An upstate district attorney on Monday exposed lurid new details about a Cornell University student’s alleged fraternity gang rape — blaming his extraordinary move on people flooding his office with phone calls.

The seamy disturbing details were gleaned from a six-page statement that the “Jane Doe” accuser submitted to campus police in November 2024, about a week after she claimed seven Chi Phi fraternity brothers drugged and raped her during an hours-long gang assault at their Ithaca house.

Embattled Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten — in releasing parts of her statement — insisted it provided no claims of criminal misconduct, leaving his office no choice but to pass on bringing any charges against the accused frat bros at the time.

He said over the weekend — under intense public pressure — that he is now reopening the investigation only because of a civil suit she filed against the young men and school that provided alleged details his office did not know about.

Van Houten’s statement Monday provided an excruciatingly detailed account of what the alleged victim said happened to her.

“Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a ‘quiet area’ and ‘asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners,’” his office wrote, quoting the woman’s police report, which described how she met up with “Male 1” at his fraternity after a night at the bars.

“Doe ‘agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness,’” it continued.

“When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe ‘remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.’”

From there, the night descended into a scene of shocking bacchanal, with the group snorting ketamine off each other’s naked bodies and guzzling booze as they had sex — with some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving as they tried not to vomit, her statement said.

“At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as ‘5 or 6 out of 10’ and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome,’” the statement said.

Later, another brother tried to get in the room, with Doe letting him in “because it was his room,” before they and Male 2 allegedly started having sex alongside the passed-out Male 1.

“‘[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up’ and ‘said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No,’” Jane Doe rejected this request ‘because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex,’” the DA said, continuing to quote Doe’s statement.

Other men then began also entering the room, where Doe said she was beginning to lose track of what was happening in her deepening intoxication from the drugs and booze.

“‘[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].’ Male Number 7 apologized and ‘grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe ‘quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her],’” the statement said.

“The males began complimenting Jane Doe and ‘talking about how pretty [she] was.’ Male Number 4 ‘asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.’ Jane Doe responded, ‘Sure.’

“Jane Doe ‘remembered snorting more Ketamine’ and ‘remembered feeling extremely high.’ Male Number 1 ‘said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night,’” the statement said.

“Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, ‘What happened to just you and me?’ Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome.”

The disturbing night finally ended 5:45 a.m. — about four hours after it started — when the woman described herself as being an 8 out of 10′ intoxication level and she said she told the brothers she “was tired and needed to turn in.

“At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember,” the DA’s statement concluded.

DA Van Houten insisted nothing about Doe’s comments indicated a crime had been committed — saying there was no physically forced sex, that all drugs and alcohol were taken on the then-20-year-old’s own volition and that she never claimed to have been unconscious and helpless at any point.

“Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped,” Van Houten said. “On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.

“While the behavior of certain Chi Phi fraternity members was without question disgusting and morally reprehensible, the foundation of the criminal justice system is that criminal prosecutions must be based upon evidence and not emotion,” he added.

Exactly what crime was alleged, Van Houten did not clarify. But he said the Cornell University Police Department brought Doe’s statement to his office “to determine if her allegations constituted a crime under New York law.”

After Van Houten determined there was no crime, he said neither the woman nor her lawyer ever reached out for clarification.

But now she’s submitted a lawsuit against the seven fraternity brothers — Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris, Scott Kretzschmar and Matthew Ingalls — claiming she was clearly incapacitated and taken advantage of during the assault.

That lawsuit even revealed a damning text chain among the fraternity brothers — where one said there was “free p–sy,” and another remarked, “You can walk in a whip it out.”

She also claimed most of the fraternity brothers were let off the hook by Cornell — which reportedly allowed them to “mitigate their conduct by submitting essays.”

Van Houten said he released part of her police statement to quell the flood of enraged phone calls and emails his office had been receiving since news broke about the case.

“Some people have understandably sought answers. Others have simply insulted and sometimes threatened my office and my staff,” Van Houton said. 

“The community outrage stemming from the incomplete news and social media coverage requires that I provide an answer to why the investigation resulted in a lack of criminal charges,” he added.

Seasoned former prosecutors told The Post that Van Houten’s move to release such a lengthy statement — and verbatim excerpts from a victim statement — was highly unusual.

“I’ve never seen that before,” said Julie Rendelman, who tackled murders and sex crimes during her two decades as a Brooklyn prosecutor.

Former prosecutor Seth Zuckerman agreed, saying, “To release such a detailed statement before charging anyone is highly unusual.

“I was trying to think of when a prosecutor has come out during an investigation and provided specific details or statements a potential victim in a sex crime case had made,” Rendelman said. “The whole thing is very strange.”

Rendelman said she understands how the DA may have wanted to better explain his decision-making process to the public, but  “I’m not so sure that providing the details of the victim’s statements verbatim needed to be done.”

Zuckerman said, “He is clearly trying to contain the public-relations nightmare.

“It’s highly unusual. But I don’t think he’s done anything unethical,” the lawyer said.

Rendelman added, “Sex crimes are unique cases.

“The natural thing a prosecutor would do is to say: ‘Can we bring her in? I want to understand this better. I want to hear from her.’

“It’s incredibly odd to ever bring out the statements of a complainant in almost any scenario. But certainly when you’re dealing with the victim of a potential sex crime and you’re hoping for fair and impartial members of the community to listen to the grand jury,” Rendelman said. “It seems quite at odds with that.”

But either way, Zuckerman said the initial victim statement will prove to be a problem for both criminal and civil proceedings.

“If I were the defense attorney on this case, I would just point to this initial statement, and that’s reasonable doubt right there,” he said.

Cornell later clarified that some of the students accused were expelled — and called the victim “irresponsible” for claiming any of the brothers got off the hook easy.

“A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault,’’ Cornell said in a statement.

Additional reporting by Peter Senzamici