Newly revealed defense claims from former Cornell University fraternity members are surfacing as the Tompkins County District Attorney’s office moves to reopen a criminal investigation into a 2024 alleged gang rape. The seven men named in a recent civil lawsuit maintain that the encounter was consensual, citing specific phrases they claim the victim used during the incident.
According to statements reportedly provided to university investigators during a Title IX probe, the accused fraternity brothers alleged that the victim, identified as Jane Doe, told them the group encounter was “normal in medieval times.” The defense further claims she stated, “We’re all consenting adults here,” while at the Chi Phi fraternity house on October 19, 2024. These assertions directly contradict the allegations in the civil complaint regarding the 2024 incident.
Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten announced on September 28, 2026, that his office is reopening the criminal investigation and preparing to present evidence to a grand jury. This marks a significant shift in the case, which saw no criminal charges filed in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 reporting, despite the university later permanently banning the Xi chapter of Chi Phi from campus.
The decision to revisit the case follows intense public scrutiny and criticism from high-ranking state officials. On October 2, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul publicly criticized the original handling of the investigation by campus police and the District Attorney’s office. Governor Hochul stated that the original probe had failed the victim.
Central to the civil lawsuit and the renewed criminal interest is a digital trail of messages sent by members of the fraternity. The complaint highlights a Snapchat message sent to a group titled “Chi Phi Actives” during the alleged assault, which purportedly advertised “free py” to members of the house. The lawsuit argues this message demonstrates a predatory environment and a lack of concern for the victim’s state of mind.
While the university’s internal investigation led to administrative disciplinary actions, the lack of criminal prosecution for nearly two years has been a point of contention for the victim’s legal team. The defense continues to argue that the university’s findings were flawed. However, the DA’s office is now reopening the criminal investigation, though specific details have not been released to the public.
The seven defendants, all former students, have largely remained silent outside of the claims documented in the university’s investigative reports. As the grand jury review approaches, the case has become a focal point for discussions regarding the transparency of campus sexual assault investigations and the jurisdictional boundaries between university disciplinary boards and local law enforcement.
