The attorney for the woman at the center of a high-profile gang rape allegation involving Cornell University students says his client explicitly told police two years ago that she had been sexually assaulted, directly contradicting claims made by the local district attorney earlier this week.
Thomas Giuffra, who represents the woman known in court documents as Jane Doe, confirmed to NPR that transcripts of her 2024 sworn statement to investigators include a clear declaration of sexual assault. According to Giuffra, his client told police, "I can say with 100% percent confidence I was raped."
The attorney's account places new pressure on Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, who stated in a public document released Monday that Doe never told investigators she was raped. That assertion has now been challenged not only by the alleged victim's legal counsel but also by reporting from other news outlets that reviewed transcripts of her police interview.
When NPR specifically asked Giuffra to confirm on the record that his client made that exact statement regarding her assault, he responded by text message with a single word: "Yes she did." The confirmation marks the most direct public rebuttal yet of the prosecutor's characterization of the evidence in the case.
The discrepancy between the prosecutor's public statement and the alleged victim's account raises significant questions about how the case has been handled from its earliest stages. Van Houten told NPR's local station WSKG on Wednesday that he had not read the full account of Doe's detailed statements to investigators, in which she repeatedly described being assaulted. His admission that he had not reviewed the complete record came even as his office continued to defend its public characterization of what Doe did or did not say.
Legal observers note that a prosecutor's decision to publicly describe an alleged victim's statements is unusual in itself, particularly in a pending case involving serious felony charges. Such public statements can influence jury pools, affect the credibility of the complainant, and complicate the relationship between prosecutors and the women and men who come forward to report sexual violence.
The case dates back to 2024, when Doe reported that she was gang raped by fellow Cornell students. The allegation has since grown into a broader controversy involving the university's flagship fraternity system, campus law enforcement, and the local criminal justice system. Cornell has faced mounting criticism over its handling of the matter, and the university agreed late last month to an independent probe into how it responded to the allegations.
The fraternity at the center of the case, Chi Phi, has been identified in reporting as the location associated with the alleged assault. Images of the fraternity house, a large English Tudor-style building on the Ithaca, New York, campus, have circulated widely as the story has gained national attention. The case has also drawn scrutiny to how Cornell and local authorities coordinate when serious criminal allegations involve students and Greek organizations.
The source of the underlying dispute is not merely a question of semantics. In sexual assault cases, precisely how a complainant describes what happened to them — and how law enforcement officials document and relay those statements — can shape charging decisions, plea negotiations, and whether a case moves forward at all. Defense attorneys frequently seize on inconsistencies or omissions in a complainant's account, and prosecutors are typically careful to avoid making public statements that could be used to impeach the alleged victim at trial.
NPR asked Cornell whether campus police provided the district attorney with all of the information from their investigation, including Doe's repeated statements about being assaulted. The university did not respond to the request for comment. That silence leaves unresolved the question of whether the district attorney's office had access to the complete investigative file when it made the assertion that Doe never said she was raped.
CBS News New York reported Wednesday on a transcript of an interview between Cornell investigators and Doe, adding further documentation to the picture her attorney has described. The existence of that transcript, combined with Giuffra's confirmation to NPR, suggests that multiple records of Doe's statements to authorities reflect her repeated descriptions of being assaulted.
The case has developed into a test of institutional accountability on several fronts. Cornell's agreement to an independent investigation signals that the university recognizes the need for outside review of its conduct. At the same time, the public dispute between the alleged victim's attorney and the elected district attorney raises uncomfortable questions about how local prosecutors communicate with the people they are supposed to represent and protect.
Victim advocates have long argued that survivors of sexual violence face skepticism at every stage of the process — from the moment they report an assault to the way their words are later characterized by officials. When a prosecutor publicly suggests that a complainant never used the word "rape," advocates say, it can reinforce a cultural tendency to doubt women who come forward, particularly when the accused are students at an elite institution.
Neither Van Houten nor his office has publicly responded to Giuffra's specific confirmation that Doe used the exact words "I was raped." The district attorney's earlier explanation — that he had not reviewed the full account of her statements — does not resolve why his office publicly asserted something that the underlying records appear to contradict. NPR sought comment from the district attorney's office regarding the discrepancy but the source material does not indicate whether further response was provided.
The case continues to unfold against a backdrop of heightened national attention to campus sexual assault and the handling of such allegations by universities and local law enforcement. Cornell's independent probe will likely examine not only the university's own conduct but also how it shared information with law enforcement. The outcome of that review, and any subsequent action by the district attorney's office, could determine whether the case moves toward prosecution or stalls amid conflicting public accounts.
For Doe, the confirmation from her attorney is a rare moment in which her own words — captured in a 2024 interview with investigators — have been publicly validated after weeks of competing characterizations. Whether that validation translates into a credible path through the criminal justice system remains an open question.
The story remains under active reporting, with the allegations at the center of the case still unresolved and the institutional responses from both Cornell and the Tompkins County District Attorney's Office continuing to draw scrutiny from the public, the media, and the alleged victim's legal team.
(0)