculty and staff led to expulsions and suspensions, though specifics about the individuals involved were not disclosed.
The Xi chapter of Chi Phi fraternity, where the alleged perpetrators were members, was banned from campus two years ago when details of the incident first emerged. Jane Doe is now suing seven alleged attackers, the fraternity, Cornell University, and other entities. Her legal representatives have not commented on the case.
Following Jane Doe’s lawsuit, the case has gained significant attention on social media. Van Houten noted a surge of public interest, with many reaching out to his office for answers about the previous lack of investigation. He cited discrepancies between the civil lawsuit’s claims and the sworn statement made by Jane Doe in November 2024 as a reason for the initial decision. Her original statement described her actions as voluntary and consensual, conflicting with current allegations.
Van Houten emphasized that his office was unaware of discrepancies until the lawsuit was filed. He acknowledged having no communication from Doe’s attorneys regarding inaccuracies in her initial statement or requests to reassess the investigation. He has contacted Doe’s attorneys to discuss the differences.