未在直播

司法 · 校园问责

康奈尔强奸案调查重启,地方检察官更正 Snapchat 证据说法

七名男子是民事诉讼被告,并未受到刑事起诉。证据说法得到更正,对同意问题的陈述也更为复杂,这使早期调查和康奈尔大学应对方式中的疑问更加突出。

新闻追踪第 3 天

1 篇报道41 家媒体75 个来源10 个视频

译自英文原文。

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

七名兄弟会成员被列为康奈尔大学一名前学生民事诉讼案的被告。诉状指称他们给她下药并实施强奸。七人不是刑事指控的数量,也不是定罪人数。但指控涉及面广,这使检方承认调查人员从未询问过这些男子成为早期调查中的重大缺口——检方最初认定证据不足以起诉后,如今已重启调查。9 10

汤普金斯县地方检察官马修·范·豪滕还纠正了自己收到 Snapchat 截图一事的说法。他如今承认,自己先前称未收到截图的说法有误,但仍坚持认为,这张截图并未改变他对是否存在同意的法律分析。截至2026年9月30日,尚无刑事起诉的报道,也没有确凿信息表明大陪审团已完成听取案件陈述。关于证据收件情况的说法已经改变;刑事案件结果仍未明朗。6 29

原告使用Jane Doe这一姓名。她指称,2024年10月,在康奈尔大学Chi Phi兄弟会会所,多名男子逼她吸毒、给她下药,并对她实施性侵或强奸。具体事发日期未经核实。BBC报道称,她于2026年9月16日提起民事诉讼;范·豪滕在9月28日的声明中称,他于9月18日得知这起投诉。他表示,投诉中包含与此前审查过的内容不同的指控。这是对早前指控重新审视,并非新近发生的性侵。1 33 24 10

指控与重新审视

  1. 2024年10月

    Doe指称在Chi Phi会所遭人下药并受到性侵;具体日期未经核实。

    121
  2. 2024年11月

    Doe向一名校园警察提交了一份六页的陈述,后来被ABC新闻获得。

    22
  3. 2026年9月16日

    BBC报道称,民事诉讼已提起;现有传票摘录本身并未显示经独立核实的立案日期戳。

    33
  4. 2026年9月28日

    范·豪滕发表公开声明,解释重启调查的原因。

    2410
  5. 2026年9月29日

    州长凯西·霍楚尔呼吁由外部法律顾问对康奈尔大学的应对进行透明、独立的审查。

    5556

传票列出马修·英格尔斯、乔纳森·纽厄尔、温斯顿·李、吉利奥·洛佩斯、迭戈·萨拉比亚、斯科特·诺里斯和斯科特·克雷奇马。除康奈尔大学和Chi Phi外,传票还列出其他兄弟会和姐妹会实体、以Moonies Bar & Nightclub名义经营的Zareen Enterprise LLC、奥拉齐奥·佩蒂托以及身份不明的被告。被列入诉讼并不能证明这些人或实体有不当行为,也不代表他们在所指行为中扮演了相同角色。32

据报道,诉状包含一些被归于兄弟会成员、据称发生在性侵期间的信息。Doe的律师称,这些信息邀请其他人加入。信息出现在诉讼中,并不等于经法院认证。ABC报道称,两名男子公开否认指控,另有五人未回应其置评请求。未回应不等于承认。3 7 2

同意不能被简化成一句话

范·豪滕对早先决定的解释,部分依据Doe向校园警察所作的陈述。他说,陈述没有指称她是违背意愿遭人下药,也没有说她未表示同意;他还提到,她承认自愿参与吸毒和性行为。“违背她的意愿”这一限定很重要:不能将其简化为她没有提到吸毒。2

ABC后来对这份陈述的报道提到醉酒、同意某些性行为,以及多次拒绝其他行为。报道引用了“感觉像是被胁迫”的说法。Doe的律师另行指称,她多次被人注射氯胺酮,且当时没有能力表示同意。这些说法与把所有行为一概描述为双方同意并不相符。现有记录也没有提供完整调查档案,因此无法全面评估检察官的全部推理过程。2 22

同意一种行为不代表同意所有行为。自愿吸毒本身并不能证明此后每个时刻都具备同意能力。这两点都不能决定本案结果。它们提出了充分调查必须查明的问题,而这些问题不应被简化处理。

对截图时间线也需要同样准确地说明。ABC新闻9月28日报道,范·豪滕称自己是在诉讼提起时首次看到所指的聊天内容。NBC于9月29日播出、9月30日发布的报道随后披露,康奈尔大学称校警于2024年发送过一张截图;范·豪滕也承认,自己此前称未收到截图的说法有误。因此,较早的“未收到”说法已被更新后的说法取代,并非一个同样有效的现行竞争版本。9 6

这一更正并不能证明检方在2024年掌握了完整的消息串、审阅了其中每一条内容,或说明这些内容是如何被评估的。一张截图和完整的群聊是两种不同的证据材料。

康奈尔大学称,校警依照既定规程开展了调查,并与地方检察官沟通。伊萨卡市警方称,他们没有参与调查,最近才通过媒体得知这些指控;NPR报道称,当地警方表示从未接到通知。这是不同的执法机构。伊萨卡警方未参与,不代表没有警方调查;而康奈尔大学的说法也不能证明市警察局收到过通知。5 1

重启调查不等于外部审查

范·豪滕宣布打算将此案提交汤普金斯县大陪审团审议;部分报道说,Doe将配合。各报道对确定程度的表述不一:India Today 9月28日的报道说,提交安排已定;Hindustan Times同日的报道则称,检方正考虑在有进一步证据支持起诉的前提下提交。CTV 9月30日的报道提到将在秋季进行。尚无确切日期、已完成提交或审议结果的确证。21 15 16 3

霍楚尔9月29日的介入提出了另一个问题:康奈尔大学如何处理这起投诉。“任何学生都不应该怀疑那些本应保护他们的机构是否会倾听并采取行动,”她说。康奈尔大学表示,校方同样致力于改善校园文化,并与州政府官员合作,但在这些回应中并未承诺开展她所要求的独立外部审查。配合合作不等于将机构决策交由外部审查。55 4 8

CNN的报道提到可能由州检察长进行审查,但审查是否启动、任务范围和时间安排尚未确定。康奈尔大学还发布了一份常见问题解答,邮件由校长迈克尔·科特利科夫、教务长卡维塔·巴拉和董事会主席安妮·梅尼格·斯莫林签署。这是校方的回应,并不能证明已展开独立调查。34 23

康奈尔大学称,校方进行了为期数月的《第九条》调查,并依据校方政策对相关指控作出裁决。Chi Phi仍被禁止进入校园。NBC和CTV报道称,部分学生遭到停学或开除,但具体个人的处分记录及处分时间仍未明确。校园纪律处分不等于刑事定罪;没有刑事起诉,也不能证明校园裁决认定不存在违规行为。1 20 6 3

Doe的律师称,她曾想离开康奈尔大学,但校方不肯向她的父母退还该学年的学费;律师还称,她经常遇到自己指控的那些男子。现有材料未提供康奈尔大学对这些说法的具体回应。这些主张在法律问题之外也提出一个现实问题:机构处理她的投诉期间,她有哪些保护和选择?4

更广泛的安全问题无法证明本案中的指控属实。有关调查的报道称,超过三分之一的受访本科女生表示,在康奈尔就读期间遭遇过性侵或未经同意的性接触;具体百分比以及这些定义是否等同,仍未明确。ABC还报道称,一周内有超过40人通过学生报纸的热线反映性不当行为,其中包括关于2016年和20世纪90年代事件的陈述——并不是说那一周发生了40起经裁定认定的性侵。71 7

已知

  • 刑事调查已经重启,检察官也已纠正关于收到截图的说法。 610

未知

  • 完整的证据审查时间线、大陪审团审议结果及个人纪律处分记录仍未得到确认。

后续

  • 应关注检方是否真正作出决定,以及是否开展有明确调查人员、范围和时间安排的外部审查,而不是再一次表达意向。

本报道来源

NPR 1;ABC汇总报道 2;CTV 3;ABC采访 4;NBC Nightly News 5;NBC Top Story 6;ABC World News Tonight 7;ABC审查报道 8;ABC调查重启报道 9;ABC文章 10;WRVO 11;Cornell Daily Sun 12;Newser 13;CRBC 14;India Today 15;Hindustan Times 16;ABC视频 17;Independent 18;New York Post 19;ABC 9月27日播报 20;ABC诉讼报道 21。

ABC声明报道 22;Daily Sun常见问题解答报道 23;检察官声明 24;BBC调查重启报道 25;Economic Times 26;DNYUZ 27;NBC起诉决定报道 28;Irish Times 29;CNY Central大陪审团报道 30;ABC起诉决定报道 31;传票 32;BBC解读报道 33;CNN/KEYT 34;诉状文字转载 35;ABC文章副本 36;GPB 37;CNY Central审查报道 38。

康奈尔大学调查文件:2025年表格 39、概览 40、2023年概览 41、2017年问卷 42、2017年概览 43、2021年表格 44、2019年表格 45、2021年概览 46。Daily Sun审查报道 47;检察官PDF转载 48;IBTimes UK 49;KBAR 50;607 News Now 51;Us Magazine 52;CNN采访 53;WAOW采访 54。

州长声明 55;ABC审查文章 56;CNN/Local 3 57;607 News Now审查报道 58;Good Morning America 59;CBS New York 60;ABC采访页面 61 62;采访转载 63;NOW官员 64;Villanueva人物介绍 65;Ms. Magazine 66;ABC审查视频 67 68;ABC声明视频 69;康奈尔大学调查公告 70;CNY Central调查报道 71;2025年问卷 72;调查摘要 73;康奈尔大学支持声明 74;Daily Sun调查报道 75。

播出原貌 18 行
  1. Matthew Van Houten has corrected his claim that he never received a Snapchat screenshot. The district attorney has reopened a rape investigation involving seven fraternity members, while Cornell faces demands for an independent examination of its response. What did investigators examine before declining charges, and will renewed scrutiny produce charges or an outside review?
  2. Van Houten now acknowledges that his earlier statement about not receiving the screenshot was mistaken. Cornell's position is that campus police sent it to his office in 2024. But he maintains that possessing the screenshot did not change his legal analysis of consent. That corrects the evidence-receipt account; it does not resolve the assault allegations or explain the complete evidence review. A single screenshot is not interchangeable with an entire group-chat thread. Which messages investigators possessed, when they received them and how they reviewed each item remain unresolved.
  3. Jane Doe alleges that multiple men pressured her to take drugs, drugged her and sexually assaulted or raped her at a Chi Phi fraternity party in October 2024. No exact incident day has been verified. She is described as a twenty-year-old former Cornell student; that does not establish her age at the alleged assault. The new development is a renewed investigation into an older allegation, not an assault occurring this September.
  4. Doe filed her civil lawsuit on September sixteenth, 2026. That filing date has not been independently confirmed by a court filing stamp. Van Houten's September twenty-eighth statement places his awareness of the complaint on September eighteenth. He reopened the criminal inquiry because the complaint contained allegations differing from those previously reviewed. The earlier review found insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. Reopening does not establish that the new allegations are proven, or that prosecutors have obtained additional evidence sufficient to charge.
  5. The lawsuit names Cornell, Chi Phi and seven individual fraternity members: Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar. They are civil defendants, not people charged with or convicted of crimes in this case. The suit is broader still: it names additional fraternity and sorority entities, Zareen Enterprise LLC, doing business as Moonies Bar and Nightclub, Orazio Petito and unidentified defendants. Their individual roles have not been established here, and inclusion in the lawsuit does not establish wrongdoing. The fraternity is Chi Phi; references to a Ki fraternity are naming variants, not a separate organization.
  6. The complaint includes purported Snapchat and fraternity group-chat messages attributed to members during the alleged assault. One purported message describes Doe as available for sex. Her lawyer's allegation is that messages invited other members to join the assault. Those messages require examination and authentication; putting them in a complaint does not authenticate them or prove that every named man participated in the same conduct. Two of the seven men publicly denied the allegations. Five had not responded to requests for comment at the time of the covered reporting. Other accounts describe several civil defendants denying wrongdoing, but their precise individual responses and attorneys' differing descriptions of involvement are not sufficiently established to reproduce. Silence is not an admission.
  7. Doe's six-page November 2024 statement describes intoxication, agreement to some sexual acts and repeated refusals of others. It also describes feeling coerced. That is materially more complicated than a blanket description of all the sex as consensual. Van Houten's explanation for declining charges was that her earlier statement did not allege drugging against her will or a lack of consent, and acknowledged consensual participation in drug use and sexual conduct. The distinction matters: his reference to drugging against her will must not become a claim that she mentioned no drugs at all. The statement has been described as sworn, but its oath has not been independently established. Neither the full investigative file nor the complete evidentiary basis for the earlier charging decision is established.
  8. Doe's attorney alleges that she was given ketamine multiple times and could not consent. That allegation remains distinct from Van Houten's characterization of her earlier statement and from its account of accepting some acts while refusing others. Agreement to one act is not agreement to every act. Voluntary drug use does not by itself establish capacity to consent at every later moment. Neither principle decides this case; both identify questions investigators must address. The differences cannot be resolved by treating either the prosecutor's summary or the civil allegations as the complete account. Questions about whether he saw a particular police transcript remain separate and unverified; they must not be merged with his established correction about the Snapchat screenshot.
  9. Van Houten acknowledged that neither his office nor police interviewed the men. That is a significant gap in the described earlier inquiry, although it does not establish what other investigative steps found or what an interview would have yielded. Cornell's campus police and Ithaca's municipal police are different agencies. Cornell maintains that campus police investigated and consulted the district attorney under established protocol. Ithaca police were not involved or notified at the time. Their noninvolvement does not mean no police investigation occurred, and Cornell's account does not demonstrate that Ithaca received notice. Doe's lawyer's allegation that police possessed the chat in 2024 and failed to follow up needs agency-specific clarification. The unresolved questions include who collected which messages, who reviewed them and why the men were not interviewed.
  10. Cornell also conducted a months-long Title IX investigation and investigated and adjudicated the allegations under university policies. The Chi Phi chapter remains barred from campus. Individual discipline is not publicly detailed because Cornell invokes privacy laws. Some accused students were reportedly suspended or expelled, but verified individual sanction records, numbers, durations and outcomes are not established. Claims of other punishments, including essay-writing, are not sufficiently verified to state as outcomes. A chapter ban or university sanction is not a criminal conviction. The absence of criminal charges also does not establish that campus adjudication found no violation.
  11. Doe's attorney also alleges that she wanted to leave Cornell, that the university would not refund her parents for the school year, and that she regularly encountered the men she accused. Those claims are not independently adjudicated, and Cornell's specific response is not provided. Reported suspensions or expulsions do not establish when encounters occurred or whether all seven men faced the same restrictions.
  12. Governor Kathy Hochul requested a transparent, independent review by outside counsel on September twenty-ninth. Her statement emphasized the courage required to come forward and supported reopening the criminal inquiry. It was not a finding that the accused committed the alleged crimes. Cornell expressed a shared commitment to addressing campus culture and continuing work with state officials on student safety and well-being. But it did not commit in those responses to the outside investigation she requested. Cooperation with state officials is not an announced independent review.
  13. A prospective examination by New York's attorney general is also separate from the local criminal investigation. Its commencement, mandate, investigator appointment, timetable and findings have not been established. Cornell released a frequently asked questions document in an email signed by President Michael Kotlikoff, Provost Kavita Bala and trustees chair Anne Meinig Smalling. Its release was established before the September thirtieth, 12:25 UTC cutoff for this account. That institutional response does not establish an independent inquiry, and its complete substantive answers have not been independently established beyond the university positions already described.
  14. More than one in three undergraduate women who responded to a Cornell survey reported sexual assault or nonconsensual sexual contact during their time at the university. The respondent denominator matters: this is not a verified count of every undergraduate woman or an independently established exact campus-wide prevalence. The exact percentage, operational definition and equivalence of those two descriptions remain unresolved. The figure explains the broader safety concern; it does not prove this complaint.
  15. Cornell's Survey of Sexual Assault and Related Misconduct was conducted in spring 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023 and 2025. The 2025 questionnaire covered experiences while attending Cornell, including nonconsensual sexual contact, sexual and gender-based harassment, stalking, and domestic and dating violence. Reported participation was 926 students from a sample of six thousand: about fifteen percent, compared with thirty-six percent in 2023. Those are participation rates, not assault rates. The official response rate for undergraduate women and the complete methodology underlying the headline proportion are not established. These figures cannot establish a precise trend in assault prevalence.
  16. A student newspaper hotline received more than forty sexual-misconduct responses in one week, including accounts dating to 2016 and the 1990s. Those are responses, not forty adjudicated assaults or forty assaults occurring that week. The exact collection dates and full findings are not established. Students and recent graduates continue to express concerns about campus safety, but those concerns and the broader figures do not replace investigation of the specific allegations.
  17. National Organization for Women president Kim Villanueva supports an independent investigation and recommends counseling, funded women's centers and nighttime escorts. She also urges restoration of federal guidelines she characterizes as protecting survivors. Those are advocacy proposals, not verified findings that a federal policy change caused Cornell's response. They address support during a case; an independent review would address how this case was handled.
  18. Van Houten has announced an intention to present the case to a Tompkins County grand jury, with Doe's cooperation in some descriptions. The stated timing ranges from unspecified to fall 2026; other descriptions make presentation conditional on additional evidence supporting charges. No exact date, completed presentation, indictment or grand-jury outcome is established. His expressed hope of speaking with Doe about new evidence does not establish that an interview occurred or identify the evidence. The answer to the opening question remains incomplete: the screenshot-receipt account is corrected, but the full earlier review is not established. No criminal charges are reported as of September thirtieth, 2026, and Cornell has not committed in its covered responses to the independent outside review the governor requested.

来源

75 个来源41 家媒体10 个视频3 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联;下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。