Cornell rape case explodes as DA says key police transcript was never seen THE EVIDENCE THE DA SAYS HE NEVER SAWA two-year-old alleged sexual assault at Cornell University has suddenly become a much bigger story after the district attorney revealed he had never seen a transcript in which the alleged victim told campus police she was “100% confident” she had been raped. The newly obtained transcript, reported by CBS News New York, records a two-day interview conducted in November 2024, more than three weeks after the alleged incident at the Chi Phi fraternity house. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten previously decided not to bring criminal charges, saying his decision was based on a signed statement from the woman, identified as Jane Doe. But after being shown the newly surfaced transcript, he told CBS that the material was “news to me” and said it could change the landscape of the investigation. WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAYSAccording to CBS, Jane Doe described drinking and taking drugs that night and acknowledged gaps in her memory. She distinguished what she described as consensual sexual activity earlier in the evening from what she said happened later. The transcript records her telling investigators: “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.” She also described herself as completely incapacitated and told investigators that she had been subjected to coercion. The police investigator questioned her closely about what she had said to the men involved and then worked through a written statement with her. The crucial issue is not simply what the woman told police, however. It is what information reached the prosecutor who ultimately decided there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone. Van Houten told CBS he had not been provided with the transcript and said he would obtain it and follow up with Cornell police. CORNELL NOW FACES ANOTHER INVESTIGATIONThe controversy has escalated further with New York Governor Kathy Hochul calling for an independent examination of how Cornell handled the allegations. Cornell agreed Wednesday to the outside review, which will examine the university's response to the allegations and questions surrounding its campus systems for reporting and responding to sexual assault. Cornell had already conducted its own internal investigation following the 2024 incident, resulting in expulsions, suspensions and other disciplinary action. The fraternity chapter was subsequently shut down. Meanwhile, prosecutors have reopened the criminal investigation after a civil lawsuit filed by Jane Doe brought renewed attention to the case and additional evidence, including messages allegedly exchanged by fraternity members. THE BIGGER QUESTIONThe case is therefore no longer confined to allegations surrounding one fraternity night. There are now questions over the original police investigation, the evidence supplied to prosecutors, Cornell's internal handling of the allegations and the decision not to pursue criminal charges at the time. Jane Doe's attorney has sharply criticised the DA's earlier handling of the case. Lawyers representing two defendants, meanwhile, have said their clients deny the allegations. No criminal finding has been made against the accused men. The reopened investigation — together with the independent review of Cornell — means the questions surrounding the case are now being examined from several different directions. And one question sits at the centre of it all: Why did the district attorney who decided not to prosecute apparently never see the full police interview in which the alleged victim said she was certain she had been raped? SOURCE
Create an account or sign in to comment