Cornell Case Update: Letitia James Takes Over, New Evidence, Calls & Punishments
00:01 Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,
00:22 free of charge. BetMGEMGEMP operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Tuesday, October 6th. And today we're doing a quick catch-up on the Cornell case. So I don't typically release episodes on Tuesday. Yesterday was a travel day for me. So as I warned about on Thursday, I didn't do an episode yesterday. However, I did want to get this catch-up episode out for two reasons. Number one, we've learned a lot since Thursday's episode about this Cornell case. So I want to make sure that we stay on top of it. And two, I don't want the Cornell story to take up the bulk of this Thursday's episode because we have a lot of other things to talk about. So I just want to make sure we kind of get all of the updates from Thursday out of the way here. And then we can move on to regularly scheduled programming on Thursday. I do also just want to take a second to shout out all of my new listeners and viewers on YouTube. I know I have a lot of new eyes and ears tuning in after last week. So I just want to say I'm so thankful you're here.
01:23 And I hope you stay a while. Unbiased News is a beautiful thing. my humble opinion. And the more people that we have on the unbiased train, the better we'll all be for it. So thank you for being here. And again, like I said, I hope you say a while. All right, let's get right into today's episode. So the last time we talked about this Cornell case was Thursday, of course. And as I said then, this is a story that is that's changing by the hour, right? And it has. Since Thursday, we've learned a lot more. New York Governor Kathy Hochel has taken the criminal investigation away from the Tompkins County DA's office and appointed New York Attorney General Leticia James as special prosecutor. We've learned more about what information the original DA's
02:05 office was offered and chose not to review. We now know what punishment each of the seven men received from Cornell. We have a recorded phone call between Jane Doe and Matthew Engels. We have a recorded phone call between Jane Doe and Winston Lee. We've received more messages involving some of the fraternity members. Cornel's president has spoken out. There's a voted no confidence taken place. So there's a lot to go through here. But we're going to start with the biggest development, which is the criminal investigation. On Friday, New York Governor Kathy Hokel removed the Tompkins County DA's office from this case and directed Attorney General Letitia James to take over as special prosecutor. Now, under New York law, the Attorney General normally doesn't
02:46 prosecute ordinary local crimes. That is typically the job of the district attorney in the county where the alleged crime occurred. However, New York executive law specifically allows the governor to issue an executive order and direct the attorney general to take over a criminal case. Now, when that happens, the attorney general essentially steps into the shoes of the local DA for that case, right? So James's office will now be in charge of investigating what happened, interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, and potentially appearing before a grand jury and prosecuting the case. So the Tompkins County DA is no longer overseeing this case.
03:27 It's no longer in control. Now, as far as why Hockel made this decision, she said, quote, newly released information continues to raise serious questions about the investigation conducted by the Cornell Police Department and the decision by the Tompkins County District Attorney not to prosecute an alleged sexual assault on Cornell's campus on Cornell University's campus in October 2024. This has in turn undercut my faith and the public's faith in the district attorney's ability to effectively investigate and prosecute the crime at this time. For this reason, I've issued an executive order appointing Attorney General James as special prosecutor in this case. The young woman
04:05 at the center of the case deserves to know that every fact will be examined and justice pursued. This action will ensure that the matter is fully and thoroughly investigated without conflict or bias and handled independently with the rigor that this matter demands. And quote, Hockel then said in a subsequent press conference, quote, in what world would the police learn from a victim that she literally been gang raped while intoxicated by five men in a fraternity house and not elevate those allegations to the district attorney? In what world does the district attorney not even interview her or anyone else involved or even request the full transcript?
04:41 end quote. Hockel said she was quote unquote deeply disturbed by how Cornell police handled the case saying quote, them sending a partial record over to the Tompkins County DA is in my judgment of failure. We'll have the attorney general and others find out if this is actually the case of what happened, but somebody knew more than they were letting people know. But when the district attorney received something and it has information about allegations that have happened with an encounter with five people at a fraternity and you don't take the time to interview this young woman more questions and rely on a partial record. This is what I'm talking about. And quote. Since then, former Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said in his own statement,
05:22 quote, I support the appointment of Attorney General James and I trust that she will examine the facts and apply the law. It has become clear that we were not provided the full picture by the university. The focus has been and should continue to be on the victims. My office will cooperate fully with the attorney general. and quote. Now, speaking of this investigation conducted by the Cornell police and the DA's decision not to prosecute, we've learned a bit more about that information chain. Because remember where we left off, right? We knew that Jane Doe sat for a two-day interview with police, campus police, roughly three weeks after the alleged assault. And we knew that based on her responses in that interview, a formal six-page sworn statement was drafted. Jane Doe, reviewed. Jane Doe reviewed the statement, made about 20 handwritten edits, signed off on a final version, and that statement was then sent to the DA. That statement was the statement the DA reviewed and decided not to recommend charges. But there were questions as to why that ultimate sworn statement gave a much different impression
06:27 than her interview because in her interview, she said she was, quote, 100% confident she was raped, end quote. But the statement that was given to the DA made no mention of rape. at all. The statement made it sound like it was all consensual. And Cornell's police's own initial record reportedly described Jane Doe's complaint by saying, quote, a female undergraduate student reported that she was recently raped by eight to ten men at the Kai five fraternity house. And quote, and that language also did not appear in the six page statement that was given to prosecutors. So at the end of last week, there were a lot of questions. Why did the sworn statement
07:06 given to the DA sound so different from the interview that Jane Doe gave to Cornell investigators over the course of that two-day interview. Why did the DA not have the other information, right? The DA said it didn't have the Snapchat messages. The DA said it didn't have the interview transcript. So there were just a lot of questions. Well, newly obtained records show that on November 25th of 2024, so this is almost five weeks after the alleged assault and about 10 days, after Jane Doe's interview with Cornell Police. A Cornell police investigator contacted an investigator with the Tompkins County DA's office and told him that Cornell Police had conducted more interviews since Jane Doe's interview, that it had followed up on anonymous tips,
07:56 it had interviewed witnesses, and it had spoken with attorneys representing some of the accused students. And according to written notes from the Cornell Police Investigator, the DA's investigator told the Cornell Police Investigator that he and several attorneys in the DA's office had already read the six-page sworn statement and all agreed based on that statement that criminal charges wouldn't be pursued. And according to the records, the DA's office did not ask to review those additional interviews, did not ask to review the transcript of Jane Doe's interview. So that adds some pretty important context. But there are now questions on both sides of that information chain, right? Why did Cornell police give prosecutors such a limited portion of what Jane Doe had told them?
08:45 And why didn't the DA's office ask to see the rest of the investigation? As far as who bears responsibility there, here's what I'll say. Cornell police definitely bears responsibility. for only giving prosecutors a six-page statement that apparently left out some critical portions of what Jane Doe said during the interview. But the DA's office was ultimately responsible for deciding whether criminal charges should be pursued and actively turned down additional information that would have helped it in making that decision. So both can certainly be criticized here. Cornell police can be criticized for what it didn't send prosecutors. The DA's office can be criticized for knowing there was more evidence out there and deciding it didn't need to see that evidence. before ultimately making the decision not to pursue charges, or if it had made the decision not
09:32 to pursue charges, not taking that additional information into account. So that is that part of all of this. I do also want to be clear about the fact that it wasn't the DA himself that turned down the additional review according to notes from the investigation. According to Cornell Police notes, it was an investigator from the DA's office that said they didn't need the additional information. but not the DA himself. So one of the things that James's office will presumably now have to figure out is, you know, exactly what Cornell police had, what prosecutors knew existed at the time, what was turned over to prosecutors, what prosecutors chose not to review, and why they chose not to review it. But just to be clear about where we're at legally here, no one has been criminally charged
10:23 at this point. No criminal charges have been filed. James' office is now supposed to go back through the evidence and independently determined whether there's enough support or whether there's enough evidence to support criminal charges under New York law. However, there's now a separate controversy involving James herself because before Hockel appointed James as special prosecutor, James had already publicly commented on the case. On September 28th, James shared an article about the sexual assault investigation being reopened and wrote alongside it, quote, what this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable. I'm holding her in my heart and in my prayers. To her and to all survivors, you are not alone. We stand with you.
11:12 End quote. Now here's the thing. Prosecutors are not neutral decision makers in the same way judges are. Once a criminal case is brought, prosecutors represent the government. and try to get a conviction and try to prove the charges, right? But they also have a special obligation to seek justice. And before charges are brought, they are supposed to evaluate the evidence fairly and decide whether the facts actually support prosecution. So, you know, James is allowed to express sympathy for an alleged sexual assault victim. But the question here is whether what she said could be interpreted as her already accepting
11:51 some of Jane Doe's allegations as true before she was appointed to independently investigate what happened. And because of her prior comment, you have people wondering whether she should have been appointed as an independent investigator and prosecutor in the first place. So an attorney representing one of the seven men is one of the people calling it out. He is arguing that those comments create at least the appearance that she had already made up her mind about some of the underlying allegations before she was given this responsibility of independently investigating them, and he's therefore asking her to voluntarily recuse herself from the case. He said in part, quote,
12:28 there's nothing wrong with expressing compassion towards someone alleging sexual assault, end quote. But, quote, the concern is that James's words could reasonably be understood as expressing a view about what occurred before she became responsible for independently evaluating the evidence and determining whether criminal charges are supported, end quote. But as of today, James is still the special prosecutor. She has not recused herself. And when she was asked about that earlier social media post on Friday, she declined to comment. So that's the criminal investigation update.
13:01 Okay. Now we need to talk about the punishments. But actually, first, before we do that, I want to let's keep this in mind. So according to this is just context, background context, for what we're about to talk about. According to the complaint and investigation, Jane Doe had. sexual encounters with four men that night. The initial threesome with male one and male two, a second threesome with male two and male three, and then a third threesome at the very end of the night with male one and male four. The other three men involved in this incident were involved
13:36 by doing ketamine off of her body in one of the bedrooms at the frat house. So according to the disciplinary records, two men were expelled, two were suspended, a former student was was banned from campus and two got no contact orders, educational requirements, and reflection papers. Now more specifically, okay, we're going to piece all this together. Mail one and male two, so Matthew Engels and John Newell were the two students expelled. Cornel's investigation found them responsible for sexual assault. So Ingalls is the student that Jane Doe originally went to Kai Fi to C. And Newell was the second man involved in that initial threesome. He was also involved in the second threesome. Newell also allegedly sent the Snapchat message that said
14:23 there was quote unquote free pussy in the upstairs alumni room. And Ingle's allegedly sent a picture of Jane Doe in the bed in that same group chat and wrote, quote, boys come whip it out, end quote. So those were the two who were expelled. Now, Winston Lee received a four semester suspension, followed by remaining semesters of disciplinary probation. And then Gileo Lopes received a three-semester suspension, followed by two years of probation. Both were given no contact orders involving Jane Doe, and both were required to study sexual harassment and write reflection papers. Now, Lee is the student who was allegedly involved in the third and final threesome of the night
15:10 with Ingalls, and Gileo Lopes is the student who was a student who was allegedly involved in the third and allegedly involved in the second threesome with Newell. So of the four students who had sexual contact with Jane Doe, two were suspended and two were expelled. Then the final three students named in this lawsuit, who did not have sexual contact with Jane Doe, but did allegedly snort ketamine off her body, were all given some form of either being barred from campus or having to attend classes and write essays. So Diego Sarabia had already graduated by the time this title nine process ended. So he received what's called a persona non-grata order. He's barred from Cornell's campus for three years. And then there's Scott Norris and Scott Kreshmore, who both received
15:56 no contact orders, educational modules involving things like sexual harassment, social media use and bystander intervention, and reflection papers. Kreshmore was found ultimately responsible for attempted sexual exploitation, not sexual assault. And his attorney maintains that he never saw Jane Do Naked, he never saw her in distress, and he did not participate in sexual activity with her. Just to tie in what we talked about in last Monday's episode, we now know that Kreshmar was the student who sued Cornell after the fact. Okay. We talked about the fact that one of the students who was disciplined filed a lawsuit against
16:34 Cornell saying that he did not get proper notice of the attempted sexual exploitation charge that he received and he didn't have a proper opportunity to defend himself because of it. That was Kreshmore. And just to be clear, when we talked about that in last Monday's episode, I said, I made an improper conclusion. I said that we knew that the student who filed that lawsuit was one of the two students who had been expelled. I was wrong. Kreshmarr was not one of the students who was expelled, though he is still barred from campus through 2027, I believe. Now, as we talk about Cornell's findings and the disciplinary actions, it's important to distinguish a university disciplinary proceeding.
17:13 and a criminal prosecution. They are two completely separate things. Cornell can find that a student violated its sexual misconduct policy and discipline or expel that student without that student ever being charged with a crime. A criminal case has its own statutory elements, its own constitutional productions, its own burdens of proof. So Cornell finding two students responsible for sexual assault and expelling them is certainly relevant information about what Cornell's investigation found, but it doesn't automatically mean that New York prosecutors can now charge those same students with rape or some other sex events. James's office still has to look at the evidence person by person and determine whether the facts
17:53 support the elements of a particular crime under New York law. So just keep in mind that those two are very different things. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some of the phone calls that have been uncovered, as well as more information we've learned about Cornell's investigation. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive, the PRCLEs, the PRCLEs. Price is right fortune pick. BetMDM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly.
18:18 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Welcome back.
18:38 So before the break, we covered the updates to the criminal investigation and what we've learned about specific punishments and disciplinary actions. Now let's talk about the phone calls because this is one of the bigger new pieces of evidence that's come out since Thursday. ABC News says that it has obtained recordings of phone calls between Jane Doe and three of the fraternity brothers from November 2024. So a few weeks after the alleged assault. Jane Doe recorded the calls herself and later gave the recordings to Cornell for the investigation. At least one of the phone calls was made the day before she went to Cornell Police and was with Ingalls. And then there was another phone call with Lee,
19:18 which was made either the day before she went to Cornell Police or the day before that. So shortly before she went to the police. But during the conversation with Ingalls, she's essentially trying to piece together what happened because she says there aren't there, there are parts of the night that she can't remember. And for contacts, up until this phone call with Ingalls, Doe and Ingalls had been texting on occasion, and the conversation sort of eventually progressed into her telling Ingalls that, you know, as the weeks had gone on, she was in a really bad place mentally. We dove into the details of those conversations in Thursday's episode if you want to hear more on that
19:54 and if you haven't yet listened to Thursday's episode. Now, as far as the phone call that took place the day before she went to Cornell Police, we don't have the entirety of that phone call. we have bits and pieces. So take, take these, you know, this encounter with a grain of salt because we don't know exactly how this conversation flowed. We just don't have the full conversation. What we do know for ABC News is that Jane Doe starts off the call saying, at least in part, quote, the only way for me to heal is to know what happened. If I just know what happened, then I can feel a little bit better and move on and maybe be able to stay at this school.
20:28 That's why I'm trying to piece it together, you know, like I'm just confused, end quote. She also reportedly told Ingalls over the phone that she spent time in the emergency room and did therapy because, quote, there's so much damage on my body and my brain. End quote. Jane Doe then asked Ingalls how everyone ended up in the bedroom that night and he says, quote, the door was just unlocked. The party was sort of like crowded so people started like filling up the balcony just because there was nowhere else to go. End quote. At some point, Jane Doe tells Ingalls, quote, you already knew I was 10 shots. deep, end quote, to which Ingalls said, quote, you did tell me you were sober, by the way,
21:07 you did. You said you hadn't been anywhere. End quote, Doe pushed back on this, saying she was quote unquote, 100% sure that she told him she had been at a bar for a sorority event before that and said, quote, I never lie. End quote. Doe asks Ingalls at one point how they ended up in a threesome. And he said, quote, so you come in, say hi. We start dancing for like three to five minutes.
21:31 and then I popped the question, you say yes, and then I remember we didn't know who else to bring. So I go up to blank, it's redacted in the phone call, who was on the dance floor too, and I popped the question and he was like, yeah, and then we went upstairs, end quote. When Jane Doe asked him to help her identify all of the men in the room, Engel said in part, quote, I have racked my brain for this mystery. You know, it's possible that both of us remember this and it's not true, end quote. So that's what we have with as far as her phone call with Ingalls, as far as ABC News has reported it. But again, keep in mind, those are snippets of the conversation. Some of those are partial quotes. It's very much piecemeal.
22:12 We don't have the full context. We have not gotten the full questions or responses from either Jane Doe or Ingalls as far as they were made on that phone call. And then same with Winston Lee. ABC News reported on her phone call with Winston Lee, but it's again, very piecemealed. So in her call with Winston Lee, she similarly said that she was, quote, trying to piece everything together, end quote, and added, quote, I was deeply, deeply intoxicated. At some point, I said at some point, quote, I'm so sorry about all like the backlash you're getting from this. I feel so bad for you dude. Right afterwards, they told me not to message you because they thought you were going through a lot. So I constructed this like letter to send you. And quote. Jane Doe says at some point on that call, quote, I was completely and totally intoxicated and then given multiple sedatives. And then I was surrounded by upwards of eight to 10 men. This is classified as gang rape.
23:06 End quote. Lee then said, quote, why? Wait, what's the can I, could I ask? Like, what's the purpose for why you decided to call me? End quote. Jane Doe says, quote, I was blacked out for half of it. How did all these people get in there? End quote.
23:20 Lee says, quote, there was nothing saying that anything was happening in that room or anything. And quote. And again, that part. that Lee said is taken out of context. However, it does seem to refer at least to, you know, maybe Jane Doe brought up the fact that there were these Snapchat messages or something or maybe asked whether other people were invited in the room because she was trying to get down to the bottom of why there were so many men in the room. And so Lee said there was nothing saying that anything happened in that room or anything. However, as we know, there was in fact that Snapchat
23:54 group chat, which both Lee and Ingalls took part in. but did not mention on their phone calls with Jane Doe. ABC News also reported on messages and records that it says show what some people involved in this situation at Kai Fi described as, quote unquote, damage control. According to one of Jane Doe's friends, some of the frat brothers were trying to get a hold of Jane Doe after the incident in an effort to keep her happy and make sure that she wasn't upset about what happened. And then on November 8th, the day Jane Doe went to police, fraternity brothers started talking in a group chat about what. to do. One person asked whether he should give her a call, Jane Doe, and the fraternity president told them to wait while the executive board figured out what was going on. The group then appears to have sort of try to work backward through the frat party's schedule, trying to determine which
24:44 night was being investigated because Cornell police reportedly initially listed the wrong date for the alleged incident. So they were trying to figure out exactly what date, what party was in question. Cornell investigators also we've learned, looked at messages that Ingalls later sent to one of Jane Doe's friends. In one exchange, Ingalls told the woman, quote, you could submit new evidence that could get me and redacted dismissed immediately, even if Jane Doe found out, if the evidence is convincing enough to let us go, then it's proof that she lied. End quote. The friend of Jane Doe then replied, quote, I don't have evidence. And quote, and that same friend later told investigators that she felt as if Ingalls was trying to convince. her that Jane Doe was lying. But again, all of this is very much piecemeal information. So we know,
25:33 right, that outlets like the New York Times have obtained more than a thousand pages of documents. So these conversations, I mean, we're getting bits and pieces here and there. So far, again, no outlet has really released a comprehensive account of any of these phone calls or any witness testimony or anything like that. I'm just kind of talking you through what we do know. We've also learned a little bit more about evidence that Cornell police tried to preserve after Jane Doe reported this incident. Cornell police specifically prepared preservation requests involving phone records. A preservation request, by the way, is it's basically just law enforcement telling a phone company, hey, don't delete this information because we might come back with a
26:15 warrant or a subpoena in order to obtain it. But in this case, we don't know if those preservation requests were actually sent. We don't know whether the records were eventually obtained. We don't know if they were obtained, what they showed. At this point, we just know that Cornell police prepared those preservation requests. However, Janeo's attorney did say that phone record evidence was never provided to the DA's office. So that may imply that records were obtained by Cornell police, but just never given to the DA. But again, that's not a confirmed fact that we know at this point. That is another piece, though, that James's office will go back and look at what records were identified, what was preserved, what was collected, where,
26:53 did that evidence ultimately go? There's also some new evidence or information about what happened at Kai Fi immediately before the night that Jane Doe says she was assaulted. So Cornell police records showed that there had been a drug-related incident at the Kai Phi House and a drug-related arrest roughly 22 hours before the alleged assault. Cornell Records also reference an overdose at that fraternity around that period. The fraternity was then allowed to host another registered party later that day after the drug-related incident, and that would be the party that Jane Doe eventually attended. Now, this public crime law doesn't prove that the earlier drug incident had anything to do with Jane Doe.
27:36 It doesn't prove that the person arrested was one of the seven men involved in this. It doesn't prove anything about the alleged assault later that night. However, given that Cornell itself owned the Kai Phi House and had responded to a drug incident, there just hours earlier, it raises another question for this outside investigation about what the university knew about what was really happening inside that frat house and whether the school responded to what was happening appropriately. Remember, in past episodes, we talked about Cornell's potential liability here and we talked about how foreseeability plays into that. If Cornell knew that there was ongoing drug activity at this frat house, especially serious enough
28:16 that police had just responded to an overdose and made a drug-related arrest, that would be relevant to whether Cornell reasonably should have anticipated that allowing another party to go forward there posed a risk to students. Now, that still wouldn't automatically make Cornell legally responsible for whatever allegedly happened that night because foreseeability is only one component of a negligence claim. However, it's just to say that that earlier drug incident could mean that Cornell was at least aware of drug use on the property. and possibly should have responded to the situation differently rather than allowing this party to take place. Cornell's president, Michael Kotlakov, released an eight-minute video over the weekend addressing the case and said the university, quote, must do better, end quote.
29:03 He said that Cornell's board of trustees is bringing an outside law firm to independently review how the university handled its allegations, but he says that Cornell won't wait for that review to finish before actually making changes. He specifically talked about creating systems where people reporting sexual assault feel safe coming forward, making those systems more trauma informed, examining the role of Greek life at Cornell and supporting changes to New York's sexual assault laws. He also acknowledged frustration over the university's lack of communication and said that although there are legal and privacy restrictions on what Cornell can publicly disclose, the university needs to do a better job explaining what it is allowed to say and providing more context about the actions that it has taken. And then another Cornell related update as of yesterday, members of Cornell's faculty senate introduced a resolution calling for a vote of no confidence in the university administration over its handling of sexual assault. The resolution says in part that the faculty senate has, quote, no confidence in the ability of the central administration to effectively address the ongoing crisis of sexual assault at Cornell University. And quote, as of today, that resolution has not passed. it is expected to go before the full faculty Senate when it meets on October 14th. According to the professor who is sponsoring the resolution, Paul Ortiz, about 40 of the Senate's 75 voting members have already expressed support for it, which if that support holds, would be enough for it to pass.
30:31 So a vote of no confidence is the faculty just kind of formally saying, we do not have confidence in the administration's ability to handle this issue. Now, it doesn't force Cornell to make any particular changes, but it would essentially serve as a public rebuke from the university's own faculty. And it could also put more pressure on Cornell's leadership and board of trustees to make changes. And then finally, the last update we have to cover is Governor Hokel calling for New York lawmakers to change state rape law because as we've talked about over the last week or so, New York's definition of mental incapacitation is very specific. under current law, if prosecutors are relying on mental incapacitation to establish lack of consent, the intoxicating substance has to have been administered without the person's consent. So voluntarily becoming really drunk or really high doesn't automatically satisfy that definition. Hockel, however, says the law should be changed so that someone who becomes incapable of consenting
31:31 because they're extremely intoxicated can be protected regardless of whether they voluntarily consume the alcohol or drugs. But just to be clear, if the law is changed, that change would only apply going forward. It would not apply retroactively. Okay, so let's just wrap this all up. Where are we at the moment? Well, still, we have three different processes happening at the same time. We have Jane Doe's civil lawsuit against Cornell. I mean, it's not just against Cornell. It's also against Khyfi and the individual defendants. But Cornell is also undergoing an independent outside review of how it handled the case. So that's two. And then three, the New York Attorney General's office is now conducting a new criminal investigation into whether any crimes were committed that
32:11 night. So just keep that in mind as more and more information comes out. There are three different processes happening now. The civil case is asking whether the defendants can be held legally liable to Jane Doe. The University Review is looking at whether Cornell and its employees handled the situation appropriately. And if not, what changes need to take place. And then the criminal investigation is asking whether prosecutors have evidence that would support specific crimes against certain people. And on that last question, you know, as I've said, James's office will now have to go through the hours of interview material, the text messages, the phone calls, the witness statements, whatever other evidence exists from the Cornell investigation and
32:52 determine whether that evidence supports criminal charges under New York law. So from here, there are, there's a few different ways this can go. James's office could review. view everything and determine that the evidence still doesn't support criminal charges, in which case prosecutors could close the criminal investigation without charging anyone. James's office could determine that the evidence does support at least a felony charge against one or more of the med, in which case prosecutors would typically present those charges and the supporting evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury would then decide whether there's enough evidence to formally indict that person on that charge. And if the grand jury returns an indictment, then the criminal case would
33:29 move forward. The defendant would be arraigned on the indictment. the case would go through the normal pretrial process, and then unless there was a plea agreement or the case was dismissed somewhere along the way, it would eventually go to trial. At trial, prosecutors would then have the much higher burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. Now, let's say that James finds that there is evidence that supports at least one felony charge and therefore presents those charges to a grand jury, but the grand jury says no. The grand jury says the grand jury says the evidence isn't legally sufficient or there isn't reasonable cause to believe that the person committed the crime. In that case, the grand jury would dismiss the charge and the criminal charge would not move forward.
34:12 So that's your update for today. Again, I just wanted to catch everyone up to speed because I was out of office yesterday. We will be back to regularly scheduled programming on Thursday. If anything develops in the Cornell case between now and then or if for some reason I missed something today will of course cover it on Thursday. But more so Thursday's episode will be getting us caught up on everything else going on, like the plague in Russia and the chances of it spreading over here, the rumor about martial law being declared ahead of midterm, stuff like that. By the way, if you guys have any recent rumors you want answered in Thursday's rumor has it segment,
34:42 just send them to me. You can DM me on Instagram at Unbiased Jordan, or you can submit a contact form on my website, which is Unbiasednetwork.com. Don't forget to leave me a five-star review. If you love today's show, share the show with a friend. Have a fantastic couple of day, next couple of days. And I will talk to you on Thursday. For 50 years, Canadians have wondered what the names of IKEA furniture mean. Like Natopa, the guardrail for children's beds. Natopa means giving your favorite person room to grow.
35:13 It means their safety. And your piece of... No. In Swedish, Natoppa means night monkey. Ma! Ikea, 50 years of Swedishness at home. Look, he's wearing little pajamas. So cute.
There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click any sentence in the transcript to leave one.