Accused Cornell Frat Bro's Lawyer Says He Never Touched Alleged Gang Rape Victim
Alleged Cornell Gang Rape Frat Bro's Lawyer Denies Sexual Contact
Published
One of the seven Cornell fraternity brothers accused in a gang rape lawsuit made an "immature" comment in the group's Snapchat, but that's where his involvement begins and ends ... at least according to his lawyer.
Jeremy Saland, attorney for defendant Scott Kretzschmar, tells TMZ ... Scott was not even present when the alleged assault occurred ... and he had already left after spending only a few minutes in the room and checking whether the woman was okay.
Saland says ... "While Scott responded to and made an immature comment on Snapchat, he did nothing else. Nothing."
The attorney says Scott never saw the woman naked or in distress, never touched her, never engaged in sexual activity, and did not consume ketamine.
Saland also points to a hair follicle test he says proves Scott had not taken the drug ... claiming the accuser and her attorneys knew about the result before filing what he calls a "fraudulent action."
The lawyer says the complaint was written to make it appear Scott was accused of rape, while the specific allegation against him -- buried deeper in the filing -- is that he allegedly snorted ketamine off the woman's body. Saland denies that happened, too.
As TMZ reported, the lawsuit claims seven Chi Phi members drugged the woman with ketamine and sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious. It alleges one member summoned others upstairs by posting in the fraternity's Snapchat group that there was "free p***y."
The Tompkins County D.A. has since reopened the criminal case ... saying the lawsuit presents a "dramatically different" account from what the woman originally told police.
Saland says Scott welcomes the renewed investigation and predicts it will end the same way the first one did -- without charges against him.
The lawyer compared the public reaction to the infamous Duke lacrosse case ... urging people to "cast aside the pitchforks of prejudgment."
Saland says ... "Again, we understand the politics and pressure behind the DA's 'new' investigation, but it will lead to the same conclusion about Scott's innocence. Other than the online mob devoid of facts who have viciously lashed out, Scott has no reason for concern. To many of them, as well as plaintiff and her counsel, Scott is simply disposable collateral damage to this dishonest narrative. Remember, even if someone was a victim by others, two wrongs do not make a right, and the plaintiff does not have the moral authority to victimize Scott. Scott will address this misconduct not if, but when he is exonerated and vindicated."
