司法 · 康奈尔大学袭击事件调查持续报道 · 第 3 篇，共 3 篇

康奈尔大学任命 Sally Yates；Doe 的律师称收到威胁，被告质疑检察官任命

Jane Doe 的律师称她的家人受到威胁；与此同时，康奈尔大学任命了一名外部审查人员，一名被告则对 Letitia James 的任命提出质疑。两项调查彼此独立，结果均未有定论。

播出 2026年10月8日 UTC 21:19文字 2026年10月8日 UTC 21:23阅读需 8 分钟262 个来源

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

持续报道第 11 天

3 篇报道102 家媒体262 个来源83 个视频

完整报道

自上次报道以来的变化

7 天后

当时10月2日 07:23 UTC

康奈尔性侵调查改由州检察官负责，证据缺口依然存在

我们当时说尚无定论的问题

完整的证据审查时间线、大陪审团结果和个人纪律记录均未确定。
尚无定论
新的报道提及了更多记录和相互矛盾的处分摘要，但未能证明存在完整的证据审查时间线、厘清每个人所受的处分，或记录大陪审团结果。 ¹⁸⁷⁴⁷¹²
关注检方是否实际作出决定，以及外部审查是否明确调查人员、范围和时间表，而不是再听到一次意向表态。
尚无定论
外部审查现已确定负责人、律师事务所、委托机构及其所述审查范围。时间表和公布条款仍不明确，也没有报道检方已作出决定。 ¹⁹⁸¹⁶²

现在10月8日 21:19 UTC

现已确认

Yates 已受聘，校方审查的大致范围也已说明。

Jane Doe 的律师称，这名前康奈尔大学学生因提起性侵诉讼而受到威胁，其中包括有人威胁要枪杀她和她的家人。Thomas Giuffra 还描述了一通捏造的紧急报警电话，该电话导致持枪警员来到她家。本文审阅的报道中，没有可供查证的独立警方声明、调度记录或事件报告证实这些说法。这些是严重的恐吓指控，并非已获证实的袭击。⁶ ²⁴²

Giuffra 称自己也收到了威胁，并表示被误认为 Doe 的女性遭到骚扰。她能否安全地继续提出申诉，与调查人员能否证实她所指称的袭击，是两个不同的问题。两者都不应被另一个问题掩盖。¹ ⁶⁶

康奈尔大学承诺对自身行为展开的审查，如今已有明确负责人。2026年10月6日，该校董事会新成立的特别委员会宣布，已聘请前美国副司法部长、前代理司法部长、现任 King & Spalding LLP 合伙人的 Sally Q. Yates。¹⁹⁸

在10月2日的报道中，我们介绍了康奈尔大学于9月30日同意聘请外部律师，以及纽约州州长 Kathy Hochul 于10月1日任命纽约州总检察长 Letitia James 担任特别检察官的消息。选聘 Yates 是一项重要变化：大学的审查不再只是承诺聘人。James 的任命并非今天才发生的接管。⁸⁶ ¹⁸² ¹⁹⁸

相关指控仍未有定论。Doe 是一名使用化名的前学生，她于9月16日提起民事诉讼，指控7名男子于2024年10月在 Chi Phi 兄弟会会所对她实施性殴打和袭击，并指控康奈尔大学未能保护她且不当处理她的投诉。她称自己受到压力，被迫服用氯胺酮、大麻并饮酒，随后在数小时内遭到袭击。7名男子均否认有不当行为；截至10月8日，尚无报道称有人被提起刑事指控或被认定承担民事责任。¹²⁵ ¹⁷ ⁹

Yates 实际能够审查什么

Yates 的审查涉及康奈尔大学对 Doe 投诉的处理，以及该校在预防和应对性行为不端方面的整体做法。已说明的审查范围包括校方调查、校园警察工作方式、与外部执法部门的互动、《第九条》程序、学生支持、纪律处分、培训，以及对兄弟会和姐妹会的行政监督。预计审查将形成调查结果和建议，而非提出刑事指控。¹⁶ ²

董事会特别委员会是明确的委托机构。但称审查为独立审查，并不能证明所有让独立性具有实质意义的保障措施都已落实：证据获取权限、防止大学干预的保护措施、利益冲突、保密、删节及公布内容的控制权，均未得到完整说明。目前没有公开确定的完成期限、完整报告时间表，也没有明确承诺公布未经删节的最终报告。¹⁹⁸ ¹⁷

校长 Michael Kotlikoff 支持特别检察官，承诺保持透明，并承诺认真审查希腊生活组织。康奈尔大学表示，将在审查结束前着手改善预防措施、支持服务和调查做法。这些是承诺，并不能证明改革已经落实，也不能证明学生安全有所改善。¹ ⁶⁷ ⁶⁹

一项受到挑战的刑事调查

James 的职责不同：确定是否发生了犯罪，以及是否有理由提起公诉。第64号行政命令涉及一起据称于2024年10月19日至20日在汤普金斯县发生的袭击。该命令将此案的监督权从地区检察官 Matthew Van Houten 手中移交，但并未使他失去民选职务，也未证实袭击确实发生。¹⁸² ²⁵

据 MS NOW 10月8日下午的报道，James 已与 Van Houten 和 Doe 的律师谈过，但尚未直接与 Doe 谈话。与律师联系不等于已完成对投诉人的询问。目前没有证据证实检方已完成向大陪审团陈述案情、提起起诉或作出检察判断；Van Houten 早先表示打算提交证据，并不能证明实际提交过。² ²⁴

10月7日，被告 Gillio Lopes 提交了一份依据《纽约州民事诉讼法》第78条提出的申请，请求推翻 Hochul 的任命，并阻止 James 主导调查。Andrew Miltenberg 被列为其律师。申请称 James “已明确表现出对民事案件中所列被告的偏见和有罪推定”。这是辩方的指控，并非法官的裁定。²²⁶ ²²⁸ ²³¹

各份申请文件的报道也厘清了报道中的一处冲突。CNN 10月8日的报道称 Doe 的律师是申请人；ABC News 10月8日的报道则称申请人是 Lopes 的律师。NBC 和 Bloomberg Law 对具体申请文件的报道均一致指出，申请人是 Lopes，由其辩护律师代理，而非 Doe 的律师。这些报道使用的姓名是 Gillio Lopes，纠正了早前描述中写作 Julio Lopes 和 Julio Lopez 的错误。⁶ ⁴ ²²⁶ ²²⁸

这项挑战援引了 James 的公开评论，以及她获任命前发布的一条社交媒体帖文。本文无法确认该帖文的确切内容、日期和平台。诉讼的完整案名、指定法官、下一次听证会时间以及任何裁决也均未确定。没有经核实的命令解除 James 的职务，最新报道仍称其办公室正在进行调查。²²⁶ ²²⁷ ²

Lopes 的律师称，他没有看到任何证据表明其当事人与他人发生了非自愿性行为，并表示 Lopes 认为 Doe 神志清醒，能够作出决定。Giuffra 反驳这一说法，援引了非关联证人对 Doe 严重醉酒的描述。两位律师的说法都不能最终判定是否存在同意。此前报道的 Doe 的陈述区分了最初部分双方同意的行为，以及后来她称为违背意愿或带有胁迫性质的行为；同意一项行为，不能被当作同意之后所有被指称行为的依据。⁵ ⁶²

记录增多，答案仍未揭晓

陆续披露的记录表明，调查人员需要审查相互矛盾的说法。据报道，康奈尔大学的调查涉及对32名证人的50多次访谈。另据报道，该校《第九条》听证会历时12天，听取了十多名证人的证词。这是不同的统计口径，不能相加；调查规模也不能证明其结论。²³ ⁹

在 ABC News 获得的警方询问视频中，一名女性称，她听说兄弟会成员曾开会统一说法，并阻止讨论，以保护兄弟会形象。成员则称，这只是例行的每周分会会议，或表示他们不知道有针对该事件召开的会议。有些人重复了关于双方自愿发生关系的传闻。这些是相互矛盾的询问陈述，部分内容来自传闻，并非掩盖事实的认定，也不是对是否同意的第一手证明。¹⁵

NBC 另行报道的纪律记录显示，当时的兄弟会主席告诉成员先等一等，待他和执行委员会决定如何处理，并表示想看看 Doe 是否会说些什么。ABC 报道称，在据称的事件发生约三周后，Doe 录下了与 Matthew Ingalls 和 Winston Lee 的通话；另有一条 Snapchat 邀请发送给了50多名兄弟会成员。完整背景和独立核实仍未解决；收到邀请的人数不等于参与者人数。¹⁸ ⁷⁷

证据移交的核心问题仍未解决。Van Houten 称，他依据一份6页的宣誓陈述和一段 Snapchat 视频，并表示在重启案件前没有看过康奈尔大学更完整的报告。康奈尔大学称，校园警察分享了调查信息。新的报道提到了证人陈述、匿名线索和提供采访材料的情况，但仍未提供一份完整且注明日期的清单，说明哪些材料被发送、收到、提供、拒绝或审阅，也未说明所有相关材料是否都已送达 James 的办公室。¹¹⁷ ¹¹⁶ ¹ ¹⁸

各名学生受到的校方处分也尚未完全厘清。CBS 10月5日的报道援引《纽约时报》称，两人被开除、两人被停学、两人被认定无责任，其中一名学生在程序结束前毕业。NBC 10月5日的报道则称，有两人受到较轻处分，一名毕业生被禁止进入校园3年。这些摘要可能涉及不同处分类别或程序阶段，并非逐人确定的完整记录；行政裁定也不能决定刑事责任。⁷⁴ ⁷¹

校园压力仍在持续。学生于10月7日举行了7小时静坐，时长对应 Doe 陈述中所称的约7小时。这体现了声援，并不能证实袭击持续了多久。教职员工预计将在10月14日审议一项不具约束力的不信任决议。已确定的是计划进行讨论；是否会确定投票或通过决议尚无定论，而且该决议无法依法强制任何人辞职。⁷ ⁸ ¹¹ ¹⁴

已知

Yates 已受聘，校方审查的大致范围也已说明。 198 16

未知

审查完成时间表、公布规则、完整证据移交时间线和大陪审团结果均未确定。

后续

关注10月14日教职员工是否采取实际行动，并留意两项调查何时公布公众可查阅的调查结果，以及是否作出有充分依据的检察决定。

下一步要检验的，不是康奈尔大学能否宣布要接受审查，而是审查能否带来答案，以及 Doe 能否在不受其律师所述恐吓的情况下寻求答案。

播出原貌 58 行

On October 2 we reported Cornell’s review promise. Now trustees have named Sally Yates. The university’s response to allegations against seven men faces outside scrutiny, while the separate criminal investigation faces a defense challenge.
The allegations remain unresolved, and threats described against Jane Doe and her family raise a separate safety concern. What does the newly named review actually settle—and what remains beyond its reach?
Cornell’s trustees announced the appointment on October 6, 2026. A newly formed special committee retained Sally Q. Yates, a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General and former acting Attorney General, now a partner at King & Spalding.
Yates examines Cornell’s conduct and institutional practices. Letitia James investigates whether crimes occurred and prosecution is warranted. The university review is expected to produce findings and recommendations, not criminal charges. Neither inquiry has a reported final outcome.
Yates’s described remit reaches beyond this complaint: the university investigation, campus police practices, dealings with outside law enforcement, Title IX proceedings, student support, discipline, training and administrative oversight of fraternities and sororities. The commissioning body is now identifiable. The detailed terms governing the examination are not.
The special committee retained Yates, but calling the review independent does not establish its safeguards. Access to evidence, protection against university interference, conflicts, confidentiality, redactions and control over publication remain incompletely specified in the public record.
No completed review, publicly established completion deadline, full reporting timetable or firm commitment to an unredacted final report is available. Naming the reviewer answers who will lead the promised examination—not when students will see its findings or how much of them will become public.
Jane Doe’s September 16 civil lawsuit accuses seven men of sexual battery and assault at the Chi Phi fraternity house. It also alleges Cornell failed to protect her and mishandled her complaint. Doe is a former student using a pseudonym.
Her allegations concern October 2024. She describes pressure to consume drugs, including ketamine, alongside marijuana and alcohol, followed by assaults over several hours. Some accounts describe about seven hours. Neither the alleged acts nor that duration has been judicially established. All seven men deny wrongdoing; earlier accounts carried denials from at least three.
The defense position is that Gillio Lopes believed Doe was coherent and capable of deciding, and that evidence of nonconsensual sex is absent. The opposing position describes unaffiliated witnesses observing gross intoxication, including before she reached the house.
Neither characterization settles consent. Doe’s earlier account distinguished some initial activity she considered consensual from later acts she described as unwanted or coercive, including refusals and an inability to make decisions. Consent to one act is not consent to every later act. Apparent coherence alone does not establish consent, and intoxication described by counsel does not itself establish a crime.
Gillio Lopes has asked a court to overturn Governor Kathy Hochul’s appointment of James and block her from leading the inquiry. His October 7 Article 78 petition alleges bias and a presumption of guilt—not a bias finding by a judge.
Andrew Miltenberg is identified as Lopes’s attorney. The challenge points to James’s public comments and a social-media post before her appointment. The exact post, its date and platform are not established. No verified order removes James, and her office continues to be described as conducting the investigation.
The accounts conflict over who filed the challenge. The specific filing accounts establish that Lopes brought it through defense counsel, not Doe’s attorney. His verified name is Gillio Lopes, correcting the Julio Lopes and Julio Lopez renderings.
The filing is described as a state-court proceeding, with one account placing it before an Albany judge. Its exact caption, index number, assigned judge, next hearing and any ruling remain unestablished. A separate John Doe versus Cornell Article 78 document in Tompkins County is not this appointment challenge.
Hochul appointed James on October 1, not today. Executive Order 64 transferred oversight of this case from Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten. It did not remove Van Houten from his elected office.
That order concerns an alleged sexual assault in Tompkins County on October 19–20, 2024. It does not establish that an assault occurred. James’s stated task is to review facts, gather evidence, interview witnesses and pursue charges if warranted. The appointment followed Cornell’s September 30 agreement to retain outside counsel.
By the October 8 afternoon account, James had spoken with Van Houten and Doe’s attorney, but not directly with Doe. Contact with counsel is not a completed complainant interview. No completed grand-jury presentation or outcome is established.
No criminal charges, indictment, conviction, prosecutorial finding or civil-liability finding is reported. Van Houten’s earlier intention to present evidence to a grand jury does not establish that a presentation occurred under either prosecutor. Cornell’s administrative proceedings cannot decide criminal guilt.
Van Houten’s account identifies a six-page sworn statement and Snapchat video, but not Cornell’s larger report before reopening. Cornell’s position is that campus police shared investigative information. A collection exceeding 1,000 pages does not establish what he actually reviewed.
The newer accounts describe witness statements, anonymous tips and offers of additional interview material. The seven suspects declined interviews on advice of counsel. Van Houten’s explanations include that the evidence then available did not support charges and that additional accounts would not have changed the earlier decision.
Doe’s longer interview included her statement that she was certain she had been raped; the supplied summary is described as omitting that passage. The complete dated inventory of evidence sent, received, offered, declined or reviewed remains unavailable.
It is also unresolved whether the full interview and all digital and medical records have reached the special prosecutor. The emerging material deepens the evidence-handling question rather than answering it. A larger file is not proof that every official received it—or proof of what its contents establish.
Cornell’s inquiry is described as more than 50 interviews, including 32 witnesses. A separate Title IX hearing involved 12 days of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses. Interviews, witnesses and hearing days are different measures, not an additive total.
The police-interview videos contain competing accounts. One woman described hearing that fraternity members met to align their stories, characterized the encounter as a consensual orgy and discouraged discussion to protect the fraternity’s image. That includes information she heard from others, not an established account of what every participant did.
Other accounts describe suspected group-chat and meeting coordination, and an anonymous tip alleges pressure to stay quiet. Members described a regular weekly chapter meeting or denied knowledge of an incident-specific gathering or texts. These accounts do not establish a cover-up.
Some members repeated rumors that the encounter was consensual; rumor is not firsthand evidence of consent. Reported disciplinary records also describe the then-fraternity president telling members to wait while he and the executive board decided what to do, and wanting to see whether Doe said anything. Complete exchanges, timestamps and intent remain for examination.
Recorded calls involving Doe, Matthew Ingalls and Winston Lee are described around three weeks after the alleged incident. Doe’s recollection of being intoxicated and surrounded by eight to ten men is not a verified participant count or a change to the seven defendants.
The quotation attributed to Ingalls questions whether both people’s memories could be mistaken. Its full surrounding exchange and independent authentication are not established. That sentence cannot prove what either person remembered or what happened that night.
Ingalls is described as proposing a threesome before going upstairs; Lee as being told not to message Doe and drafting a letter. Another quoted fragment has no established speaker and cannot safely be assigned to either man. Matthew Ingalls is the supported name; Matthew Engles is not a separately verified person or alias.
A Snapchat invitation is described as reaching more than 50 fraternity brothers, with a message captioned “Boys, come whip it out.” The recipient list, chronology, context and authentication remain unresolved. Neither claim establishes who attended or participated.
Ingalls’s reported positions also differ: one formulation asserts he was too intoxicated to consent; another describes being too drunk to attack Doe and suggests she assaulted him. These are disputed positions, not authenticated verbatim equivalents or established findings. The reported calls and digital claims cannot substitute for complete, authenticated evidence.
A campus crime log records a drug-related arrest at the fraternity early October 19, 2024, and Doe’s alleged-assault report later that day. It does not identify the drug or establish a connection between the arrest and her allegations.
The prevention argument is that Cornell could have suspended fraternity events after the arrest and the party should not have happened. That is not a finding that an event ban was legally required or would have prevented the alleged conduct. The broader claim of inadequate police follow-up also remains disputed.
Moonie’s Bar and Nightclub and its LLC face separate allegations of serving Doe despite marking her underage and continuing until obvious intoxication. The business denies unlawful service and responsibility for the alleged fraternity crimes. Neither the lawsuit nor the denial resolves those claims.
Cornell’s individual disciplinary outcomes are not a settled seven-person accounting. Detailed accounts describe two expulsions, two suspensions, a graduate barred from campus for three years and two findings of not responsible. Other summaries describe the last two outcomes as lighter punishments, five students returning after lesser measures, or a graduation before proceedings finished.
The individual accounts associate Ingalls with an expulsion, Lee with a suspension and Lopes with a suspension while remaining on campus. Exact conditions, dates, appeals and current restrictions are not established. These descriptions should not be combined into a definitive sanctions ledger.
Different labels may reflect different stages, individuals or categories. Cornell describes Chi Phi as barred from campus or indefinitely suspended. That organizational action is distinct from penalties on particular students and from criminal liability. The earlier question about each accused person’s complete disciplinary record therefore remains open.
The safety allegations include a threat to shoot Doe and her family, pressure to abandon her lawsuit, threats against her attorney and harassment of women mistakenly identified as her. Independent police confirmation, an identified perpetrator and a verified arrest are unavailable.
Thomas Giuffra’s account also describes a fabricated emergency call alleging people were being killed at her family’s home, followed by armed officers responding and drawing guns. Descriptions vary between family and a friend, or specifically her father, brother and boyfriend. No responding agency, dispatch record or incident report independently confirms the account.
Those allegations are unverified here, not disproved. No evidence establishes that a civil defendant was involved. If substantiated, intimidation or a fabricated emergency call would obstruct safe pursuit of the complaint; it would not establish the underlying assault allegation.
Students held a seven-hour sit-in on October 7 in solidarity with Doe. They chose a duration corresponding to the roughly seven hours alleged in her account. The protest’s duration is an observed demonstration detail, not corroboration of an assault’s duration.
A large October 5 protest preceded it. Estimates range from approximately 1,500–2,000 participants to thousands; no exact count is established. Demands included leadership changes, expulsions and revoked degrees. Those demands are not completed sanctions or resignations. Reports of painting at an administration building and broken glass doors do not establish responsibility by particular organizers.
President Michael Kotlikoff publicly backed the special prosecutor, called the allegations deeply disturbing and described the preceding week as among Cornell’s most difficult. He said the university must do better, pledged transparency and promised a serious examination of Greek life.
Cornell’s commitment is to work on prevention, support and investigative practices without waiting for the reviews to finish. Those pledges do not establish that reforms have been implemented or improved safety. Reported property damage during protests likewise does not determine the merits of Doe’s complaint.
Labor-history professor Paul Ortiz is identified as leading the no-confidence effort. Faculty prepared or introduced a resolution concerning administrators’ handling of the case. Its reported submission to the University Faculty Committee was October 5; consideration is expected October 14.
Membership accounts describe approximately 120 members and, separately, support from 40 of 75 voting members. Those could be different membership categories, but no official roster or sponsor list reconciles them. Forty reported supporters are not forty votes already cast.
Some accounts describe a vote on the October 14 agenda; others describe discussion with a possible vote afterward. No adopted resolution, completed vote or definite voting timetable is established. The action is nonbinding and would not legally compel administrators to resign.
New York’s identified proposals are Senate S10632, sponsored by Nathalia Fernandez, and Assembly A101, sponsored by Jeffrey Dinowitz. A00101 is another rendering of the Assembly number; A101A is an amended print. No enactment, signature or effective date is established.
The proposals address intoxication that temporarily prevents someone from appraising or controlling their conduct, where the actor knew or reasonably should have known of that condition. Hochul and other officials support addressing voluntary intoxication and consent, but an endorsement is not an amendment. The full operative language is not established in the available extracts.
The official texts show Assembly introduction January 8, 2025, and Senate introduction and referral to Rules June 1, 2026. Secondary records describe Assembly original-print restoration May 5 and a June 4 referral to Assembly Codes. Complete official histories through October 8 remain unavailable.
Senate passage and an Assembly companion remaining in committee are described, but tracking labels differ between engrossed and engrossed-dead for the Senate measure, and introduced-dead for the Assembly bill. They establish neither a firm future schedule nor completed enactment. Existing law’s distinction between voluntary intoxication and drugs administered without consent does not decide this case.
The established university-statement figure is 11% of student respondents reporting nonconsensual sexual contact since entering Cornell in 2023. The claimed 2025 overall 15% is not independently verified from the primary-table excerpts. A settled increase cannot be inferred from that comparison.
The spring 2025 survey covers experiences while attending Cornell, not solely incidents during calendar 2025. The reported four-percentage-point comparison, more than 35% of undergraduate women, and more than half of Greek-affiliated women lack the primary rows, subgroup definitions and denominators needed to establish those estimates here.
The earlier 926 respondents among 6,000 selected students, approximately 15% participation, and 36% participation in 2023 remain unverified from the primary excerpts. An institutional summary describes participation falling by more than half. Participation percentages are not assault percentages.
Comparative-risk claims of one-and-a-half times for women attending fraternity parties and three times for sorority members also lack an identified matching study establishing population, outcome and uncertainty. They cannot serve as established Cornell risk estimates or evidence about Doe. Survey questions, weighting, subgroup counts, confidence intervals and nonresponse limitations remain essential.
The answer is specific: Cornell’s promised review now has a named leader, law firm, commissioning body and described institutional scope. It does not settle criminal charges, the evidence-transfer chronology, individual disciplinary records, threats or when accessible findings will be published.
The next dated institutional event is October 14, when faculty are expected to consider the no-confidence resolution. That meeting cannot decide criminal guilt or compel resignations.