Anna A

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ She couldn't consent in her state. It would be consentul IF they negotiated it sober, agreed on participants and boundaries and RESPECTED that boundaries, it wouldn't be rape. Giving already wasted girl more drugs for her to stop telling "no" is not consent.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ Said the person who speculates on her motivation, only your speculation are ridiculous.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ everything, not anything

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ "They were all drunk" excuse is bullshit and you know it. The power was on their side, she was one in vulnerable position, even actually consentual gangbang would be risky and hurtful for a women and not for men.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ And she wouldn't need other women to push her anywhere when she discovered how they lied to her, used her and offered her as a piece of meat to all the frat. She had enough of motivation from what they did to her. And it wasn't false.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ I've read the text. They are what makes it obvious she didn't remember everything in the beginnings and she actually liked that 2 deepshits. That's the stage when she was in denial, wanted to see them again, even protected them from accusation.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ She wasn't in control of her sexuality, that's what make it a rape case. And everyone knows nowdays court case doesn't fucking save you reputation, as we can perfectly see from this case. She doesn't even try to look "not slutty" in her statement.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@psn_sgood95 @babytinkrbell @BradleyGrey_ than being offered to all the frat as a sex toy by her crash?

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@psn_sgood95 @babytinkrbell @BradleyGrey_ She had support of at least some female friends and strangers from what we now. And obviously some women would talk shit, but as you said, they do it all the time, it's not something to go to police to. Why the hell would you think it mattered to her more

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@babytinkrbell @psn_sgood95 @BradleyGrey_ Why do you think it wasn't the text? The text expose mens lies, they are proves of what actually happened, and how far beyoned initial agreement on threesome it went. It what makes you reconceptualize the whole situation. What makes you think party was more important that this?

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@psn_sgood95 @babytinkrbell @BradleyGrey_ She found out about their chats about that time, realized what that "nice guys" actually did to her and of course she got nuclear. While she was convincing herself it was all consentual, rumors and shit didn't matter.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@psn_sgood95 @babytinkrbell @BradleyGrey_ She made a rape claim after she discovered "free pussy" messages and realized what actually happened that night.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@The1BJK @JustinBonomo Please consider she liked that 2 guys (and they actively pretended to like her back and be actual human beings). And she doesn't remember everything. It's totally believable she's in denial at that stage and trying to normalize and minimize what happened.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@MrsLibertyBell1 @SQuaicoe1 She was given more drugs when she started saying no. Certainly just for fun, not to make her more compliant.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@KevinWo18771062 @alyssamariiee11 She also sais her memory were super clouded.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@LuciaEverblack @Lbvfkt @KittyKryptid wait, what do you mean by most cis women not passing?

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@conlin_lauren Wait, they had a sober monitor? What the guy was doing all night? Please don't tell me fucking Jane Doe.

[Anna A @M_arienai]

@PascualEugenia @christasyd Aaah, dog's are so crazy. Aren't they supposed to be smart?

[Bridget Ayers @BridgetAyers]

Cornell Hearing Panel Decision - New Details, Conflicting Accounts & Physical Evidence

So far, I’ve worked through Jane Doe's civil complaint, the DA's summary of her six-page sworn statement, reported portions of her two-day police interview, excerpts from Cornell's Title IX investigation and now a heavily redacted, 99-page Cornell Hearing Panel Decision.

This report filled in some gaps, but was also difficult to navigate with all the redactions.

Cornell's investigation was extensive, more than 50 interviews involving 32 witnesses, followed by a multi-day hearing in May 2025. The panel applied a preponderance of the evidence, or “more likely than not,” standard, not the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Invitations, Body Flexes & a Negative Drug Test:

- Doe described having strong romantic and sexual feelings for Ingalls and later described that attraction as having a “chokehold” on her, saying she would have done “anything to please [him].”

- The panel considered the first threesome consensual. The decision also says Doe and one of the two men were already friends and had engaged in sexual activity together previously. Based on the chronology, I believe that person is Newell, although the name is redacted.

- Whether Doe took ketamine around the time of that first threesome was disputed.

- Doe acknowledged she had no independent memory of taking it the first time. Her belief that she did, came from taking ketamine later and remembering thinking, essentially, I've already done this once tonight.

- The men gave conflicting accounts. At one point, one said Doe declined ketamine and they didn't push her. Later, he testified that they offered it and “she chose to take it.” The panel ultimately found it more likely than not that she did take ketamine during that earlier period.

The panel found Doe's inability to remember taking it consistent with the effects of ketamine and viewed that as supporting her credibility, while inconsistencies in the men's accounts reduced theirs.

This report brings more clarity to the timeline:

~1:00 a.m., Lopes enters.

Just after 2:00 a.m., another man enters and consumes ketamine off Doe's body.

~2:15 a.m., another enters, kisses Doe and consumes ketamine off her body.

~2:30 a.m., additional respondents enter.

~5:00 a.m., Doe, Ingalls and Lee leaving the alumni room for the fourth-floor “Pentz” and then the smaller “foffice”. After the final sexual encounter, Doe slept in one man's bed before returning to her residence.

The report also provides more context for the Snapchat message. “Free pussy in alum pu”

The panel concluded that “alum” meant the alumni room and “pu” meant “pull up” - in other words, an invitation to come to the room.

The panel didn't necessarily find every man who entered the room sexually assaulted Doe.

For at least one respondent, the panel concluded that simply going to the room because of the Snapchat message constituted attempted sexual exploitation. Its reasoning was that he understood a woman was likely nude or engaged in sexual activity and entered intending to observe it without her knowledge or consent.

Ketamine off her body

This section gets especially messy because the accounts conflict.

Doe said she agreed when one man asked to take ketamine off her body. She described lying down and covering her face while multiple people subsequently took drugs off her body. Because her face was covered, however, she couldn't actually identify everything everyone did.

She later described two of the men as essentially “voyeurs”, except that she believed they had also done drugs off her body.

One man's account was very different. He said two men entered, introduced themselves and Doe invited them in. He said they heard about others doing ketamine off her chest, asked Doe whether they could do the same, “She said yeah, so they did.”

That same account contains another detail I haven't seen discussed much:

Doe reportedly got out of the bed and began doing a “bodybuilder pose.”

Another account describes her “flexing her muscles to everybody in the room.”

These accounts of what Doe was doing and communicating during portions of a period are described very differently in her civil complaint. The complaint alleges that when additional men entered, Doe hid her naked body under the sheets and “felt as if there was no way for her to escape this room full of predatory, fraternity men.” It later alleges that she became “completely incapacitated.” Her attorney has similarly described her as “intoxicated to the point of incapacity.”

And then there's the drug test

One respondent consistently denied taking ketamine in the room.

He submitted an Omega Laboratories hair-follicle test, with the sample collected November 26, 2024. It came back negative for ketamine.

He testified that laboratory personnel told him ketamine could remain detectable in hair for three to six months. Another person testified that a different testing company told him hair testing could detect ketamine for up to 90 days.

The panel considered that negative test along with the conflicting witness accounts and concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that this respondent had consumed ketamine off Doe's body.

That's significant because Doe said he had.

It doesn't mean Doe was lying. Her own account explains why identification would be difficult; she said her face was covered while multiple people were around her.

But it is an example of an allegation being tested against other evidence and the evidence not supporting it sufficiently even under Cornell's lower more-likely-than-not standard.

In some places, the panel believed Doe over the respondents. In others, it found the evidence insufficient to substantiate what she believed happened. In still others, it found misconduct that wasn't sexual assault, including attempted sexual exploitation based on why someone entered the room.

And that's probably the most useful thing about reading the actual decision.

There are consensual sexual encounters. There are disputed sexual encounters. There are admitted drugs. Disputed drugs. Memory gaps. Contradictory statements. Snapchat messages. People entering and leaving. Witnesses describing Doe talking, laughing, and interacting. Doe describing periods of dissociation and missing memory. And at least one piece of objective evidence, a negative drug test, that caused the panel to reject part of an allegation.

And it's exactly why I keep reading the documents instead of picking a side from the headlines.