The narrative initially presented a united front against 'boring' rumor-mongers, with both parties seemingly agreeing that the sexual encounter was a consensual matter of 'body autonomy' ruined by jealous onlookers.
The real tea? The alliance crumbled instantly when Jane Doe was uninvited to the frat’s Halloween party. She went from 'we’re in this together' to 'y’all aren’t my friends' in a single text thread, accusing them of covering their asses.
On Oct 23, Jane texted Matthew: 'bro everyone knows✌️i'm incredibly stressed out.' By Nov 7, Matthew asked if she labeled him an 'assaulter,' and by Nov 8, Jane cut him off: 'i think i'm done talking to you. i know you lied.'
This isn’t just a scandal; it’s a masterclass in how quickly 'we’re in this together' turns into 'I’m suing you' when the PR damage control fails.
If you thought campus gossip was juicy, the newly obtained text chains between Cornell’s Jane Doe and alleged perpetrator Matthew Ingalls are serving up a five-course meal of betrayal and confusion. TMZ reports that in the immediate aftermath of the alleged assault, Jane wasn’t just traumatized—she was in full detective mode, actively collaborating with one of the men she would later sue to identify who was leaking the story. The dynamic was bizarrely cooperative, with Ingalls comforting Jane over her stress and even blaming 'stupid bitches' who 'like to yap' for spreading the rumors.
It paints a picture of two people trying to manage a PR crisis together, with Jane even expressing openness about the sexual encounter itself, noting that 'sexuality and sex... is changing' and that they shouldn't feel shame. The texts reveal a frantic effort to pinpoint the source of the leak. Jane accused Jonathan Newell, another man named in the suit, of talking about their 'three-way' at a sorority gathering.
Ingalls refuted this, insisting 'it was definitely one of the upperclassmen in the room' and swearing that Jonathan 'would never' talk. They spent days trading theories about 'rats in the room' and 'jealous' students, with Ingalls assuring Jane that her reputation wasn't destroyed and that the only shame was how much people wouldn't shut up. For a moment, it looked like a unified front against the court of public opinion, with Jane even mentioning she felt 'utterly ashamed' but also 'f***ing pissed' about the spread of information.
But the tone shifted from supportive to hostile with the speed of a light switch. The catalyst? The Halloween party.
Jane revealed she was 'uninvited' by the fraternity president, a move that seemingly broke the dam. Her language instantly hardened: 'i knew this was going to happen. the woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren't my friends. yall are covering your asses.' This wasn’t just disappointment; it was a realization that the 'team' she was working with was actually building a defense strategy against her.
The warmth of Ingalls’ earlier 'my ex told me...' check-in turned into a tense interrogation about whether she had labeled him an 'assaulter' in the public eye. The final blow came on November 8, when Ingalls asked to talk, and Jane’s response was a definitive 'no. never again.' She accused him of lying, effectively ending their brief, strange collaboration. This text chain serves as a critical receipt in the evolving narrative: on November 3, Jane had already told Jonathan that '90% of what happened that night was not consensual.' The disconnect between her initial openness in texts with Ingalls ('our body our choice asf') and her later legal stance creates a complex, messy portrait of a victim trying to navigate shame, blame, and survival in real-time. The receipts show a woman who tried to fix the narrative with the accused, only to realize the accused were busy protecting themselves.
