Jane Doe: Naming Her Is a Crime in the UK but Legal in America

Content note: This post discusses rape, sexual assault and drugging.

I am Jane Doe. I can actually say that and mean it. I write under a cloak of anonymity with good reason. Over the last week thousands of women in America have been saying exactly the same words on TikTok and Instagram. It's at the very beginning of a movement, and obviously it's not reached MeToo levels yet, but I can see that it might happen. When I first saw these videos I didn't know whether it was specifically about women who'd been sexually assaulted at university, or about women who'd been assaulted in any way, shape or form, so I looked it up, and it turns out it started with one post on X on a Monday night.

For context, in case you've been living under a rock for the past week or so, Jane Doe is currently suing Cornell University and seven former fraternity members, who she says drugged and raped her in 2024. I'm sure you're aware Jane Doe is the name that is used in American courts of law when an identity is to be kept out of the papers. We don't say that here in the UK, we say the complainant. On Monday 28th September 2026 Michael Tracey, who is an American political commentator with about 350,000 followers on X, was desperate to try and find out the identity of this particular Jane Doe. He posted asking his followers if anyone knew who she was, and that they could get in touch with him because he would "be happy to publish her name and identifying information" [1]. And for anyone wondering ‘hang on a minute, that doesn't seem like the right thing to do’, he also went as far as posting that this was "100% permitted under the First Amendment, whatever threats or emotional blackmail people might want to deploy" [1]. Well I'm not going to be sending any threats or emotional blackmail, however I can certainly say that this behaviour is abhorrently vile.

I looked into the rights of victims over there and found that yes, he's right, and in 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that a newspaper can't be punished for printing a rape victim's name so long as it got the name lawfully [4]. Which I was quite surprised about, because over here the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act means that a woman's identity is fully protected from the moment she makes an allegation, for the rest of her life [5]. If any of the media break those rules, it's a criminal offence. That law was introduced in 1976 and also included anonymity for the accused, although Parliament took that part of it away again in 1988. In 2010 the coalition government looked at reintroducing the protection of the accused but found that there was not enough evidence to warrant it [6].

At this point I would expect some people to object and say that she was able to name seven men, so why can't they name her? Well I would argue back that the men get a court, lawyers and a standard of proof, but Jane Doe gets none of that, plus she's on the receiving end of a 350,000-strong witch hunt. Can you even imagine reporting something that has absolutely destroyed you, and knowing that anybody with a big enough following could simply dox all your details the very next morning, and not only that, but that it's legal to do so? It's absolutely no wonder whatsoever that women don't want to report anything, and what a great way for the Patriarchy to encourage them not to.

Within a day of Michael Tracey's request for information the "I am Jane Doe" videos started flooding social media. They appeared on TikTok, Instagram, X and Threads, so that if anyone was trying to search for her or asking AI to find her, there would be thousands of women claiming to be her [2] [3]. Now that is the power of women standing up for women. One video had over six million views [2]. A photographer called Kelsey Combe was quoted as saying "It was to confuse the AI models and stand in solidarity with her" [3]. At this point the AI tools then started naming Kelsey as the Cornell woman, which of course she isn't [3]. It's so many women, of any age, anywhere in the world. We are all Jane Doe. Big up the women of the world, and shame on Cornell University and the district attorney's office.

On 16th September 2026 Jane Doe filed a lawsuit in New York against Cornell University and seven men who were Chi Phi members at the time of the alleged assault [8]. None of them have been charged with anything, two of them deny it through their lawyers and the others haven't said anything [33], and everything that I'm about to describe is what she says happened that night. I don't want to go into any more detail than I have to here. The bottom line is that Jane Doe was 20 years old and she says that on the 19th October 2024 she was pressured into taking drugs and alcohol, became incapacitated and was repeatedly raped by seven of the men over about four hours [8] [9]. Screenshots from the men's group chat during this time included horrific messages such as "Shop still open?" and the reply being "Yea" [9]. These messages were so sickening that the district attorney, who let's remember decided not to charge anyone, called them "disgusting, vulgar" [10].

Jane Doe reported the incident to the Cornell University police about three weeks later. Cornell then started its own investigation, and in the end two of the men were expelled, two were suspended for at least two semesters, one had already graduated and two of them were found not responsible [9]. There have been a lot of posts on social media saying the seven men were asked to write an essay as punishment. This is and isn’t true. The lawsuit says they were given “the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to Cornell” [34]. Cornell themselves have said that “none of the individuals charged were offered the opportunity to write essays as a sole consequence of their involvement” [34]. So if they did write essays, it was merely as a tool to get their punishments reduced.

The district attorney's office never interviewed her. In November 2024 they looked at the six-page campus police summary and her sworn statement and decided that there was no case [12]. And that was it, it was over. Nearly two years later the student paper, the Cornell Daily Sun, spotted that the university was being sued and gave the case the coverage that it needed, with an editorial headline saying "Cornell Won't, We Will" [13]. Thank goodness for student newspapers. No wonder reporting levels are so low if this is the process. The stats in America are pretty grim reading, a bit like ours here in the UK. Over there only about one in five rapes and sexual assaults of female students are ever reported to the police [7].

I can already hear what the frat boys will say, because it’s been said so many times before: that she took the ketamine herself, that she voluntarily went to the frat house at 1am, and what did she expect? Well, interjecting here, I can probably imagine that she didn't expect to be gang raped. They'll also say that she texted one of them two days later saying that none of the sexual stuff was illegal. And I think one of the most telling things they'd likely say is that the group chat was just lads being lads. Now does this ring any bells? Is there a US president who once excused his own words as "locker room banter" [35]? When people in positions of power start normalising and dismissing this kind of behaviour, it sends a message out to every man and boy that it is acceptable. A reminder, it is not acceptable.

I have issues with Cornell because they knew exactly what these fraternity houses were all about. In November 2022 alerts were sent around to students from the campus police about suspected drugging of at least four students at frat parties, plus an incident of sexual assault [14]. The University of course gave this lip service and said that they were "outraged and saddened", and they did actually suspend every frat party for the rest of that term [14]. However the parties came back the following spring, this time with wristbands, guest lists and some half-baked training about consent [14]. Well, none of this clearly worked, because Jane Doe's alleged assault happened 20 months later.

If you're wondering about the text she sent two days later, that is real and CBS News has reported it [9]. Many people, and especially those who have never experienced any kind of sexual violence, might not understand her behaviour at this point. However there's been a lot of research into the behaviour of victims, especially sexual assault victims, and how they process and survive their situation. In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service tells prosecutors that some victims do go back to the suspect after their assaults or send them friendly messages, for a multitude of reasons including lowering the risk of them being raped again or because they want to block out the assault and get back to normal as if nothing had ever happened [36]. The same guidance says that there is no typical response to rape, and that many women go numb or flat and can seem very calm [36]. In the Cornell case ABC News says that she texted him nearly two weeks later saying "Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual", and then she went to the campus police a few days after that [37].

She then told the police that she was 100% certain she had been raped [11]. Let's not forget that these people were her peers. They were people that she would see the following day and the following weeks, and she was trying to carry on with her life holding this huge experience.

I think that fraternity houses don't need to exist anymore. They are a hangover from a bygone era, and until the world is a safer place for women and girls there's very simply no place for them.

The lawsuit that she filed doesn't dispute the fact that she took ketamine, but she explains how she was pressured into it [8]. The district attorney said her sworn statement from 2024 "described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual" [10]. And this is down to a New York penal law which means that you only count as mentally incapacitated if someone gave you the drug, or the drink with it in, without your consent [16]. Therefore even though Jane Doe was pressured into taking the ketamine, because she took it herself she is not covered. New York senators from both parties voted 60 to 0 to change that law in June 2026 [16]. Which is absolutely the right thing to do morally and I'm glad they could see that, however the bill has been stuck in an assembly committee, nothing has been done on it since May, and so nothing has actually changed [16]. As someone living in the UK this seems ludicrous. My brain can't compute why it's so important as to how she became incapacitated, the fact is that she was and she was (allegedly) taken advantage of. Since 2003 the laws here say that you can only consent if you agree by choice and that you have the "freedom and capacity" to make that choice [18]. In 2007 the Court of Appeal went further to specify that if drink or drugs have taken away your capacity to choose then you aren't consenting, and it doesn't matter how you became incapacitated [18]. New York governor Kathy Hochul seems to agree with our way of doing things, because she said last week "If someone is too intoxicated to consent, it should not matter whether they chose to use drugs or alcohol" [17]. Then she took the case off the district attorney and gave it to the state attorney general, Letitia James, as a special prosecutor [17]. The critics at this point dive in and highlight that Hochul is up for re-election on the 3rd of November. Regardless of this fact, as far as I'm concerned, if someone is comatose they shouldn't be having sexual intercourse because they can't consent. And if Kathy Hochul gets re-elected because of it, then all the better.

Then the President got involved. On Thursday 1st October he was asked whether Cornell had done enough to investigate, and he said "Well, I don't know that much about it. But Cornell's a fine school, and I'm sure they'll do what's right" [19]. On the Friday he was asked about Letitia James taking the case, and he said "Letitia James is a corrupt person. She's totally corrupt and I can't imagine it. I feel badly for whoever she's looking at because they won't get a fair shake" [19]. He never mentioned Jane Doe at all. He felt "badly" for seven men accused of gang raping a girl, because he's got a beef with the woman investigating them, and he had a nice word for the college. Both of those things are absolutely abhorrent. I don't know what he's on about with Cornell doing what's right either, because the college didn't do a good job, and he never mentioned the victim, which is just truly awful. His supporters will tell you she really is corrupt, because she was charged with mortgage fraud last year. She was, by his own Justice Department, in October 2025, after she had taken him and his company to court for fraud [20]. A judge threw the charges out in November because the prosecutor, who used to be his personal lawyer, had been appointed unlawfully, and in December two separate grand juries refused to charge her again [21]. The Justice Department is appealing. None of which has anything to do with a 20-year-old in a bedroom in Ithaca.

Many commenters criticise the E. Jean Carroll case by saying it was only a civil court, in New York, and so it has a lower bar. However in May 2023 that jury found that he did sexually abuse her in 1996 and then he defamed her, and she was awarded five million dollars [22]. The judge, Lewis Kaplan, wrote that the jury's finding "does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape'" and that the jury found that he "in fact did exactly that" [22]. And if some people didn't believe Judge Kaplan, three appeal judges upheld it and the Supreme Court refused to even hear it in June this year and then refused again in August [22]. Trump was forced to pay her five million US dollars plus about 800,000 US dollars in interest in July 2026 [22]. Later a second jury awarded her another 83.3 million US dollars in January 2024, because they concluded that Trump defamed her again, a verdict that yet again was upheld in the appeal courts [22]. And let's remember in the Cornell case Trump is the one who is feeling "badly" for the accused!

Now just because things are pretty terrible in the US and we seem to be doing a bit better here in the UK, we shouldn't get too smug, by any stretch of the imagination. In England and Wales, 25.6% of women over the age of 16 (6.3 million) have experienced sexual assault (or attempted assault) and 7.3% have experienced rape or attempted rape [25]. The National Police Chiefs' Council have estimated that, annually, at least one in twelve women is a victim of violence against women and girls (VAWG) [26]. 1 in 12! That's definitely someone you know. At universities in England, almost 20% of final-year women have experienced sexual assault/violence whilst studying, and of all the students who were sexually harassed in the past year only 13% reported it [27]. The Home Office gave the overall charge rate from reported rapes, for the year to March 2025, as just 2.8%, which has since climbed to 5.2% as the slower cases finished [28]. And the reason for the delay on the slower cases? Because on average (median) it took an entirely unacceptable 434 days from reporting to charge [28]. So, although our statute books might be better than those in the US, there is barely any noticeable difference in VAWG. Before anyone comes at me spouting about "all those women making it up", the CPS went through every single case over a 17 month period and found 5,651 prosecutions for rape and just 35 for making a false allegation of rape [29].

So yes, we are Jane Doe. And in the week after that post thousands of women said it, with their faces on camera. Kelsey Combe, the photographer who got mistaken for her, said "So we are all Jane Doe until nobody is" [3]. Cornell's president said in a video on Saturday that "We owe it to Jane Doe and to survivors of assault to get this right" [32], which is two years late. The governor said that at every turn "she was failed by people and institutions with an obligation to protect her" [17]. And I don't think any of us should assume it's any different here, just because our law would have kept her name out of it.

This blog was written and checked on 6th October 2026. As it is a live case, things may have changed since publishing. Please check.

The Receipts // (Sources)

[1] Michael Tracey, X, 28 September 2026. Agence France-Presse, #IAmJaneDoe: online support campaign in US university rape case, 3 October 2026.

[2] USA Today, Rachel Hale, Cornell rape case sparks a viral response. Women say it isn't just Cornell, 2 October 2026.

[3] Associated Press, Deepti Hajela, I am Jane Doe movement on social media supports alleged gang rape victim, 4 October 2026.

[4] Florida Star v B.J.F., United States Supreme Court, 21 June 1989.

[5] Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, section 1.

[6] House of Commons Library, Anonymity for defendants, Key Issues for the 2015 Parliament, May 2015.

[7] United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sofi Sinozich and Lynn Langton, Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995 to 2013, December 2014.

[8] Jane Doe v Cornell University and others, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 16 September 2026.

[9] CBS News, Lucia I. Suarez Sang and Jordan Freiman, Details emerge in case of former Cornell student alleging gang rape by fraternity members, 2 October 2026.

[10] Tompkins County District Attorney, statement, 28 September 2026.

[11] NPR, Jaclyn Diaz and Brian Mann, The Cornell University rape case: the latest updates, 1 October 2026.

[12] ABC News, Aaron Katersky, Josh Margolin, Peter Charalambous and Ivan Pereira, Hochul questions DA in Cornell gang rape case, 2 October 2026. ABC News, 1 October 2026.

[13] Cornell Daily Sun, Cornell Won't, We Will, 21 September 2026. New York Times, Emma Goldberg, 30 September 2026.

[14] Cornell University, Response to recent crime alerts, 7 November 2022. Cornell Daily Sun, Jiwook Jung, 8 November 2022. Cornell Daily Sun, Gabriella Pacitto, 2 February 2023. NPR, Jaclyn Diaz, 9 November 2022.

[15] Not used.

[16] New York Penal Law, sections 130.00 and 130.05. New York State Senate, Bill S10632, June 2026. New York State Assembly, Bill A101, 2026. University Herald, Kareen Williams, 2 October 2026.

[17] Governor Kathy Hochul, statement, 1 October 2026. Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, press conference, 2 October 2026.

[18] Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 74. R v Bree, Court of Appeal, EWCA Crim 804, 27 March 2007.

[19] International Business Times UK, Bernadette B. Tixon, 1 October 2026. The Independent, Trump says I feel badly for accused Cornell gang rapists, 2 October 2026. Raw Story, Erik De La Garza, 2 October 2026. Mediaite, Jennifer Bowers Bahney, 2 October 2026.

[20] People of the State of New York v Trump and others, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 21 September 2022. United States Department of Justice, press release, 9 October 2025.

[21] NBC News, 24 November 2025. Associated Press, Alanna Durkin Richer and Michael Kunzelman, Justice Department fails twice to re-indict New York Attorney General James, 11 December 2025.

[22] Carroll v Trump, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 19 July 2023. Carroll v Trump, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 30 December 2024 and 8 September 2025. United States Supreme Court, docket 25-573, 29 June 2026 and 17 August 2026. ABC News, 9 July 2026.

[23] Not used.

[24] Not used.

[25] Office for National Statistics, Sexual offences in England and Wales overview, year ending March 2025, and Sexual offences victim characteristics, year ending March 2025, 4 November 2025.

[26] National Police Chiefs' Council and College of Policing, National Policing Statement 2024 for Violence Against Women and Girls, July 2024.

[27] Office for Students, Sexual Misconduct Survey 2025, 25 September 2025.

[28] Home Office, Crime outcomes in England and Wales 2025 to 2026, 23 July 2026.

[29] Crown Prosecution Service, Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases Involving Allegedly False Rape and Domestic Violence Allegations, March 2013.

[30] Not used.

[31] Not used.

[32] CBS New York, Allen Devlin, 4 October 2026.

[33] Associated Press, Leah Willingham, 1 October 2026.

[34] Associated Press, Dave Collins and John Seewer, 28 September 2026.

[35] Donald J. Trump, campaign statement on the Access Hollywood recording, 7 October 2016.

[36] Crown Prosecution Service, Rape and Sexual Offences, Annex A: Tackling Rape Myths and Stereotypes.

[37] ABC News, 2 October 2026.