The scene at Chi Phi
New details are hitting the surface in the ongoing lawsuit surrounding an alleged gang rape at Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity house. CBS News New York just snagged exclusive video of a group Snapchat chat from the night in question, and honestly, the vibes are off. At 1:42 a.m. that night, a message dropped in the group chat basically suggesting a woman was available for sex.
The legal battlefield
Jane Doe, the former student who filed the suit, claims she was drugged and raped. Her attorney, Thomas Giuffra, is holding nothing back, stating, "Not one of these guys was arrested. Not one." He argues that Doe was in a total state of trauma and "self preservation mode" when she initially spoke to police, which explains why her early account didn't fully match the current lawsuit allegations. He’s lowkey calling out investigators for not digging deep enough into evidence like that group chat.
On the flip side, the seven men named in the suit are standing firm. Jeremy Saland, representing defendant Scott Kretzschmar, totally shut down claims that his client used ketamine, pointing to a hair follicle test as proof. Saland claims his client saw the woman, but says, "She was not undressed. He didn't see her under duress." Andrew Miltenberg, representing another defendant, Gillio Lopes, also issued a statement denying all allegations, stressing that public accusations aren't the same as proof.
DA reopens the case
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten is now stepping back in. He’s reopening the criminal investigation because the victim's original statement from November 2024 reportedly described the night as "voluntary, conscious, and consensual." The DA is prepping for a grand jury, and Doe will get another chance to testify. Cornell University says it stands behind the DA's move and notes that its own Title IX process already led to sanctions.
Why it matters
This case is a reminder that the plot thickens when legal definitions clash with lived experience. With a grand jury pending, we’re about to see if new evidence changes the outcome or if it’s a repeat of the initial investigation.
