‘Cornell 7’ Jane Doe drops case against man she mis-ID’d as fraternity president
The “Cornell 7” Jane Doe dropped a man from her lawsuit whom she wrongly identified as president of the school’s Chi Phi fraternity — whose members she claims gang raped her.
Doe, who has accused seven Chi Phi brothers of sexually assaulting her at a party in October 2024, initially named Orazio Petito in her civil lawsuit, which she filed last month.
Petito, who was mistakenly identified as the chapter’s president, was not accused of sexual assault.
https://nypost.com/2026/10/21/us-news/cornell-7-jane-doe-drops-case-against-man-she-misidentified-as-fraternity-president/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
9 replies
I didn't know much about the details of this case, but I watched a 10 min video last week from someone who was a supporter but now angry as more and more details come out that are starting to show she is lying and for how big this got it's only going to hurt future cases like this. Some of the evidence shown were text messages that actual discuss consent for all of this prior and it did appear to be agreed upon. In this generation it is absolutely drilled into people that consent is needed. Her story has changed multiple times each time she has been asked which says something isn't right here. The night of the guy she was with was not only drunk but also on a lot of ketamine and she was the one who put the pressure to continue even though by the standards of sexual assualt he was to inebriated to consent. He was told after that it doesnt work that way because he is a male. Theres more, but it sounds like this is not going to end well considering how much attention it got. It just sucks because it was finally putting preasure on colleges and who knows what will change if this is found to be false.
I'm automatically skeptical, personally, when a rape story blows up like this one did. That's not to say I disbelieve the accuser, I just find myself reticent to join in on a witch hunt until there's actual, verifiable information out there to substantiate what people are saying. That skepticism is becoming even stronger now that most people are getting their information from TikTok, which isn't exactly reliable. (And the Lindsay Clancy fandom is making it way worse.)
We've also seen some very high profile stories debunked publicly, like the rape allegations against the Duke LaCross Team, against Jay-Z, and the Mattress Girl accusations.
It's really just best to just wait a sec, take a breath, and see what information comes out before forming an opinion.
Agreed, I haven't sided with anyone yet. Just doesn't look like it's going very good.
Does that open the door for Jane Doe to be sued for defamation? I could understand there being some confusion around the event, but that particular person wasn't there at all apparently.
No, dropping him from the lawsuit is an acknowledgement that he had no part in the activities andor no part fomenting a culture that encourages the activities described in the lawsuit.
One would hope so. I certainly would. They've had the whole Internet mobilized against them, and now we're learning through the texts and sworn statements that are emerging that the Internet's story may not be accurate.
They probably didn't want the details of their very active sex lives to be public information nationally either.
I hope he sues the shit out of them.
Apart from this being an ongoing situation where the court of public opinion already has a conviction while the facts are rolling in, I hate that there's a market force emerging where people's behavior in their own homes, even if they're outwardly positive about it, can still be held against them publicly. Extremely sex positive, open relationship, whatever? Too bad you didn't air it out publicly so you could be vilified ahead of time so it didn't come up at a time of great stress. I wish I could bottle up whatever process celebrities use to get everyone to respect their "keep our private lives, private" position, and give a bottle to everyone on earth.
That goes double for people up to the same shit in their own bedrooms who hold holier-than-thou attitudes publicly.
And, yeah. The guy may be in a no-win situation where he has to pick between taking a hit to the reputation, or suing.
So you are speculating on the motives of the plaintiffs in general instead of on their motives to refrain from including this man in their case, which is quite telling on your perspective and motives.
Think what you want about my motives. I could not care less.
Have a nice Saturday.