Cornell University has confirmed that its disciplinary process following the alleged 2024 incident at the Chi Phi fraternity resulted in both suspensions and expulsions. Attorneys for the woman who filed the subsequent civil lawsuit have said that two of the seven accused students were expelled.
Cornell, however, has not publicly identified them.
That leaves an obvious question: Can the available evidence tell us who the two expelled students were?
There is no definitive answer yet. Cornell’s individual disciplinary findings remain private, and allegations in a civil complaint should not be treated as established facts. But the lawsuit, public statements from several defendants, Cornell directory information and subsequent reporting provide enough information to examine which students appear to have faced the most serious allegations — and which two currently stand out as the most plausible candidates for expulsion.
The question has taken on greater significance since Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten reopened the criminal investigation.
Van Houten acknowledges that his office did not independently investigate the case in 2024 and instead relied on Cornell University Police. He has also said there is no indication the seven accused men were interviewed by police at the time, according to reporting about the reopened investigation.
That raises legitimate questions about the thoroughness of the original criminal review, particularly because Cornell subsequently conducted its own much more extensive disciplinary investigation and imposed significant sanctions. It does not, however, establish why prosecutors handled the case as they did or what conclusions a renewed criminal investigation will reach.
Ranking the Seven by the Seriousness of the Lawsuit’s Allegations
One way to approach the expulsion question is to look strictly at the seriousness and extent of the conduct alleged against each defendant in the 2026 civil complaint.
This is not a ranking of actual guilt or legal culpability. The allegations remain contested, and Cornell may have reached very different factual conclusions after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence unavailable to the public.
Based solely on the allegations contained in the complaint, however, the seven roughly break down this way:
| Rank | Defendant | What the complaint specifically alleges |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Matthew Ingalls | Doe allegedly went to Chi Phi to meet him; he allegedly proposed the threesome, pressured her to take ketamine and supplied intoxicants, initiated sexual activity without consent, participated in the ketamine-on-body episode, and later allegedly took her with Lee into another room and sexually assaulted her while the complaint says she was completely incapacitated. The Cornell Daily Sun |
| 2 | Johnathan Newell | Allegedly pressured her to take ketamine/alcohol, had sex with her without consent, participated in another alleged assault with Lopes, sent the Snapchat invitation about “free pussy” upstairs, allegedly ordered her to take more ketamine, and participated in the group ketamine incident. His alleged role is nearly as extensive as Ingalls’s and is additionally significant because the complaint portrays him as helping bring other fraternity members into the situation. The Cornell Daily Sun |
| 3 | Winston Lee | Allegedly participated in the group ketamine incident and then, with Ingalls, took Doe into another room, gave her more ketamine and sexually assaulted her while the complaint describes her as completely incapacitated. Cornell Seven |
| 4 | Gillio Lopes | Allegedly entered during the earlier encounter, participated with Newell in nonconsensual sexual activity, and later participated in the group ketamine incident. His attorney unequivocally denies the allegations and says the allegations now being made differ from those Cornell previously investigated. The Cornell Daily Sun |
| 5 | Diego Sarabia | Allegedly entered after the group-chat message while Doe was hiding under the covers, grabbed her face and kissed her, was pushed away, and later participated in the alleged ketamine-on-body conduct. The complaint’s individualized allegations against him are substantially narrower than those against the first four. The Cornell Daily Sun |
| 6–7 | Scott Norris / Scott Kretzschmar | The complaint principally places both in the group ketamine episode and Snapchat activity rather than alleging the same individualized sexual conduct described for Ingalls, Newell, Lee or Lopes. Both dispute the allegations. The Cornell Daily Sun |
Again, this ordering reflects only what the civil complaint alleges. It does not tell us what Cornell’s disciplinary panel ultimately believed.
Norris Says Cornell Cleared Him of the Most Serious Allegations
There is additional information concerning the two defendants at the bottom of that list that complicates the expulsion question.
Scott Norris says Cornell itself did not find him responsible for the sexual-activity or drug-use allegations.
Norris acknowledges participating in Snapchat conversations and briefly entering the room but says he did not participate in sexual activity or drug use. That remains his account, but his specific assertion about Cornell’s disciplinary finding is notable because it potentially gives us a glimpse into how the university differentiated among the seven defendants.
Scott Kretzschmar’s attorney has likewise said Kretzschmar never touched Doe or used ketamine and has pointed to a hair-follicle test that allegedly showed no ketamine use.
Those are defense claims and have not been established through the civil litigation. But when trying to reconstruct Cornell’s disciplinary outcomes, they are relevant pieces of the public record.
Cornell’s Directory Creates Another Clue
There is also the students’ current Cornell status.
Winston Lee and Gillio Lopes are currently listed as Cornell students. Diego Sarabia is listed as an alumnus. Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Scott Norris and Scott Kretzschmar have “not applicable” college affiliations, and the Cornell Daily Sun reported that it could not determine their current academic status.
That creates one of the most interesting discrepancies in the available evidence.
If the allegations in the civil lawsuit were our only evidence, Lee would appear to be an obvious candidate for one of Cornell’s harshest sanctions. The complaint alleges that he and Ingalls committed the final assault after Doe had become completely incapacitated.
Yet Lee apparently remains a Cornell student.
If that directory information accurately reflects his status, several explanations are possible. Cornell’s panel may not have accepted that portion of the allegation, may have found materially different facts after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, or may have imposed a serious punishment short of expulsion.
Whatever the explanation, it demonstrates why the civil complaint cannot simply be substituted for Cornell’s confidential disciplinary findings.
Ingalls and Newell Stand Out
So who were the two expelled students?
We still do not know.
But if we combine the severity of the allegations with the limited circumstantial evidence about current Cornell status, two names stand out more strongly than the others:
Matthew Ingalls and Johnathan Newell.
That is a hypothesis, not a confirmed fact.
The case for Ingalls is straightforward: the lawsuit places him at the center of the events from beginning to end and alleges some of the most serious individual conduct in the complaint. At the same time, he no longer appears with a normal Cornell college affiliation.
The case for Newell is similar. The complaint alleges extensive involvement in both the drug use and sexual activity and attributes to him the Snapchat message inviting other fraternity members upstairs. He likewise does not currently appear with a normal Cornell college affiliation.
Taken together, those facts make Ingalls and Newell the most plausible two-name hypothesis based on what is publicly available.
The remaining defendants present more complications:
Winston Lee: The lawsuit contains extremely serious allegations against him, but he currently appears to remain enrolled at Cornell.
Gillio Lopes: Faces serious allegations in the lawsuit, but also currently appears to remain enrolled.
Diego Sarabia: Faces narrower individualized allegations and appears to have subsequently graduated from Cornell.
Scott Norris: Faces narrower allegations and specifically says Cornell did not find him responsible for the sexual-activity or drug-use allegations.
Scott Kretzschmar: Faces comparatively narrower individualized allegations and, through his attorney, has strongly disputed both physical participation and ketamine use.
For those reasons, Ingalls and Newell currently appear to be the strongest candidates for the two reported expulsions.
But there should be a large asterisk beside that conclusion.
Cornell’s disciplinary investigators and hearing panel possessed evidence the public has never seen. They heard testimony, evaluated credibility and apparently reached individualized findings concerning each student. Those findings could differ substantially from the narrative presented in the subsequent civil lawsuit.
What Could Finally Answer the Question
The reopened criminal investigation may eventually provide the evidence needed to resolve this.
The district attorney is seeking records connected to Cornell’s Title IX investigation. If those materials are obtained and later become public through criminal proceedings, the civil lawsuit or related court filings, they could reveal far more than simply who was expelled.
They could show which allegations Cornell actually substantiated against each defendant.
That distinction is crucial. The civil lawsuit tells us what Doe alleges happened. Statements from defendants tell us how they contest those allegations. Cornell’s confidential disciplinary findings would tell us what an institution that investigated the incident for months and conducted a formal hearing ultimately concluded was more likely than not to have occurred.
Until those records emerge, identifying the expelled students remains an exercise in inference rather than certainty.
But based on the evidence currently available, Matthew Ingalls and Johnathan Newell are the two names that most clearly fit the known circumstances.
That may change as Cornell’s disciplinary records, grand-jury evidence or additional court filings become public. For now, they remain the strongest — but still unconfirmed — hypothesis.