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.