Shocking New Shake Up in 'Cornell 7' Case

A Cornell sorority member claims that. she was drugged and gang-raped at the. Kai Phi fraternity house two years ago. Seven men are named in her civil. lawsuit, but this week there was a name. that has been removed from that. complaint, and it wasn't one of the. seven. The man that her lawyers. identified as Kai Phi's president at the. time, but it turns out he wasn't the. chapter president at that time. So, what. does this mean about the overall case? Let's break it down. Welcome to Sidebar, driven by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

So, here's where we are with the Cornell. case. There is a sorority member, known. in court papers as Jane Doe, or former. sorority member, who says that she was. drugged and gang-raped at the Kai Phi. fraternity house back in October of. 2024. Her civil lawsuit names seven. fraternity brothers, all of them denying. it. No one has been criminally charged. at the time of this recording, and this. week there was a name that was. officially removed from that complaint.

Now, it's not one of the seven. It is a. man that a lot of people hadn't even. focused on. The man that her lawyers. originally identified as the president. of the Kai Phi chapter at the time of. this alleged assault, Orazio Petito. Now, to be clear, Petito was never. accused of participating in the assault. itself, according to ABC 7. That claim. against him was purely about failing to. supervise and maintain a secure. environment as the head of the. organization. But, according to a notice. of discontinuance that was filed.

Tuesday, which we received, Petito was. not actually the chapter president at. the time. So, he was dropped from the. case with prejudice, meaning they can't. bring these claims back against him. His. attorney, Eric Bernstein, told ABC News, "My client deserved to be released from. this case. They had the wrong guy, and. justice was served as far as Mr. Petito. was concerned." And Bernstein also told. CBS News in a statement, quote, "We're. not validating or commenting on the. charges of the allegations themselves, but they had the wrong guy here. We're.

happy with the outcome. That's a big. development because it raises a big. question. If the complaint seemingly got. the president wrong, is there anything else in there that's. not accurate? Anything else that's. wrong? And that is exactly why we're. going to bring in somebody in a little. bit who has spent 25 years building and. tearing apart cases just like this one. But first I need to catch you up on what. else has happened this week cuz that's. not the only development. The Petito. dismissal is just one major update here. Let me start with this. Betting market.

Can't believe I'm saying this because. this one is genuinely strange and. concerning. According to reporting from. AP and the New York Post, Polymarket, you know the prediction market platform, apparently was running a contract that. let people bet on whether any of the. seven men accused in this case would be. charged with a felony sex crime. That. market apparently launched on September. 30th. And by the time it was pulled on. Monday, it had more than $450,000. in trading volume. Roughly 28% odds with.

$451,633. traded. And when news of this broke, what you saw, aside from outrage, was a. lot of people put the focus on the. celebrities that have ties or have. promoted or endorsed Polymarket. I mean, for example, LeBron James has an. endorsement deal with Polymarket. reportedly worth $15 million a year. That's according to Front Office Sports, which first reported on the contract. And after backlash from survivors. advocates, there was one attorney who. called it, quote, dehumanizing,

disgusting, and dangerous. Now again, Polymarket removed the market, removed. the contract, but a spokesperson told. the media, quote, we believe in the. wisdom of crowds, have heard them loud. and clear, and removed the market. Now. there is a petition that is circulating. online under the banner, no gambling on. gang rape, and it called out James, Eli. Manning, Derek Jeter, Emily Ratajkowski, Alexandra Daddario, among others who. have promoted the betting platform. But. to be clear, none of them have promoted.

or endorsed the Cornell bet. I want to. make that clear, okay? But the petition, it was organized by UltraViolet and it. called the market, quote, "morally. reprehensible and a slap in the face to. survivors everywhere." Warned that the. bets raise serious concerns about how. these so-called markets could actually. obscure justice. That's update two. Then. you get to update three. Gag order, or a. motion to have a gag order. So, Diego. Sarabia, who's one of the seven. defendants, asked the judge to silence. both sides from making public comments.

about this lawsuit, about this case. But. the judge said no. Yeah, according to. Courthouse News, she called the request, quote, "a sideshow meant to muddy the. waters and distract from the merits of. the claims." And she said that Jane. Doe's attorney, Thomas Drewfro, who. apparently has made a lot of comments to. the media, interviews, lot of statements. about this case, that what he said is. that he mostly offered his opinion. And. that the First Amendment doesn't let her. shut him up just because the defense. doesn't like what he's saying. The.

motion itself, it was filed October 9th. by Sarabia's attorney, James Knox. It. asked for narrowly tailored restrictions. that would bar lawyers and parties from. commenting outside court. Knox argued. that Drewfro had been trying his case in. the media since filing the lawsuit, and. they submitted a list of what they. called Drewfro's prejudicial statements, meaning it could affect a future jury. pool. Knox warned that the publicity. risked threats, doxing, intimidation, and extrajudicial contact. Now, Drewfro.

fired back in a statement, by the way. He said, quote, "The defense has tried. to rebut the claims in this case by. engaging in a wholesale leaking of. confidential documents, giving. interviews calling Ms. Doe's story into. question, and calling her lawsuit. immoral. These attempts to shift the. narrative have not been successful. The. defense is now attempting to silence me. and Ms. Doe because we have been so. successful in rebutting their. ineffectual attempts to undermine her. story. Truth always wins out. Okay, real. quick. You know how we always talk about.

the dangers in this world here on. Sidebar? Did you know that your personal. data is being published on sites all. around the internet by data brokers? Yeah, they gather info like your full. name, your social security number, your. shopping habits, your phone number. Well, Incogni, our sponsor, they help. remove that data from over 420 harmful. sites when you sign up. And with an. unlimited plan, their new exposure. scanner gathers your personal data and. puts it all in one place where you can. decide what's removed, which means you. don't have to go looking around for all. the places your data's hiding. Incogni.

also gives you an overview of the. removal process, allowing you to dig. deeper into each site request. Look, I. was shocked. I saw my information on all. these databases. Now, thankfully, within. days, Incogni was able to take them. down. That's the great part. So, they. can't harm you if they can't find you. That's the truth. Use code sidebar at. the link below, get 60% off an annual. plan. That is incogni.com/sidebar. And. again, Judge Faedra Perrybond denied. the request for a gag order. But let's.

be clear, the judge had ordered some. sealing in this case because the sealing. came after a member of the Marine Corps, who apparently shares the same name as. one of the defendants, had asked the. court for protection, saying that he and. his family had been subjected to. continued and ongoing harassment, including death threats, from members of. the public. So, there was a concern. about doxing people and cuz this case. has taken on a life of its own. A lot of. people have comments and thoughts about. it. And then there is Cornell itself. Okay, this is another update. According.

to the Boston Globe and Euro News, President Michael Kotlikoff announced on. October 13th that all parties and social. events at Interfraternity Council houses. are suspended through the end of the. 2026-2027. academic year. Zero tolerance. Any house. that holds a social event gets an. immediate emergency suspension. Cornell's Board of Trustees Special. Committee also brought in former Deputy. US Attorney General Sally Yates to. conduct an independent review of how. Cornell handled this case and the.

allegations and the complaint. The. university is moving to let New York. State Police, not campus police, investigate sexual assault allegations. on campus. Pollackoff said, "I am deeply. sorry for the harm Jane Doe suffered in. 2024 and appalled that this act of. sexual violence occurred within our. Cornell community." Seemingly making a. conclusion as to this, by the way. And. there was a new front that has opened in. that fight because according to CBS. News, Jane Doe sent a letter earlier. this month to Cornell's Faculty Senate,

which is, by the way, considering a. no-confidence vote in Pollackoff's. administration. And in that letter, she. apparently describes what she calls a. second-hand account of a conversation. between Pollackoff and the then. president of Cornell's Tri Delta. Sorority, that chapter, in which she. claims Pollackoff's initial response to. these allegations was along the lines. of, "Why did she wait so long to report. it?". Doe wrote that the comment "diminished. my confidence in the administration's. ability to approach my experience with.

the understanding, sensitivity, and. fairness I had hoped for and expected. from what had been my dream school.". Now, Cornell pushed back this week. saying her description is, quote, "incorrect" based on a documented. first-hand account. The university. claims that Pollackoff's question was. directed at bystanders who didn't use. Cornell's anonymous tip line, that it. wasn't about Doe herself, it's about why. they didn't come forward. Her attorney. said the letter, though, it sent for. informational purposes, that Doe would. ask the Faculty Senate to give her.

letter whatever weight or credibility it. deems appropriate. So, that's the. landscape. Those are the updates. That's. what I want to get into. What does this. all mean? By the way, I got to say this. real quick. So, this is a big case that. we've been following here on Sidebar. We. can't show you like every piece of. evidence all in one episode, but that is. why we got something. So, we have the. Court TV case files on the Law Crime. Plus app. We are opening up the evidence. vault so you can inspect the raw body. cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime. scene photos, the full trial tapes, all. first-hand. Plus, you get ad-free.

streaming of all your favorite Law Crime. and Court TV shows. And right now, got a. special offer. Use my promo code. sidefall, you get 25% off an annual Law. Crime Plus subscription and enjoy a full. year of true crime commercial-free. That's just $44.99 for the entire year. So, go to lawcrimeplus.com. and subscribe today. Okay, let's get. back into this. Let me bring on John. Clune, who's a civil sex abuse attorney, former prosecutor, to talk about this. John, it's good to see you. I want to. talk about the big development about. dropping the former fraternity president.

from the lawsuit. Now, to me, I find. that significant. You know, it seems like the right move. to do to drop him, not part of the case, but. that feels like a big mistake. And that. feels like a mistake that shouldn't be. in a lawsuit like this. >> Yeah, I I think that's right. Um you. know, anybody can make a mistake, of. course, but um that is a pretty. significant error. You know, you brought. in somebody who apparently had nothing. to do with any of these events and kind.

of um. cast him into the mix of some pretty. awful allegations. It it's definitely. something that uh shouldn't have. >> But does it go to the validity of the. other allegations in the complaint? I. don't know how they got to this point. where they thought that that was the. president. I don't know if it came from. Jane Doe. I don't know if it came from. their own independent research. I know a. complaint sometimes just has more of the. bare-bone allegations that need to be. substantiated by, you know, evidence and. discovery. But at the same time, you.

know, it's not like I had imagined you. just file a complaint overnight. You you. have to make sure you dot all the I's, cross all the T's, and it does make me. wonder, could there be an issue in terms. of details, in terms of recollection, in. terms of credibility, or am I reading. way too much into this? >> Well, I think the fact that you're even. asking the question says something. about, you know, how this impacts things. at least from a public standpoint. You. know, from a public perception. standpoint, there's going to be a lot of. people that are going to wonder, well,

if this guy didn't actually have. anything to do with it, who else may be, you know, wrongfully accused here? When. it actually shakes out in the court of. law, I don't expect it to have much of. an impact on the overall case, but from. a public standpoint, it's probably more. relevant significant. >> And you know, what's interesting is. because immediately as you see a. headline like that, people who are. already do not believe Jane Doe on. social media, they will come at her, right? They will say this is further. proof of that these claims aren't real, and maybe that and you know, that's not. necessarily true, but it also ties into.

that other update, right? Where the. judge said, wait a minute, attorneys are. free to, you know, litigate this case in. the court of public opinion. They they. can make comments about it in in a. certain way, and so presents a kind of a. unique issue with this case as well. because of how many people have taken. sides and already come to conclusions. >> Yeah, I mean, one of the things that is. unique about I've I've I've done a. number of cases that have had like this. level of media attention to them. They. are very very difficult to.

get through as a as a survivor of. trauma, and I think there's so many. unique complexities to having this much. media attention to it. So, I think the. combination of the fact that, you know, like you said, people who maybe are. automatically suspect of these types of. cases or maybe know somebody in the. case, so they think they have a good. opinion on what happened. This kind of. mistake and then dismissing this. fraternity president from the case kind. of fuels that speculation that maybe. there's not as much here than the media.

is reporting. But then, you know, if you. switch to the to the gag order, it just, you know, underscores the fact that. these issues are going to get litigated. in the the court of public opinion. The. judge is not going to have a lot of uh. restraints on people commenting publicly. as long as they don't negatively impact. the case and just it's going to make the. case harder and harder both for Jane Doe. and for the the other, you know, defendants in the case. >> What did you make of the judge's uh. order denying denying that gag order.

that was uh sought by one of the. defendants? Um what did you make of. that? >> Yeah, that that's generally the right. thing to do. I mean, the courts that. that follow the law tend to deny those. kind of requests unless there's. something that's going on. that is really having a negative impact. on the case itself or somebody's ability. to get a fair trial out of the case. Courts should be allowing public access. to these cases and should be allowing. people to to speak openly. It's only. where you get to a point where you may. have issues about, you know, can I get a.

fair jury because this attorney or that. attorney is is launching such a public. campaign that a judge may step in and. issue a gag order. So, I I agree with. the decision on this case. The judge. will keep an eye on it if if things get. worse, it it could be revisited, but. seems like the right call. >> She said in her opinion, "Expressing. opinions on the case or reporting on how. the litigation has impacted clients. cannot alone serve as a factual basis. for limiting an individual's First. Amendment rights. A review of the. statements of which Mr. Sarabia.

complains shows that the majority of. statements would be understood by an. ordinary listener to express nothing. more than Mr. Druffer's opinion. So, there's not a concern that this would. negatively impact or affect a future. jury, right?". >> All right. I mean, and also keep in. mind, like you're this is filed in New. York County. I mean, this is a pretty. massive jury. You You it's it's amazing. sometimes you work on these cases that. have incredibly high profile media. followings to them. And even in smaller. jurisdictions, you can still get a fair. jury. So, the idea that they can't get a.

fair jury in New York County, um you. know, it seems to those of us that are. following the case closely, it seems. like it's everywhere. But, the reality. is the majority of people don't follow. these cases. Um you're going to get. plenty of jurors that never even heard. of the case. Seems it seems crazy to us. that follow the case, but that's that's. the reality when you start picking a. jury. So, I don't see any real issues. for the time being for getting a jury in. New York County. >> One of the dangers of true crime is. people kind of sensationalize it. They. make it into entertainment. They.

sometimes forget that there are real. lives at stake. And when I think about. that, I look at the Polymarket issue, right? The fact that people were. apparently betting on whether or not any. of the seven accused are going to be. facing criminal charges, are going to be. criminally charged. It's pretty sick to. be thinking about, right? The fact that. Polymarket shut it down is it's a good. thing, but obviously they're getting a. lot of heat. The people the celebrities. that are endorsing Polymarket now coming. in the crosshairs. I just find that. really disturbing about these. allegations. And people are placing bets.

on it? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean you're you're I mean. Polymarket in general has a you know, there's there's a lot of things that are. probably of interest to people on. Polymarket that are not so untoward, but. it can be used in a very kind of. depraved sense. And that is probably one. of the strongest examples of that. I. mean, these are These are This is a. group of young people um. you know, that are you know, have. significant stake in the outcome of this. case. They're all going through a. difficult time right now. And to have. people kind of openly betting on that is.

um that that's a that's a development. that I don't think any of us foresaw, you know, a few years ago. And it's. really um it's it's been disturbing. >> But, doesn't that highlight the earlier. point? If so many people are now betting. on this and all this money is coming. through and there's a petition against. it. How do you get a fair and impartial. jury, a jury that hasn't already been. convinced one way or another, a jury. that hasn't made a conclusion about this. case? Or how do you prevent stealth. jurors from coming in who maybe have an.

agenda, want to vote a certain way? I. find that this is a case, and yes, this. is amplified. I say this all the time. with a lot of high-profile cases with. social media. But this one has taken on. a life of its own, particularly with. this Poly Market development. So, are. you concerned about whether it's a civil. case, whether it matures into a criminal. case, about defendants getting a fair. and impartial jury? >> At this point, I'm not. This is one of. those cases that it seems like it's. everywhere. When you I've picked juries. in high-profile cases, and you're just.

you'd be surprised at how many people. have either not followed the case or are. not aware of the case. They've got other. things in their lives. Yeah, it's it's. just a jury selection process, both in. terms of getting a fair jury and rooting. out anybody who may want to be on the. jury. Well, there are like an. intentional stealth juror, or they just. really want to be on the jury cuz they. have strong opinions that they're not. disclosing during jury selection. That. happens, and that's part of the jury. selection process that the lawyers and. the judge. try to root through. It's not a simple. process, but, you know, good lawyers and.

good judges, which we have here, will. will do a good job with it. >> Before we get to the Cornell president, um. and I've asked all my guests this. whenever I've interviewed them, varying. opinions. Then again, this case changes. daily or weekly. Um you know, different. messages have come out, Snapchats, different accounts, uh investigations. Do you think there are going to be. criminal charges in this case? >> You know, you and I talked about this a. couple weeks ago, and I said I don't. expect there to be criminal charges. I. may hedge that a little bit. There may.

be one or two, you know, defendants that. the attorney general's office decides. that it that it could prove. It is is. generally unlikely when you have a case. that has already been passed over, and. there's been issues with the. investigation, even with a new. prosecutor, it's generally unlikely that. charges come out of that subsequent. investigation. But, if the attorney. general's office sees maybe one or two. individuals that are a little more. bright line in regards to the evidence, we could see we could see charges. I. would not expect all the all the. individuals to get charged, but if there.

is one or two that stand out that they. can prove, then then that could be a. possibility. >> And then we have Cornell, right? This. update about the president, you have no. confidence vote, and this alleged letter. that was sent to Cornell's Faculty. Senate by Jane Doe that was seemingly. recounting a conversation between. Michael Kotlikoff and the sorority. president at the time, that chapter. president, and this allegation of, you. know, why did she wait so long to report.

it, and, you know, the university came. back and said, "Well, the president. didn't really say that he wasn't. questioning why did she wait so long to. report it, but more why didn't. bystanders who may have known about what. allegedly occurred, why did they wait so. long to report it?" It just place. another cloud and questions over the. university and the administration. What is your take on it? >> Yeah, it's a it's a bad look. I, you. know, I. I don't know that I can give the. president the benefit of the doubt. hearing that explanation. Um.

But, look, I wasn't there. I didn't I. didn't hear what he actually said, but. it it's certainly a bad look and and. something that, you know, is you know, undermines, you know, everybody's faith. in the university, and I think probably. locally on campus, it sounds like there. probably was already some. lack of faith in in the president before. this started, and it certainly doesn't. help that. >> But, then it goes to this issue of. credibility, right? If they're pushing. back and saying that's not a correct. characterization of what happened, you know, again, there are all these.

text messages that came forward. seemingly from Jane Doe with her alleged. attackers, the people who allegedly. assaulted her or a part of it. And there. are questions about is she credible? Has. she changed her story? Was she really. voluntarily intoxicated? Did she. consent? And there's two narratives to. that, right? There's one who say, "This. is a a person who didn't appreciate what. happened to her, you know, when she did, that's why you see a change in tone.".

There's a lot of reasons why. victims stay in touch with the people. who harmed them. But then the other way. of looking at it is is this somebody who. was trying to protect her reputation, was nervous about the rumors out there, tried to play her off as a victim, that. the evidence doesn't support her. allegations, her comments don't. So. there's two different narratives here. And then you couple it with this, this. is now another argument, is she telling. the truth or is her version of events. accurate? And it goes all to the.

question of her credibility, which in a. civil case or criminal case is going to. be key. >> Yeah, it's it's a it's a great question. It's, you know, the the issue of this. conversation with the president is. probably by itself not a significant. um. you know, discrepancy. Um and it could. easily be two people just having, you. know, two people who had a conversation. who had different thoughts about what. what the conversation was. That happens. all the time. But the fact that you. asked the question just underscores the. fact that everything in this case is. going to come down to credibility. And.

the defense attorneys are going to look. for every single interaction, every. single statement that she makes, and. make a determination or make a. suggestion that that affects Jane Doe's. credibility, including this, you know, letter to or this conversation with uh. the the school president. >> John Clune, some more things for us to. think about. Appreciate having you on, appreciate you taking the time. Thank. you so much, sir. >> Glad to be here. Thanks. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.