You know, I had hoped that our civilization of laws and justice had gotten past becoming a lynch mob, waving pitchforks and torches around, but I guess not.
Yes, we're going to talk about the Cornell 7.
First, I want to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that I do not in any way, shape, or form support abuse, rape, or sexual predators of any kind, regardless if the perpetrator is a man OR woman. In my eyes, such actions are unforgivable and should be met with the strictest criminal punishment available under the law.
That said, everyone deserves their day in court, and there are a ridiculous number of people out there choosing sides and jumping to conclusions without even knowing all the facts. Many are supporting the accuser as if she's already been proven to be the victim of exactly what she alleges. Others are crucifying the accused as if seven guilty verdicts have already been handed down.
Neither has happened.
You would think after the Duke lacrosse situation people would have learned not to assume anything simply because an allegation is horrific, but I guess we're not that enlightened yet.
For those who don't know, the Duke lacrosse case began in 2006 after members of the Duke University lacrosse team held a party and hired two exotic dancers. One of those women, Crystal Mangum, later accused members of the team of sexually assaulting her. Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans were eventually indicted on charges that included rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping.
The public then, much as people are doing now, was quick to grab its pitchforks and pass judgment upon the three men based largely on the accusation itself. Newspapers ran with it. Television ran with it. Protesters ran with it. People who knew almost nothing beyond what they had heard in the media were suddenly completely certain they knew exactly what happened inside that house.
In 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed the charges and took the unusual additional step of declaring the three men innocent. District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred after serious prosecutorial misconduct, including his handling of DNA evidence. Then, in 2024, nearly two decades after the incident, Mangum publicly admitted that she had lied about the three men raping her.
Now here we are again.
I'm not saying Cornell IS Duke. What I'm saying is that Duke should have taught us a lesson about what happens when allegations become convictions in the court of public opinion before the actual evidence has been tested. Yet here we are, doing it all over again.
The Cornell case is complicated, and anybody telling you otherwise is either not paying attention or has already decided what they want the truth to be.
There is evidence in the public record that raises legitimate questions about the accusations. There is also evidence supporting the accuser's contention that activity which may have begun consensually later crossed a line into something she didn't consent to.
That's exactly why declaring this case solved in places like Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, or wherever else people are currently sharpening their pitchforks is completely ridiculous. So how about we simply talk about what we actually know?
The accuser, identified publicly through the court proceedings as Jane Doe, appears to have described the events differently at different times. Early statements, text messages, later interviews, university proceedings and the current allegations don't line up like they realistically should.
There is substantial evidence that at least the first sexual encounter involving Jane Doe and two men was consensual. Her own statements and messages reportedly described that encounter positively, including messages suggesting she was happy that it occurred.
Jane Doe acknowledged voluntarily drinking alcohol and using drugs before and during the party. There does not appear to be evidence, at least publicly, that she was secretly drugged or given an intoxicant without her knowledge.
New York law regarding voluntary intoxication does not automatically make every sexual encounter illegal, but neither does voluntarily drinking or taking drugs create some magical legal permission slip allowing anything to happen.
The sexual activity reportedly occurred over multiple encounters and was not simply one uninterrupted event. At the same time, evidence of consensual activity before or between the alleged assaults is also relevant.
According to some accounts, when additional sexual activity, specifically a 4-some, was proposed and Jane Doe rejected it, that rejection was respected. If accurate, that's an important detail because it shows the respecting of consent.
There are also reports that when Jane Doe said she was tired and wanted to sleep, activity stopped and she was allowed to sleep. Again, that doesn't settle the case, but it shows the men had at least some respect for her desires.
Jane Doe remained at the fraternity house overnight and left the following day. It doesn't mean much as evidence either way, but those actions are still part of the overall timeline and may hold some merit.
Messages exchanged afterward are particularly interesting because, in at least some of those messages, Jane Doe reportedly indicated that nothing illegal had happened during the initial encounter, that she had enjoyed being with the first two men and that this may not have been the first time she consensually partook in a "gangbang" with at least some of these men.
Accounts from roommates the following morning are also mixed as one roommate reportedly described Jane Doe laughing while discussing what happened, while also saying she appeared to be in shock or did not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Another reportedly remembered her expressing that she wasn't comfortable with some of what happened, but discomfort after the fact doesn't disprove consent at the time.
There is evidence that Jane Doe became increasingly upset as stories about the night spread around campus and concerns about her reputation grew. Her then reading of an online forum post seems to be when her belief changed toward having been sexually assaulted. That timeline is relevant, but we can't really make any assumptions based on it.
Cornell police interviewed Jane Doe in 2024 and produced a signed written statement that the district attorney later cited when explaining why criminal charges were not pursued at that time. In that statement, Jane Doe reportedly described voluntary drug use and consensual sexual activity.
The fuller interview transcript, which later became public, reportedly contains much stronger allegations from Jane Doe, including statements that she believed she had been raped, coerced and, at points, was incapable of consenting.
Cornell also conducted its own Title IX sexual-misconduct investigation. That investigation involved interviews, hearings and disciplinary proceedings. Two men were expelled, others received suspensions or other consequences, and two were reportedly found not responsible for sexual misconduct.
Due to public pressure the criminal investigation has since been reopened, and New York Attorney General Letitia James was appointed to act as special prosecutor. While serious questions about her ability to be impartial have been raised, the criminal investigation is ongoing with her leading it.
Which brings us to the rather important point everybody on social media seems determined to skip over:
WE DON'T KNOW YET.
There's clearly evidence here that raises questions about the allegations. There's also evidence that supports them. There are messages that appear favorable to the accused. There are statements favorable to the accuser. There are apparent inconsistencies. There are explanations offered for those inconsistencies. There are questions about intoxication and capacity. There are questions about what Cornell police documented and what the district attorney actually received for review.
Of course, this situation is completely fluid, and there's no doubt that opinions are going to continue being thrown around social media as though everybody involved personally attended the party carrying a clipboard and body camera. I'm not here to declare seven boys innocent any more than I'm here to declare their accuser a liar.
I'm a smart enough man to admit that I don't know what happened.
There's enough contradictory information in the public record that anybody currently claiming absolute certainty should probably ask themselves whether they're interested in justice or merely interested in having their chosen side win.
The lesson from Duke isn't that every woman who reports rape is lying. The lesson is that an allegation, no matter how horrific, is still an allegation until the evidence has been properly investigated and tested. The Duke case showed exactly how badly things can go when police, prosecutors, media organizations and the general public become convinced they already know the ending.
Three men spent more than a year being publicly branded rapists for something authorities ultimately determined never happened. Nearly twenty years later, their accuser publicly admitted it herself.
So perhaps having a little patience before destroying people's lives isn't an unreasonable suggestion, don't ya think?
It's my belief that this is one of the biggest problems we have with social media these days. Whenever an event occurs, suddenly everyone becomes an expert and starts making judgments based primarily on emotion and whatever fragments of evidence reinforce the conclusion they've already chosen.
The media doesn't exactly help. Complicated stories become headlines. Allegations become narratives. Accusers are sometimes immediately spoken of as proven victims while the accused become presumed guilty before they've entered a courtroom. Then you end up with one person's name being protected while 7 others are publicly dragged through the fires of hell. Actual justice vanishes faster than a Turbo Busa on the Autobahn.
Within hours there are heroes, villains, amateur detectives, amateur psychologists, amateur lawyers and fifty thousand people who've somehow determined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from three screenshots and a TikTok video. That's the courtroom of social media, and it's an absolute disgrace.
So here's the question I'd ask everybody currently crucifying these men:
If the evidence eventually shows that some or all of them are innocent, are you prepared to admit you were wrong?
And the same question applies in the opposite direction.
If the investigation ultimately establishes that Jane Doe was sexually assaulted, are the people currently convinced she's lying prepared to admit THEY were wrong?
That's what intellectual integrity actually requires. You don't get to choose the ending and then bend every piece of evidence until it fits. You follow the evidence.
Maybe those Snapchat messages turn out to be enormously important. Maybe they were just stupid drunken texts by teenagers who wish they could unsend them. I'm sure we've all been there.
Maybe the inconsistencies in Jane Doe's statements are enormously important. Maybe the fuller police interview explains those inconsistencies or evidence we haven't even seen yet changes the entire picture.
- That's why we have investigations.
- That's why we have courts.
- That's why we presume innocent until proven guilty.
Personally, I'm going to withhold judgment until the evidence is properly examined and this case has worked its way through the legal system.
No good has ever come from lynch mobs
... apparently social media missed that memo.
