VIDEO · PUBLIC LIBRARY #686
Comment attachment by janedoe1
Timestamped transcript 00:00 Those of you who were in the courtroom, the judge asked a very important question00:04 regarding the other six of the so-called Cornell Seven.00:11 We believe that we have the right to bring this in the name of our client only.00:18 The question of whether or not a official who has already taken a public position is the right00:28 person to restore public confidence in an investigation and a prosecution.00:35 Transcends any one of the seven.00:40 And nonetheless, we're going to go back to our office.00:43 We're going to talk about it.00:45 And it is likely that we will consider joining the others so00:50 they can come and I happen to know most of them will be glad to make00:56 similar arguments to the ones we made. But again, the question I really think transcends01:03 any one person. And the question we all should be asking is, what is the best way for the01:08 public to have confidence in whatever the coming investigation holds? And based on statements01:18 made by the Attorney General prior to her appointment, we believe that she has already01:24 accepted as fact some of the critical elements of Jane Doe's claims.01:30 Why haven't the other six joined you so far?01:33 We haven't asked them candidly.01:35 It is permissive, not to overlaw this conversation, but whether we join other people or not01:41 is permissive, it's not required.01:44 The judge, I see, wants to hear from the other parties and he will.01:49 So you think you will be able to get the other six to enjoy?01:53 I think that we're going to look to get everyone who should be a party to this rejoin.01:59 Have any of them called you about it?02:01 I'm not going to comment on that, but the answer's yes.02:04 Mr. Meltonberg, do you think Judge Farrell asked the government-pointed questions about02:09 the social media post?02:10 I think he did, and I think reading between the lines while he was concerned with us02:15 about the issue of Joinder, I think the judge's questions were fairly clear that02:22 he found the statements that were made by the Attorney General were in core form,02:28 and not well made, and that the real question is not to cause chaos between judges,02:38 not necessarily whether the Attorney General made statements that were proper.02:44 My personal reading of the argument is that he's already decided that.02:48 I think the question is making certain that there is no02:53 chaos between the courts as to who is going forward with the investigation.02:57 And just a bit off topic, my apologies. Were you invited to participate in the03:03 Netflix talk? Did you know about it? So that's you know it's an interesting03:06 question which also brings up the where the states03:13 I'm sorry it also brings up where the state is on this issue.03:17 Apparently, there is a Netflix documentary coming out.03:19 Someone pointed that to me this morning.03:22 Apparently, Kathy Huckle, the governor and the attorney general,03:27 Letitia James, have been interviewed and are taking part in that.03:31 I can tell you confidently that no one in my office or03:37 any of the other defendants' offices has been asked to participate in the Netflix documentary.03:43 So I expect the documentary to be one-sided, salacious.03:49 I'm sure we'll all want to watch it,03:51 but I also know that it won't be the whole truth.03:54 If that is true and they were interviewed,03:56 and suppose the judge ruled against you here,03:59 do you have an opportunity to make another application based04:01 on continuing statements or what they're saying,04:03 or how does that work?04:04 I think that's something we'd have to consider.04:06 I think that it's a that the governor and the attorney04:11 general are on a very slippery slope here and I think continuing statements won't serve them well.04:19 One other question on the jointer issue, contact her or bring in the other six. How does that04:27 complicate or does it complicate defending the civil lawsuit and defending a potential04:32 civil invest criminal investigation? What in essence you have to acknowledge these other people04:37 they're you know maybe it defences that I wasn't there that kind of thing.04:40 So I don't think it prejudices either a criminal investigation or the civil case.04:47 The evidentiary standards in both are different.04:50 And I think that everyone's position of the seven will remain factually consistent with what their experience was.04:59 Remember, there were seven different experiences.05:02 There were seven different claims.05:04 There were seven different results from the Title I hearing.05:09 and bringing them into this matter05:14 on the issue of whether this is the right person05:18 to continue an investigation.05:20 I don't think it will intercede or intersect05:24 with the questions in the civil case in the criminal case.05:28 Is there anything that happened in there that leads you05:30 to believe that criminal charges are more or less likely?05:33 Absolutely not.05:35 I mean, we want, you know, look, a criminal investigation, the integrity of the investigation05:43 begins at the beginning to attempt to address what may be a predetermination after there's05:51 an indictment is something that I can tell you no lawyer would want for their client05:57 nor would I want for any of you.06:00 The time to do that is right now and that's what we're asking the judge to consider.06:03 No, there's no suggestion any more today than yesterday06:07 that criminal investigations are done.06:10 Was today a win for you?06:11 Was today a win for you?06:13 Every day that I wake up and can walk is a win for me.06:16 Was it a win for you on the path to getting a T-shirt J?06:19 I think we have some things to address,06:21 and I think the judge is keyed in on what the issues are.06:24 So we'll be back.06:26 And just in terms of the criminal investigation06:29 and the grand jury, sometimes, if the defense knows06:32 that's going on, you can submit evidence to mitigate that.06:37 And you guys have chosen not to or?06:43 To our knowledge, we have not any notification06:45 of criminal investigation.06:47 Even though Winston Lee's attorney found the judge,06:50 submitted a motion or a petition.06:54 Well, I think Winston Lee's attorney,06:55 I can be wrong, filed a motion.06:57 I don't know that it was based on06:59 that anything's actually going on.07:01 Okay.07:02 Are you confident you'll get the other six to join07:04 if not what happens.07:06 I'm confident that the other six will join07:09 whether they want to or not.07:12 And I think they're going to,07:14 and I think to the ones that may not want to,07:17 the judge will force them to join.07:20 The judge has the power to force them to join?07:22 Yes.07:23 Yes.07:24 As a defendant, that's what I'm saying.07:26 For this application?07:28 Yes.07:29 How would that represent the new application07:31 in the Comfort County?07:33 I do not know. I'm going to have to go back and check the chat sheet.07:37 I'm going to go back to the city now.07:40 Most of you have my cell number. Welcome to call me.07:44 We can discuss it. I have two hours back to the city, but I do have to go.07:48 Thank you so much.
Lucy Craig is Jane Doe - 100% Verified
Comments & replies
No account is required. Comment anonymously, or sign in with a pseudonymous account if you want to manage your comments later. Comments are user speech, not editorial findings.