DA reopens fraternity assault case

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said his office is reopening investigation of an alleged gang rape at Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity in October two thousand twenty-four.

Civil lawsuit sparked reconsideration

The reopening comes less than two weeks after a former Cornell student filed a civil lawsuit alleging she was drugged, assaulted and gang raped by seven former and current Chi Phi members.

No charges filed in two thousand twenty-four

Van Houten said his office did not bring charges in two thousand twenty-four because the woman's statement to authorities did not allege she was drugged without knowledge or that she did not consent to sexual activities.

What the victim told police

According to her sworn statement to Cornell police in November two thousand twenty-four, Jane Doe said she agreed to a threesome with two fraternity brothers due to how attracted she was to one and her drunken curiousness.

Multiple men entered the room

Jane Doe's statement described a third man entering and kissing her while another groped her. Other men were in and out of the room during the incident at the fraternity house.

Victim had memory gaps

Jane Doe told police she had difficulty remembering parts of what happened. She recalled one man saying something very rude and mean to her, then apologizing and kissing her.

Fraternity members asked to use her body

According to the statement, some fraternity brothers began complimenting Jane Doe's looks and asked if they could ingest drugs off of her body during the incident.

DA defends two thousand twenty-four decision

Van Houten said while the behavior was disgusting and morally reprehensible, criminal prosecutions must be based on evidence and not emotion. He considered Jane Doe credible but said she never asked for reconsideration.

“While the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and morally reprehensible, the foundation of the criminal justice system is that criminal prosecutions must be based upon evidence and not emotion.”

Attorney faults police investigation

Thomas P. Giuffra, Jane Doe's attorney, disputed Van Houten's description of her initial statement and said authorities never followed up with his client using specialized training.

“In my experience, speaking with an abuse survivor requires delicacy, understanding and specialized training. An average University Police officer would not have these skills.”

Critical evidence was not provided

Van Houten acknowledged his office did not independently investigate and said a screenshot of a Snapchat group chat included in the civil complaint was never provided to his office in two thousand twenty-four.

Attorney says messages prove crime

Giuffra said the Snapchat messages are a critical piece of evidence that were provided to authorities in two thousand twenty-four and show fraternity members inviting each other to rape his client.

“This was a critical piece of evidence supporting that a crime had occurred. Despite this there was no follow-up with Ms. Doe either by the Cornell Police or the Tompkins County District Attorney.”

Cornell says it investigated thoroughly

Cornell said in a statement that its Office of Civil Rights and Office of Student Conduct investigated and adjudicated the allegations. The university said violations could result in suspension or expulsion.

University disputes essay claim

Cornell said Jane Doe's lawyers allege fraternity members were offered essays as sole consequence, but the university said this is false and that sanctions included expulsions and suspensions.

“Any suggestion that the University did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false.”

Defendants deny allegations

Attorney Jeremy Saland said defendant Scott Kretzschmar never sexually assaulted or touched the plaintiff. Defendant Scott Norris denied participating in sexual activity or drug use.

“At bottom, Scott never sexually assaulted or even touched the plaintiff in any way. Period.”

DA to present case to grand jury

Van Houten told ABC News his office intends to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe's cooperation to reexamine whether additional evidence exists that would change the assessment.

“It's our intention to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe's cooperation. We want to reexamine whether there's additional evidence that we were not aware of in November of 2024.”