"Cornell 7" Lawyer Speaks Out, Plus Bombshell New Texts From "Jane Doe," and Kevin Reddington's Bizarre Tactic | Ep. 1410

Welcome to the Megan Kelley show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every week day at NEAST. Hey everyone on Megan Kelley welcome to the Megan Kelley show. Today we pick up where we left off yesterday as we have a lot of updates to the Cornell story on the accuser what happened in the weeks between the alleged gang rape and her reporting it to authorities and more. We noted yesterday how many are falling into the same traps we've seen over the years and stories like the Duke fake lacrosse rape case or the UVA fake rape case involving a fraternity there where there is a rush to judgment and a total disregard for due process the presumption of innocence or even common courtesy for those being accused of one of the most serious crimes a person can commit this morning video emerged online of one of the men listed as a defendant in Jane Doe's lawsuit Cornell student Jillio Lopes being confronted on campus watch are you not like embarrassed to be here after all of this time after the case comes out your name is here your face in the paper are you not ashamed that you still here you're with an education long ago how to fucking you like there's your reason for it looks the reason that yeah and I you never will because you're a disgusting person you're a disgusting person everyone in Cornell is ashamed of you like back group chat is often disgusting where you in the group chat yeah and then if you did shit you're lost and I don't know what the fuck to tell you I'm just disgusted by you I want to let you know personally so I'm ashamed to be on the same campus as you here to react to this and with more in the case is the attorney representing Lopes Tara Davis when it comes to supplements we all know there are two things that matter that it works and that you can trust it rather than just tell you about relief factor we often bring you what their real customers have to say one Jim said he ran out of relief factor twice and that both times his aches stiffness and pain came back once he restarted it he says he felt better again as Jim puts it quote you know something's working when you run out of it I know many people who have used relief factor and had it work for them including me I took it for my shoulder and then ordered it again and found real relief they make it easy to find out if you're going to join me as a satisfied relief factor customer and talking about how much it helps you tackle your daily aches and pains three weeks for just 17 bucks and 76 cents simply go to relief factor dot com or call one eight hundred four relief you will connect with their friendly local team and they will do everything they can to help you and maybe you will be sharing your story with them and with me soon too Tara welcome to the show thanks so much for being here thank you for having me I'm sorry for what your client is going through because even if he is adjudicated guilty if he winds up indicted by some grand jury the rest of judgment here is stomach turning and it is literally unamerican can you give us some background on how first you got involved in this because when I look at your resume it looks like you're the lawyer I would call if God forbid a son of mine got pulled into a title nine hearing like these boys did at Cornell University thank you I appreciate that so I've been involved since the university content proceeding I became involved shortly after the notice of allegations were sent out so from the very beginning through the university's conduct process through the investigation the hearings and the appeals I was working with with my client and so I have been involved since the very beginning okay so you were there alongside of him for the title nine proceeding that happened on Cornell's campus correct okay amazing because it wasn't so long ago that you weren't entitled to have a lawyer there with you under the Barack Obama years the lawyer you had no right as a defendant to even have your counsel present is that true correct yeah I mean there has been a lot of changes that have happened since 2011 when the dear colleague letter was issued so we did have a period of time where attorneys were able to attend and cross examine witnesses there was a change in the administration and correspondingly the regulations as you mentioned and at that point those rights were taken away for a period of time fortunately not too long before they were reinstated so now we are back to the position of being able to attend being able to cross examine witnesses and in fact the parties involved are not able to cross examine parties themselves they are required to have advisors they don't have to be legal advisors but they have to have advisors conduct the cross examination it's an incredible I mean and very valuable restoration I have to say God bless president Trump for doing it because it was Arnie Duncan under Barack Obama who wrote that dear colleague letter that changed due process rights eliminated them for anyone accused oncologist campuses nationwide you're talking about a boy's entire future his his college education being labeled a sex off vendor for the rest of his life and they were told by Barack Obama's administration you can't have a lawyer in there you can't cross examine you have very limited rights to discovery it was very very wrong Trump reversed it and here we are now with your client and others being accused by Jane Doe can I ask you first of all I have a I have a real problem personally with the fact that she's maintaining her anonymity and she's named all seven of these young men explicitly their names are in every newspaper in the country right now can you comment on that yeah absolutely and and you know New York state and perhaps part of the reason she chose to file in in the New York state court is because they are quite deferential to parties that that bring cases that involved allegations of this nature so there is an opportunity to challenge that status and we do have a return date for the parties to oppose her request to appear by pseudonym but I think that the courts are likely to allow her to remain that status because of again the nature of the allegations and that courts typically do allow parties to to proceed as as a doe on the other side you know oftentimes we talk about is it appropriate to name the defendants right I mean if we're bringing a lawsuit on the plaintiff's side which we often do do we name the other parties and at this point there have been some discussions about do we move to keep that pseudonym status or try to remove it and from our perspective it doesn't matter at this point I mean the cats out of the bag like you said their names are everywhere so even if we were able to get them changed to John Joe's one through seven everyone already knows their names and faces yep yep we we tried not to say them yesterday but I mean having you on we're we're gonna say them and I'm giving serious thought to saying her name to once I've confirmed it because the members of the media can do what they think is ethical and we have had many examples in the past including of the New York Times naming and accuser if they think the circumstances warrant it and I think we're there on this case personally but continue to review so can you walk us through a little bit of the timeline when did Julio first find out that what he thought because he was one of the he's one of the young men accused of actually having a sexual encounter with her there were four out of the seven who allegedly did he is one of them and my understanding is all these boys thought it was consensual I mean it was Ron she and it was a night of debauchery if you will involving ketamine etc but the text messages after the fact and her initial statements appear to confirm that all involved believed this was consensual racey but consensual in on the night it happened and the days thereafter so how did he first get wind that she was changing her tune yes so I mean I can't speak to the other defendants certainly I don't think and I don't exactly the timeline for him I can say that he did not have any indication that this was going to become something more serious than than just a kind of a crazy night until he heard that there was a report that had been made and there was a report that was filed as you know with the Cornell police but there was also a campus wide report that was made to all Cornell so at that point people started to recognize that this was going to become a more serious matter and likely was going to be investigated the title I noticed did not come out till January but by that point because of the campus crime alert they had an understanding that that there was likely going to be an investigation and the event we should remind people happened in October is October 19th overnight into the 20th so it made news campus wide in January but it had been it had occurred a couple of months prior so today the New York Times has reports that it has gotten its hands on the title nine documents on the the filings around that issue including it looks like hearing transcripts first of all you surprised that that they have that I am I I don't know where that came from I mean certainly there are a lot of people involved there's a lot of parties involved in the lawsuit but also a lot of people that are aware what's happening. So, you know, I see. suppose it's not surprising that someone leaked them. I don't know who, and I haven't seen them, so I'm not sure exactly which documents they are. Yeah, and same. I mean, I'm only going off of what they what they printed, but they they have a lot in here that confirms, frankly, what I was theorizing about yesterday, which is that Jane Doe very clearly initially did not think she had been raped at all, and that it looks like from the documents they're reporting on, it was her roommate who tried to convince her that she had been raped as opposed to Jane Doe coming up with this on her own. A notion she'd been toying with, and then there was a crucial denial by the Ky-Fi chapter president to allowing Jane Doe to go to a Halloween party. And that's when she got really mad from what I read in the New York Times. Can you elaborate? I don't work all specifically conversations with the roommate. I know she did speak to some of her friends in the sorority house in the days following the interactions, but I can say that I do know that the week following the events that issue, there was some kind of a Halloween event or themed party that she had planned to attend. Some member of the fraternity, I'm not certain if it was the president, but some member of the fraternity told her that she shouldn't come or disinvited her in some way, something to that effect. And I think she was upset by that. Yes, what the Times is reporting is that in the days thereafter, first of all, that the roommate, the roommate says, one roommate told investigators Jane Doe did not use the word rape or assault when they were first talking about it the day after. It seemed like she was in shock. Her other roommate leader told investigators, quote, not really understanding the gravity of what she was saying. She went to her big sister Jane Doe did at the Tridelt house and told the sister, there are roommates circulating, this is the next day, October 21st, that she was a slut. The big sister, who's a junior at Cornell at the time, told investigators, Jane Doe added with a laugh. Unfortunately, they're true, these rumors. The big sister brought up her own passing. I could tell that she had not yet processed what happened. And then she had her text, Jane Doe had a text exchange with another one of the defendants known as defendant number two. Again, we're saying the names now. This one's named Jonathan Newell. And she reassured him in this text where he said, I want to apologize for how things went down. That quote, in her words, at the end of the day, none of the sexual stuff was illegal. And honestly, I really liked being with you and Matt. She wrote explicitly. Then she would get angrier because by October 23rd, which was, looks like two days later, she texted, bro, everyone knows. And I think this is to Matt, the guy she was meeting initially, when she showed up at the house, she said the episode was ruining my life temporarily that her reputation had been destroyed, said all she could do was sleep and cry all day. Matthew Ingalls assured her it would all blow over soon, noting how fast nonsense spreads at this school and that she did not have anything to be ashamed of. You're right, said Jane Doe. It'll get better. And then what the New York Times reports is that even though she had more texts and I'll get into them later when you're not here, I don't want to bore you. You've seen it all. But that ultimately we got to the Halloween party. She was eager to attend that Mr. Ingalls texted her again saying, we want you here. Chi-Fi is your house. You're welcome here. She wrote, thank you. I really appreciate that. I'll bring my six tomorrow. And then she received a phone call from the fraternity president, disinviting her. It was for her own good, she said. And she wrote, back, I knew this was going to happen. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses. And then she sent a nasty text to Mr. Newell. Man number two, let's be clear, 90% of what happened then I was not consensual. I was given more than I can remember, more key, short for ketamine. And I know that I told you I felt uncomfortable and I didn't know anyone in that room. It went on from there. And then within days, literally within days, she was at the campus police. So, I mean, to me, this is evidence of a woman who was involved in a consensual exchange that then her friends, campus rumor mill, and ultimately anger over feeling rejected by the fraternity who's some of whose members she was with led this woman to change her story. Yeah, and I think those will sound accurate. And I do recall those text messages. And I agree with the general sentiment. I mean, again, I know what my client has told me about what happened from his perspective. He had very limited involvement in the events of that night. It was at the very beginning of the night for a short period of time and the testimony and evidence that came out during the university's conduct proceeding confirmed all that. So, from his perspective, I mean, yes, everything was consensual and there was no question about it. So, I don't, and if I ask something, you can't tell me, please, obviously feel free to say so. But what happened to your client at the proceedings? We know two are expelled and five weren't some were given temporarily temporary suspensions. Yeah, he received a suspension period in addition to some educational sanctions, one of which included a component involving an essay, which I think is where people got that information and kind of ran with the assumption that that was the full sanction. It was not. He did receive a suspension period. What, what was the story with the essays? Because some are out there tweeting nonstop, OMG, all they had to do was write essays, you know, how outrageous. And it just seems like absolutely insane to think a university like Cornell would ever leave it at that because we all know from the history, if anything, they bend over backward to believe any woman accuser and to throw the book at the male defendant. So, tell us the story of the essays. Yeah, and I agree with you. I heard you talk about that yesterday as well, something along the lines of what you just said in terms of Cornell being the institution that it is would never just assign essays to someone found responsible for a title nine violation. And honestly, in all the cases I've done over many years, I can't recall a single case where someone found responsible was assigned only an essay. I think that's just absurd and it wouldn't happen. They had essays, some of them to write again, I don't know every sanction because I wasn't privy to all the materials, but that came in combination with a number of other sanctions. It was just one piece of the sanctions received. I think it was, yeah, it's Casey Johnson, with whom I've been working for years as a guest on my many shows, who really is one of the best in terms of covering what's been happening on college campuses to young men and the erosion of due process and these, you know, you're guilty, you presume guilty by all the irrelevant authorities. And he writes an appease for national review yesterday that Cornell is in the top five of university's nationwide that have faced lawsuits by male respondents who claim their cases were handled unfairly. It's one of the top five most unfair to men being accused. That's the unfortunate news for your client is he happens to go to this Ivy League university that does not appear to believe in due process for men accused by young women. It's really outrageous. Okay, so the essay, The Temporary Suspension, and now we saw in that video at the top of the show, he's still trying to complete his education there. We believe he's a senior. How's that going? Yeah, it's not easy, certainly. I mean, he's trying to get to his classes and complete his degree eventually, but as you can imagine, it's incredibly difficult. His name, his reputation, everything has been affected by this, his family's name. They're getting docksed online. I mean, he's having safety concerns, so it's really scary. And unfortunately, or fortunately, he's able to be on campus, right? I mean, he served his sanction and that's concluded and he is permitted to be back, but unfortunately, people, don't see it that way and want him to not be there any longer. So it's really, really difficult. I mean, he's just, I think, trying to get by the day to day right now. Did things change in the past week? Because I understand the students on Cornell University campus generally knew who the accuser was and who the accused were. But this week, it's gone viral because she filed her civil lawsuit naming them and now the whole country knows. So did things change this week? Oh, absolutely. And the past week or two, absolutely. I mean, this was something that occurred two years ago. So people knew about it at the time. People talked about it. There was the rumor mill, but after that, things had really quieted down. And there were some of the students that were not permitted back that were expelled. But the past two weeks, things have just really, you know, spread like wildfire. And he said to deal with things that have not been an issue until this case was filed. It's very hard to get into Cornell or any Ivy League University. It's harder than ever. He's now done four years. there which is also an accomplishment in and of itself. Does he worry now about getting a job? I mean, that's the goal when you leave a university. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I'm sure they all do. I mean, you know, putting aside what's happening on campus, like I said, his name's out there, his pictures out there, and regardless of what happens in the civil suit or with the DA, you know, whether they decide to go forward, if there are criminal charges, regardless of what happens with any of that, this information has spread so dramatically across the news, across social media, that it's going to be out there, and it's going to live on the internet, you know, forever. So that's certainly I think and he hasn't said that to me directly, but I have to imagine that all of these defendants are feeling that way. We have a lot of moms who watch this show. Can you speak at all to how his parents are handling this? Yeah, I think as any of us would, I'm a mom too. I have boys. So, you know, this is certainly something that I think about a lot, and I think they're devastated, right? I mean, to go through not only the university process in itself was incredibly emotionally taxing. It was a long process. There was, you know, a lot involved in that, and then getting to the point where you get a sanction, and then serving that sanction and feeling as though it's over, only to be faced with this now, and to have this kind of attention and focus on your son, on your family, it's awful. It's awful what they're dealing with, and they're concerned for him, understandably. Yeah. Oh my gosh, I'm sure they're all, all the families must be devastated right now. I'll ask you about what she alleges. You can tell me whatever you can. She alleges in her civil case that Matt Ingalls was the one we referred to as man number one. That's the one she showed up at the Kaifai House to see they danced together. He said, can we have a threesome with somebody? And she alleged to police that she said yes. Then she alleges in paragraph 158 at one point, defendant Ingalls could no longer maintain an erection. So he stopped participating and told the other two he was going to take a nap and proceed to get up, move to a bed and sleep. Defendant Newell, that's defendant number two, then began reaching for her vagina with his hand multiple times in each time plaintiff pushed his hand away. Paragraph 160, soon after defendant loaps, and it is loaps. It's not loap, as you tell us, entered the room, grabbed, plaintiff away from defendant Newell and began kissing her while defendant Newell grobbed her from behind, specifically reaching for her vagina. Paragraph 161, defendant loaps and Newell, then placed plaintiff on a bed and the two men began having sex with plaintiff initiating another assault. This is her lawyer's language and her civil complaint. All without plaintiffs consent. So that's, I mean, there's a few more allegations, but that's the crux of it. Does he deny those allegations? Yes, that that's just not factual. It's not what was presented in hearing through any of the testimony through the evidence. It's just not factual and it's just mischaracterized. And I mean, one thing I'll say is that the amount of information included in the complaint, which is I think 101 pages, is very limited. And this was a proceeding that took place for months that resulted in an investigative record about 1500 pages long, that included 50 witness interviews and 12 and a half days of a hearing. So there is just much, much more background and context and detail than what's being presented in this complaint. And your client is male number three in the allegations just to be clear. Yes. I believe so. Yeah. Okay. Male number three. Okay. Then does he deny that he had sex with her that night? No. Okay. And it says defense is that it was consensual. Correct. And what about the drugs? Like how big a factor was the ketamine at the Title IX hearing? It was extensively discussed. There were a lot of questions about it, not surprisingly. The testimony provided was was pretty inconsistent as far as the timeline. I don't think there's a dispute that it was present at some point, but it it it's still not exactly clear to me what the timeline was as far as when, when if at all, the complaint it consumed any when that happened and who was involved. Does does that did the university expel people? Can you tell us based on the drugs or based on the allegations of sexual assault? It's hard to separate out. I mean, I would say if there was solely an allegation of drug use, probably not you're probably not looking at an expulsion, but here the relevance is to the question of capacity. So, you know, in looking at the allegations of sexual assault, the question is whether she was incapacitated such that she could not consent because of her consumption of different substances that night. Mm-hmm. And that was something that we've now heard from the DA for Ithaca and the county there that he felt he could not prove in a court of law that she was incapacitated based on her own six-page single-spaced typed statement that have according to him 20 of her handwritten notes. So, she edited it, she added to it, and then she signed it under penalties of perjury. And he believed at that statement, which we haven't seen, what made clear that throughout that night there was not an issue of her capacity that while she was increasingly intoxicated, it was always her own choice at her own hand, and that she never reached the point of full physical incapacitation, meaning unconsciousness or inability to speak or interact. Is that your understanding? I mean, again, it's a bit of hard for me to speak to. I know that when my client was involved earlier in the evening, at the earlier end of these events, she was not incapacitated as far as we saw through all the testimony her own testimony included, as well as the evidence. So, how long did the whole thing go on? How many hours did this happen over? The alleged event we're talking about, I believe. Yeah. So, she says that she arrived to the house, they can go around 11 o'clock and left sometime after about 5.45 or 6 a.m. Okay. Is her roommate, according to this New York Times report on the title 9 proceeding? So, she didn't get back home until 11 a.m. that morning, but she, do you know, is that when she left the Chi-Fi house? Because she said she fell asleep for a time. Yeah, she may have fallen asleep for some time after the last sexual encounter that she had and left later that morning. I don't recall if it was 11 o'clock, that could be right. I just don't recall exactly. Okay. So, there were, as I read the complaint and the six-page statement, the excerpts that we've been given, et cetera. It looks to me like there were three sexual interludes that she had in the course of that time. There was the first one, which I think was with Matt and this other guy, number two. And then there was a second one, which involved Matt and your client. And then there was a third one later in the evening. Is that correct? That sounds correct. Okay. So, what you're saying is you feel very satisfied that she had capacity when she was with your client, you're not going to speak to what her status was or how she was on the third interlude. Correct. Okay. And they have a separate council, those young guys. Yes. You only represent Lopes. Yes. Okay. And so, does Lopes admit to drug use that night? No, he didn't use any drugs that night. Okay. So, she's accusing him, I think. I think she's accusing all seven of them, excuse me, of snorting ketamine off of her, quote, perfect body. He says that's not true. That is not true. Okay. And did he do one of the hair follicle tests, like Scott Kretchmar did to prove that he did not take ketamine? I don't believe so. I think Scott K was the only one who did that. Okay. But it was not, he wasn't found guilty of it, I guess, is that the way to phrase it at the title nine hearing? He, sorry, he being Scott or my client. You're client. Yeah. Lopes. Yeah. Sorry. No, I believe the hearing panel had found that he wasn't involved in the use of the ketamine that night. Okay. So, what was he, is it, is found guilty the right word? I mean, what was he? I found responsible. What did they say he did, the title nine panel? He was found responsible for some violations of their policy. I don't know that I want to go into too much detail on that. Okay. There is a remarkable report in unheard today, the reporting by our friend, Sarabha Mari, who spoke with the lawyer representing this other defendant, Scott Kretchmark. And that lawyer tells unheard that during the proceeding, at least during Scott's portion, I don't know what your experience was. The, the chief investigator for the title nine team was in her car. She was driving for 45 minutes of it. And that at another point, he could see from her glasses that she was surfing online. Like, barely paying attention to evidence that his lawyer said was actually exculpatory for Scott. What was your experience and, and, and Jolio's in there? I do recall that, um, I think everyone made note of that. I mean, this was a long proceeding, like I said, it was 12 and a half days of testimony, but there was one point probably about halfway through where it, it wasn't the hearing chair. It was one of the other panelists where everyone noticed that she was in a car, she had the seatbelt on and you could kind of see movement from driving in, in her glasses. So I mean, do you think they were taking this seriously at, you know, these so called investigators and those who are going to be determining these boys fate? I think they were taking it seriously. I don't know that they were perhaps, at least this particular individual was paying attention as much as she should have been throughout the entire thing, um, but I, I do think they were taking it seriously in terms of recognizing how, how serious the allegations were, um, but that was one of the concerns that we had with, with the process. I mean, you know, from our perspective, there were a number of things Cornell did in terms of their, uh, handling of the case, which I don't think were perfect. But that was one thing I, I know that a lot of the advisors picked up on. Yeah, you would definitely want them to be paying attention when you're presenting your ex-culpatory evidence. So what role? Now, now we're seeing text messages between Jane Doe and a number, actually, of the boys after the fact definitely with Matt, um, also with defendant number two, um, and maybe some others. It's some of it. The reporting is confusing because they don't reveal the names in each instance or they block them out. But is that your understanding that in the days after this happened? All of the text messaging from Jane Doe reflected a woman who believed the cons- that the experience had been consensual. There was some that indicated that, yes, I think the, the ones more close in time to when the events happened. I think that did shift as more time passed, but the initial ones there was certainly some indication of that. And as somebody, yesterday at Emerge and we spent some time on this on the show, that the six-page statement to which she swore under penalties of perjury did not use the word rape except in a hypothetical context like, geez, if I had fallen asleep and they had sex with me, that would have been rape. But she did not actually accuse them of rape in that statement. Is that true? Oh, I have to check that that sounds correct. I think, you know, it's important to keep in mind now from the university's perspective that that's not how they define a violation of policy, right? So from their perspective, it's a question of whether it was consensual or not. So it could have been that she had that in mind when she was drafting the statement, but I don't, I'd have to double check if she used that word. Okay. Did the university find the young men responsible for rape? So they wouldn't find them responsible for rape because that's not necessarily the terminology used. It would have been sexual assault that they would classify it as. Has anyone found lie or responsible for sexual assault expelled? I don't know for certain because I don't know every sanction that was imposed for all seven of them. Okay. But some were found responsible for sexual assault in the eyes of the university, yes. Why do you think the DA is reopening this case and now going to submit it to a grand jury? I mean, to me, it seems like pressure to do so. I mean, if they're hearing the way that she's presenting the case, of course, people are going to be horrified and outraged at what's being said. So I think it is just that pressure to take another look at it. And if they didn't do any real investigation at the time, you know, perhaps they feel that now is the time to do it to make sure that they reach the right decision initially. What do you think people out there need to know about this case that they don't know? I think they need to understand that there's a lot more to what happened. And again, I'm not speaking for every defendant. I'm not saying there was no wrongdoing, you know, or things that happen that maybe shouldn't have, but there's a lot more that needs to be considered. And this is all going to come out through the case, right? I mean, we're in the early phases of the complaint just having been filed. There's going to be discovery and depositions. And a lot more information is going to come out. So I would just, you know, encourage people to be perhaps a bit more open-minded and not immediately jump to conclusions about who did what and who's guilty or not. Are there, are you thinking of documents that you've seen that are going to come out? Or do you think it's testimony that you're going to elicit? But both but probably turn early the testimony because that makes up the majority of the investigative record. Mm-hmm. There is an allegation that the New York Times is repeating today from the title 9 proceeding that this Jane Doe told at least a roommate that she had been sexually assaulted before. This is not her first accusation of sexual assault. Is that news to you? I don't want to comment on that one, you know, I want to respect the privacy on her past history. Okay. Sure. And can you confirm, I'm not going to ask you to name the Jane Doe, but is it your understanding that she is from the South, from Alabama? I recall she's from somewhere far from New York. I honestly don't recall exactly where it was, but I'm pretty sure if they filed something about living a few thousand miles away. So I know it wasn't in the charts. Yeah, a thousand. Yeah. A thousand. Yep. And your understanding is even though she's not from New York State that she filed you think, she filed the New York State Supreme because you think that's the place that would be most friendly to allowing her to proceed anonymously or do you think it could go beyond that as somebody who practices. That's kind of a lot. I mean, there's a couple factors. I think it jurisdictionally probably made the most sense because of where all the defendants are located or the foreign majority are located. I'm sure that was consideration number one. But I do think New York's data as a general batter, you know, is pretty accommodating in terms of allowing for parties to proceed by pseudonym. The, I think the biggest thing that led to this getting revived by the DA who seems to not think that there is a case here is the Snapchat exchange, which he says he did and have at the time, but he also says he thinks it's irrelevant legally. But it just reflects so poorly on the young men involved, the free P word upstairs. And then we learned overnight that there's another piece of the exchange where someone texts shops still open and somewhat else responds, yeah, just let me ask you explicitly whether Lopes is involved in the excerpts that we've seen. He is not. And that was something that was confirmed through the hearing process as well. He was not on there. He was not active in that group and actually the first time he ever saw it was in his second interview with the investigators in February of 2025. So can I get you to comment on that because it, you know, if you heard me yesterday, you heard me say there's a serious moral problem with the exchanges here. And you know, I have my own judgments about even what happened in that room, even if it were consensual. But I don't think crime was committed, as I also said. But can you speak to the moral outrage piece of it and what the young men are thinking about that now? Yeah. I mean, it's awful. I was sitting with him in that interview and we saw that for the first time and I think we were equally horrified, you know, to see people even talking in that way. And yeah, I mean, putting aside the fact that it may not on its own be a violation of any policy or crime necessarily to talk in that way, it's disturbing. And I'm sure that, you know, the men that are on there are embarrassed as they should be. And so, you know, I certainly agree, I mean, to see people talking that way is very upsetting. This is a weird question, maybe, but, you know, part of me is shocked to see even what we do know happened in there with, you know, three different threesomes and the drugs that part of me is shocked that kids who work this hard to get into this elite institution would behave like that. And maybe I'm just naive, Tara, but can you shed any light on it? I think I, you know, I no longer share any of that, and I need to tell you just because I've been doing this for long enough to see this over and over again, not to this level, but, you know, just seeing kids who are away from home for the first time and experimenting with different things, regardless of whether it's a huge Ivy League school on the east coast or small liberal arts on the west coast, kids do dumb things, right? And hopefully it's not to this extent where it leads to conduct findings and sanctions and potential criminal activity, right? And we hope that it's things that are just a matter of a learning experience, but it doesn't surprise me because we've seen this over and over again, not to this level, but we, you know, every day we're getting calls of different things that people have concerns about with their universities and colleges. The one of the concerns and I thank you. grateful to you for being here today is the doxing not only of the young men, but their lawyers. This Jeremy Salon who represents the other guy I mentioned, he came out and said he personally is being doxed. I'm going to play that sound by its number seven. We're interpreting that snap now as something horrible and horrific and it may have been, but he did not know this and that's why he went there and he was looking for his roommate or his friend who had left the room at the time. So I don't know what else we could do and I just, please, I've been, I have gotten doxed but you can't fathom to the point about being Jewish, Zionist rapist. I should be raped, my family should be brutalized, my, my address, everything. I get in calls every 30 seconds. I'm going to call as I'm sitting here with you, threats and threats and threats. People need to pause, understand the facts and if there needs to be accountability, there should be accountability. But if there doesn't give someone the benefit of the doubt, she could be a victim. And even if she really isn't full extent, it doesn't mean that Scott who is not someone who did anything wrong should be victimized and abused and thrown over the colds right over the colds. Are you worried about that Tara for you and your other lawyers? Yeah, I mean, I, you know, I certainly am coming on to speak with you. It's something I thought about in terms of, you know, people having a perspective about this case and but like I said, there's a lot more here that and like Jeremy said, I mean, there's a lot of facts that have to come out and I think people need to pause and just wait to see, you know, what happens with the case and where this goes because it's easy to rush to judgment based on the information that's been shared in the media, but there's a lot more that needs to be considered. Really? So do you think the people who have rushed to condemn these boys as gang rapists might wind up embarrassed? I, I hope they, I don't know that they'll wind up embarrassed or that I hope they do, but I hope they, they can be open minded and revise their opinions when warranted. Oh, some of the craziness we've heard has come from random people online. Some has come from some of the most powerful lawmakers in America. Your client is just a kid at Cornell University. It's a lot to have, you know, people like Chuck Schumer attacking him explicitly, the Senate Minority Leader, but he did Schumer post it on X the following. The allegations of sexual assault and rape at Cornell University are horrifying and deserve a thorough investigation that leaves no stone unturned. It took extraordinary courage for this young woman to come forward to university administrators and police. I mean, already, she's the courageous one. This is already assuming something illegal happened and that she's got the courage and she's the one we should be celebrating. It's very wrong for a politician to be doing this. He goes on, what she reported demanded urgency, seriousness, and an unflinching pursuit of the truth from the very beginning. Sexual assault remains far too common on college campuses across America and the culture of silence and complicity that allows it to persist must be confronted. It's incumbent upon all of us elected officials, university leaders, faculty and students to build campus communities where sexual violence is never tolerated, maximized or or minimized or ignored. There must now be a truly independent and exhaustive investigation not only into what happened, but into how this case was handled from the moment she came forward. Every fact must be uncovered, every failure must be examined. Wherever wrongdoing occurred, there must be accountability. She had the courage to come forward, no survivor should have to summon that courage and then fight the system to make it respond. Your reaction to that. I mean, I agree with the majority of what he's saying. There's no question that sexual assault is a problem on college campuses and we know that and the data shows that. But that doesn't mean that that's what happened here. And do you think that the likes of Chuck Schumer and some Democrats may use this to try to restore the title 9 provisions for due process on college campus that were in place under Barack Obama? I don't know. I mean, I think the process that is in place, it does work, not 100% of the time. But like I said, I've been to a lot of these hearings and when the processes are implemented and followed, they do reach correct outcomes. I assume you do not want to see a restoration of the Barack Obama era of title 9 enforcement. Preferably not. Yeah, I mean, I can, I can speak to it myself. Absolutely not. I've seen too many boys lives get ruined with no, really no appeal. Even if you find the devastating text message after the fact the university's day, they don't care and they don't listen. Here's Ali Slotkin, who is a Democrat from the state of Michigan, US Senator. We know what it's like when institutions fail women. Now it's time for Cornell to step up and treat this with the seriousness they should have treated it to you. The institutions have plenty of tools and accountability measures. They can remove students. They can suspend them indefinitely until the court proceedings. So they can do a million things. Writing an essay in my mind is not part of that list. When we make the decision that because young men have a promising career ahead of them, that they shouldn't face accountability for violently assaulting a woman, like then we've lost our way. What's your response to that? I mean, again, with the essays that that wasn't the outcome so I agree that there should be accountability and there are plenty of cases where that's appropriate and that may have even been appropriate here with respect to some of the defendants, but this unfortunately is another snapshot of people who don't have all the facts and are reading what's the sound bite that's been circulated and gone viral as far as what the allegations are. Last but not least, the folks on TikTok are having themselves a week. Your client has to live with this and get confronted by random co-eds on campus as a result of this kind of rhetoric. I'll play some for you. Ruin their futures. Ruin them. Bucking. Ruin their futures. Because maybe, just maybe, if we hold young people accountable, then we won't have rapist presidents. And that is a future that I would love, love, love to see. If you're going to do the crime, ruin, ruin, ruin their futures. I really do believe that every single person who is in that group chat who's chosen not to speak up is complicit in this violent crime. The gutless bystanders are just as culpable in my opinion. If I dog were to bought you, what would happen? The dog would be put down, okay? Justice will be served. Because if it's my daughter, you guys would be hanging upside down in my basement slowly, leading. The violence is not the answer, guys. Unless it comes to my kid, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the Cornell rapists. I don't call them the Cornell 7 because they're rapists. So we call them the Cornell rapists. What do they need to know about Julia that they don't know? I think they need to wait and see what the evidence shows. I mean, like I said, she was not incapacitated at the time that he was involved with her. The evidence shows that. The decision shows that he was not aware of the snapshot messaging. So I'm not, you know, again, saying that there was no wrongdoing here to some degree, but there was no evidence sufficient to show that there was a crime committed. And, you know, I'm all for accountability as well. And certainly if there were some of these defendants and students that were accountable, right? And they should be held responsible for that. And they were. They were in post-sanctions. So, you know, it's not like they're, they're found responsible and automatically permitted to return to campus and go about their lives. I mean, they did, they did receive sanctions from the university. To those who say he walked in there, this is a woman who's clearly high or drunk out of her mind. And he should have turned around and walked right back out. And or stopped the whole thing. What's a you? That's not how she was presenting. And the evidence will show that she was not presenting in a way that would have suggested that she was not aware of what was happening. So he thought she was, she had total capacity and was there enjoying herself? I don't know that I would freeze it exactly like that. I, I think I'll leave it at that though. Okay. Fair enough. Listen, thank you. I know it's, it's risky sadly for you personally to come out and speak to this, which is very, very wrong. Everyone accused deserves a good lawyer. That's how our system works. And, and your client deserves to have people stay open-minded to what his defense is before he's had the chance to present it publicly. He should not be dragged in this way. We really appreciate it. Tara, thank you. Thank you. All the best to you. Wow. This is like, this is turning into, I mean, full sale in witch trial. These guys are being lynched in the media before we've heard anything. They're Tara, that guy Jeremy who I just played. Those are the only two who have gone on camera to speak out. So we haven't even heard the defense of most of these guys. And yet still you get these women all over social media. You get slutkin. You get schumer. There's more to reveal. We'll do it. when we come back along with some other news. It's no wonder so many people are scared of AI because it is changing everything, including how criminals steal. They're targeting something most Americans do not even realize is vulnerable, the thousands of bucks in equity in your home. A scammer can use AI to craft the perfect document that they file with the county, transferring your home into their name, and then use your ownership to take out loans or sell it for quick cash. This is evil. It's called title fraud and it is happening all over America. That is why there's home title lock and their million dollar triple lock protection. These guys will monitor your property records 24/7, alert you of any changes to your title and give the triple lock difference. If you become a victim, home title locks expert restoration is backed up by up to 1 million bucks to fix the fraud and restore your title. For cybersecurity awareness month, home title lock is offering a free title history report plus an extended 30 day trial so you can see what it's all about. Risk free. Just use the promo code Megan 30 at hometetalock.com to find out today if you're already a victim. The AI threat is real. Do not let scammers have the upper hand. It's home title lock dot com promo code Megan 30 to get peace of mind today. Trying to keep it all straight for you, but here's the chronology. I didn't want to waste Tara's time with going through the text to the text to the text. She was very forthcoming. That is the most forthcoming. We've heard any defense lawyer representing any one of these seven B. So credit to her a lot came out overnight. So I want to go through it with you. First of all, you've got the reveal of text from October 23rd. This is four days after the incident. They don't make clear who she was talking to in this text exchange. But she writes, bro, everyone knows. And then the peace sign. I'm incredibly stressed out. Some random blocked out told some of my friends. I don't even know who that is how blank she know me. How blank she know me. So I don't know exactly who she's texting with. I'm going to guess it's defendant number one, whose Matthew is that seems to be her main friend at Chi-Fi and the one identified as male number one who opened the door with whom she danced, who she thought was attractive, et cetera. And then she texts him still on October 23rd, four days after the incident. I will also say, this is ruining my life temporarily. My reputation is destroyed and I'm utterly ashamed. That's extremely important right there because that's the motivation. I mean, her defenders will say, that's the consequence of being gang raped. And I think there's a very strong argument by the young men that it's the reason she changed her story. It's the reason she went from very clearly saying, I consented to this and nothing illegal happened, which was another text she sent right around this time frame to one of the young men to I was gang raped. And it was not consensual. And I was incapacitated the whole time. She's kind of telling us right here in her own words, my reputation is destroyed. And I'm utterly ashamed that all these people know. She says it. All these people know my reputation is destroyed. I'm utterly ashamed. Then his piece of this exchange, whoever she's texting with is blocked out by ABC. She goes on to say, you're right, it'll get better. And thank you. Everyone's just jealous of us. But also like everyone needs to grow up. Listen to this. This sexuality and sex and blank is changing and stuff. Like this is going to become more common. I'm also really open-minded though. I love you, King. Also tell anyone who gives you blank that I'll actually beat them up that don't want the smoke, I promise. So she seems to be saying to this guy, October 23rd, again, I'm just guessing it's male number one, Matthew, that she's mad, her reputation is destroyed. She feels ashamed because everyone's talking about it. And she says, I'm stressed because some of my friends know and how do these people know about it. And then he apparently says everyone's just jealous of us. And she responds, you're right. It will get better. And you think everyone's just jealous of us. But also everyone needs to grow up because sexuality and sex, it's changing. And stuff like this is going to become more common. And then I love you, King. This is one of her alleged rapists we think that she's talking to. I love you, King. I mean, if this really is defendant number one, Matthew, this is just a deeply problematic text for her side. I love you, King. I'm just really open-minded. Sex and sexuality is going to become more common like this, meaning threesomes obviously, like what? This is devastating. Okay. Now, that was 1023. Now, as I pointed out to you in the New York Times piece today that has the title 9 curing information in it, there is a reveal about what happened around this Halloween party that was just devastating for Kaifai. Okay. Yeah. By the way, the New York Times confirms that that October 23rd text is with man number one. His name is Matthew Ingalls. I guess we're going to out them all. The New York Times has named him. And they also confirm she wrote, bro, everyone knows this episode is ruining my lifetime temporarily. My reputation has been destroyed. And then they add that she wrote, all she could do was sleep and cry all day. He assured her it would blow over soon, noting how fast nonsense spreads at this school, saying she did not have anything to be ashamed of. You're right. She responded. It'll get better. Okay. Then she had a text with her big sister that week. She wrote to the big sister, have you heard the rumor about your little? In the meantime, Jane Doe had delivered strict instructions to one of her roommates. If anyone asked about this, say it didn't happen. The roommate was plainly concerned. Initially, the roommate said, Jane Doe was, quote, kind of recounting it as this crazy, this sort of crazy thing that she had done. So the roommates confirming that Jane Doe came back from the house and just thought it was a crazy thing she'd done, a crazy night she'd had. Then I told you in that one text, she was saying people to her big sister, people are saying, I'm a slut. And they're right. Ha ha. I've got to tell you something. Okay. I told you yesterday that I was in Triedout. And you know, there's a, there's, I loved Triedout for the year that I was in it and I deactivated the next year because as I told you yesterday, I had a boyfriend who was an athlete there and they couldn't, he wasn't allowed at any of the party. So I'm like, I don't want to go to these parties. What am I doing here? Anyway, you've probably heard the saying of Triedout is Triedout that everyone else has. And I'm not going to lie, there was a reputation amongst some that they were kind of easy. Not yours truly. Something I've always prided myself on. Not easy. Really, not easy in any way. But anyway, there was a reputation in that the saying was Triedout, everyone else has. This girl seems to be leaning in saying, I just, you know, I'm very open-minded and sex and sexuality. It's all changing and, you know, like she's kind of cool with all this. And then says to the, to the big sis allegedly that there are rumors circulating that I'm a slut and then says with a laugh quote, unfortunately, they're true. Now, that was two days after the alleged rape, the alleged gang rape. Now, she, she's saying to her, people are calling me a slut and they're right. Okay, so this is like, this is the, these are the initial texts. At the same day, October 21st, she received a text message from defendant number two. His name is Jonathan Newell. This is the one who tweeted out or Snapchat, Snapchat it out, though it spelled differently, Jonathan Newell in the Snapchat free P word in the alumni P you. I don't know what that stands for. It was an alumni room. So defendant number two, you know, we had some harsh words for him yesterday. It's going to have to spend some time reconciling his behavior with what I assume his parents taught him is ethical conduct. And she does have a text with him. He was engaged in at least two of these three sums, Jonathan Newell allegedly. And she has a text message with him on October 21st that reads, this is according to The New York Times's report of the Title IX proceedings. She got a text message from him, one of the men she would go on to accuse of sexual assault. Quote, I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night. He then said that both he and Matthew angles defendant number one, another of the men she would lead a recuse of assault, both felt terrible for being too under the influence of drugs in alcohol to quote, shut it down and kick people out. it got way out of hand, Jane Doe replied and assured him, quote, "At the end of the day, none of the sexual stuff was illegal, and honestly, I really liked being with you and Matt." End quote. I mean, I'm pretty sure that the parents of Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell are probably very outraged, even though their son wrote that ridiculous Snapchat and probably is the one who got this whole thing reopened. He's got it in writing from this woman that she enjoyed her sex with him and that initial threesome, that she enjoyed it, and that none of it was illegal in her viewpoint. Again, that's not determinative, but it's not helpful to a prosecution. Then things started to change a bit. Well, actually, before we get to that, okay, then she had the, then she had an exchange on October 25th, defendant number one, Matthew Ingalls texted her, "You good?" She replied that defendant number two, Mr. Newell had, quote, "definitely told people days later, she sent Matthew Ingalls an image of the forum post that she had found." She said while she was randomly surfing, suggesting there'd been a gang rape at Chi-Fi, and she sent it to Matthew with three question marks, and he responded, "Ridiculous, I'm going to report that. Ridiculous, I'm going to report that." There we are in late October with these exchanges, and there's nothing about a rape. There's only her calling herself a slut and saying attitudes about sex are changing and calling, I believe, defendant number one, Matthew, I believe, that's not on the statement. I'm assuming a king saying, "Love you, king." Then comes, according to The New York Times, the Halloween party. As Halloween approached, Jane Doe's roommates told investigators her understanding of what happened appeared to have shifted. Around October 28th, Mr. Ingalls was on the phone with Jane Doe, and according to one of her roommates, who said she overheard the conversation, he apologized to her. Rather than assure him everything was okay, Jane Doe took a different tone, "How could you let this happen?" The roommate recalled her saying, "I think she wanted it to be consensual." The roommate told investigators looking back on how Jane Doe was processing the alleged assault. The roommate told investigators that Jane Doe had been sexually assaulted before, which made it particularly hard for her to talk openly about what had happened. Quote, "I'd have conversations," and she would describe a part of what happened. I would tell her that that is what could be classified as rape. Here's the roommate admitting that she is the one who introduced the concept of rape to Jane Doe. She'd also read online that someone got gang-raped at kayfai, but it is the roommate telling her, "You're not a slut. You were gang-raped." And the roommate testified to this that, "I would tell her this is what could be classified as rape." Okay, but Jane Doe was not yet deterred from her desire, I think, to be with defendant one Matthew Ingalls, who she thought she was attracted to, who she said she enjoyed her interlude with, who she danced with, and went to the kayfai house to be with on the nighting question. The Times reports at kayfai, the fraternity was preparing for a Halloween party, and Jane Doe was eager to attend. Now, I've got to ask you if you have just been gang-raped by four to seven fraternity members at kayfai, why would you be eager to attend a party at the fraternity house? This is what came out at the title nine hearing. She was eager to attend. She said, "I am a slut." She said, "Attitudes about sex and sexuality are changing. This is going to be happening a lot more frequently." Okay, she's eager to attend the party at her alleged gang rapists' house. Text messages included in the investigation show Matt Ingalls assuring Jane Doe that he and other frat members wanted her to be there. Quote, kayfai is your house and you are welcome here." End quote, he wrote, "Relaying the views of the fraternities president who was not among those accused of sexual assault." She responded, "Thank you. I really appreciate that end quote and then added quote with a heart. I'll bring my sigs tomorrow." End quote. But then, this is critical in my view, Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternities president according to the text messages. She was disinvited from the party. "It was for her own good," he said. Now, I'm just going to say that was colossally fucking stupid. Absolutely idiotic by that guy. Now you're going to step in. Now you're going to enforce some sort of moral code around her wellness and safety. Dude, what did you think was going to happen? Did you think that was going to make her feel all warm and fuzzy about kayfai and the guys in it? Or do you think that might light a fire under this woman who's already being told by her roommate she was raped and starting to rethink the narrative around that night according to that roommate? So, and by the way, if you think she's in danger and it's for her own safety in terms of coming back to kayfai, you get your young men in order. You have a little team meeting where you say no one lays a hand on her. Everybody, everybody better behave like a perfect gentleman. Or you know what? You cancel your party that year. Just absolutely idiotic. So, it set her off. She sent a biting text not to the fraternity president, but her friend Matthew Ingalls. I knew this was going to happen. The woman will always get the short end of the stack. I read this earlier with Tara. That is all right in advance of Halloween. It doesn't, it's not dated in the New York Times. Then, okay, by November 3rd, she appears to have concluded that she was assaulted. She sent a text to Mr. Newell by November 3rd. Okay, and in that November 3rd text, she wrote, "Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual. I was given more key," meaning ketamine, "then I can remember. And I know that I told you I felt uncomfortable and I didn't know anyone in the room." The text continued with her telling Newell, defendant number two, that one of her only memories was doing ketamine off of his penis, quote, "In front of everyone like a sex doll/worker," end quote. This is not good for the young man, of course. And now she is saying it was, most of it was non-consensual. I told you I felt uncomfortable I didn't want anyone in the room and that she felt like she was a sex dollar/sex worker. Now, feeling like a sex dollar/sex worker was going to happen to virtually anybody other than one of these paid prostitutes. If you go into a room and voluntarily have sex with four to seven men, it's really only four or she's saying, you're probably going to feel like that. That's why you shouldn't do it, among the many, many reasons. And by the way, she showed up at the Chi-Fi House at 11 o'clock on, you know, some evening, the October 19th. Let me pro-tip, nothing good is going to happen to you if you show up at a fraternity house on a college campus at 11 p.m. any night of the week, ever, ever. And then as soon as you go upstairs with somebody, guess what? They're going to think it's consent to sleeping with them. Virtually every single man on earth is going to think you would like to have sex with him. If you show up at the fraternity house at 11 o'clock at night, then willingly go upstairs with them. And according to Jane Doe, this Matthew Ingles then turned around to her and said, would you consider having a threesome with another guy and me? And she said, yeah, actually, yes, I would, I would like to. So now you're really telegraphing consent, which she's completely rejecting now. But those facts, we know from her, from her six-page statement. So here we go. That was November 3rd when she said it wasn't consensual. A lot of it. I told you, I felt uncomfortable. I didn't know anyone in the room. And the one memory was doing ketamine off of your penis in front of everyone, like a sex doll slash worker. Now, on November 7th, she went to an emergency room in Ithaca and requested a rape kit. I haven't heard much about what happened with the rape kit, but I don't think from sexual interludes that happened on October 19th, there would be anything relevant or probative by 11/7 other than possibly that bruise. She said she got on her rear end from one of the threesome's where she alleges defendant number two that's nuyl slapped her rear end hard. So it's possible. that was noted, but I don't think any evidence of actual intercourse would still be there. November 7th, that same day, male number one, this Matthew Ingalls texted her, quote, "My ex told me I'm being labeled an assaultor in the public eye. I was going to ask if you may have said something along those lines to someone, but I know you wouldn't." And she responds, quote, "I had a friend who was going to Kaifai, and I said, don't, but I've never mentioned your name." She also then writes to him, "I haven't said anything, but I do know people are changing the narrative, because like in any sexual scenario with one woman and many men, the woman was probably the victim." You can see it's changing, right? It's changing, but she doesn't say, "You raped me." What she doesn't say to Matthew Ingalls is, "You and your friends raped me. I was out of my mind drunken high." The next day, November 8th, he asked for a phone call, and by this point, she's been to the, you know, in for a rape exam. She said she was done talking to him, and that she knew he, quote, "lied." ABC says it's unclear what she was referring to when she says he quote, "lied." He asked what she meant and asked her to call, and she answered, quote, "no, never again." I mean, he must have known, he was effed by this point. About a week later, she gave a sworn statement to Cornell Police, saying she felt incapacitated, declined some of the sexual activity, and that the encounters, quote, felt like coercion. She of course then filled out a six-page statement in which we believe she did not accuse them of rape explicitly and did recount multiple instances of turning down certain sex acts that night and so on. You know, her whole story seemed to indicate consciousness and ability to control her conduct, which is deeply problematic for any prosecutor trying to prosecute this as a rape case. So those are the reveals that we got overnight about the text messaging and you can see exactly what I predicted yesterday. She did this, you know, we used to call it Sunday Morning Regrets back in my day. She felt like a slut. She tried to laugh it off. She felt ashamed. She was still talking to Matthew, the one she liked. She felt like maybe something could happen there and then that idiotic university president barred her from the Chi-Fi party, honestly. I realize this isn't the main issue. I'm just saying, how fucking stupid can you be? And I think that really set her off. She had the roommate in her ear saying this sounds like rape to me and slowly but surely she was getting pissed off because word was getting around campus and clearly the guys had talked and she didn't really want that, you know, at first with them. She's like, well, sex and sexuality are changing, but what she really wanted was for people not to know what she did because even in 2024, then America, there was a judgment attached to repeated group sex, three, three sums in a night, which is kind of a relief to find out that there's still judgment around that. And now here we are. Now here we are. She filed the civil lawsuit. Again, we're going to find out who she is. I do believe she's the gal from Alabama that is being named online. I'm not naming anybody, not being absolutely sure who it is, but there's one woman from Alabama. I mean, people, the online sleuths basically figured out who's in tried out at the time and they were only about 50 young women and then they figured out who didn't stay at Cornell because his gal did not stay at Cornell and then they got it down to about 10 or 12. Then they figured out who was from a town about a thousand miles away from Cornell because she alleges in the complaint that she was from a small town around a thousand miles away and that made the list even shorter. Then they started to do further detective work like who stopped posting on Instagram around this time, et cetera and they did get to a name again. We don't know that it's this person who's being named, but she is this person who the internet believes it is is from Alabama and Jane Doe hired a lawyer who's admitted in Alabama who may be from Alabama, the main guy who's representing her on the case. So he's got a New York address and he's got an Alabama address. So that's interesting to I guess she lives in New York now, but query that connection. Why would she be hiring? The New York plaintiff be hiring in Alabama lawyer. And look, I stand by what I said yesterday. I just don't think there is any reason when you are talking about a civil lawsuit asking for money to protect the identity of a woman alleging rape when she names all of the defendants. There is this has to stop. We are treating women like it's the handmaid's tail and that, you know, there's a paternalistic society that controls everything around them and that's somehow there to blame for even for the real victims. Let's say she actually is a real victim and all of this is true. They gang raped her. There's no shame on the victim. We have been saying that we won't say the names of rape victims for a long, long time now because they get shamed. Why do they get shamed? It's not a fucking rape victims fault when she gets raped. It's the shame is on the defendant. So this whole policy comes out of an anachronistic understanding of this paternalistic society and how a woman's chased reputation must be maintained. And I'm sorry, but we are equal participants with equal power in society now. And this rule is outdated. It's actually a sexist rule. Sexists against women. Treating them as like the fairer sex that doesn't have equal power in America. And the way it's being applied here and in many other cases is it's unfair to the male defendants. It's another serious problem of doing this. No, I'm not sure if I would feel this way if there had just been criminal charges brought against these guys because that's, I mean, I don't know. It's probably the same feeling, but for sure when it's a civil lawsuit and the person's trying to get money, she's like, pay me. Like, I want to get paid. And by the way, I forgot this woman never went back to the DA. She never went back and said, now I have a Snapchat message. Please look at this and consider charging. She never used her lawyer to say, please reopen the case. Why don't you interview me? You never did. She went right to the tort claim with her palm out asking for money. I just don't see, there's no ethical impediment stopping any media person from naming her. So we'll find out who she is at some point soon, I'm sure. And it's unclear whether the New York courts will even allow her to maintain that cloak of anonymity, though it being New York would imagine they will. Okay, we're going to move on to other news. Can we talk about picky eaters for a second? If you've got a kid who survives on basically three foods, I want to share an easy way to help fill their nutritional gaps. It's a tasteless, colorless, vitamin powder called Ella Ola. Meal time with kids can be stressful like an endless negotiation, but Ella Ola can change the game. It's not a gummy or a chewable. You just mix one packet a day right into whatever they're already eating or drinking. Milk, juice, yogurt, oatmeal, even ketchup. They genuinely cannot detect it at all. Ella Ola was developed with pediatricians and delivers 19 essential vitamins and minerals plus nutrients from 15 organic fruits and vegetables. It has zero sugar, zero artificial dyes, and is free from the top nine food allergens. Over one million parents have already made the switch for that extra piece of mind. Ella Ola is offering you 20% off your first purchase. Just go to EllaOla.com/MK and the discount is applied automatically. No code needed. Try it risk-free with Ella Ola's 45-day money back guarantee. Go to EllaOla.com/MK for 20% off your first purchase. Everyone's talking about weight loss injections because the results can be so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. But what if you're looking to lose weight but are not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects? That's why doctors created a weight loss supplement called lean and the results could be remarkable. Lean says the studied ingredients in their product have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy and curb your appetite and cravings so you are not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual diet or with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose, you can get started with 20% off and free rush shipping, adding lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit TakeLean.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo code MK at TakeLean.com. with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Lake Lauren, Morgan Callahan, Emily Doshinsky, Jesse Kelly, real clear politics and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly channel, Series XM 111 and on the Series XM tab. There was a Lindsey Clancy hearing on Tuesday and nothing much happened because it was a status hearing and they did not really take on the issue of the holdout juror and what should happen to him. Kevin Reddington is out for that guy's scalp, but there was some talk around it. And the nation's jaw collectively dropped when Kevin Reddington suddenly, after a whole trial of admitting was never in doubt that his client Lindsey Clancy had murdered her three children, suddenly injected new doubt into that question or tried to inject new doubt into that question with the following sound. Sawed 11. Where is the evidence that she did this? The evidence is that she cut her wrists, cut her throat, standing in front of the mirror, blood drops, then went over to the window and propelled herself out of the window. You're on her evidence that she indicated that the screen was cut. You're on her also heard evidence that, in fact, the screen was not cut. You're on it to infer. Obviously, as a rational jury could infer that, in fact, this is a false memory that she had because she believes that the screen was cut. And it wasn't. But in any event, she propelled herself out the window and sustains the injuries that you're on her as well as she sustained. You're on a recalls looking at the blood spatter evidence and the drops on the floor. Where are the smears from a person who has just cut their wrists? Cut their throat is in a state of psychosis that throws themselves out of the window. Where are the smears from that person walking across the blood up to the window? What? What are you saying? You already admitted this. At the trial, now he's trying to do a defense on the merits like she might not have done it. Like actual innocence, he's getting like crazed with his power. He's drunk on his own wine. Now, after the 11 person jury minus the holdout, that 11 people on the jury decided that they were ready to vote not guilty by reason of mental defect or insanity. Look at him. He's like, I'm going for the straight, all-out innocence now. Okay, a little preview of what trial number two is going to look like. He doubled down, just in case I think that was a one-off, here in slot 12. This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this? And what's most chilling is the fact that-- You said it. --that when she comes out of this obvious coma that she is in, that when she comes out of it, you run a herd of testimony from the psychiatrist and from the doctor's at regular woman's hospital. She was told what happened. She had no memory of what happened. Why does she recall cutting the screen? Why does she recall killing the children? Where she's told what happened and had no memory. There's no evidence that she admitted that she did this. So you have no evidence from the defendant. The Massachusetts, an uncorroborated statement of a defendant obviously is not evidence. You have to have corroboration. I submit to the court, there is no evidence. She made any statements as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments. This is so crazy. He's trying to reallitigate the whole case now. Okay, your trial is over. It ended in a mistrial. Your client is likely to be retried. You are trying to stop that. But there is a 99% chance it gets retried unless you and the prosecutor can come to some agreement. But he is going to reindite her short of that. And at that trial, you can go for this argument, Kevin Reddington, an argue actual innocence. For some reason, you failed to. In trial number one, and maybe you're now going to get attacked as having provided ineffective assistance. Maybe Lindsey Clancy is going to actually appeal of the mistrial or the grant of one saying I was ineffectively assisted by this idiot who gave up the farm by not arguing that I was actually innocent. Which is what he did. Don't trust me. Here's a sound bite for you with Kevin Reddington, then versus now. Watch. This is a woman that did not get the medication. Did not get the medical treatment that she so deserved. This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at the time that she went down to that basement. Where's the evidence that she did this? Okay, what happened in the basement is the murders. There's just been no question that she did it all along. The husband, his testimonial, everyone knows she did it. And Kevin Reddington did not dispute. Did not dispute and admitted that she was in the basement, that she was under psychosis when she went down to the basement. That was the defense. It's very strange. And he was asked about this reversal when he went on the show of our pal, Billy Bush, hot mics on Tuesday. Watch here, stop 14. Today it felt to me, you know, honestly, that you opened the door a little bit to what actually happened and his involvement again. Did you go one way back and then the other way? No, not at all. Again, as I already said, what I did was argued exactly what I argued in my closing to the jury, exactly what I argued in motions for required finding. The government has to prove probable cause. I don't care. Full stop. Whatever the case may be, if they can't prove the guilt of the citizen based on their investigation, that person's entitled to or not guilty, regardless of what a defense may be. And this investigation was so horrific, so atrocious, it just defies and boggles the mind. Why this investigation handed up the way it did. So I had to raise that issue on the motion for a required finding. Okay, but you blew it because you didn't raise it in the trial and chief. And in fact, what we heard in the trial and chief was testimony from Patrick Clancy, the victim's father, about Lindsay's call to him a week after the murders. Quote. She said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance or something like that. I mean, this is what they fucking gave up the farm on this. We'd get it together, sir. Okay, get it together. It's ridiculous. She did it. Good luck trying to persuade a jury otherwise. There's news about the holdout juror. He, as you may know, issued a statement on tape saying, "I didn't have any doubt, actually. I had no doubt." And then his attorneys went on PANITY on Tuesday and they are none too happy with Kevin Reddington for besmirching their client as a lying felon, accusing him of lying under oath, which is a felony. Repeatedly, just for doing his civic duty. Listen here, Scott 15. Oh, Sean, I can tell you, we're going to follow Barkham Plane. Look, he filed in his words that we just heard a second ago. He said that all he's done is file a motion. Well, even if you take that as true, which it obviously isn't, the motion that he filed was unprecedented. You don't attack jurors this way. You don't single them out. And we're going to follow Barkham Plane. Good. I want your audience to know. I want you to know that that's happening. Absolutely. And here's the holdout juror himself. Hi, my name is Michael Peggy Desmondville, also known as the long juror. I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that I hand. The ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the one that can't fight the battles. Those are Quora Dawson and Callan. A little bit about me. I want to thank God for my Catholic faith. I want to thank God for blessed me with the ability to love my daughter. And I'm foremost, I would like to thank everyone, every individual, that have supported me throughout this difficult situation. Your prayers, your emotional support, your psychological support, is a tremendous to my heart, that I feel, that I sense, that I know. I do want to thank you for the bottom of my heart. Thank you. There you go. They're filing bar complaint against Kevin Reddington, as well they should. How dare he accuse a juror of committing a felony in the middle of the trial because he won't come to a verdict along the lines that Defense Council wants. That is so outrageous. And now he has spent weeks attacking and defaming this private citizen. It's just beyond the pale and honestly, all of the defense lawyers and prosecutors in Massachusetts should join in this motion. They should make an example out of this guy. The judge should throw the book at Kevin Reddington. He should be outraged this judge in this case. And the bar should throw the book at him in the ethical proceeding. There is zealous advocacy, which is expected of every lawyer and then there is harassment of a juror proceeding in good faith. This is, this is deeply wrong. The attorney went on to speak a bit about what has happened to Michael Desronville, the hold out juror since Kevin Reddington began his nonsense here, slot 16. Michael is a man of devout Catholic faith who loves his daughter, cares very deeply about the three innocent children who were murdered and is somebody who cares also very deeply about the United States Constitution and following the law and following the evidence. This is just so insane. So the drama there goes on and on and doesn't look like it's coming to a close anytime soon. There will be a hearing about the hold out juror, it was rescheduled because they hadn't copied his lawyers and given them enough time to respond to all the allegations swirling around him. So they asked for that to be postponed, which was accommodated by the lawyers, the prosecution and defense. But we will be getting to that. And when we do, we will have a cover for you. Okay, there is other legal news that we need to get to on a case we spent a fair amount of time on last week, which was the murder accusations against so-called pastor, music pastor, worship pastor Caleb Flynn, this guy in Ohio who was married to Ashley for 15 years. They have two daughters and this is the guy who had tried out for American Idol, a failed. And who said his wife was just so very pretty, Ashley. And he loved her so much and she encouraged him to try out for American Idol, but he failed. And then 15 years later, I guess her good looks had waned in his eye because he started banging some 20 year old who frequented his church, Alaya. And he hadn't a fair with Alaya for some two years or so, 18 months to two years. And this is Caleb and his wife, Ashley. And this Alaya and he had over 100,000 text messages with one another referring to poor Ashley as, quote, douche and bitch and other choice terms, both of them called her that. By the way, all the testimony was that Ashley was such a lovely person and the text messages from her to Caleb her husband showed somebody who was actually quite sweet and loving. She clearly at one point found out about the affair because at one point, she said like, where are you? And he said he was working and she said, be honest, are you with her? I mean, like, can you imagine most of us would have been like driving there in our bath robes with our, you know, moisturizer all over our face, banging on whatever door he said he was behind. Like, it would not be, are you with her? It would be I'm going to fucking kill this person, not really, but just like yell at. Anyway, he shot his wife twice in the head as she lay sleeping and then tried to claim that an intruder had come in through the garage door while he was out of the room in with the daughters and he was shocked, shocked. They had a fan on and they didn't hear it and, you know, he just couldn't believe it and he called 911 and, you know, got the worst actor award for his ridiculous historionics and within days was arrested. And the closing argument, his lawyer went for it, really went for it and went after Alaya and basically tried to tell the jury, how do you know she didn't do it? Which was a good card. He should have played even harder during the course of the trial. But here's a bit of that in slot 17. I'm just going to provide you instructions and basically the bottom line is you can believe or just believe all or any part of any way this is testimony. So, let's do a little test. Should we believe it yet? If you believe that she was a virgin and she didn't kill the wives of the swamp, I'd have to tell you, and then you have the immediately call to lie to the FBI. Okay, she must have saved her reputation, how do you know? The issue here isn't whether he was a good husband or was he an asshole? Or any other lady who you want to put up here, bad husband, that's not me. Absolutely, that doesn't be go around. So there you go. If you could not hear it, he asked, should we believe Alaya? If you believe that she was a virgin when she did Caleb, I have some swamp land. I would like to sell you. Okay. Well, was the jury persuaded that they should find him not guilty because Alaya may have done it. Here's the verdict, slot 18. We, the jury in this case, being duly empaneled and sworn, find it offended, Caleb C. Flynn, guilty of aggravated murder, as charged and count one of the indictment. Flynn, guilty of murder, as charged and count for the indictment. At this time, door number one, Mr. Applegate, were these verdicts your own? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Miss Actions, were these verdicts your own? Members of the jury, you are now discharged from your duties. Thank you. The defendant, who has been crying more than John Boehner at a tearful event, has been interers the entire time. And of course, when his own fate was determined, he blubbered like a small toddler. He will now be going to prison and no one gives a shit that he has upset about it. So goodbye, Caleb Flynn. I wish you no good luck. I actually hope you do not enjoy prison, but that some of your prison fellow prisoners do enjoy your stint there. And I'll just leave it at that. I want to give you the latest on Presley Gerber because there's news via TMZ on that today. And it's unbelievable, guys. It's unbelievable. So all along we've been having, I had questions about, why was he in this? What kind of a rehab, can you OD in, and I told you that I had a loved one who went to Karen rehab here in the Northeast and you could not get anywhere near there with anything even approaching intoxicating in your bag or for your loved one stuff that you would never think would be used as a drug, would be confiscated from you as a visitor. So I didn't understand this and then it turned out he wasn't at a rehab facility. He was at a, like a sober house, which is much, much short of a rehab. Okay, I don't, I still didn't understand why they would take somebody who's an active addiction quite clearly and put them in a sober house. And now TMZ is reporting on that and it's, it's pretty, it's pretty clear now. TMZ reports that Presley Gerber did have a sober coach. Remember I had said, why not have a sober coach? There is somebody you can pay to like follow you around when you're really vulnerable to make sure you don't drink. He did have a sober coach. They say he had a sober coach. The sober coach had planned to take Presley to an rehab facility, an actual rehab facility, the following Monday, but needed to put him somewhere over the weekend. So he took him to this place called Resolutions and just left him there. Here is Harvey Levin, expanding on Presley's last hours, sought 22. I want to tell you what I know about Presley Gerber's death and I know a lot. I want to start with the Saturday morning. he died 24 hours before he was found dead. Pressley Gerber was in a therapy group with other men and was very open about his struggles, about his personal life, about his battle with substances. That morning, I am told he was fine. He was not high, it changed midday. There were people who had contact with him in the middle of the day on Saturday and it became apparent that Pressley Gerber started to circle the drain. He was clearly high and scared what people around him told me is that he was actually scared that something bad was going to happen to him and felt a need to get some help. Now, he was with a sober coach at least part of the day and at around six o'clock in the evening on Saturday. That sober coach were told, contacted Resolutions Living, that sober coach were told, contacted Resolutions and said, "I want to bring Presley in but I need you to know that he is high." The facility said, "Bring him in. Just bring him in." Pressley Gerber is in this house and nobody is looking. There is the sober coach, if the sober coach knows that he was high going in. Where is the sober coach in all of this? Because based on what we know, it appears that sober coach was nowhere in sight. So he got dumped there by a sober coach. And TMZ also obtained this video of Presley, which they say he took of himself Saturday evening around 10 p.m., he would only have what 12 hours to live. He looks very thin. It's being shot on the side and then back up. It looks jumpy, TMZ says because they had to slow it down. But he's showing his room, supposed to be luxury accommodations. And I don't know whether this was posted or just found on his phone. I mean, honestly, if this was just on his phone, then they got this from his family, which is very strange. Why would the family be leaking videos of Presley Gerber to TMZ? Perhaps he posted it on his social media and then took it down. We didn't see it and we checked the social media right away. I don't know how we got our hands on this. But it is disturbing to see Presley Gerber within hours of his death when he had no family around him, clearly no friends and no sober coach to protect him. It's very sad. They also TMZ did caught up with this Dr. Reza Nambavi, who owns resolutions. And they asked him, "Why would you admit somebody while I'm just going to show you just a little bit of this?" Not 24. Dr. Why would you admit Presley Gerber into your sober house if you knew he was, he was tight. Is there anything you could say to the public? She keeps firing questions at him and he keeps walking away because he knows all of this is deeply problematic. More on that as we get it and we will see you again tomorrow. Thank you for tuning in. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, No BS, No Agenda and No Fear. [MUSIC]