6
‘Cornell 7’ Jane Doe drops case against man she mis-ID’d as fraternity president (nypost.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/general@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The “Cornell 7” Jane Doe dropped a man from her lawsuit whom she wrongly identified as president of the school’s Chi Phi fraternity — whose members she claims gang raped her.

Doe, who has accused seven Chi Phi brothers of sexually assaulting her at a party in October 2024, initially named Orazio Petito in her civil lawsuit, which she filed last month.

Petito, who was mistakenly identified as the chapter’s president, was not accused of sexual assault.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

"It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for all parties that this matter is discontinued with prejudice as to [name redacted]," a court filing said.

[name redacted] was never accused of taking part in the alleged assault but was named in the lawsuit as the president of Cornell's Chi Phi fraternity chapter. He was not the fraternity president at the time the woman, known as Jane Doe, said she was assaulted in October 2024.

Does that open the door for Jane Doe to be sued for defamation? I could understand there being some confusion around the event, but that particular person wasn't there at all apparently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    One would hope so. I certainly would. They've had the whole Internet mobilized against them, and now we're learning through the texts and sworn statements that are emerging that the Internet's story may not be accurate.

    They probably didn't want the details of their very active sex lives to be public information nationally either.

    I hope he sues the shit out of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    They probably didn’t want the details of their very active sex lives to be public information nationally either.

    Apart from this being an ongoing situation where the court of public opinion already has a conviction while the facts are rolling in, I hate that there's a market force emerging where people's behavior in their own homes, even if they're outwardly positive about it, can still be held against them publicly. Extremely sex positive, open relationship, whatever? Too bad you didn't air it out publicly so you could be vilified ahead of time so it didn't come up at a time of great stress. I wish I could bottle up whatever process celebrities use to get everyone to respect their "keep our private lives, private" position, and give a bottle to everyone on earth.

    That goes double for people up to the same shit in their own bedrooms who hold holier-than-thou attitudes publicly.

    And, yeah. The guy may be in a no-win situation where he has to pick between taking a hit to the reputation, or suing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    They probably didn’t want the details of their very active sex lives to be public information nationally either.

    So you are speculating on the motives of the plaintiffs in general instead of on their motives to refrain from including this man in their case, which is quite telling on your perspective and motives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •