The Stupidity of The High IQ Seven At Cornell

In a typical year, about 65,000 students apply for admission to Cornell. Only about 9 percent are accepted. The accused fraternity boys were obviously among the 9 percent, so I am assuming they were straight-A students in high school and have superior IQs. Yet not one of them had the common sense or courage to say what had to be said as the attack was unfolding.

“You are all behaving like f***ing idiots having sex with a basically unconscious drunk girl. She will tell her friends. They will all claim that you guys raped her. Not only will you be expelled from college, you could easily wind up in prison. And for what? Stop what you are doing, don’t initiate anything. I am getting the hell out of here, and if you have an ounce of common sense, you will join me. I hope I am never put in the position of having to testify against you. But if placed under oath, I will.”

Had that been said, there never would have been a Jane Doe case.

The stupidity got worse. There were a ton of witnesses as to what the gifted seven were doing to the intoxicated victim. Boys will be boys, so of course there was a lot of joking and bragging. One Snapchat message to the brothers was “free sex with a woman upstairs.” Another code was “shop still open.”

It is not that unusual for a high level of intelligence to coexist with moronic decision-making. I have no doubt that if the police got hold of their cell phones and emails, they would be loaded with damaging admissions.

Let’s review some of the basics. The attack occurred on October 19, 2024. She did not report it to the Cornell Police Department until November 14. It was on November 14 that Jane made her dynamite accusation:

“I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped.”

The Cornell police did not include that statement when they turned over a very short, superficial summary to the district attorney for that area. Hard to believe. Even harder to believe is the fact that the district attorney never asked to see the thousand pages contained in the police investigation. The conclusion of the district attorney was that none of the fraternity boys would be charged with anything. He never sought to interview Jane Doe.

Jane admitted that she had consensual sex with two of the boys at the same time—boys she actually liked. A threesome. She admitted that before the sex, she had ten drinks. Some at her sorority, and some at a couple of bars she visited before entering the frat house.

She also sniffed ketamine, a drug which is useful in the hands of a qualified physician, but which over time acquired a reputation as a party drug. A very talented actor, Matthew Perry, died from a highly publicized dependence on ketamine.

Amazingly, Jane Doe wanted very much to attend a Halloween party at the very fraternity house where she had been “raped.” Halloween was a mere 12 days after the attack, yet she was anxious to party. She had been invited by one of the boys she had sex with. They were both willing to put the events of October 19 behind them. However, the president of the fraternity made a crucial decision to disinvite her. She seemed angrier about the disinvite than about the rape.

Justin Dillon, an attorney and former prosecutor, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on October 5, saying: “She accused them of rape only after being dis-invited from the fraternity’s Halloween party.”

Jane Doe waited until September 2026 to file a civil lawsuit against the gang of seven. That was two years after the assault. Her lawsuit mentions the names of the seven. She also sued the university, the fraternity, plus her own sorority. She even sued the two guys she agreed to have sex with. What is her theory against her own sorority? That they somehow had a duty to protect her, that they should have monitored her alcoholic intake?

At trial, Jane could be crushed by even a mediocre cross-examination. For example, this question:

“You were anxious to party again at the very fraternity house where you say seven members raped you. So you had fully recovered from the experience, since Halloween was only a few days later. You only went to the Cornell police days after you had been disinvited. Being disinvited made you very angry—isn’t that right?”

Her ten drinks, which no one forced on her, and her agreement to have sex with two members would make her very vulnerable. She could not give convincing answers to these questions.

I know something about cross-examination. In the two-year trial that my wife, Susan, and I filed against the tobacco companies, I cross-examined all their chief executives. The jury returned the highest verdict in American history against all the companies—145 billion dollars. Engle v. Philip Morris, etcetera.

THE GOVERNOR AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONNECT

Governor Kathy Hochul had no confidence in the local district attorney, so she decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute the case, if necessary. Fine!

But her selection was awful—Attorney General Letitia James, who has a well-deserved reputation as being a politician first. When James campaigned for that office, her platform focus was to convict Donald Trump of something, anything. After her election, she went after Trump full blast. She always has an agenda.

She proved that almost immediately by posting this on Facebook:

“What this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific. I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her and to all survivors, you are not alone. We stand with you.”

Political pandering of the highest order. She has done what no professional, ethical prosecutor would ever do. Without seeing any evidence, she totally prejudged the guilt of the seven.

When asked by a reporter why she was prejudging their guilt, James responded with a politician’s classic evasion: “I will not comment on a Facebook post.”

Jonathan Turley, a respected law professor, commentator, and author, spelled out the consensus opinion about James among her legal peers. She has a “reputation for putting politics ahead of prosecutorial integrity.”

Hochul and James have an interesting history. In 2021, AG James decided she would like to become governor, so she challenged Hochul for about a month. Her campaign hardly caught fire, so she dropped out and decided to run for reelection as New York’s attorney general. Both women are running for reelection now, and both believe that they have found the perfect issue to ensure success.

A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS

There are more victims. The reputation of the university. The many hundreds of proud alumni of the Chi Phi fraternity. Cornell has banned the fraternity from its campus.

Over the years, there had been numerous complaints of sexual harassment and actual assaults. Cornell never addressed this shameful situation in a forceful way.

Nor is Israel immune to these problems. The scandal involving former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was convicted of rape and other sexual offenses, is a stark reminder that sexual misconduct can occur at the highest levels of society.  No country or institution should assume that it is exempt from the need for accountability, transparency, and meaningful action to protect potential victims.

ONE SUGGESTION

Post the following warning in every fraternity house and at all other locations where every student would see it:

WARNING

Sexual harassment and actual attacks have repeatedly occurred on our campus. That is intolerable and disgraceful. Any student found guilty of such behavior will be expelled and never invited to return. We will report to the police any accusation of physical assault or rape, and for those found guilty, we will demand severe punishment.

TAKE THIS WARNING VERY SERIOUSLY!!

DO NOT THROW AWAY YOUR EDUCATION AND YOUR CAREER BY PARTICIPATING IN PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR.

Stanley M. Rosenblatt – Miami Beach, Florida
305-374-6131
michelle@stanleyandsusanrosenblatt.com