I'm just disappointed...

[HaleyBaron]

That case should have been dropped and her laughed out of the police station. She has no standing case, and it's clear it's just MeToo resurgence to further ignite female fanbase. Unfortunately, it's at least working socially. Anti rape and Jane Doe propaganda plastered all over social media. Hate this timeline.

 

[Sega Genesis]

That case should have been dropped..

The DA did initially drop it when first presented to him in 2024 for lack of evidence according to her written statement. I don't know all the facts but it's been said he's been railroaded and pressured into reopening.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Then it's clear that it was politically motivated. Right on schedule.

 

[klh]

'Jane Doe' consented to the threesome [... with] Matt Ingalls. ... At one point she had said "stop" and they stopped.

Yes, the first threesome was consensual. Then 7 guys read Snapchat and eagerly ran up for "free *****". Ingalls later lied that men entered the room because the party was crowded. In other words, Ingalls secretly and deliberately set her up. I have seen (possibly fake) Snapchats online that they previously set up other women.

She pushed Diego Sarabia away and he respected. But then 7 men "commanded" her to do more ketamine, she was too intimidated to leave because she was surrounded and naked under the covers, and she felt coerced to do more drugs. Finally, Ingalls and Lopes took her away for another threesome. I am concerned that Ingalls took advantage of involuntary intoxication. No mean no; it does not mean give her more drugs until she is incapable of saying no. This might not pass the threshold of criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt and I would not throw defendants in prison for years. But dang, the girl dropped out of Cornell and at least deserves a tuition refund.

New York law says consent is too damn hard to figure out after the fact. So if a New York woman got voluntarily drunk, then the criminal law does not protect her (unless she was unconscious). Other states have different laws about intoxicated consent.

 

[Sega Genesis]

But then 7 men "commanded" her to do more ketamine, she was too intimidated to leave because she was surrounded and naked under the covers, and she felt coerced to do more drugs.

Where did you get this information? I am not saying it's incorrect but I have been following closely and I have never heard or read this.

No one coerced her and it was her idea to take the ketamine off one man"a penis later during the night. She has admitted this in text messages to Matt. And other written statements

In fact, in one of her texts to Matt that has been discovered, she stated that the sexual stuff that night was not illegal, she enjoyed her time with him and xxzz (another defendant) and expressed interest in doing it again. That she loved him and he was her King.

She may be claiming now two years later she felt coerced and intimidated but I dunno the evidence doesn't really support this as it stands now.

Also Matt Ingalls has claimed and the others corroborated, that HE was so drunk at one point and in and out of consciousness and SHE proceeded to s*ck his c0ck and tried to wake him up.

Since he was actually incapacitated would it be fair to say that she sexually assaulted him? He is now claiming he was and considering filing his own lawsuit

I don't know and hopefully the entire truth will come to light as the investigation continues or during trial.

I know the burden and laws are different in each state. In CA for example where I live, if a person is simply intoxicated there can be no consent. In New York the bar is higher.

 

[nicksaiz65]

Where did you get this information? I am not saying it's incorrect but I have been following closely and I have never heard or read this.

No one coerced her and it was her idea to take the ketamine off one man"a penis later during the night. She has admitted this in text messages to Matt. And other written statements

In fact, in one of her texts to Matt that has been discovered, she stated that what happened that night was not illegal, she enjoyed her time with him and expressed interest in doing it again. That she loved him and he was her King.

She may be claiming now two years later she felt coerced and intimidated but I dunno the evidence doesn't really support this as it stands now.

Also Matt Ingalls has claimed and the others corroborated, that HE was so drunk at one point and in and out of consciousness and SHE proceeded to s*ck his c0ck and tried to wake him up.

Since he was actually incapacitated would it be fair to say that she sexually assaulted him? He is now claiming he was and considering filing his own lawsuit

I don't know and hopefully the entire truth will come to light as the investigation continues or during trial.

I know the burden and laws are different in each state. In CA for example where I live, if a person is simply intoxicated there can be no consent. In New York the bar is higher.

Oh wow. Thats the law in CA? I’d have to do more research. So what does this imply about two drunk people, similar to what Ingalls is claiming?

 

[Sega Genesis]

Oh wow. Thats the law in CA? I’d have to do more research. So what does this imply about two drunk people, similar to what Ingalls is claiming?

">>Under California law, sexual activity with a person who is too intoxicated to give legal consent is considered rape or sexual assault (California Penal Code Section 261).

What the Law Says

• • Legal Definition: According to the California Legislative Information for Penal Code 261, rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is prevented from resisting by intoxication, and the accused knew or reasonably should have known the person was intoxicated.

 

[BPH]

I want to clarify and ask a question to forum members. There is a lot of exculpatory evidence. But the Snapchat "free ***** ... store is open ... just whip it out" followed by drugging looks like a premeditated and possibly nonconsensual train.

In some states, a girl who is so drunk that she does not recognize her partner cannot give consent. But in New York state, a girl who voluntarily got intoxicated must be essentially unconscious to claim rape. This will make criminal conviction very difficult. For example, it might require showing that the girl was involuntarily coerced or tricked into doing more ketamine.

My question is: If you believe that the men are innocent, what evidence would convince you that this is rape? Conversely, if you believe they are guilty, what would convince you that they are innocent? Again, it will be hard to prove beyond reasonable criminal doubt. But it is easier to prove civil damages with preponderance of evidence.

Not saying "everything was consensual" in her original statement would've been a good start.

 

[Mertz09]

">>Under California law, sexual activity with a person who is too intoxicated to give legal consent is considered rape or sexual assault (California Penal Code Section 261).

What the Law Says

• • Legal Definition: According to the California Legislative Information for Penal Code 261, rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is prevented from resisting by intoxication, and the accused knew or reasonably should have known the person was intoxicated.

Ms. Sega, You seem to be very much informed about the Law. Are you an Attorney?

 

[klh]

Good summary by Sega Genesis. In her police interview transcript, she said "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped," but this was omitted from the summary sent to the district attorney. She also texted Newell: “Let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. I was given more key (ketamine) than I can remember," and "I know that I told u I felt uncomfortable and I didn’t know anyone in the room. She complained about bruises. But the district attorney did not investigate and find this evidence.

A civil violation does not need to meet the NY State standard for rape. For example, secretly removing your condom or filming would not be rape, but might be cause for civil damages. Inviting 50 strangers and spanking/bruising after you have deliberately gotten her wasted might also qualify.

Will other women come forward? Social media has (possibly fake) screenshots of the Snapchat saying "hope it's not another fattie."

According to her sworn affidavit to the DA in 2024 and her own text messages, [B]she consented.[/B]

In New York being intoxicated is not enough to support a claim of sexual assault. You must essentially be passed out/unconscious.

She has now filed a civil suit for damages/money. The standard is lower than in criminal court which beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil it's a preponderance of the evidence.
[/QUOTE]

 

[klh]

Okay, TMZ just published more exonerating texts.

She goes on ... "i really liked being w u and matt. so anything anyone has to say about the gamgbang is out of their jurisdiction."
... "i don't think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf."

Then there's a reference to not just a three-way between Jonathan and Matthew Ingalls, but a 4th person ... "also yes while it may have been nice for like only 4 people to have been around, yall were both super out of it and they should have taken it on themselves to leave. at the end of the day you, matt, and i were in your bed and they didn't need to get up in that."

https://www.tmz.com/2026/10/08/cornell-jane-doe-texts-about-alleged-assault/

The unresolved issue is the third and especially fourth guy after they provided more ketamine.

Suppose you got drunk and had a threesome with a supermodel and her fat roommate. Then a third unwanted fat girl joins. Meh, it was a sexual tradeoff. Later, you learn learn that her gay male roommate sodomized you, and you definitely would not have consented. And finally you learn that the gay roommate arranged it all, using the supermodel and strong drinks to trick you. You were definitely violated. But the law is a blunt instrument and it is hard to sort out after the fact.

 

[Sega Genesis]

In her police interview transcript, she said "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped," but this was omitted from the summary sent to the district attorney. She also texted Newell: “Let’s be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. I was given more key (ketamine) than I can remember," and "I know that I told u I felt uncomfortable and I didn’t know anyone in the room. She complained about bruises. But the district attorney did not investigate and find this evidence.

As the investigation continues, more information and documents are being discovered and brought into evidence.

And no the DA did not interview Jane Doe or investigate further which was wrong and he was removed as prosecutor as a result and replaced by NY Attorney General Leticia James. Not the best choice imo from what I know about her but maybe she will surprise everyone and be fair.

Anyway...

The DA has responded with his own statement stating In part:

"Jane Doe's sworn written statement in November 2024 (which she reviewed several times and signed) did not allege she was drugged against her will or gang raped.

On the contrary Jane Doe's statement described her participation of drug use and sexual activity as voluntary, conscious and consensual.

My office obviously could not and did not base our decision to not file charges in November 2024 based on allegations in a civil lawsuit filed nearly two years later.

Furthermore I have never been contacted by her attorneys to tell me her original sworn statement was inaccurate. Rather I reached out to her attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original sworn statement and the lawsuit's allegations and the proper path forward in light of the allegations in the lawsuit."

P.S. @Mertz09 no I am not an attorney, I am a certified paralegal with experience in both civil law and criminal law in CA. My late dad and current boyfriend are both attorneys.

Except for CA I don't actually know the law that well but I am good at researching and learning facts versus following on social media like Tik Tok and Reddit.

I've decided to step back from it now though and will just wait to see if charges are brought and how this unfolds. I find it mentally exhausting and wouid probably be a crap attorney, I don't have the temperament for it!

 

[klh]

Jane Doe reminds me of "Grace", who used her Twitter handle "Snack Hoe" to accuse comedian Aziz Ansari of being her "aggressor." Grace then gave an interview to babe.net complaining about pushy sex at Ansari's apartment after a date. He then paid for her ride home.

Both women described unenthusiastic consensual sex. But national news stories kept both women anonymous while outing the men. Indeed, Jane Doe names 7 men despite having sex with only 4. Similarly, Google gives me an incorrect last name for the phony Rolling Stone victim "Jackie." The media have a double standard here about protecting privacy.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Jane Doe reminds me of "Grace", who used her Twitter handle "Snack Hoe" to accuse comedian Aziz Ansari of being her "aggressor." Grace then gave an interview to babe.net complaining about pushy sex at Ansari's apartment after a date. He then paid for her ride home.

Both women described unenthusiastic consensual sex. But national news stories kept both women anonymous while outing the men. Indeed, Jane Doe names 7 men despite having sex with only 4. Similarly, Google gives me an incorrect last name for the phony Rolling Stone victim "Jackie." The media have a double standard here about protecting privacy.

The fact that she found a yutz like that f-ck-ble was indicative of her insanity, yet barely anyone picked up on this. Such idiocy on the part of the general public may actually SURPASS the spectacle of folks continuing to show up at the polls come election time, most of them sincerely believing "My voice counts!!!", despite voluminous evidence to the contrary https://reason.com/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count/