香港10月2日——美國康乃爾大學輪姦案引起各界譁然，提出民事訴訟的女事主化名「Jane Doe」。有記者請求民眾報料起底，引發互聯網羣起聲援事主。上至演員下至無名網民，紛紛發文：「我是Jane Doe。」
崔史表示，希望公開事主身分，讓公眾評估她是否誠實，況且事主的民事訴訟毫不猶疑便「指名道姓羞辱」七名涉案者。
崔史徵求線報的貼文有逾650萬人次瀏覽，多名網友表示震驚和不滿。
美國傳媒報導，名人與網民紛紛加入聲援事主的行列。
美國女喜劇演員兼編劇岡塚敦子在Threads發文：「我們是Jane Doe。」岡塚敦子是臺日混血兒，生於臺灣，長於加州洛杉磯，曾獲媒體列於「洛杉磯十大必看喜劇演員」。
 |
| 美國喜劇演員岡塚敦子發文聲援康乃爾輪姦案事主｜tony網誌／Tony Tse |
女作家兼短影音網紅潔西雅．連（Jaysea Lynn）在Threads發文：「他們想起底Jane Doe嗎？好哦，我就是康乃爾的Jane Doe。Jane Doe就是潔西雅．連。」潔西雅在抖音海外版（TikTok）擁有逾180萬粉絲，其Threads帳號亦有近6.4萬人追蹤。
男網紅米高．斯瑞茲（Mychal Threets）在Instagram發文：「我是Jane Doe。不要讓他們起底Jane Doe。」
 |
| 康乃爾大學是長春籐名校｜維基共享資源／Eustress |
據報，大批網民「洗版」發布貼文和影片自稱是Jane Doe，因為他們相信這樣能擾亂社交媒體的演算法，令真正的起底資訊「石沉大海」。
Jane Doe（女性）和John Doe（男性）實為「無名氏」之意，多用於英國、美國和加拿大等地的司法系統，用來稱呼身分不明或身分須保密的人士。
紐約州眾議員雅麗珊．奧卡西奧—科爾特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez）、演員凱特．海西（Kate Casey）、喜劇演員史提夫．賀夫斯特（Steve Hofstetter）、作家歌蓮．尼高斯（Colleen Nichols）以及藝人祖斯．蓋德（Josh Gad）等人也加入了聲援事主的行列。
 |
| Chi Phi兄弟會康乃爾分會會址｜維基共享資源 |
事緣事主上月16日入稟法院，指2024年10月在康乃爾大學求學期間，在Chi Phi兄弟會遭七男強姦。七男被揭發未曾面臨刑事檢控，美國舉國譁然。
紐約州湯普金斯縣地方檢控官馬修．梵豪滕（Matthew Van Houten）星期一宣布重啓調查，同時公開事主當年的口供，指事主今昔説法「大相徑庭」，當年聲稱自願。《紐約時報》星期四（1日）跟進報導指，《時報》獲得的文件顯示，事主曾明確表示同意與其中一人性交，其後遭多人強姦，但警方報吿遺漏了這一點，導致檢控官當時認為證據不足而沒有落案起訴。受此事困擾，事主已經退學。
崔史聲稱已起底 惟其後刪除貼文
【10月3日凌晨12時10分更新】崔史其後發文表示「已經將事主起底」，惟其後刪除了相關貼文。他表示，絕不容忍他人提出聳人聽聞、轟動社會、毀人聲譽的指控，同時卻獲得永久匿名保護的做法。能夠表明此立場，其目的即已達成。
崔史又表示，不相信事主是案中「主要反派」，他把主要責任歸咎於那些唯利是圖、操縱傳媒、行為卑鄙的律師，指控他們把事件當作搖錢樹。崔史續指，他不希望對事主造成更大負面影響，因此刪除原先的起底貼文。他呼籲各界莫再「人格謀殺」事主、七名涉案者以及任何人。
本網未能獨立證實，崔史早前有否發布事主的起底資訊，或確實的貼文內容。
After identifying Jane Doe earlier tonight, I have now removed the information I published. Why? Because the principle has been served: to underscore that permanently anonymizing litigants who make sensational, spectacular, reputation-destroying claims about others -- so long as they can self-declare some form of victimization -- cannot be countenanced. It's destructive, and an egregious abuse of the legal system by huckster plaintiff's lawyers. This practice has to end. Lawyers who seek to monetize this sleazy tactic should have to think A LOT HARDER about the claims they're willing to throw out into the public domain, using impressionable clients who may not even know what they're getting themselves into. So why have I now removed her information? Because I don't believe she's the main "villain" here. I primarily blame the bottom-feeding, media-manipulating, sleazebag lawyers who've made a whole cash-grab industry out of this racket. Thomas Giuffra in particular has a lot to answer for. He's the central reason for the current debacle. Given the intense nationwide and global interest in this case, I don't want to bring any further negative attention to this woman. I don't believe she ought to be punished or subjected to any retribution or humiliation. I believe a RATIONAL solution is necessary here. Not more character assassination -- of her, the seven young men, or anyone else. Truly, that is my genuine view. I also recognize there are unique factors that must be taken into account given the hugely outsized publicity of this case. So that's why I have removed the information. The aforementioned principle has been served: eroding the premise that anyone who claims any form of victimization is entitled to permanent anonymity, even as their lawyer(s) use the courts -- aided by a compliant media -- to name & shame others for the most heinous of crimes. No matter how lacking in credibility their own claims might be, or contradicted by mountains of other evidence. That's all I ever sought to accomplish here. Not to impugn this young woman on a personal level. I have no animus toward her, and never have. I sincerely wish her the best, and hope her life is not defined by this calamity. I completely stand by the accuracy of what I reported as to Jane Doe's identity. This is not a retraction -- it's an independent discretionary judgment I alone have made. No lawyers or anyone else have influenced this decision.
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 2, 2026
