Latest / L3G4L / BOTCHED: Six Pages no Charges, What the DA left out of the Cornell 7 Case

Transcript

BOTCHED: Six Pages no Charges, What the DA left out of the Cornell 7 Case · L3G4L

0:00
Cornell University Police Department and New
0:02
York District Attorney Matthew Van Houten's office
0:05
botched the case right out of the gate. They
0:07
did such a bad job of handling Jane Doe's rape
0:10
allegations that it opens the issue. We're outside
0:13
forces at play. This is L3G4L Special Investigation
0:17
with Ed Lyman in Los Angeles. This program is
0:21
intended for mature audiences only. It contains
0:23
sensitive subject matter and adult language.
0:26
While your host is a licensed attorney. The information
0:28
provided is for educational and entertainment
0:30
purposes only and does not constitute legal advice,
0:33
a legal opinion, or create an attorney -client
0:36
relationship. To understand how the district
0:45
attorney's office worked with the police department
0:47
and they jointly botched this case, all you need
0:51
to do is look at two documents. And that's the
0:54
focus of this episode. We don't even need to
0:56
go out there to a... larger universe of documents
0:59
or facts. The first document is a six -page narrative
1:02
that a police officer wrote after interviewing
1:05
Jane Doe. It was written in first person as if
1:09
the officer was Jane Doe. Then he gave her the
1:12
opportunity to review it. She made some changes,
1:15
about 20 different handwritten notes on it, and
1:18
signed it under penalty of perjury and turned
1:20
it back into the police department. In turn,
1:23
police sent that six -page statement. over to
1:26
the district attorney Matthew Van Houten's office
1:29
to have prosecutors there analyze it and determine
1:33
whether they thought a crime had occurred. They
1:35
read it and said, nah, we don't see anything
1:38
here in the allegations that would show a crime
1:41
had occurred. So that was it. That was the end
1:43
of the police investigation and no charges went
1:46
forward, obviously. Jane Doe had signed that
1:49
narrative on November 15th, 2024. So all this
1:54
time goes by for a couple of years. Nothing happens
1:56
with the case in terms of law enforcement. Then
1:59
in September 2026, Jane Doe files a civil lawsuit
2:03
against Cornell University, her sorority, the
2:07
fraternity, the fraternity members whom she alleges
2:10
had raped her, and a couple of different bars
2:13
and some other people. Once her civil lawsuit
2:16
gained some traction in the media, put a lot
2:20
of pressure on the district attorney's office.
2:23
People were really questioning why the hell did
2:25
you not prosecute these individuals for the alleged
2:30
rapes? So now here's a second document that I
2:34
think we need to focus in on just to show how
2:37
badly botched this stuff is. So the second document
2:40
was a public statement, a written public statement
2:44
released by District Attorney Matthew Van Houten
2:49
on September 28th, 2026. So adding insult to
2:54
injury, to himself anyway, probably should have
2:57
just been quiet about the whole thing. This document
3:00
really shows something wrong. Talk about covering
3:04
one's ass. All right, so let's go back now. I'm
3:08
going to start with the first document. That's
3:11
when Jane Doe goes to the police department.
3:14
She's interviewed at length. I believe there's
3:16
a Title IX investigator there, a victim advocate.
3:20
And some other type of advisor for her, the information
3:22
I have, I don't know who that was. I don't know
3:24
that it was an attorney. So essentially, she's
3:27
in the police department for several hours, bleeding
3:29
her heart out, explaining what had happened to
3:31
her on the 19th and 20th of October. And at this
3:35
point, it's, well, she had reported this to the
3:39
police on November 8th. And then they do the
3:43
full -on interview with her on November 14th,
3:46
2024. So then one of the officers types up a
3:50
six -page single -spaced narrative in first person
3:54
as if he is her and gives it to her. She reviews
3:58
it and she takes it home overnight, writes a
4:03
bunch of notes on it, then signs it and gives
4:06
it back to the police department. Now, I'm going
4:08
to read to you or at least summarize for you
4:12
some of the most salient points I see. in this
4:15
six -page statement. I've also got it posted
4:18
on my website, l3g4l .com. Some of the crazier
4:22
things about this statement, which was written
4:24
by a cop, are that it's cop talk. 20 -year -old
4:28
sophomore in college does not write like this.
4:31
For example, an unknown individual, or then proceeded
4:36
to, or ranking your level of intoxication at
4:41
any given moment during the night. on a scale
4:44
of 1 to 10. That's not what you would write in
4:48
a statement. They really shouldn't have done
4:50
this statement in the first place. They should
4:53
have just wheeled her in to testify in front
4:55
of a grand jury about what had happened and let
4:58
the grand jury decide. To get these guys charged
5:01
with a crime, all they need to show is reasonable
5:03
cause to believe a crime had occurred. That's
5:06
all they're going to do when they go to the grand
5:09
jury. Convince the grand jury. Here's her testimony.
5:12
We'll put her on the stand. She could testify
5:15
about what happened. We've got some witnesses.
5:17
We've got some text messages. We've got some
5:19
other information here. Then ask the grand jury,
5:22
do you think there's reasonable cause to believe
5:25
that any one of these gentlemen had committed
5:27
a crime? There was no reason to lock Jane Doe
5:32
down into a written statement in the first place
5:35
under penalty of perjury. And whoever wrote it,
5:39
what were they thinking? It discusses a lot of
5:42
Jane Doe's opinions, which are totally irrelevant
5:45
in front of a jury. For example, she felt like
5:47
coercion or they should have known what they
5:51
were doing. Statements like that, they're conclusory.
5:55
You don't need that. The statement that should
5:57
have been written should have just stuck to the
5:59
facts. We don't want Jane Doe to be explaining
6:02
what she believes occurred in terms of the law.
6:05
We just need to know her account of the facts
6:07
on the timeline. Don't tell us that you felt
6:10
coerced. Tell us the facts that prove coercion.
6:14
What do they say? What do they not say? What
6:16
do they do or not do? Tell us the facts that
6:19
we need to prove the crime. For example, in New
6:22
York, first -degree rape requires proof that,
6:25
in male, female situation anyway, that the penis
6:28
had made contact with a vagina, oral contact,
6:32
or anal contact. And also have to prove a lack
6:36
of consent. such as, did any of these men force
6:40
themselves on her? Was she physically helpless?
6:43
Was she mentally incapacitated? Did she have
6:46
a mental disability? Did she temporarily lack
6:50
capacity because somebody had poisoned her with
6:52
narcotics or an intoxicating substance? For third
6:56
-degree rape, any of those will suffice, but
6:58
you could also prove that you clearly expressed
7:01
a lack of consent by using words, for example,
7:04
no or stop. So the cop that's writing this should
7:08
know these elements of the crime and be filling
7:11
out facts that show that crime occurred. Not
7:14
describing the elements, but describing the facts,
7:18
such as was there vaginal contact, was there
7:20
oral contact, with whom, when, what was said.
7:25
In this Jane Doe narrative, there's a lot of
7:28
mentions of not remembering what happened next.
7:32
But you don't see a lot of facts such as what
7:34
happened right before that moment when you stopped
7:38
remembering things. What was your physical state?
7:42
Who said what? What's the very next thing you
7:46
remembered happened after your memory goes? So
7:50
I'm going to summarize, I'm going to do my best
7:52
to summarize some of the most salient points
7:55
from this police written narrative that Jane
7:59
Doe signed. And while I'm describing what is
8:03
in this written narrative, and while I'm going
8:06
over this, play along with me. You know, take
8:09
a listen and see if you can determine whether
8:11
any of these allegations amount to a crime. Here's
8:15
some of the things you didn't know, all right?
8:17
October 9th, this is 10 days before the alleged
8:21
rape occurs, Jane Doe and her brother went over
8:24
to the frat house, to the Chi Phi frat house,
8:29
that is. And they were hanging out with a couple
8:31
of guys there. And some of those frat members
8:33
offered her ketamine. They pulled out a bag of
8:36
ketamine. At that time, she said, no, she didn't
8:37
want any. It's not her speed. That's what she
8:40
put. And just a reminder, all the facts I'm discussing
8:43
right now are solely from Jane Doe's statement,
8:47
signed statement that was written by the officer.
8:49
I'm not going to open it up and expand it beyond
8:51
that universe because I don't need to, to show
8:54
you how badly they botched this. So that was
8:59
October 9th. She refuses to do ketamine with
9:02
them. Her and her brother leave, whatever. Fast
9:05
forward now 10 days, October 19th. She's working
9:09
out in the evening around 5 .30 p .m. at Gold's
9:13
Gym, and somebody breaks into her car, steals
9:16
her wallet, so she doesn't have her license,
9:18
her wallet, all the identification stuff that
9:20
she needs. And that's concerning to her because
9:23
she's supposed to be a sober monitor that night
9:26
for... her sorority, the Tri -Deltas. It's going
9:30
to be a very special night for the Tri -Deltas.
9:33
They were having their date night at the bar,
9:36
Mooney's Bar, and Jane Doe is supposed to be
9:39
a sober monitor. But when her car's broken into
9:42
at Gold's Gym, she reports it to the police and
9:45
she goes on a Snapchat and texts out to everybody,
9:48
you know, her close friends, stuff like that,
9:50
people, sorority sisters, she texts to them what's
9:54
going on. So instead of her being a sober monitor
9:58
the sorority girls, figure they'll find somebody
10:01
else in her place because she's really dealing
10:03
with a lot of stress. By the time Jane Doe gets
10:06
back to the sorority house, a lot of the girls
10:08
had already left to the bar. Jane Doe recalls
10:12
having about six shots of alcohol, alcoholic
10:15
beverages, maybe a couple more mixed drinks there
10:17
at the Tri -Delta house. And she finds her way
10:21
over to the bar a little bit later than the other
10:23
girls. But since she doesn't have to be a sober
10:25
monitor, obviously she can drink. She gets to
10:28
the Mooney's bar. At some point she borrows a
10:32
friend's credit card. He gives it to her so that
10:36
she can go to the bar and buy a drink. She says
10:39
she bought a sex on the beach, which she believed
10:41
had two shots of alcohol in it. They didn't check
10:44
the stamp on her hand that said she's under 21.
10:47
She leaves there, goes to another bar with a
10:50
friend. for a little bit of time, then ends up
10:52
at the fraternity house. She walks about a mile
10:55
to get there. She wanted to go visit Matthew
10:58
Engel, who's one of her friends. They had been
11:02
planning to meet up that night for about a week,
11:04
I think. It starts with the first threesome.
11:06
That's when Engels asks Jane Doe for a threesome.
11:10
She asks him with who, and he said, well, go
11:13
find somebody. Then he went up to look for different
11:16
people, and Jane Doe went upstairs with somebody
11:19
else. and some time had passed. Meanwhile, Ingalls
11:22
went down a long hallway and into a room. Then
11:25
Ingalls came back to get Jane Doe and brought
11:28
her to that room. Jonathan Newell was sitting
11:32
on a couch in that room. Jane Doe had known Newell
11:35
for about a year. She had been intimate with
11:38
him in the past. This is a prime example of how
11:41
the police just botched us right out of the gate.
11:44
There's no damn good reason why... they needed
11:47
to include in her written statement that she
11:49
had previously been intimate with Newell. Her
11:52
prior sexual acts, things like that, totally
11:55
irrelevant. There's rape shield laws. You don't
11:57
go into the victim's privacy like that. But here
12:00
the police are just exposing that and putting
12:02
it in a statement. Jane Doe was excited because
12:05
she thought these guys wanting a threesome meant
12:07
the two of them were gay, which meant they were
12:10
part of the community that she was involved in
12:13
because she's bisexual. Don't know that they
12:15
needed to put that in the statement either. None
12:18
of that. She said to them, I didn't know you
12:20
all were fruity. To which one of them responded
12:23
by saying he was homo curious. I don't know how
12:27
this is so relevant whatsoever to anything. Might
12:30
inflame some people on the jury that are gay.
12:34
Not much else was said and they began having
12:37
a threesome. She gave oral sex to Ingalls while
12:40
Newell had. vaginal sex with her from behind.
12:45
She stated, quote, I would say that I was pretty
12:48
okay with having this threesome. Newell hit her
12:52
several times on the butt. She noted that she
12:55
was in severe pain from it, really got her. She
12:58
yelled out, damn. Ingalls appeared sleepy and
13:02
he was no longer fully erect, which led her to
13:05
stop giving him oral sex. That's when Jane Doe
13:08
told Newell they needed to stop having sex. so
13:11
that they could help out Ingalls. Things stopped
13:13
for a little bit. Newell went to the couch, and
13:16
he was dry heaving. Jane Doe was helping him.
13:19
Then they kissed. Meanwhile, Ingalls was sleeping
13:23
on the bed. Newell tried touching her vagina.
13:26
Quote, he reached for my vagina several times,
13:29
and each time he did, I would swat his hand away.
13:33
Quote, now here's the next threesome. Again,
13:36
they're grouping it in terms of threesomes. While
13:41
Jane Doe and Newell were making out, Jillio Lopez,
13:44
I'm botching his name, I'm sure, Jillio Lopez
13:47
knocked on the door. She heard that it was his
13:51
room, so she opened the door and let him in.
13:54
When Lopes, I don't know if I should call him
13:57
Lopez or Lopes, but when Lopes entered the room,
14:01
Newell told her to sit on his lap. Newell was
14:05
not wearing any pants and still fully erect.
14:10
She was using her dress as a barrier between
14:13
their bodies. She had kind of gotten dressed
14:14
again after the first threesome. Lopes introduced
14:18
himself and reached his hand out to shake her
14:20
hand. Lopes pulled her in to make out. He was
14:25
kissing her. Then Newell began groping and quote,
14:29
began reaching for the area near her vagina again.
14:33
Now, eventually, Lopes, Newell, and Jane Doe
14:37
made it to the bed. and had a threesome next
14:40
to Ingalls while he was still sleeping. Jane
14:43
Doe's statement says, I don't remember much of
14:46
this threesome with Newell and Lopes because
14:48
much of the night after Lopes entered the room,
14:51
I was pretty incapacitated. She does remember
14:56
giving Lopes oral while Newell had vaginal sex
15:00
with her from behind. She does not specifically
15:03
remember having sex with Lopes, but remembers
15:06
hearing Lopes and Newell say something about
15:08
having a turn. At that point, she felt she was
15:12
being used. While they're having their threesome,
15:15
Ingalls wakes up and he wanted a foursome. And
15:20
she said, hell no. And the reason why she said
15:24
no is because she thought that meant she would
15:27
have to take anal. And she had a traumatic experience
15:32
with something like that before. Again, why are
15:35
the police officers? putting that in a statement
15:38
like this when her prior sexual acts and history
15:42
should not ever come up, but they're presenting
15:45
it, and this could create an issue. There's a
15:48
rape shield law. We don't bring that out in front
15:50
of a jury, her prior sexual history or acts,
15:53
but it could be argued by the criminal defense
15:55
attorney, hey, look, you're waiving it. You're
15:57
saying this is relevant for some reason. You're
15:59
putting it in a statement. But see, this could
16:02
really botch things in front of a jury. And then
16:05
she wrote, quote, Well, the police wrote for
16:07
her, quote, I don't remember much of what happened
16:10
directly after I told Ingalls no to the foursome.
16:14
But at some point, Lopes left the room without
16:17
me realizing. Lopes didn't say anything to me
16:20
prior to leaving from what I remember, quote.
16:24
So here she's having a lot of memory issues.
16:28
That's pretty important to know. So now this
16:31
is the third sex scene, basically. From what
16:36
she remembers. A group of multiple men walked
16:39
into the room. She was instantly horrified. She
16:43
remembered squealing out loud and running across
16:45
the room and hiding under the covers on another
16:49
bed that was in the room. So I guess there was
16:52
two beds in this room all along. I mean, if you're
16:55
a cop and you're typing all this stuff out for
16:57
her, why not just describe what the room looked
17:00
like a little bit for us? At the beginning, it
17:02
had two beds, it had a couch, blah, blah, blah.
17:07
Some descriptions, basic descriptions of what
17:09
it looks like, where we're at with you right
17:11
now. The statement says, quote, I was horrified
17:15
because I was really embarrassed that these individuals
17:17
who had just entered the room were standing between
17:20
me and the only exit from the room. As I was
17:25
hiding under the covers, the group of individuals
17:28
came over to the bed I was in, quote. So you've
17:33
basically got Matt Ingalls. You've got Newell.
17:37
You've got Winston Lee at this point. Scott Norris,
17:41
Scott Kretschmar, and Diego Sarabia all in the
17:45
room with her. Everybody but Lopes. Winston Lee
17:50
gets in the bed next to her on her right side.
17:53
Then one of the Scots sat down on the corner
17:56
to her left. The other Scott got in the bed and
18:00
sat to her left. She said that. It was somebody
18:04
she had previously hung out with around fall
18:07
break. So she was familiar with one of the Scots.
18:10
Ingle introduced her to two of the guys who were
18:13
standing at the foot of the bed. And one of those
18:16
was now sitting on the bed on her right side.
18:21
She thinks there was another person standing
18:23
next to the two individuals at the foot of the
18:25
bed, but doesn't remember his name. Quote, the
18:29
night really becomes a blur for me at that point.
18:32
I don't remember much of what. happened in the
18:35
next few minutes, but I do remember being covered
18:38
up in the bed, quote. That's when Diego Sarabia
18:44
said something mean to her, and other guys in
18:46
the room had negative reactions to what he said.
18:49
She instantly became defensive and sat up quickly
18:53
in the bed to confront Sarabia about what he
18:56
said to her. And in doing so, the covers had
18:59
fallen off her breasts. which were now exposed
19:03
to everyone in the room. And she was defending
19:05
herself and yelling at him. He apologized and
19:09
grabbed her face and started kissing her. She
19:12
quickly backed away to stop Sarabia from kissing
19:15
her. And she remembers not having many emotions
19:18
at that point because she was starting to become
19:20
completely numb to the whole situation. Jane
19:24
Doe's phone was across the room and she felt
19:27
like she couldn't get to it. So then she stood
19:31
up. and confronted Sarabia, flexing towards him.
19:34
Then she realized she was standing in front of
19:37
everyone completely naked. She sat back down
19:40
on the bed to cover herself as best as she could.
19:44
She grabbed one of the guy's arms, I'm assuming
19:48
it was Engel or Newell, but the name was redacted,
19:51
and she said to him, I don't know who any of
19:55
these people are. He replied by laughing and
20:00
asked if she wanted to do more ketamine. And
20:03
when he said that to her, it hit her that she
20:07
had taken ketamine on the couch with two people
20:10
earlier in the night, and their names were redacted.
20:14
So this is another problem here with the police
20:17
written narrative. It's out of sequence now.
20:21
We don't know in what sequence of events that
20:25
she took the ketamine the first time. It doesn't
20:27
describe that. It just says, Now she's about
20:30
to take ketamine again, and she remembers at
20:32
that moment that she did it earlier that night
20:36
with two guys there. The police officer, when
20:39
he wrote this, he should have put it in chronological
20:40
order. What happened first, second, third, fourth,
20:44
just down the line. Now, once you get to event
20:47
seven, did you remember what happened between
20:49
event two and three? Just say it between two
20:53
and three. So here we are now, apparently the
20:56
second time. He's asking if she wanted to do
20:59
more ketamine. She recalls now that earlier they
21:02
had done ketamine on the couch, her and two guys
21:05
whose names have been redacted. Then the statement
21:08
goes on to say an unspecified guy, don't know
21:11
which one, would later tell her that she had
21:14
also smoked marijuana from a large bong as well
21:18
as consumed Jamaican liquor while on the couch
21:21
with him and the other guy. She remembered smoking
21:25
marijuana, but the ketamine in Jamaican liquor,
21:28
she had zero memory of. The statement says, quote,
21:32
all I could remember was the feeling that I had
21:37
already done ketamine once, so why not do it
21:40
a second time? At that point, Newell poured a
21:45
line of ketamine on his erect penis, implying
21:48
that she should snort the line. Then she snorted
21:53
the line of ketamine. which was a heavy amount
21:55
of ketamine. She knew it was a heavy amount based
21:59
on how hard it hit her. At that point, she was
22:04
back under the covers and Newell got under the
22:07
covers with her, where he again tried reaching
22:11
for the area of her vagina. Next, Winston Lee
22:16
asked if they could do ketamine off her body.
22:20
Then they did ketamine off her body. Her face
22:23
was covered. She was laying on her back. Then
22:26
Lopez or Lopes came back. I'm never going to
22:31
get his name right. He came back with another
22:35
mail. They entered the room and said something
22:39
like, okay, we're shutting down whatever the
22:42
fuck this is. She found that strange because
22:45
Lopes was acting as if he hadn't just been in
22:48
the room with her earlier that night. She asked,
22:51
quote, wait, didn't this guy fuck me? Quote.
22:55
The men began to scatter. Jane Doe attempted
22:58
to get up off the bed, but became very dizzy
23:02
due to her condition. She has postural orthostatic
23:07
tachycardia syndrome, POTS. That made her very
23:11
dizzy in addition to the fact that she had done
23:13
a bump, another bump of ketamine. And I suppose
23:17
it was both of the guys named Scott. They told
23:19
her to stay there as long as she needed to. She
23:23
stood up. her dress to her, but she had to sit
23:27
back down because she was dizzy. Now, Ingalls
23:31
and Winston Lee ushered her out of the room,
23:34
brought her upstairs to a small room. It was
23:38
a small closet repurposed into an office space.
23:41
She thought it was maybe the frat president's
23:44
office. Ingalls and Winston Lee sat on the chairs
23:48
and said, let's do more ketamine. So she snorted
23:52
some more. Ingalls wanted to have sex again as
23:55
redemption for having passed out earlier during
23:58
the threesome with her and Newell. Now, she doesn't
24:03
remember how it started, but she was having a
24:06
threesome in that office space with Ingalls and
24:09
Winston Lee this time. At this point, she describes
24:13
her intoxication as an 8 out of 10. Again, why
24:17
are we even putting this in a statement that
24:19
doesn't seem to be helpful at all? The statement
24:22
goes on to say, quote, I felt like I was unable
24:25
to make any decisions because of how intoxicated
24:28
I was. The threesome continued until at some
24:31
point around 5 .45 a .m. I said that I was tired
24:35
and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys
24:39
stopped the threesome with me, as far as I can
24:41
remember, quote. So I'm not quite sure whose
24:44
room they're in now, but one of the guys let
24:47
her stay in his room. And then again, at some
24:50
point, more cop speak, at some point, some guys
24:54
knocked on the door and said they wanted to snort
24:58
cocaine out of her anus. But whoever's room it
25:01
was that she was with, probably Ingalls, maybe
25:03
it was Lee, told them to go away. And they did.
25:06
She fell asleep in his bed and woke up around
25:09
10 a .m. on Sunday, October 20th. Shortly after
25:13
she woke up, another person. unspecified, redacted,
25:18
was hovering over her with both of his arms on
25:21
either side of her. She asked him what he was
25:24
doing, and he said he was going to put his penis
25:26
in her mouth. She told him, no, in a mean way.
25:30
And then one of the guys, probably Ingalls, drove
25:33
her back to her sorority house. The statement
25:37
also indicates that several people were gossiping
25:40
that members of the fraternity were bragging
25:42
about having an eightsome with her. Some rumors
25:44
said it was 10 people. So that was the first
25:47
document I wanted to share with you. Think about
25:50
it. They sat her down for an extended period
25:53
of time with a bunch of people interviewing her
25:55
on the 14th of November, 2024. Later that evening,
26:00
they had this typewritten six -page statement
26:03
for her to sign, and she reviewed it overnight,
26:06
signs it with some notes, gives it back to the
26:09
police department. Why did they want her to commit?
26:13
everything and have to unpack all that stuff
26:16
all in the same day. Why not go investigate,
26:18
get some more information from witnesses and
26:21
consider things before you lock her into a statement
26:25
written by a police officer. And the police,
26:29
they don't know whether these facts amount to
26:33
a crime or not. So why are they writing this
26:36
in the first place? They have to go to the district
26:38
attorney to ask them. for some advice. Are there
26:41
any allegations contained here that amount to
26:45
a crime? In order to write a statement like this
26:49
that's going to be used to help secure a grand
26:54
jury indictment, one would think that you know
26:56
the elements of the crime first, and that you're
27:00
going to find a bunch of facts and put the facts
27:03
in there that are necessary to support each element
27:06
of the crime. But they don't know after all this
27:09
time they've interviewed her and other people
27:11
are there as well. They don't know if anything
27:14
she said amounts to a crime. So let's just throw
27:17
a bunch of things into a six -page statement
27:20
and hope something sticks. Who the hell knows?
27:22
Oh, and have her sign it first, too. That makes
27:24
no sense. So they've got the statement and they
27:28
send it over to the district attorney's office.
27:30
And a bunch of prosecutors there look over this,
27:33
apparently. Of course, they assume everything's
27:37
true. That's in the allegations. And they say,
27:40
look, there's no crime here. We don't see any
27:42
crime. Not at all. So that's it. The investigation's
27:46
done. We're done. All right. Next, let's go find
27:49
some DUIs to prosecute. So that's 2024. Then,
27:53
of course, 2025. And now here we are. We get
27:57
up to September 2026. And Jane Doe files her
28:00
civil lawsuit against the university. her sorority,
28:04
the Tri -Deltas, their sorority, the Chi Phi,
28:09
two bars, and she sues eight men who are members
28:14
of the fraternity. The allegations in her civil
28:17
lawsuit are much more powerful, obviously, but
28:21
she had a lawyer draft them. It wasn't some rando
28:23
cop at Cornell University Police Department that
28:26
just didn't know what type of facts you need
28:29
to write down in order to color rape charges.
28:33
So now that it's all over the news because there's
28:36
this huge rape scandal occurring at Cornell,
28:39
everybody's instantly wondering, why didn't the
28:42
police department do anything? Why didn't the
28:44
district attorney's office do anything? So there's
28:46
this huge shit storm and district attorney Van
28:50
Houten makes another big misstep in his career.
28:54
And that's the second document we're going to
28:56
talk about right now on September 28th, 2026.
29:02
He does a press release. I'll put this document
29:04
on my website, l3g4l .com for you as well. Just
29:08
check it out. If you want to follow along with
29:10
the document right now, you can go to my website.
29:12
You'll find it. This is a letter from an elected
29:14
official that is painfully trying to cover his
29:17
ass at this point. Remember, a district attorney
29:19
or a police officer, they don't really have a
29:22
duty to prosecute every possible crime that's
29:25
occurred. They're not required to. They have
29:27
massive immunities. But the head of the district
29:30
attorney's office, well. He's got something bigger
29:33
to worry about, and that's voters. So let me
29:35
read some excerpts for you from his press release.
29:39
Van Houten's talking about the civil lawsuit
29:42
now. Quote, given the lawsuit's graphic allegations
29:45
of criminal conduct, the question of why those
29:48
individuals were not criminally prosecuted has
29:51
been raised. Over the past two weeks, many people
29:54
have called my office, left voicemails, and sent
29:58
emails about this case. Some people have understandably
30:03
sought answers. Others have simply insulted and
30:06
sometimes threatened my office and my staff.
30:09
In each case, the comments and questions have
30:12
been based solely on the allegations in the civil
30:15
lawsuit and its characterization by news and
30:18
social media sources. While I generally refrain
30:22
from commenting publicly on criminal investigations,
30:25
the community outrage stemming from the incomplete
30:28
news and social media coverage requires that
30:31
I provide an answer to why the investigation
30:34
resulted in a lack of criminal charges. Before
30:37
I discuss the specific facts and reasons that
30:40
went into this decision, I want to provide the
30:43
answer in the most basic and understandable form.
30:47
Jane Doe's sworn statement in November of 2024
30:50
did not allege that she was drugged against her
30:53
will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe's
30:56
statement described her participation in drug
30:59
use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious,
31:02
and consensual. I don't know that her statement
31:05
actually said that her participation in drug
31:09
use and sexual conduct was voluntary, conscious,
31:12
and consensual. I don't recall that part of the
31:15
statement. What is he talking about? Sounds like
31:19
she agreed to partake in the first threesome
31:21
and the second threesome. Okay. I can see that.
31:27
But after that, a bunch of guys came in the room,
31:30
and then she was also having these memory lapses
31:32
here and there. She had confusion over doing
31:35
ketamine the first time. There was a point where
31:38
all seven of the men were in the room at the
31:40
same time, or maybe it was six, and she forgot
31:44
what had happened for at least a few minutes.
31:47
In the press release, District Attorney Van Houten
31:50
goes on to write that in November of 2024, The
31:55
Cornell University Police Department informed
31:57
the DA's office of their investigation in this
32:00
case and asked us to review a statement provided
32:03
by Jane Doe to determine if her allegations constituted
32:06
a crime. The police wanted the district attorney's
32:11
office to review Jane Doe's statement. Van Houten
32:16
wrote, quote, Then Houghton then explains that
32:32
following their review, they confirmed with the
32:36
police that criminal charges were not appropriate
32:38
based on Jane Doe's statement. Then he rationalizes
32:43
why he needs to release portions of Jane Doe's
32:47
statement, which is, very bizarre and absolutely
32:51
self -serving. When does law enforcement or prosecutor's
32:56
office release a victim's statement when a case
33:01
has not even been charged, let alone even if
33:04
the case is charged? You're just not going to
33:06
see this stuff until it comes out in court. But
33:09
Van Houten's clearly covering his ass, and this
33:12
is where it gets worse. Here, he keeps stepping
33:14
in the dog shit. What he's about to do in this
33:17
press release is cherry pick. quotes from Jane
33:22
Doe's statement, the one that was written by
33:24
the cops and signed by her. He's going to cherry
33:26
pick from it and editorialize it. He doesn't
33:31
bother to give us the complete statement so we
33:34
can just interpret it for ourselves. He wants
33:36
us to see a certain limited set of facts. Now,
33:41
I had to think of a way to convey this information
33:44
to you out there in radio land. So after Van
33:50
Houten releases, should I call him Houghton?
33:53
After Van Houten releases this, eventually the
33:59
six -page statement of Jane Doe leaks out to
34:03
the media. But it's strange. It's not the version
34:07
with her handwritten notes on it, so we don't
34:10
have a copy of that. So what I've done is I've
34:12
taken her six -page statement, the one written
34:15
by the cops and signed by her, and I've highlighted
34:17
each passage in it Van Hatton uses in his press
34:24
release the ones that he cherry -picked. So you
34:26
can go on my website and you can get this document
34:28
with the highlights on it. You could see everything
34:30
he excluded from his press release. And it's
34:35
very telling, I think. Here's some of the things
34:38
I noticed. Remember Jane Doe, her statement written
34:43
by the cops says that there was a second threesome
34:46
among her, Newell, and Lopes. Now, Van Houten's
34:52
press release talks about that, but he very conveniently
34:57
leaves out one of the most important parts of
35:01
Jane Doe's statement, quote, I don't remember
35:04
much of this threesome, dot, dot, dot, because
35:07
much of the night after Lopes entered the room,
35:10
I was pretty incapacitated, end quote. I'm sorry,
35:15
Van Houten, what the fuck? Why wouldn't you include
35:17
that? your press release. She says, I felt like
35:24
I was incapacitated. I don't remember that much.
35:30
So he carves around some of these big, important
35:33
facts that were actually in her police written
35:36
statement. He's trying to justify, rationalize
35:41
why he thinks no crime occurred. Well, it's pretty
35:44
easy when you cherry pick the facts. District
35:49
Attorney Van Houten ignores. Another one is that
35:54
Van Houten, although he does talk about the first
35:58
threesome among Jane Doe, Ingle, and Newell,
36:02
that Newell was reaching for her vagina multiple
36:06
times and she was swatting his hand away, Van
36:10
Houten does not describe that same situation
36:13
occurring the next time during the next threesome
36:16
among Jane Doe, Newell, and Lopes. Van Houten
36:22
doesn't describe the scene where she's, Now trying
36:25
to sleep, it's 5 .45 a .m. And at some point,
36:29
a group of guys knocked on the door to the room
36:32
and said they wanted to snort cocaine out of
36:35
her anus. Didn't bother to mention that. Then
36:40
Hatton didn't mention that when she woke up around
36:47
10 a .m. that somebody was hovering over her
36:53
with both of his arms on either side of her.
36:58
And she asked what he was doing, and he said
37:00
he was going to put his penis in her mouth. I
37:03
don't know. I don't know why Van Houghton just
37:06
left that out of his press release. There's some
37:10
additional sex crimes right there, right? Now
37:14
look, I'm an attorney licensed to practice in
37:17
California, not New York. Nothing I'm saying
37:19
here, either way, is legal advice. Got it? All
37:24
right. Good. Just giving an opinion about...
37:30
An event in the news. Not giving a legal opinion
37:34
here. But I think, based on the facts that I
37:40
read in Jane Doe's statement that was written
37:42
by the cops, that it is plausible to get a first
37:46
-degree rape charge, a second -degree rape charge,
37:49
a third -degree rape charge, a charge for sexual
37:53
misconduct, a charge for forcible touching, a
37:56
charge for sexual abuse in the second degree,
38:01
aggravated sexual abuse charges for sale of a
38:04
controlled substance distributing ketamine to
38:07
her that's essentially dealing drugs whether
38:10
money exchange hands is irrelevant for that crime
38:13
there's also the alcohol beverage control she
38:18
was under 21 somebody gave her a drink at the
38:20
beginning of the night and then jamaican liquor
38:23
oh and also that weed she smoked out of the bong
38:26
and there's also the crime of sex trafficking
38:29
so there's a bunch of avenues to explore there.
38:32
And I think it wouldn't be that complicated based
38:35
on the statement alone if you had Jane Doe testifying
38:38
about this stuff in front of a grand jury to
38:41
procure an indictment, at least on a few of those
38:45
crimes. But this all goes back to the question,
38:48
why did a police officer, who obviously didn't
38:51
have enough experience to figure out what facts
38:54
were necessary to prove certain elements of the
38:56
crime, why is he drafting this stuff up and having
38:59
her sign it? and then sending it over to the
39:02
DA to ask, does it seem like there's enough here?
39:04
And that was right after the very first day of
39:07
doing a lengthy interview with her on November
39:09
14th. And then by the 15th, you've got the signed
39:11
statement. To me, that's an incredibly fast turnaround.
39:15
I can't do that as a lawyer. It would be malpractice
39:18
if somebody came in and spoke with me for hours
39:21
about an incident, and then I was able to draft
39:25
up that same night. a six -page statement about
39:29
it, and then give it to her and have her sign
39:31
it? These are very serious sex crime allegations,
39:35
serious crime that needs specialized attention
39:38
and handling by people who know what they're
39:41
doing in the first place. And if it's November
39:44
14th, 2024, and they're just really hearing this
39:48
stuff for the first time during the lengthy interview,
39:51
of course, she reported it 10 days before on
39:53
November 8th, but during the interview, it's
39:55
November 14th. At that point, Why not go investigate
39:59
and ask other witnesses? Why lock her down into
40:02
a written statement of six pages? Looks to me
40:05
like you've got reasonable cause to show, hey,
40:08
there's drugs going on. Why not get some warrants?
40:11
Why not get a search warrant for the drugs? A
40:14
warrant out to Snapchat for the messages. A warrant
40:18
out to Apple for iCloud backup data. Why not
40:22
interview some of the witnesses? How about the
40:25
guy that gave her A screenshot of the Snapchat
40:28
message. What about interviewing him? How about
40:32
interviewing other frat guys? Or how about interviewing
40:36
the people she is accusing of doing these things?
40:41
Go out in the field. See if they'll talk to you
40:44
voluntarily. Somebody will. Collect evidence.
40:47
That's primarily what law enforcement is there
40:50
for. If they have one responsibility, it's to
40:52
collect evidence and bring it to court. there
40:55
is always this misconception that they have the
40:57
duty to protect us and serve us. They're not
41:01
required to do that. Their primary job is to
41:04
collect evidence and people. And that's why you
41:07
have a Fifth Amendment right not to talk to them
41:09
because they're collecting evidence against you.
41:11
So go out and do your job and collect some evidence.
41:14
Surely you've already recorded Jane Doe for several
41:18
hours on the 14th of November. You have her probably
41:22
on video recordings and tape recordings, as is
41:25
normal when you interview a victim. That's fine.
41:28
But you don't need to summarize that stuff in
41:31
a narrative and then have her sign it. It's certainly
41:35
not the same night. Develop the facts. Get some
41:38
more evidence. I mean, we're finding out now,
41:41
and this was not in her statement, but we're
41:44
finding out now that just several days before
41:46
the alleged rapes occurred on October 19th and
41:49
20th of 2024, A few days before that, there was
41:53
some serious drug activity that occurred at the
41:56
frat house. You would think that connection of
41:59
that issue with these allegations about her being
42:02
given ketamine would really put a nice tight
42:06
nail in a coffin for a criminal charge about
42:09
selling drugs. In New York, when you hand drugs
42:12
to somebody, that constitutes a gift or a sale,
42:15
so it falls under the penal law there as a crime.
42:20
selling a controlled substance. Now, when we
42:24
get to the first degree rape charge, Van Hatton's
42:28
press release sets us up for a straw man type
42:32
of argument, explains that because she was voluntarily
42:37
doing drugs and alcohol, that they can't charge
42:42
them with rape. But that's not accurate in terms
42:46
of the law there. Van Houten's trying to force
42:49
your attention and my attention, our attention.
42:53
He's trying to force us to look very narrowly
42:57
at the statutes that just one of the ways of
42:59
proving lack of consent in the first degree rape
43:03
case. And one of those methods, and there's many
43:06
methods to prove lack of consent. One of those
43:08
methods is if the victim was basically poisoned
43:12
with narcotics. or an intoxicating substance
43:16
and was temporarily incapacitated because of
43:19
that event. And they falsely claim, oh, well,
43:22
there's nothing we can do about it because she
43:24
was voluntarily intoxicated. Well, that's true
43:27
under that form of lack of consent. Yeah, not
43:30
going to get there. But regardless, you can still
43:32
prove lack of consent by saying she was physically
43:35
helpless, that she was unconscious at a certain
43:38
time when they were having sex with her. And
43:41
physically helpless isn't just limited to the
43:43
situation where somebody is unconscious. It could
43:45
also be proven by showing any other reason that
43:48
she was physically unable to communicate an unwillingness
43:52
to this act or these acts. But here's a clip
43:57
of District Attorney Van Houten on CNN's Jake
44:02
Tapper. And take a listen to what he's saying
44:04
about proving lack of consent by physical helplessness.
44:09
He's totally... misstating the law here. Take
44:12
a listen. Consent or lack of consent is very
44:17
much very specific under New York state law.
44:20
You either have to be physically compelled or
44:25
forcible compulsion, physical force, or you have
44:28
to be physically helpless, which is unconscious.
44:32
That's only partially true. Okay, listen to this.
44:36
He's totally omitting from the statute. The other
44:40
way that you can prove physically helpless, I'll
44:43
read the statute to you. It's New York Penal
44:45
Law Section 130 .00, Subdivision B -7. Physically
44:55
helpless means that a person is unconscious or,
44:59
hear that, or for any other reason is physically
45:05
unable to communicate unwillingness to enact.
45:10
You've got a district attorney misstating the
45:13
law by omitting it. He only wants you to think
45:16
that physically helpless means the person was
45:19
unconscious. He doesn't want you to know that
45:22
it can also be proven by showing that for any
45:25
other reason, Jane Doe was physically unable
45:28
to communicate unwillingness to enact. So listen
45:33
to him again here on that clip. In context, Van
45:36
Hatton on CNN's Jake Tapper. physically helpless
45:40
which is unconscious or you have to be mentally
45:43
incapacitated which is having been given drugs
45:48
without your knowledge that rendered you incapable
45:50
of consenting none of those things were articulated
45:53
in her initial statement remember when i said
45:57
in his press release he left out that she said
46:00
in the police statement that quote i was pretty
46:05
much incapacitated well that That quote, that
46:09
fits pretty nicely into her being physically
46:14
helpless, which would prove lack of consent.
46:17
Now, let me read for you from Van Houten's September
46:24
28th press release, year 2026. He describes what
46:29
physical helplessness means there as well. So
46:40
he's giving it the full definition, unlike what
46:43
he did when he was talking on CNN. But listen
46:45
to this. He writes, So he says that, but he doesn't
46:56
say whether or not she was physically unable
47:00
to communicate the unwillingness. of the act.
47:04
He doesn't talk about that option at all. So
47:07
he leaves it out completely. He doesn't even
47:10
raise that subject whatsoever on Jake Tapper's
47:14
show. And in his press release, he doesn't rule
47:18
out the possibility that she was physically unable
47:21
to communicate unwillingness to act. He just
47:24
doesn't discuss it. So that's just kind of hanging
47:28
open right there. And what I'm saying is this
47:31
looks particularly bad for Van Houten, who in
47:34
the press release cherry -picks the facts that
47:36
he wants you to know. He plucks whatever he wants
47:39
from Jane Doe's statement from two years prior
47:42
that was written by the police and signed by
47:44
her. He cherry -picks from it, and he doesn't
47:48
tell you that in that statement she said that
47:51
she was pretty much incapacitated. He doesn't
47:54
go into that. And when you couple that with him
47:58
omitting as well, this other possibility for
48:01
lack of consent, that if the prosecutor could
48:04
show she was physically unable to communicate
48:06
unwillingness to the sexual acts that had occurred,
48:10
well, you'd have rape right there. But he doesn't
48:13
want to go down that line or talk about that.
48:14
And this is where everything began spiraling
48:17
out of control with the media, where they're
48:20
feeding into this idea that there's a loophole.
48:24
If she was voluntarily intoxicated, CNN said,
48:27
quote, that it's nearly impossible, end quote,
48:30
to prove rape when the victim, in New York anyway,
48:34
is voluntarily intoxicated. So the district attorney
48:38
there, he's also pushing you into that box, into
48:41
that straw man argument. Look, I can't do anything.
48:44
She was voluntarily intoxicated. It's not our
48:46
fault. It's just the law, man. My hands are tied.
48:50
We feel for her. It's a terrible thing that happened
48:52
to her. But what she alleged, there's no crime.
48:55
Bullshit. So he continues. using that as some
48:58
type of excuse or justification of why they screwed
49:01
up. So here on CNN's Jake Tapper, he continues
49:04
to just keep walking in dog shit. This is Van
49:07
Hatton continuing to talk about it. My job under
49:10
the New York State Constitution is to apply the
49:13
penal law of New York State. We are constrained
49:15
by that law. Whether you agree with it, whether
49:18
you think someone's conduct is morally repugnant
49:21
or vulgar or disgusting, I'm still constrained
49:24
by the law. Total bullshit. That's an interesting
49:28
standard, being constrained by the law while
49:31
omitting the law. Constraint by omission. That
49:35
is a very unusual circumstance. Cover your ass.
49:39
I get it. When a victim is physically helpless,
49:42
it doesn't matter how she became that way. It
49:45
doesn't matter if she was voluntarily drunk or
49:47
doing drugs. Prosecutors could prove that these
49:50
guys forced themselves on her. And there's many
49:53
other methods here that... could be used to prove
49:56
this. And that's just first degree rape. There's
49:59
also second degree rape and third degree rape.
50:01
In third degree rape, the prosecutor has a wider
50:05
field of options in terms of proving lack of
50:07
consent. You can talk about other types of circumstances
50:10
that aren't even defined by law. So the fact
50:13
that Van Houten's hiding under this concept of
50:16
we can't prove that she was poisoned with alcohol,
50:19
therefore there's no case, that is absolutely
50:21
not true. That's not what defines rape. The previous
50:26
episode I did talks a lot more about that, so
50:28
I'm not going to go into that any further. This
50:31
whole idea of she doesn't have a case because
50:33
she was voluntarily intoxicated, that's not true.
50:37
So if you want to know more about that, listen
50:38
to the previous episode. I think it's episode
50:40
four, right? Titled The Loophole Myth. I call
50:44
it The Loophole Myth because you have a lot of
50:47
media out there, such as CNN and advocacy groups,
50:52
claiming that there's some type of loophole.
50:54
that if you're voluntarily intoxicated, you have
50:57
pretty much no chances of any recourse against
51:02
the perpetrator of rape. It's totally not true.
51:06
Besides, there's many other crimes. If Van Hatton's
51:09
struggling with charging rape, there's plenty
51:12
of other sex crimes that could be charged that
51:15
have even less requirements in terms of proving
51:18
lack of consent. In sex trafficking, you don't
51:21
even have to prove lack of consent. The bottom
51:24
line is this statement that was drafted by cops,
51:27
signed by Jane Doe, shows to me several things
51:31
that if I was a grand juror, I would say, yeah,
51:35
there's a reasonable cause to indict somebody
51:38
here. But the grand jury in a scenario like this
51:41
wouldn't be limited to what she wrote on. this
51:45
statement. Plus, the better idea is to have her
51:48
actually testify to these things in front of
51:50
the grand jury and get witnesses, get the Snapchat
51:53
conversations, get other evidence together, try
51:56
to get this going, do something about it. It's
51:59
tough to know at this point whether there's something
52:02
larger at play here, some external force or factor
52:06
that we just don't know about that's touching
52:09
the Cornell University Police Department, perhaps
52:12
even the district attorney's office there. Tompkins
52:15
County, New York. But it certainly opens the
52:19
issue. You've got all the dangerous factors at
52:22
play for potential corruption. And I'm not saying
52:25
this corruption. I mean, stuff falls through
52:27
the cracks all the time at government agencies
52:30
and police departments. They don't have some
52:32
affirmative obligation to do anything about any
52:36
crime, period. They're not required to do anything.
52:40
District attorney's offices. throughout the United
52:42
States are overwhelmed with cases. It's quite
52:46
possible this just slipped through the cracks.
52:48
But on the flip side, you've got a bunch of wealthy
52:52
guys, well, at least parents that are wealthy
52:54
in a frat at an Ivy League school. Their parents
52:57
presumably have some big connections, at least
53:01
one or two of these guys. And it's not impossible
53:05
to get through to law enforcement or to get through.
53:12
to the district attorney's office and make things
53:16
go away before a charge is filed. I'm not saying
53:20
that's what happened, but they certainly botched
53:23
things at the police department and the district
53:25
attorney's office also dropped the ball at minimum.
53:29
The question is, was it intentional? Does it
53:32
look like you intentionally dropped the ball
53:34
when you go out two years later, put out a self
53:39
-serving press release, rationalizing? everything,
53:42
cherry picking the victim's statement, releasing
53:45
portions of the victim's statement to cover your
53:49
own ass, to say, look, there was no crime here.
53:52
What are the ethics in doing that, in releasing
53:56
this statement to cover your own ass? Why didn't
54:01
District Attorney Van Houten release the Snapchat
54:04
video? Why didn't he release Jane Doe's entire
54:08
six -page statement with the handwritten notes?
54:11
Why does he have to say anything at all? It just
54:14
has caused a lot of confusion out there. It's
54:17
giving a lot more fuel to the fire started by
54:20
all the Jane Doe haters out there in the brosphere.
54:23
The dudes who just love to defend other dudes
54:28
that need ketamine to get laid. So I'll leave
54:33
you with that. Just consider if you're on the
54:37
side of the Jane Doe haters and you're defending...
54:41
the Cornell 7. Think about it. These are guys
54:45
using ketamine to have sex with women, with their
54:51
colleagues, 20 -year -old classmate. They want
54:55
sex with a 20 -year -old who cannot move while
54:59
they're having sex with her. It's Bill Cosby
55:03
territory, just as reprehensible. And if you
55:07
don't think that, then you probably... Don't
55:10
know what ketamine does. We'll see where this
55:15
one goes in the future. Pretty optimistic for
55:18
Jane Doe. I think there's a lot of other damaging
55:22
evidence to come out. A lot of other witnesses
55:25
who have things to say. Luckily, the governor
55:29
of New York has removed the district attorney's
55:33
office from the case and has set up a special
55:36
counsel through Letitia James. I think we're
55:40
going to be seeing indictments, but the special
55:43
prosecutor has a lot to sort out now. A lot of
55:48
time has gone by. There's been the Title IX investigation,
55:52
lots of witnesses and statements there. A lot
55:55
of things need to be reviewed before they can
55:57
get this case ready for a grand jury. I'm grateful
56:02
for your time and that you listened all the way
56:04
to the end. It means a lot to me to be getting
56:07
a lot more support out there on social media.
56:10
to continue building because things are going
56:12
in a positive direction for once. So that's a
56:15
good thing. You can always find me on most of
56:17
the social media platforms and my website, l3g4l
56:21
.com. When you go to the website, you're going
56:25
to get an annoying pop -up. That's because my
56:27
site is actually hosted by Substack and they
56:30
have this weird subscription model, but you can
56:33
click through all the buttons and subscribe for
56:35
free. It's a pain in the butt the first time
56:37
you go there. But after that, It's all set. I'm
56:40
sorry for that. Gotta talk to Substack. I don't
56:43
know how to get through to him. Subscribe to
56:45
L3G4L on Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio, YouTube,
56:49
and Amazon.