Text messages obtained by TMZ reveal that Jane Doe, the accuser in the high-profile Cornell University sexual assault case, told two of the men she later accused of rape that she loved them and characterized their sexual encounter as “not illegal” just two days after the incident occurred. The messages, which have become central to the ongoing legal and campus disciplinary proceedings, show Doe reassuring the men that they had no reason to feel shame, stating, “our body our choice.”
The exchange took place between Doe and Jonathan Newell, one of the seven men she has accused of sexual assault. In the texts, Newell apologized for the situation, noting that he and Matthew Ingalls, another accused man, felt responsible for not ending the encounter sooner. Doe responded by acknowledging that everyone involved was “way too f*cking drunk and high” and expressed concern that Newell was facing social backlash from sorority members regarding her sexual activity.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and legal analysts have highlighted these texts as evidence that the encounter was consensual and that Doe’s allegations of rape emerged only after she faced social consequences, such as being uninvited from a fraternity Halloween party. The Daily Wire and other right-leaning outlets note that Doe explicitly told Newell that “none of the sexual stuff was illegal” and that she “really liked being with you and Matt.”
Critics of the prosecution’s case argue that the language used in the texts contradicts the claim that Doe was incapacitated by ketamine to the point of non-consent. They point to her statement, “I really do love u and Matt,” as evidence of an ongoing consensual relationship or at least a positive experience, suggesting that the rape allegations were a reaction to peer pressure or social stigma rather than the event itself. Additionally, reports from Cornell’s investigation, cited by the Daily Wire, noted that male students recalled Doe performing “bodybuilder” poses during the encounter, which critics argue is inconsistent with severe incapacitation.
What the Left Is Saying
Supporters of Doe and progressive commentators have historically emphasized that consent can be withdrawn or that initial willingness does not preclude later allegations of assault, particularly when substances like ketamine are involved. While specific reactions to these newly released texts vary among left-leaning media outlets, the prevailing argument in similar cases often centers on the power dynamics of campus life and the difficulty of proving incapacitation.
Many on the left argue that the release of private texts, particularly those containing emotional language like “I really do love u,” is being weaponized to discredit a survivor’s narrative. They contend that the context of the messages—sent while Doe was still navigating the social fallout of the event—does not necessarily negate her later account that she was incapacitated and unable to give valid consent. Some activists point to the inconsistency in Doe’s own account, which evolved from “90%” non-consensual to full allegations of gang rape, as a sign of the trauma response rather than fabrication.
What the Numbers Show
The case involves seven male students accused of sexual assault, with Matthew Ingalls also alleging that he was sexually assaulted by Doe and was too intoxicated to consent. According to the source material, the timeline of the texts is critical: the messages expressing affection and stating the act was “not illegal” were sent two days after the alleged incident. In the weeks following, Doe’s account shifted; after being uninvited from a party, she accused the men of “covering [their] asses,” and days later described 90% of the encounter as non-consensual. The specific claim of ketamine involvement remains a central point of contention in the investigation.
The Bottom Line
The release of these texts adds significant complexity to the legal and disciplinary proceedings at Cornell, challenging the prosecution’s narrative of non-consent and incapacitation. As the case moves forward, the discrepancy between Doe’s contemporaneous messages and her later formal allegations will likely be a primary focus for both the defense and the university’s judicial board. The outcome may influence broader campus policies regarding how digital communications are weighed in sexual assault investigations and how the definition of consent is applied in cases involving heavy intoxication.
Readers should note that this story is developing, and the interpretation of these texts remains subject to legal argument and institutional review. The Cornell investigation and potential legal actions will determine the final weight given to this evidence.