YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Los 7 DE CORNELL : ¿Por qué nadie fue a prisión? | Caso JANE DONE

Los 7 DE CORNELL : ¿Por qué nadie fue a prisión? | Caso JANE DONE — Transcript

by Criminalmente · 7,319 words · 1,165 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01After committing a brutal gang assault
0:04in 2024, the Cornell Seven received a
0:07punishment, I would say, that was
0:09ridiculous from the university. Two of
0:13them were suspended and the remaining
0:16five were only asked to write an essay.
0:19An essay repenting for what they had
0:21done, for an assault. Don't you find
0:23that incredible? Today, a little over
0:26two years later, the case is reopened
0:28to seek justice. Real justice. "I am
0:30Jane Doe." That was the phrase that
0:34flooded social media as thousands of
0:36people, mostly women, began to upload
0:39their photos to support the young woman
0:42who dared to sue seven students from
0:44the prestigious Cornell University for
0:47sexual assault. Let us remember that
0:51this event occurred in October of 2024,
0:53but was reopened in September of 2026,
0:56just a few days ago. All of this thanks
0:58to the appearance of key evidence. In
1:01the United States, families—just
1:04imagine this—save for years to pay
1:06for universities that can cost up to $
1:0980,000 a year. Even while paying these
1:13incredible amounts, there are private
1:16clubs on campus known as fraternities.
1:19Why did I say that? Because no one
1:21supervises what happens behind their
1:23doors. But anyway, I ask you before we
1:27begin: does that commitment to a
1:29supposed brotherhood also include
1:32covering up an assault? Does protecting
1:36one another mean becoming accomplices
1:39to a crime? The risk of this going
1:42unpunished goes far beyond the
1:44university setting. Those who learn
1:47today to erase a crime or an assault
1:50with family influence or money will be
1:52the same ones tomorrow who hold
1:54positions of power, run companies, or
1:57make public decisions. Today I am going
2:01to tell you the case of the Cornell
2:03Seven. Friends, how are you? Welcome to
2:14a new episode of Criminal Record. It
2:21all began during the early hours of
2:24Saturday, October 19, 2024, on the
2:26campus of the prestigious Cornell
2:29University, located in the city of
2:31Ithaca, New York. In that emblematic
2:36institution of higher education, a
2:38young student of only 20 years of age
2:41lived through a true nightmare that
2:44lasted for an incredible 7 continuous
2:46hours. 7 continuous hours inside the
2:51residence of the Chi Psi fraternity. It
2:54is of the utmost importance to make one
2:56point perfectly clear from the start.
2:59To safeguard her personal safety, her
3:02physical integrity, and, of course, her
3:05privacy, police authorities, the
3:07prosecutor's office, and court records
3:10identify the victim solely by the legal
3:13pseudonym of Jane Doe. This legal
3:18resource is used in United States
3:21courts to protect, in some way, the
3:24identity of survivors, whether of
3:27intimate assaults or more serious
3:29crimes. It is a protection mechanism
3:34exactly the same or equivalent to the
3:37assignment of initials or the customary
3:40term "N" that we use within criminal
3:43proceedings in Mexico to safeguard real
3:46names, that is, Juan N, Pedro N, María
3:49N. You must have heard it many times in
3:52the news. Well, Jane Doe was in her
3:57third year of university studies and
4:00was an active member of Delta Delta
4:03Delta, a well-known sorority on campus.
4:07That Friday night, just as thousands of
4:10young people do any weekend, the
4:12student went out with the simple
4:15intention of, well, what everyone does:
4:18socialize, have fun, take a break from
4:20academic pressures, and have a good
4:23time with her friends. The celebration
4:27began at a social gathering organized
4:29by her own student group, and as the
4:31evening progressed, she continued the
4:33tour with her companions through a
4:36couple of very popular bars located in
4:38this university area. According to the
4:42records later collected in the case
4:44reports, Jane Doe maintained a level of
4:46alcoholic intoxication that was, well,
4:48let's call it moderate. She herself
4:52would later describe to police
4:55investigators that she felt at a level
4:58of, let's say, five on a scale of 1 to
5:0110. That is to say, she was cheerful,
5:05uninhibited by the music and the
5:07atmosphere, but fully aware of her
5:09surroundings up to that point, with the
5:12capacity to make decisions, communicate
5:15clearly, and move anywhere on her own.
5:19It was in the midst of this festive
5:22context that she decided to send a text
5:25message via her cell phone to a
5:28classmate and university friend whom, I
5:31repeat, she considered a close friend.
5:35It is very important to mention this.
5:37She sent the message with the simple
5:39intention of knowing where he was, what
5:41he was doing, or what he planned to do
5:43that night. This young man replied
5:46immediately and told her that he was
5:49meeting with other young people at the
5:51Chi Phi fraternity house and,
5:53furthermore, invited her to join him to
5:55continue the party that way. With
6:00absolute trust in the one she
6:02considered her friend and without
6:04suspecting the danger that awaited her,
6:07the young woman walked approximately
6:101.5 km across the university campus
6:12toward Chi Phi. Jane Doe arrived at the
6:17location at approximately 11:00 at
6:19night. By that time, her state of
6:22vulnerability had become extremely
6:24evident, as she had consumed several
6:27alcoholic beverages in a span of
6:29approximately 3 hours. Her companion,
6:33upon noticing the condition in which
6:35she arrived, acted quite normally at
6:37that moment and had her enter the
6:39property. Both began to talk, sing,
6:43socialize, and have fun; they started
6:45dancing in the common areas of the
6:47house and began conversing with other
6:49members of the fraternity. However, as
6:54the minutes passed, the atmosphere of
6:57the place began to turn, let's say,
7:00progressively strange, dangerous. She
7:04began to feel strange. Before
7:06continuing, an important clarification
7:09that only just came to light a few
7:11hours ago. What Jane D was unaware of
7:15when crossing that threshold is that
7:18the university itself already knew
7:21perfectly well that that site, that
7:23house, was dangerous. Official
7:29university police records revealed that
7:32, just 22 hours before the events
7:35occurred, around 1 a.m. that same
7:37Saturday, Cornell patrols had gone to
7:40the Chipi fraternity to arrest a person
7:43for possession of illicit substances;
7:46and, on top of that, an ambulance also
7:50had to attend to a ketamine overdose.
7:55Campus regulations require that in the
7:58event of an incident involving
8:00prohibited substances of that magnitude
8:02, the fraternity must be closed
8:04immediately. However, the
8:09administration, the university, and
8:11those in charge did not enforce this
8:14suspension, allowing the party to take
8:17place that same night, where JD would
8:20be incapacitated and brutally abused.
8:24In a situation of that nature, I am
8:27referring to Jane D with too much
8:29alcohol in her system. The bare minimum
8:33, ethical, and truly human thing would
8:36have been for her supposed friend to
8:39protect her, offer her water, and keep
8:42her safe until she could fully recover.
8:46But exactly the opposite happened. Far
8:51from helping her and taking care of her
8:54or even contacting any of her trusted
8:56classmates or friends, the young men
8:59belonging to the fraternity began to
9:02pressure her in some way, very
9:04insistently, to continue consuming both
9:07alcohol and other types of illicit
9:09substances. Among these substances was
9:14ketamine. But, what is ketamine? It is
9:18a powerful dissociative anesthetic that
9:21ended up drastically annulling her
9:23state of consciousness, completely
9:26stripping her of any physical capacity
9:28to react, defend herself, or even move,
9:31taking advantage of her inability to
9:34make decisions and her absolute state
9:36of helplessness. This alleged friend,
9:42formally identified in police
9:44investigations and lawsuits by the name
9:47of Matthew Ingles, moved her to one of
9:51the private rooms. At first, she had
9:55voluntarily agreed to be alone with
9:59this young man. However, Ingles
10:03immediately added a second member of
10:05the fraternity to the room. to begin an
10:10intimate interaction. It was right at
10:14this crucial point that the situation
10:16took an absolutely incredible turn. The
10:20two young men began to insinuate and
10:23insist on taking the encounter further,
10:26explicitly proposing to involve a
10:29larger group of men inside that room.
10:34Faced with this proposal, Jane D
10:37reacted with the little strength she
10:40had left and expressed a no, a
10:43resounding, clear, sharp, and
10:45unequivocal no. And I mention it this
10:48way because that is how it is written
10:50in the records. She exercised her right
10:54to decide over her own body and her own
10:57boundaries, making it completely clear
11:00that she did not consent in any way to
11:03the presence or participation of more
11:06people. These students could not have
11:10cared less about her refusal. Instead
11:15of stopping and respecting the young
11:18woman's explicit will, the subjects who
11:21were in the room decided at that very
11:24moment to orchestrate a vile, cowardly,
11:27low action. At 1:42 in the morning, the
11:33assault escalated to a level that no
11:35one would believe later. The attackers
11:40had the idea of moving the attack or
11:43this information, let’s say, to a
11:46massive group chat on the Snapchat app,
11:50in which 57 active members of the Chipi
11:53Fraternity were added. Inside that
11:59group, they began to write messages
12:02that, well, I would call deeply
12:04denigrating, grotesque, vulgar, and
12:07dehumanizing. Not only did they
12:13objectify Jane D, referring to her in
12:16explicit and totally derogatory terms,
12:20but they used the platform as if it
12:23were an open invitation channel to
12:26invite other peers to join that room
12:29and also commit the abuse. They even
12:34used extremely disturbing coded
12:36language. They sent a message to the
12:39group literally asking the community if
12:42the store was still open, with the goal
12:45of confirming if Jane D remained
12:48unconscious and incapacitated to defend
12:51herself. As soon as one of the
12:54attackers responded affirmatively in
12:57the chat and said verbatim, "Yes, the
13:00store is still open." That simple
13:03confirmation acted as a kind of green
13:05light and the access signal for the
13:07other members to come to that room to
13:09commit the worst depravities. The exact
13:13sequence of what happened that early
13:15morning is truly terrifying. Out of the
13:1857 members who made up that Snapchat
13:21group, five young men accepted the
13:24invitation and went directly to the
13:27room. Joining the first two students
13:30who were already inside the room
13:33violating the victim. There, just like
13:36that, at that moment, the cowardly
13:39group was born, which we would know
13:42today as the Cornell Seven. One by one
13:49they got under the covers and, taking
13:52advantage of Jane D's sedated state,
13:55they proceeded to subject her to
13:58constant intimate assaults for almost 7
14:01hours straight. Thinking about the hell
14:06this young woman lived through that
14:09night sparks a mix of rage, indignation
14:12, and helplessness. Being trapped
14:17between four walls without the physical
14:19ability to move, speak, or defend
14:21yourself while multiple men violate
14:22your body and your dignity. It is a
14:26deeply vile and inhumane act. And here,
14:30right at this moment, I am going to
14:32pause. I want to mention something. I
14:36have seen this case on social media; I
14:39have seen the account of what happened
14:42on different platforms, and it saddens
14:44me greatly to see some comments. Some
14:47people on other networks, I repeat, say
14:50, "Well, she asked for it.""Why did she
14:53drink so much?""Why did she consume
14:55anything?" I ask you, does the fact
15:00that a woman or a man drinks alcohol
15:03and has a few too many, or consumes
15:05anything else, really give other people
15:08the right to abuse your body? Obviously
15:12not. And I honestly felt horrible when
15:17I saw the comments because it is ugly
15:20to see some people say, "It was her
15:23fault." No, it was not her fault.
15:27Absolutely no one has the right to
15:29violate you, regardless of the state
15:32you are in. Please, leave me a comment
15:37on what you think about that detail.
15:40But there is one more thing, something
15:42additional within the investigations
15:44that indignates the public even more.
15:47The other 50 members of the fraternity
15:50who read the conversation in real time,
15:52who were seeing the messages, who saw
15:55the screenshots, and who observed how
15:57the body of a peer from their same
15:59school, their same university, was
16:01literally being offered—what do you
16:04think? They did not participate
16:08directly in the act, but they did
16:10something that also seems extremely
16:12cowardly to me. They didn't tell anyone
16:15; they did absolutely nothing. None of
16:18them raised their voice to stop the
16:20aggression. None of them confronted
16:22their peers in the chat and said, "Hey,
16:24what is wrong with you?""That is wrong.
16:25" None of them, of the 50 remaining,
16:29called 911 or alerted campus security
16:32personnel. 50 people, 50 people who
16:37realized the assault that was about to
16:41happen, preferred to remain silent
16:44while a woman's dignity was destroyed
16:47just a few meters away from where they
16:51were sleeping. Today, the reopening of
16:57the investigations seeks to clarify
16:59every detail of that early morning and
17:02bring to justice—to real justice—
17:05those who acted as direct aggressors
17:07and those who allowed this atrocity to
17:10occur with impunity. Jane D remained
17:23trapped in a state of total
17:24helplessness as the early morning hours
17:26took their course. As the effects of
17:29the alcohol and the drugs began to wear
17:32off, she slowly started to regain
17:35consciousness, very gradually. At that
17:40moment, it’s understandable that she
17:43was confused, disoriented, and felt the
17:46bitter certainty in her body that
17:48something terrible had happened to her,
17:51something she didn't fully remember and
17:54couldn't quite grasp at that instant—
17:57how big, how serious, what had happened
18:00really was. It was 7 full hours trapped
18:05, manipulated, and subjected to being
18:07under the influence of substances. 7
18:11hours that became a blank spot in her
18:14memory because they left marks,
18:16injuries, and indelible physical traces
18:19on her body. I just heard a comment a
18:24little while ago on a platform from a
18:27doctor who was analyzing the case, I
18:30believe he's an anesthesiologist, and
18:33he said that the combination of alcohol
18:36and ketamine caused this effect of
18:39flashbacks the next day. That is to say
18:43, Jane D remembered in pieces what had
18:46happened. It’s as if a flashback
18:48reminded her of entering the fraternity
18:50. Then, later on, another flashback
18:52reminded her of having said no. Then
18:55the face, the image of one man, another
18:58one, then another. She didn't remember
19:00it clearly. I think it is something
19:03truly terrible and genuinely terrifying
19:05that you don't remember for certain
19:08what it was that happened the night
19:10before. But the next morning, Sunday,
19:14October 20, 2024, with all of this, she
19:17returned to her college dorm room, at
19:20about 11:15 in the morning. She was
19:24still wearing the same clothes, the
19:27same shoes, everything, everything she
19:29was wearing the night before, in shock,
19:32scared, and trying to piece together in
19:34her mind the puzzle of everything that
19:36had occurred. Jane D was going through
19:41enormous trauma caused by the physical
19:43pain, the humiliation of the experience
19:46from what little she remembered, and
19:48the emotional blow of having been
19:50betrayed by someone she considered a
19:52trusted friend. However, that same
19:56morning, that same Sunday morning,
19:58something happened, something very
20:00important that is worth highlighting
20:03because it shows that not everyone acts
20:05with bad intentions and that there are
20:07always those who decide to do the right
20:09thing regardless of the circumstances
20:11or the consequences. A member of the
20:16fraternity itself, Chipi, who had
20:18fallen asleep that night, woke up in
20:20the morning and opened the Snapchat app
20:22. Upon reviewing the group chats, he
20:26realized and read with horror all the
20:29messages where his peers the night
20:31before had offered the young woman as
20:34if she were simply an object. Instead
20:38of staying silent and becoming one more
20:41accomplice to this assault, this
20:43student made a brave decision.
20:46Anonymously, someone sent Jane D the
20:50screenshots of the entire group chat.
20:55With those images on her phone, the
20:57young woman had for the first time
20:59clear, irrefutable, and damning proof
21:02of the collective abuse she had been
21:04subjected to while unconscious or
21:06semi-conscious. Jane D, at that moment,
21:11as you can imagine, was devastated. She
21:16had obvious physical injuries on her
21:18body, painful details that don't need
21:21to be dwelled upon, but above all, she
21:24carried a terrifying mixture of shame,
21:27fear, and confusion; she didn't know
21:29what to do, who to talk to, or who to
21:32tell. On October 22nd, barely two days
21:37after that night, Jane Dow went to the
21:39university campus medical clinic
21:41because she began to feel discomfort—
21:47let’s call it very severe physical
21:49discomfort caused by an infection in
21:51her intimate area. At the appointment,
21:56she requested lab tests to ensure she
21:59hadn't contracted any truly serious
22:01disease as a result of the attack. To
22:07the medical staff—and this is very
22:10important—to the medical staff who
22:12treated her, she openly declared that
22:15the infection and those injuries were
22:18the direct result of a traumatic,
22:20non-consensual experience, leaving it
22:23recorded in her clinical file that the
22:26damage to her health was the direct
22:29consequence of a mass abuse. A few days
22:34later, on October 28th, Matthew Ingles,
22:36the supposed friend who had invited her
22:39to the house, called her, reaching out
22:41by phone to apologize as if it had been
22:44nothing. During the call, he tried to
22:48justify himself, claiming he was too
22:50drunk, too intoxicated that night to
22:52react in time. He said his memories
22:55were blurry and shielded himself by
22:57saying the effect of the alcohol
23:00prevented him from stopping his peers
23:02or getting them out of the room before
23:05things got out of control. Of course,
23:08he forgot to mention that he also
23:10participated in the abuse. One of
23:13Jane’s roommates was present and
23:15heard the whole call because she had
23:18the idea to put it on speakerphone.
23:22Hearing such excuses only served to
23:25confirm the betrayal. The guy who took
23:29her to the party was looking to wash
23:31his hands of it instead of assuming his
23:33guilt or even defending her. Without
23:36beating around the bush and with a
23:38voice full of indignation, Jane D’s
23:40response was direct. How? How could you
23:45let this happen to me? How could you
23:48allow it? There was no answer. On
23:53November 3rd, tired of seeing how those
23:56involved tried to evade their
23:57responsibility and change the version
24:00of events, Jane decided to confront
24:02them in writing. She sent a direct text
24:07message to Newwell, another of the
24:09young men identified, to make the truth
24:11clear and stop any attempt to distort
24:14the story. and she told him, "Let it be
24:18clear that 90%of what happened that
24:21night was not consensual. They gave me
24:26more ketamine than I can remember and I
24:28know I told you clearly that I felt
24:30uncomfortable and that I didn't know
24:32anyone in that room." That message was
24:36not just a complaint from a hurt victim
24:39, it was direct proof that consent
24:41never existed and of the state of total
24:44helplessness in which they kept her for
24:477 hours. 4 days later, on November 7th,
24:532024, Jane D took a decisive step to
24:55back up her words with official
24:57evidence. She went to a hospital
25:02emergency room to undergo a forensic
25:04medical exam, a more robust exam, meant
25:07to prove she had suffered intimate
25:09assault. With this study, doctors were
25:14able to collect and document medical
25:17evidence of the abuse, and with the
25:19expert reports in hand, along with
25:22Snapchat chat screenshots and messages
25:25where suspects admitted what happened.
25:28Jane D was now ready to fight the
25:31battle and take the case to the
25:34appropriate authorities. But guess what
25:37? You won't believe what happened. The
25:46next day, November 8th, 2024, when
25:48almost three weeks had passed since the
25:51night of the attack, Jane D gathered
25:53her courage and appeared at the Cornell
25:55University Police Department offices.
25:58What for? To file a formal complaint.
26:04To the officers on duty, she accused
26:07several students belonging to the Chipi
26:10fraternity of intimate assault. She
26:14reported that she was forced to consume
26:17illicit substances until she was
26:19completely numb, with no strength to
26:21respond, and for the first time, she
26:24gave investigators the full list with
26:26the names of the seven, the Cornell
26:28seven, the seven students involved in
26:31the assault. The first to appear in the
26:35complaint was Matthew Ingles. He was
26:38the supposed friend she had blindly
26:41trusted to go to the party that night.
26:44He was the same individual who, days
26:47after the assault, admitted in a phone
26:49call to having been too drunk and
26:51having blurry memories hiding behind
26:56alcohol consumption so he could try to
26:58justify why he didn't stop the attack
27:01or get his companions out of the room
27:03before things got worse. The second one
27:06identified was Jonathan Niwell. He
27:09ignored the young woman's refusals when
27:13she tried to push him away, and at 1:42
27:17in the morning, he acted as the group's
27:21main organizer. He sent a vulgar and
27:25derogatory message to a Snapchat group
27:27chat—aptly named "Chipi Actives"—to
27:30notify dozens of his peers that a woman
27:32was available in the room upstairs, as
27:35if it were nothing, as if she were a
27:37piece of merchandise. What is wrong
27:40with them? By tracking that message
27:44sent through the app, the police were
27:46able to reconstruct the exact order in
27:48which the other young men joined or
27:50gradually participated in the assault.
27:54That is how Winston Lee appeared, a
27:56student from the College of Arts and
27:59Sciences. The lawsuit accuses him of
28:03placing ketamine directly onto the
28:06young woman's body for her to inhale,
28:09later also helping to drag her to
28:11another room, sorry, along with Matthew
28:14Ingles. Gilio López, a student from
28:18that same academic area, also entered
28:21the room and was accused of assaulting
28:24her in direct complicity with Newwell.
28:29Then another of these beasts made his
28:31move, Diego Sarabia, a graduate of the
28:34Noland School of Business who already
28:37had his path set toward the world of
28:39finance. Sarabia held her by the face
28:43to kiss her by force while the victim,
28:45with little strength, desperately tried
28:48to cover her face, also participating
28:51in the administration of the substance.
28:55To close the list of those named were
28:58Scott Norris and Scott Kretchmar, both
29:00belonging to the class of 2026. Norris
29:04responded actively in the group chat
29:08minutes after Newwell sent the call to
29:11action, while Kretchmar remained inside
29:14the room witnessing the events, seeing
29:17everything that was happening, and also
29:21participating in the dosing of the
29:24anesthetic. Seven young men, by the way
29:29, coming from families with great
29:32wealth and a bright professional future
29:35ahead of them, who—while Jane was
29:37trying to process the trauma and
29:40seeking emergency medical help—
29:42continued attending their daily classes
29:45, walking through the campus halls in
29:48total peace, as if they had done
29:51absolutely nothing, as if they hadn't
29:55ruined a young woman's life. On
30:00November 14, 2024—I want to make a
30:02clarification on this point—there are
30:05some variations regarding the dates,
30:08because U.S. authorities are dealing
30:11with a difference of one or two days in
30:13the dates. So, if the date sounds a
30:18little off to you, November 14th, the
30:2016th of 2024, etc., it is because I am
30:23sticking to what is being released as
30:25time goes by. But there is a
30:28discrepancy in some of the dates due to
30:30some data that the prosecution has
30:32released. But anyway, on November 14,
30:362024, during her official statement
30:39recorded with the campus police, the
30:42young woman was direct and firm with
30:45the officers and said, "I can say with
30:48absolute certainty that I was sexually
30:51assaulted." She used other words, but I
30:54cannot say them. In the written
30:58transcripts taken by the police
31:01themselves—documents that were later
31:04obtained, by the way, and publicly
31:07released by the news outlet CBS News—
31:10it was noted that the victim repeated
31:13several times that she felt
31:16uncomfortable, that she was extremely
31:19tired, and that she even managed to hit
31:23one of these guys with her hand while
31:27trying to defend herself, even though
31:30she was, uh, groggy and unable to move.
31:35With that statement officially recorded
31:38in the police report, the Tompkins
31:40County District Attorney's Office made
31:42a decision that, of course, caused
31:44enormous outrage. They decided not to
31:50press criminal charges against these
31:53individuals, arguing that, based on
31:55their interpretation of local laws,
31:58there was not enough evidence to take
32:00the case to trial. Instead of a
32:04criminal proceeding, the file was
32:06referred to the Title IX office at
32:09Cornell University—that is what it's
32:11called. This is an internal office that
32:14handles school matters. It is not a
32:17court of law. It does not have the
32:20power to issue mandatory court
32:22subpoenas. It cannot even present
32:24evidence before a criminal judge. It is
32:26simply an office within the university.
32:29Even so, after holding 12 closed-door
32:32hearings within the school itself, the
32:34university authorities ended up issuing
32:37their ruling. Do you know what it was?
32:43They expelled two of the identified
32:45students and ordered the suspension of
32:47the Chi Phi fraternity on campus, at
32:50least for the year 2024, because today
32:52it is active once again. However, for
32:57the others involved, the other five,
33:00the punishments were limited to
33:02temporary suspensions, conduct
33:04workshops, and the submission of
33:07written papers and reflection essays on
33:10what they did that night. Can you
33:13imagine? I just want to put it in this
33:16context. Imagine Jane D.'s reaction.
33:18Imagine the reaction of her family. To
33:21know that seven beasts violated your
33:24daughter and that, as punishment, they
33:27are allowed to write an essay so they
33:30can reflect and repent for what they
33:32did. Please, that is why this case went
33:36viral. I dare say, worldwide. But
33:41honestly, the expulsion of two students
33:44and writing an essay is not prison. And
33:47I repeat, it is not justice. None of
33:49these seven men set foot in a
33:51courthouse or faced a criminal trial.
33:53None of them paid before the law for
33:55the hell they put Jane D. through.
34:04Following these events, the Cornell
34:05University case remained practically
34:07frozen after the prosecutor's refusal
34:09and the minor sanctions issued, because
34:11of the ridiculous sanctions handed down
34:13by the university itself. For a time,
34:17it seemed that money, social status,
34:20and the enormous weight of an elite
34:22institution would manage to leave
34:24everything forgotten. But in late
34:28September 2026, just a few days ago,
34:30the story took a completely good turn
34:33that no one imagined, a legal turn.
34:37Jane Doe, now out of the university,
34:40filed a civil lawsuit of over 100 pages
34:43. All of this before a court. The
34:47lawsuit was directed against Cornell
34:49University, against the Chipi
34:52fraternity, and, of course, against
34:54each of the seven students involved in
34:57the attack. It was precisely the
35:01opening of this judicial process in the
35:03courts that brought to public light the
35:06documents and details of the file that
35:08had remained hidden for almost 2 years.
35:13For the first time, the written police
35:16transcripts and screenshots of the
35:18Snapchat group messages became public
35:21domain, sparking an instant wave of
35:23outrage and forcing the authorities, of
35:26course, to reopen the investigations to
35:29bring the file directly before a grand
35:31jury, something that should have
35:34happened in 2024. But well, speaking of
35:392024, the Tomkins County District
35:41Attorney decided to close the case,
35:43claiming he did not have enough
35:45evidence to go to trial. This in 2024.
35:49What he did not say at that time, and
35:51which he had to admit under media
35:53pressure now in September 2026, is that
35:55he made that decision practically
35:57blindly. Listen to this, please. He
36:02never fully read the first sworn
36:04statement that the young woman gave to
36:06the university police reporting the
36:09entire assault. In other words, he did
36:12not take the time to open the file and
36:14read what this young woman was writing.
36:19When the civil lawsuit was made public
36:21in the news, the prosecutor's office
36:23tried to defend itself by publishing a
36:25statement on the official county
36:26website. In that text, the prosecutor
36:30claimed that in a later statement, the
36:33young woman had suggested that
36:35everything was consensual. However,
36:38investigative journalists immediately
36:40reviewed the original file and totally
36:43debunked the prosecutor's version. In a
36:48special report published by the NPR
36:51news network, journalist Jacelyn Diaz
36:54revealed that in the original document,
36:57the young woman clearly recorded that
37:00she said no. No on repeated occasions
37:06and that she completely lost control of
37:08her body because of the substances that
37:11were administered to her against her
37:13will. The authorities 'attempt at
37:15evasion lasted very little time. On
37:19September 28, 2026, faced with social
37:21outrage and the irrefutable evidence
37:23prepared by the victim's lawyer, the
37:26prosecutor's office had no alternative
37:28but to formally announce the reopening
37:31of the investigation into this case.
37:35The response from government
37:36authorities was immediate. The day
37:39after the reopening, New York State
37:42Governor Kathy Hochul publicly demanded
37:46that a team of independent lawyers
37:49conduct an extreme review of Cornell
37:52University's conduct. For its part, the
37:56office of the State Attorney General,
37:59Letitia James, opened a formal file
38:01against the university to investigate
38:03how they handled this situation, this
38:05crisis. At the same time, Ithaca Mayor
38:10Robert Cantelmo ordered the immediate
38:13oversight of all permits for parties
38:16and social events at fraternities
38:19throughout the university; obviously,
38:22in the wake of the scandal uncovered at
38:25Chi Phi, with the civil lawsuit naming
38:28Matthew, Jonathan, Winston, Gilio,
38:31Diego, and Scott—well, the two Scotts
38:35—the group of seven suspects. So, for
38:40the first time, it began to fracture,
38:43and then, as always happens, they
38:45started blaming each other through
38:47their legal representatives. In fact,
38:52if I'm not mistaken, just a few days
38:54ago, even President Donald Trump
38:57himself spoke out about this case and,
39:00well, expressed indignation. I only
39:04mention it so we can get an idea of how
39:06far this case has escalated and how
39:08outrageous it is. One of these men
39:12declared through his lawyer that he had
39:15never touched the young woman in any
39:17way and under any circumstances. Gilio
39:22López's legal defense came out to
39:24declare that the public version did not
39:27reflect the entirety of the internal
39:29documents gathered by the university.
39:33Eh, on his side, Scott Kretchmar flatly
39:36denied any involvement in an assault,
39:38but of course, they are all going to
39:40deny it. No one is going to say "yes, I
39:42did it." However, Scott Norris took an
39:45unexpected turn that changed the course
39:47of the case. He publicly admitted that
39:51inappropriate conduct took place at the
39:53house that night and accepted that he
39:55had sent—he clarified without
39:57thinking—one of the messages in the
39:59Snapchat chat, although he tried to
40:01distance himself by claiming he did not
40:04participate in the direct attack or the
40:06consumption of substances. The
40:09definitive blow came from the
40:11university campus itself. On September
40:1526, 2026, after two years of
40:17journalistic investigation, the
40:19students who run the university
40:22newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun,
40:24decided to publish a report revealing
40:26for the first time the full names and
40:29faces of the seven accused. From that
40:33moment on, the news literally went
40:36around the world. The international
40:40network CNN reported that the case was
40:43once again putting the spotlight on the
40:46serious problem of assaults within
40:48elite universities in the United States
40:51. On social media, entertainment
40:55figures also raised their voices. For
40:59example, actress Florence Pugh
41:01described what happened as a horrific,
41:04reprehensible act and publicly called
41:06out Instagram for restricting her posts
41:09when she tried to spread the word. For
41:14her part, actress Mariska Hargitay
41:16accused Cornell of failing to protect
41:18students within their own facilities.
41:21Actor George Gat spoke openly about the
41:25destruction of a life. Meanwhile, actor
41:30Hudson Williams shared photos of the
41:33seven involved, demanding their
41:35immediate expulsion and that the law be
41:38served. Even Congresswoman Alexandria
41:43Ocasio-Cortez publicly denounced the
41:45university authorities' response,
41:47labeling it part of a cover-up that
41:50tolerates violence. The scandal also
41:55exposed a flaw in New York state law,
41:57popularly known as the voluntary
42:00intoxication loophole. This rule made
42:06it complicated to prosecute an
42:08assailant if the victim had consumed
42:10alcohol or substances on their own
42:12before the attack. It is incredible
42:16what I just told you, but it is truly
42:18in the laws of New York. Following this
42:22case, legislators Jeffrey Dinowitz and
42:25Nathalia Fernandez pushed for a bill to
42:27fix that legal loophole. The proposal
42:32seeks to make it clear that a person
42:34can be convicted if they reasonably
42:37should have known the victim was unable
42:40to give consent, regardless of how they
42:43became intoxicated. It’s exactly what
42:46I was telling you a moment ago. No one
42:48has the right to violate anyone, no
42:51matter what they have consumed. Between
42:56an exposed prosecutor, state
42:58authorities applying pressure, the
43:01accused pointing fingers at each other,
43:04and a law about to be changed, this
43:07wall of silence around Cornell
43:09University was completely broken. For
43:13the first time in two years, the file
43:16is headed straight to a grand jury to
43:18decide the criminal future of the seven
43:20Cornell cowards. Well, after the
43:33official reopening announced in late
43:35September 2026, the Cornell Seven case
43:37enters its most decisive and critical
43:39phase. Public pressure, added to the
43:43independent investigation demanded by
43:45the New York government, pushed the
43:47Tompkins County District Attorney's
43:49Office to take an unprecedented step.
43:54Appointing a senior prosecutor
43:56specializing in intimate violence
43:58crimes to prepare the full file and
44:01bring it immediately before a grand
44:03jury. To understand what this means, we
44:08must clarify how this step works within
44:10the United States judicial system. A
44:13grand jury is not a trial where it is
44:16decided whether someone goes to prison
44:18or is immediately set free. It is a
44:22group of citizens tasked with
44:23thoroughly reviewing all evidence
44:26presented by the prosecution behind
44:28closed doors. Their role is to evaluate
44:32if there are sufficient grounds to
44:35bring formal criminal charges against
44:37the accused. In this new attempt to
44:42achieve justice, the landscape is
44:44completely different now in the year
44:462024. This time, the grand jury will
44:49not only review the victim's initial
44:52statements, but will also analyze
44:54evidence that was previously ignored or
44:57even shelved. These include, of course,
45:00the forensic medical reports, the
45:03history of private Snapchat messages
45:06from the Chipi group, the screenshots
45:09demonstrating the victim's state, and
45:12testimony from students who witnessed
45:15the activity at the house that morning.
45:19Furthermore, the seven accused are no
45:21longer protected by the university's
45:24anonymity. The revelation of their
45:28names and photographs by the Cornell
45:31Daily student newspaper broke the
45:34silence that covered and protected them
45:37for two years. Today, these young men
45:42who continued their university lives
45:45and career plans without facing a court
45:48are facing mass social rejection and
45:51direct finger-pointing from the student
45:54body. The case has caused an earthquake
45:58within the American university system.
46:01Cornell University, one of the most
46:04prestigious academic institutions in
46:07the world, is under heavy scrutiny for
46:10the way they evidently handled the
46:12crisis from day one. The scandal
46:18reopened an urgent national debate on
46:20impunity within male fraternities and
46:23the lack of real protocols to protect
46:25students in vulnerable situations. For
46:30their part, the defense for the seven
46:33involved is trying to halt the judicial
46:36process, arguing that social media
46:38pressure and news coverage have tainted
46:41the case. The students 'lawyers
46:46maintain that posts on digital
46:48platforms are presenting their clients
46:51as guilty before there is a formal
46:53verdict. To a certain extent, they are
46:57right, and I'll tell you why. Because
47:01at this point legally, even though
47:04everything points to their guilt, the
47:07law dictates that we must call them
47:10alleged perpetrators until proven
47:13otherwise. However, for the victims'
47:18lawyers and the thousands of people
47:21backing the "I am Jane Doe" campaign,
47:23exposing the case has been the only
47:25tool capable of tearing down the wall
47:28of cover-ups built by Cornell
47:30University and the prosecution in 2024.
47:35Today, two years after that October
47:38morning, the quest for justice enters a
47:41countdown. If the grand jury determines
47:46there is sufficient legal basis, arrest
47:49warrants will be issued immediately,
47:52and the seven involved will finally
47:54have to sit in the defendant's chair in
47:57an ordinary criminal trial, something
48:00that should have happened in 2024. If
48:06found guilty, the prison sentence could
48:09range from 5 to 25 years, in addition
48:12to a period of post-release supervision
48:15. But there is something even more
48:19important for this case, this Cornell
48:22case: these seven young men would not
48:25necessarily receive the same sentence.
48:29Responsibility would be individual,
48:31depending on the specific conduct of
48:34each one of them. If anyone were
48:38convicted of several intimate crimes,
48:41the sentences could be accumulated
48:43under certain circumstances. Another
48:47aggravating factor: if any of them had
48:50a criminal record that triggered
48:53sentencing guidelines, the range could
48:56be totally different. In cases of
49:00first-degree abuse, 25 years is the
49:03maximum penalty set for a first-time
49:06offender. This case transcends the
49:10story of a single night at an elite
49:12university. It shows us, in a crude way
49:16, how far group complicity, abuse of
49:19power, and the lack of institutional
49:22response can go when they prefer to
49:24protect their reputation rather than
49:27defend one of their students, a victim.
49:32It also reminds us of the courage of a
49:35young woman who, despite the trauma and
49:37the passage of time, decided not to
49:39stay quiet, not to remain silent until
49:41she sees those responsible pay for
49:43their actions. We reach the end and the
49:52exact point where this story stands at
49:54this very moment. In the last 48 hours,
49:58the political and legal landscape of
50:01New York State took an absolute 180-
50:03degree turn, transforming what began as
50:05a university scandal at Cornell into a
50:08state crisis that has cornered the
50:10highest authorities. The most important
50:14event occurred on October 1st and 2nd,
50:17just a day ago. It was the direct
50:20intervention of the state government.
50:22Faced with the obvious collapse of
50:25local authorities, New York Governor
50:27Kathy Hochul issued an emergency
50:29executive order taking the case away
50:31from Hopkins County District Attorney
50:33Matthew Van Houten, due to a loss of
50:36public trust in his handling of the
50:38file and the case. In his place, the
50:42governor appointed New York State
50:44Attorney General Letitia James as
50:46special prosecutor, the highest legal
50:48authority in the state. From this
50:52moment on, the Attorney General's
50:54office assumes full control of the
50:57criminal investigation into what we
50:59discussed today: the so-called Cornell
51:01Seven. James has already publicly
51:06confirmed that she will lead a rigorous
51:08and transparent process to prepare the
51:10final file and take it, this time,
51:12directly before a grand jury. The main
51:16goal will be to determine if there are
51:19sufficient legal grounds to issue
51:21arrest warrants and file formal
51:23criminal charges against the seven
51:25defendants. This government decision
51:30was triggered after the leak of the
51:31full interview the victim gave to
51:33university police in November 2024 was
51:36uncovered. It was revealed that while
51:40the original prosecutor based their
51:432024 refusal on a simple six-page
51:46summary, the actual statement contained
51:48over 120 detailed pages. The scandal
51:52escalated to such a level that on
51:54Saturday, October 3, 2026, the
51:56president of Cornell University himself
51:59, Michael Kotlikoff, had to come out
52:01and give an official message after one
52:03of the most difficult weeks in the
52:06institution's history. Kotlikoff
52:08publicly acknowledged the gravity of
52:10the situation. He admitted that the
52:14university simply must do better and
52:16announced the hiring of an external,
52:18independent law firm to review from top
52:21to bottom how the administration
52:23handled the complaint. Meanwhile, in
52:28the vicinity of the campus, student
52:30protests forced the suspension of all
52:32social events and fraternity classes
52:35over this past weekend. But the media
52:39earthquake is not only happening in
52:42classrooms or government offices; it is
52:44advancing with unstoppable force in
52:47digital environments. In recent days,
52:51the massive "I am Jane Doe" campaign
52:53was born, a collective movement that
52:56went viral on platforms like TikTok,
52:58Instagram, and X. This mobilization did
53:01not emerge from nowhere; it arose as an
53:04urgent protective response after, as I
53:06told you at the beginning,
53:10controversial commentator Michael Tracy
53:13publicly asked for help on his social
53:15media to discover the real identity of
53:18the young Jane Doe and expose her
53:21online in a post that exceeded 7
53:23million views. Facing the threat of a
53:27massive doxxing against the victim,
53:29thousands of women in the United States
53:31and different parts of the world
53:33decided to organize to flood social
53:36media by posting the message "I am J.
53:38Doe." The objective of this collective
53:41network is simply brilliant: to fill
53:44search engines with thousands of
53:46possible Jane Does to make it
53:49practically impossible to locate the
53:51real victim. On TikTok, several videos
53:55within this movement have exceeded 4
53:57million views. Unlike the historic
54:01#MeToo movement, where people shared
54:04their own stories, "I am Jane Doe"
54:06functions as a digital shield, using a
54:09symbolic identity to protect the life
54:11and privacy of one specific person.
54:16Figures like writer and actress Juan La
54:19Trice have publicly joined in to defend
54:21the accuser's right to decide when and
54:24how she will reveal her name, if she
54:27ever wishes to do so. On the other hand
54:31, it is necessary to address with great
54:33caution a rumor that has gained
54:35traction on internet forums, some
54:37platforms, and TikTok mainly in the
54:40last few hours. What does this rumor
54:43say? Well, it says that one of these
54:47seven, one of these seven implicated is
54:50the son of a high-ranking official,
54:53diplomat, or even a president, whether
54:56from a Chinese or a Korean government.
55:02I was involved after reviewing in
55:04detail the court records of the civil
55:06lawsuit and reports from international
55:09networks such as ABC, CBS, and the BBC.
55:14It is important to specify that the
55:16authorities have not confirmed any link
55:19with the governments of China or Korea
55:21for any of the seven young men accused.
55:26At least not at this moment. Let's see
55:28what happens or what the authorities
55:31report in the coming days. What is
55:34fully documented in the file is that
55:36within the Chipi fraternity group,
55:39there are students belonging to
55:41families of enormous economic capacity
55:43and international influence, including
55:46students of Hispanic origin and from
55:48very, very high socioeconomic strata.
55:53This fueled theories on social media
55:55about a possible cover-up by leveraging
55:57this economic, political, and social
55:59power that the families of the seven
56:01from Coronel possess. Today the
56:04university finds itself cornered
56:06between the indignation of its students
56:08, the pressure from social media, and a
56:11state-level criminal investigation led
56:13by the United States Attorney General's
56:15Office. A fundamental point must be
56:18highlighted before finishing. Before
56:22the justice system, the seven alleged
56:25culprits remain just that, alleged
56:27culprits, as they have not been
56:30declared as such by any court. However,
56:35the scenario could change. We are no
56:39longer facing a university dispute
56:40behind closed doors as happened in 2024
56:43. We are looking at a judicial case in
56:45the hands of the highest authority in
56:47the state of New York that is going
56:49straight to a grand jury. The outcome
56:53of this story will, of course, mark a
56:56turning point in the way elite
56:58universities and authorities handle
57:01crimes related to intimate violence. We
57:05will be very, very attentive to the
57:07developments in the grand jury hearing
57:10and the resolutions of the prosecutor's
57:12office in the state of New York. I ask
57:16you, what do you think about the
57:18reopening of this case 2 years later?
57:21Do you believe that true justice will
57:23finally be reached against the seven
57:25accused? Or will influences and money
57:29within the university weigh more than
57:31the law once again? Friends, that's all
57:36for today's blog. We'll see you next
57:39week as always, to explore together the
57:42stories that deserve to be told. Thank
57:46you very much.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Los 7 DE CORNELL : ¿Por qué nadie fue a prisión? | Caso JANE DONE by Criminalmente, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,319 words across 1,165 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.