An Addendum on the Cornell Rape Allegations
Further Developments, Thoughts, and Reflections on The Scandal at Cornell University.
PLEASE NOTE: those who have not done so are urged to read the original essay, which can be found here at The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, or its external publication on The Occidental Observer and on The Unz Report. Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.
The Cornell rape allegation scandal presents unique challenges to independent publications like The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, insofar as there have been daily developments in this matter. This makes it difficult to pinpoint when an addendum should be written. The concern is that there will always be new developments immediately after publication. It should also be noted that this publication is not designed to be merely an outlet for breaking news, but rather to provide an account of current events along with substantive commentary and analysis. For this reason, there is little point posting short snippets that rehash developments discussed elsewhere. With these caveats in mind, the developments since last Thursday (October 8, 2026) merit an addendum as there are also several themes in what has been divulged that warrant additional commentary and analysis. To suggest that these recent developments have undermined Jane Doe’s case would be a wild understatement. Indeed, more cavalier voices are now even calling the scandal the Cornell “rape hoax” rather than mere rape allegations.
Immediately after the final revision of “Concerning A Rape Allegation Scandal at Cornell,” New York governor Kathy Hochul announced on the evening of Thursday, October 1, 2026 that she was appointing New York attorney general Letitia James as special prosecutor, followed the next day by a press conference that was truly a farce to behold. This development was immediately updated and described in the author’s note placed at the very beginning of the article after final revision. Readers are doubtlessly aware of the unrelenting “lawfare” James had waged against Peter and Lydia Brimelow of Vdare, compelling the pioneering publication to close down indefinitely. James has been involved in similarly politically motivated legal campaigns against Donald Trump, especially after the 2020 election, the result of was likely only made possible by voter fraud.
In this context, it is also noteworthy that James made several statements, particularly on Twitter and Facebook, expressing solidarity with Jane Doe as a rape survivor, stating she stands with Jane Doe as a survivor and indeed with all survivors. These statements are in conflict with the basic ethical requirements of any prosecutor. They would be immediately disqualifying if made while leading the investigation as special prosecutor. Even stated before her appointment as special prosecutor by Hochul, and setting aside James’ track record with politically motivated lawfare, they raise significant concerns as to whether James can conduct the investigation with impartiality and with a presumption of innocence that should be afforded the accused. Unlike defense attorneys, who are charged with raising a zealous defense of their clients, a prosecutor is ethically bound to pursue justice, not zealously prosecute the accused in a manner symmetrical with the obligations of defense attorneys. It is due to these and other concerns that defense attorneys of several of the accused have filed a motion to remove James as special prosecutor. The hearing is on October 29, 2026. I had stated on The Political Cesspool, Our Interesting Times with Tim Kelly, and elsewhere that it was a “metaphysical certitude” that at least some of the accused would be indicted, the prediction—based on the McLaughlin Group probability scale, where zero means no chance and ten means “metaphysical certitude.” This bald prediction notwithstanding, the probability has downgraded just a bit. So much of it will hinge on whether defense attorneys can convince the presiding judge to remove Letitia James as special prosecutor. Although the law would seem to require this, how the law is applied and whether it is applied correctly is often subjugated to political and ideological ends, particularly in democrat-controlled jurisdictions.
The probability of indictment is also degraded just a bit by text messages that were divulged on Thursday and Friday, October 8-9, 2026. Most readers have doubtlessly seen these, so there is little reason to dwell on them other than to note that they are nothing less than repeated statements that what transpired at the fraternity house was consensual under New York law, at least insofar as Jane Doe’s accusations are concerned. The most damaging text message is undoubtedly this exchange:
aw jonathan i really appreciate this text. my memories super clouded too. i think we were all way to f–king drunk and high. … but at the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really like being w u and matt. so anything anyone has to say about the gamgbang is out of their jurisdiction. I don’t think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf. (typographical errors likely induced by thumb typing have not been corrected)
As has been observed by many commentators before, there is reason to believe that Jane Doe might be culpable under the applicable statute, insofar as she tried to fellate Ingalls as he was falling in and out of consciousness. But of course, even though the statute is written in a “gender-neutral” manner, the application of the law as a practical matter simply does not work that way.
The texts in question not only certify she consented, but also provide motive in that she complains how many on campus are talking about her, with complaints about how two women at a rival sorority house cannot “get my name out of their mouths.” This of course culminated in being disinvited from the Chi Phi Halloween party, the obvious motivation for Jane Doe deciding, retroactively, that she did not consent. Finally, her position is further undermined by two other details, one being that she texted her sorority roommate at 1:45, responding “idk” to a question whether she was coming home that night. It was also reported that a girlfriend of one fraternity member not accused of wrong-doing recalls seeing Jane Doe exit the room and that she did not appear distressed in any manner whatsoever. These new details weigh against any assertion that Jane Doe was either helpless or incapacitated, one of the two conditions necessary under New York law to sustain an indictment let alone a conviction for sexual assault in instances like these where the accuser alleges no affirmative assertion that she did not consent and that the accused made no use of physical coercion or force.
As Jane Doe’s case becomes more and more tenuous with damaging evidence as set forth above, the prospect of an indictment raises the stakes not just for the defendants but for Jane Doe herself. As the jury system has proven increasingly prone to error in matters such as the infamous trial and conviction of Derek Chauvin (and the other officers on duty), Travis and Gregory McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan (defendants in the Ahmaud Arbery matter, and others, there are no guarantees that any indictment will not result in acquittal, despite the overwhelming evidence undermining any such indictment. However, if the criminal investigation should lead to an indictment, Jane Doe will be greatly disadvantaged in many ways.
First, if the case were limited to civil damages, named institutional defendants may have simply settled out of court as the most cost effective decision and to limit national exposure arising from hysteria among feminists and the left. However, now that a criminal investigation has been reopened, the seven named defendants (all of whom come from wealthy backgrounds) have every incentive to finance robust legal defenses. That vested interest in providing a robust legal defense removes mere settlement as the path of least resistance.
Another matter weighs far more heavily against Jane Doe’s best interests. The various statements against interest via text message and other bits of evidence disproving her claims will provide devastating material for any defense attorney that cross examines Jane Doe. As many are aware, under the United States Constitution, the accused has a constitutional right to confront the accuser. Although it is unfortunately all but certain that any judge would prevent any trial from being televised, details of this cross examination would nonetheless be conveyed in various accounts in print and other media. As Jane Doe’s case is already imploding in rather spectacular fashion, she may already regret the decision to file a civil suit. Whereas before she merely gained infamy at Cornell during the academic year of 2024, now she is being made a national spectacle. While much of the country is still galvanizing around her cause despite more and more evidence undermining and even disproving her claims, the balance seems to be shifting decisively against her. This is particularly devastating insofar as, unlike a complaint for civil damages, Jane Doe’s legal team has no decision-making authority over the criminal investigation and whether or not to prosecute any of the defendants.
As the mounting problems with Jane Doe’s case draw more and more scrutiny, it is noteworthy that a number of recent developments have —with nigh certainty— corroborated claims that Jane Doe is in fact Lucy Craig. It must be stressed that no mainstream media outlet has confirmed this. However, CBS News released an excerpt of a sworn statement showing part of what is clearly a signature for Lucy Craig, as well as unredacted initials “LHC.” Far more persuasively, Megyn Kelly has repeatedly stated she knows who Jane Doe is. This knowledge is not from Internet speculation or from perusing twitter accounts outside of legacy media that have asserted Lucy Craig is Jane Doe. Rather, she states she knows Jane Doe’s identity through inside channels, ostensibly from her connections with legacy media, and that she has been able to independently confirm the identity of Jane Doe. Kelly has stated on several occasions that she is mulling over whether to name Jane Doe. A consideration weighing against that decision is sympathy, that Kelly feels sorry for Doe. Notably, on several occasions, Kelly has described Lucy Craig to a “T:” identifying her as a redhead, mentioning cankles, and making derogatory comments about her looks in explanation as to why she might degrade herself in this way. Kelly also made repeated appearances to weight-lifting in relation to Doe’s appearance. Although still technically “credible allegations” that fall just short of confirmation, the totality of circumstances leaves little doubt that Jane Doe is in fact Lucy Craig.
Absent the discovery of truly extraordinary evidence which might substantiate her claims, such sympathy is misguided. The repeated statements confirming consent, the various other circumstances clearly demonstrating that Doe changed her mind not because she was a victim of sexual assault but because she regretted how her own decisions made her an object of ridicule, regretted how Ingalls, Newell and others objectified her, even (probably) bragging to others about what had happened. These and other considerations reveal Jane Doe not to be a victim, but a woman who has ginned up these allegations to wage a vendetta of personal destruction in retribution for her humiliation and regret. Of course, a huge payday can be expected from any settlement, a likely outcome given how utterly spineless the President and administration at Cornell University have been. It is also a clear and obvious motivation for her decision to raise these allegations as she has.
As some readers may know, the full six-page written statement signed by Jane Doe and submitted to the Cornell University Police Department was released on Sunday. Nothing alleged in that statement satisfies the statutory requirements under the New York criminal code. Several sordid details about Jane Doe were divulged, which will be expounded on below.
Even though these and other facts have objectively undermined Jane Doe’s case seemingly beyond any hope for salvage, there is still a great deal of momentum behind feminist and leftist activism regarding this matter. There have been protests on campus at Cornell University. On Tuesday, October 13, it was announced there will be a moratorium on all fraternity parties for the rest of the academic year. In the immediate aftermath of this scandal, there has been a demand for the New York legislature to rewrite the New York criminal code, so that even voluntary inebriation can sustain a basis for indictment and conviction for sexual assault. Rest assured that any legislation that does get passed will be sloppily written, and will introduce massive risk for criminal liability for simply flirting with and having a sexual interlude with a woman who has even had a couple drinks but is still able to express consent or that she does not consent.
Even worse, the outrage this matter has generated among feminists and the left has led to discussion of so-called “trauma theory” in relation to these allegations and the difficult problem of Jane Doe having made repeated statements in different contexts that she consented and was even proud of what she did. Such trauma theory posits that statements indicating willingness and consent cannot be taken at face value, as they can—and ostensibly must—be attributed to trauma if accompanied by later statements that the sexual activity in question was not consensual. There are any number of problems with this absurd postulation, most particularly that it refuses to acknowledge the cold, hard reality that some women who claim sexual assault do so for nefarious motives, either to harm the accused, or from regret and embarrassment. Trauma theory advocates a truly obscene system of appraising past statements as evidence, whereby statements indicating consent can either be taken at face value or discounted, contingent solely on whether subsequent statements were made asserting that sexual activity was not consensual. Such subsequent, after-the-fact statements denying sexual conduct was consensual however must always be taken at face value. Under this unworkable appraisal of evidence, “yes” can sometimes mean “yes,” but also means “no” if the accuser later insists, whereas “no” must always be taken at face value. Even presupposing there was some validity to trauma theory in at least some instances, feminist advocates for this approach seem utterly incapable of reconciling the requirement that a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt with this absurd approach to conflicting statements more befitting Alice in Wonderland than any serious society that cares about due process and affording the criminally accused a fair trial.
These and other features of feminist advocacy for Jane Doe illustrate why—absent evidence proving that a sexual assault did in fact occur—the Cornell 7 must be exonerated, preferably by declining to indict at all or, should there be an indictment, by an acquittal across the board. Whereas the bogus conviction of Derek Chauvin and the McMichael Brothers in the Ahmad Arbery matter did much damage by substantiating black victimization ideology while also rendering interaction with black criminals a much riskier proposition than it ever ought to be, this matter goes to the very heart of relations between men and women, already a phenomenon beset by any number of pathologies and dysfunctions. If feminist advocates for Jane Doe aka the “I am Jane Doe” crowd have their way, young men would face unimaginable risk of criminal liability for simply having a sexual or romantic interest in the fair sex. A woman could say she consented, and then, after a breakup, say she did not. Trauma theory, as advocated by these activists, would mandate that authorities give no heed to statements of consent but give all due deference to later statements she did not. Retroactive consent would be a de facto reality in matters of sex and criminal law. The massive risk of criminal liability for simply pursuing any women who have even had a glass or two of wine should New York rewrite its sexual assault law has already been discussed.
The exoneration of the accused, absent extraordinary evidence not yet uncovered, is not without difficulty or ideological conflict. This author’s position on Greek Life has been reiterated time and time again. Bolstering that dim view of Greek Life is the surprising fact that even though feminist and leftist activists see fraternities (but somehow not sororities) as an expression of white privilege and systemic racism and rape culture, the sexual activity with Jane Doe was, in fact, an interracial gangbang, with three non-whites and one Iberian teaming up on a redhead woman from the deep South. Ingalls’ real name is Umar Matthew Ingalls. As best as one can determine, he is half Egyptian and retains citizenship with the United Arab Emirates where has since fled (specifically in Dubai); notably, UAE does not have an extradition agreement with the United Statements. Jonathan Newell is a colorful darkie indeed, with obvious African ancestry mixed in with any number of genetic curiosities of a darker hue to produce another variant of the Kalergi abomination. Winston Lee is the grandson of a South Korean prime minister. While Koreans and Japanese are properly afforded respect as races and civilizations, miscegenation in that context should still be denounced and must be denounced. Gillio Lopes is the only European of the lot. It seems he is also the individual who intervened after the entry of four other fraternity men saying “we’re shutting this down whatever it is”) after engaging in the second threesome with Newell.
This overtly interracial nature of the scandal, underreported as it is, in conjunction with general denouncing of Greek Life, creates any number of ideological and cognitive conflicts. Miscegenation is to be denounced as an existential threat to Mother Europe and European posterity. The original essay “Concerning a Rape Allegation Scandal at Cornell” also condemned the sexual activity not as mere hedonism, but as unspeakable depravity. The resolution that these men, absent new evidence demonstrating their guilt, must be exonerated is in conflict with these and other ideological considerations. While calls for their exoneration are centered around a clear discernment as to Jane Doe’s motivations and the consequences that will invariably flow should they succeed, it does represent a reluctant sanctioning of sorts of both their conduct and the intrinsic nature of who and what they are, what they did and what their existence stands for. That may be true to some limited extent, regardless of any such disclaimers denoting both a33mbiguity and cognitive and ideological conflict, but the fact remains that should these efforts succeed, such a victory by the left would be far more devastating, whether in the form of indictment and conviction of the accused or embracing the call to adopt so-called trauma theory in evaluating any accusation of sexual assault in ill-advised reform of criminal law and procedure. These considerations in turn reveal that contending with seemingly unending number of social ills and evils in modern society often provides no easy answers, just as it often requires subjugating some ideological considerations for others depending on what means a policy position serves as well as any number of other factors.1
A final consideration pertains to how this scandal demonstrates how utterly pornographic and depraved American society is. The original article did not delve in this matter in the interest of brevity as well as in consideration of time constraints, but it is noteworthy that this sort of sexual depravity has seemingly become commonplace. This is undoubtedly attributed to how ubiquitous pornography has become in American society. Moreover, the inability of the Constitution or this form of government to respond adequately to this phenomenon demonstrates how irredeemable both the Constitution and this government are. A government or other polity which cannot protect the populace from such an evil, bound up in an unending litany of harms and social ills that necessarily follow as so-called secondary effects,2 has no fitness for stated purpose and must be jettisoned if and when the means to do so ever become available and practical.
Recall that the signed and sworn six-page statement to Cornell University police was released a few days ago, revealing sordid details about Jane Doe—again almost certainly Lucy Craig. These include that she is (or) was a cutter, as evidenced in relation to a recount about insecurity from scar tissue on her legs:
I remember someone bringing up the scars I have on my legs from self-inflicted cutting that I had done In August of this year. Hearing that my scars were brought up, but that none of them cared to ask about them made me feel super isolated and that I didn’t matter as a person to these men.
In the six-page sworn statement to campus police, she also divulged that she had an interest in male-male female threesome because of the prospect that Ingalls and Newell might themselves engage in homosexual acts. This was stated in conjunction with being bisexual and that she thought the threesome proposed was to involve another woman:
I remember being excited because I thought that wanting to have a threesome meant that [Ingalls] and {Newell] were gay, which would have meant that they were part of my community as I am bisexual. I believe I said something like “I didn’t know you all were fruity.” [Redacted] responded by saying he was homo-curious. [Redacted] just kind of laughed and didn’t say anything else.
Thus, it seems the notorious Ketamine Cockgobbler of Cornell is also a rug-muncher. Indeed, she is also a fruit fly who regards the prospect of two men committing homosexual sex acts in her presence with excitement. It is plainly obvious that such extreme sexual proclivities were infused into her mind by the ubiquity of pornography in American society. The propensity to jockey for a place in the progressive stack in order to wash away the stains of white privilege by identifying as part of the LGBTQ community through bisexuality is also obvious.
While such speculation is by no means tantamount to a professional diagnosis of a patient interviewed and examined in person, the facts known about Jane Doe are consistent with borderline personality disorder, chiefly among them a propensity for cutting and self-harm. Engaging in extreme risk-taking and above all extreme promiscuity and risky sexual behavior is another classic trait of the pathology. Those with borderline personality are also known to oscillate wildly from infatuation and adoration to attacking boyfriends, husbands, and even hookups in vicious personal attacks.
Absent extraordinary evidence that disproves Kelly’s claim to know who Jane Doe is and other credible allegations that Jane Doe is in fact Lucy Craig, this scandal reveals much about the supposed elite in this country as well. A bona fide daddy’s girl whose rich family cannot only afford to pay $70,000 in tuition at Cornell but paid for their precious daughter to attend Indian Springs boarding school at about $35,000 a year, and considerably more with full room and board. And yet look at what she has done with her life with such extraordinary privilege. Even bolstered with such pampering and privilege, the supposed tribulations were still far too trying, so much that she has yielded to cutting and who knows what other pathologies. But, as a stern, unflinching look at Craig and her behavior warrants no such sympathy or empathy implored, in error, by Megyn Kelly,so does this scandal warrant another severe assessment of what American society and “culture” really are and the evils that inevitably flow from there.
It is of note that the infamous Call Her Daddy podcast had a Cornell philosophy professor as a guest. Predictably enough, the presentation did not even pretend to engage in the plethora of evidence which will create seemingly insurmountable difficulties in securing a conviction should the accused be indicted or even prevailing on civil claims if named defendants do not settle out of court, admittedly the most likely outcome. Megyn Kelly discussed at length how earlier iterations of this podcast delved in all matters of sexual depravity, including discussion of threesomes and how women that Alex Cooper deems as less attractive need to debase themselves with pronounced zeal in order to receive even fleeting sexual attention from high status men. Cooper has even bragged that at least one eleven-year-old girl is a fan of the show. In relation to Jane Doe almost certainly being Lucy Craig, Kelly noted Craig follows the Alexandra Cooper account on Instagram. That coincidence illustrates perfectly how illusory personal choice really is, how elements in the “culture” predetermine and limit personal choice to little more than a somewhat more expansive dropdown menu.3 It is so glaringly obvious that this sort of unspeakable depravity is a direct and even inevitable result of allowing society to be engulfed by pornography and all manner of abject sexual profligacy. It is inconceivable that young women such as Craig would be so prone to such destructive behavior if we lived in a society that did not allow these elements in the culture—a culture that responded appropriately to the menace of the pornography and that would simply not allow an outrage such as Call Her Daddy to become a “cultural phenomenon,” that would simply not allow such a vapid, hollow woman as Alexandra Cooper to be regarded as any sort of thought leader, with that term used so very loosely.
These last considerations emphasize a familiar theme in the writing of The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective: utter hatred and contempt for American society and vulgarity and depravity of the modern age that necessarily flow from American hegemony and the inescapable prevalence of American Unkultur. An unflinching appraisal of feminist demands and machinations obliges a tacit—if not sanctioning—then at least pardoning or excusal of an interracial gangbang simply because the failure to exonerate these repugnant sorts will quickly lead to something much, much worse. American society is so unspeakably ugly and dystopic it obliges a devout race realist and author of essays like “Against Miscegenation” and “On the Scourge of White Women and Race-Mixing” to endorse the exoneration of the non-white participants of an interracial gangbang with a white southern woman. And so the unspeakable ugliness and depravity of American society obliges what some detractors may deride as a Nazi sympathizer—even if of the decidedly Noltean sort—to do the unthinkable.
In many ways, this scandal is a perfect microcosm of how dysfunctional, profligate, and sick American society and “culture” are. It features wildly privileged young people whose minds are so warped by pornography and a pornographic society that extreme sexual profligacy as multiple threesome pairings is common. Much to the chagrin of Jane Doe and the fraternity men who engaged in these threesomes, there were nonetheless some minimal vestiges of basic decency that “slut-shamed” her. Those sorority girls just could not “get my names out of their mouths.” The American elite consists of a neurotic, psychologically disturbed woman prone to cutting, extreme risk taking in sexual depravity, and alcohol and drug abuse. Despite privilege and wealth affording an elite private school education and eventual admission to and attendance at Cornell University, it is dubious that she possesses even a bare semblance of a classical education as she is thoroughly embedded in all manner of depravity and debauchery. The same assessment of course apllies to her peers categorically. This coupled with how the sexual conduct was in fact an interracial gangbang and one in which the female participant anticipated homosexual acts with excitement serves as yet another searing indictments of American society in the modern age. This among myriad other ills. This grim picture of American society is revealed to be far worse as those elements in outrage of this are even worse, condemning what occurred for all the wrong reasons.
Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!