Man who sent Facebook message about committing a campus sexual assault pleads guilty
Ian Cleary, 32, who was raised in Silicon Valley before attending Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, had hired a private lawyer to review the evidence as he considered a potential plea.
Judge Kevin Hess set an Oct. 20 sentencing date. The two sides proposed a four- to eight-year sentence, which the judge can accept or not.
Accuser Shannon Keeler, in interviews with The Associated Press, described her decade-long efforts to persuade authorities to pursue charges, starting hours after she says Cleary, a third-year student, sneaked into her first-year dorm on the eve of winter break.
She renewed the quest in 2021, after finding a series of disturbing Facebook messages from his account that said, 'So I raped you.' Keeler faced Cleary in the courtroom Thursday for the first time since the attack. She clutched her husband's hand as Cleary entered the courtroom in handcuffs and listened stoically as he gave brief answers to the judge's questions.
Cleary has been in custody since his arrest on minor, unrelated charges in Metz, France, in April 2024. A defense lawyer told the judge Thursday that Cleary experienced several mental health episodes there and was hospitalized around the time he sent the Facebook message in 2019.
The second-degree sexual assault charge carries a maximum 10 years in prison. His family members have declined to comment on the case and have not attended his court hearings.
Cleary, who grew up in Saratoga, California, left Gettysburg after the assault and finished college near home. He then got a master's degree and worked for Tesla before moving overseas, where he spent time writing medieval fiction, according to his online posts.
The AP published an investigation on the case and on the broader reluctance among prosecutors to pursue campus sex assault charges in May 2021. An indictment followed weeks later.
Authorities in the U.S. and Europe had been trying to track Cleary down until his capture in France.
The AP typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Keeler has done.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
French President Macron, wife Brigitte sue Candace Owens for defamation from transgender claim
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, on Wednesday sued right-wing provocateur podcaster Candace Owens for repeatedly falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron "is in fact a man." The Macrons' 22-count civil lawsuit accusing Owens of defamation and false light alleges that Owens, since March 2024, has "used this false statement" about Brigitte Macron "to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money." "Owens disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favor of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers," the lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court says. "And rather than engage with President and Mrs. Macron's attempts to set the record straight, Owens mocked them and used them as additional fodder for her frenzied fan base," says the suit, which notes that Brigitte Macron bore three children from her first husband. The complaint says that Owens' allegedly knowingly false statements about the Macrons include claims that they are blood relatives who have committed incest, and that President Macron was chosen to be president as part of a CIA-operated program or "similar mind-control program." The statements were made in an eight-part podcast, "Becoming Brigitte," and in accompanying posts on the social media site X, the suit says. "These lies have caused tremendous damage to the Macrons," the suit says. The complaint seeks monetary damages to be determined at trial. The Macrons are being represented in the suit by the law firm Clare Locke. Clare Locke in April 2023 with another law firm, obtained a $787.5 million settlement for the voting machine company Dominion Voting System from Fox Corp. and its cable networks, including Fox News, to resolve a defamation suit related to claims about the 2020 presidential election. "If ever there was a clear-cut case of defamation, this is it," said the firm's attorney Tom Clare, about the lawsuit filed by the Macrons. The Macrons, in a statement, said, "Because Ms. Owens systematically reaffirmed these falsehoods in response to each of our attorneys' repeated requests for a retraction, we ultimately concluded that referring the matter to a court of law was the only remaining avenue for remedy." "Ms. Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety. We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused," the couple said. "It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all." A spokesperson for Owens, in a statement to CNBC, said "Candace Owens is not shutting up. This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist." "Candace repeatedly requested an interview with Brigitte Macron," the spokesperson said. "Instead of offering a comment, Brigitte is resorting to trying to bully a reporter into submission." "In France, politicians can bully journalists, but this is not France. It's America. Candace will address everything on her show today, where she will continue to express her First Amendment rights." Owens, on July 2, published on her website a letter from Clare Locke to her attorney demanding that Owens "and the entities she controls retract her false and defamatory statements" about the Macrons.
New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not only flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against President Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, released a document on Wednesday that she said undermined the conclusion of intelligence agencies during the Obama administration that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016. The document was a report that the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, when Republicans led the panel. The report took issue with the conclusion reached in December 2016 that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had favored Mr. Trump. The new material provides some interesting insights into the development of the review of Russian activity by American spy agencies, and the debate over their assessment. But none of the new information changes the fundamental view that Russia meddled in the election and that Mr. Putin hoped to damage Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. On Sunday, Ms. Gabbard promised to refer the details of her findings to the Justice Department. And on Wednesday, she said in a social media post that Mr. Trump had ordered the declassification of the report and that the information showed the 'most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' The Obama administration, Ms. Gabbard wrote, was 'promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' Ms. Gabbard has won praise from Mr. Trump for her investigation into the intelligence findings and spoke at length about how the 2016 assessment was part of a witch hunt against him. The president has been under sharp criticism for his handling of documents related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, and his attacks on the Obama administration appear to be part of a distract-and-deflect strategy. Ms. Gabbard reiterated her assertion that the intelligence assessment was intended to undermine Mr. Trump's presidency. 'In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she wrote, 'working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.' The report was released with relatively few redactions, prompting criticism from Democrats. 'Given the rushed and unusual 'declassification' process the D.N.I. has implemented, I fear that the public release of this report could compromise sensitive sources and methods and endanger our national security,' said Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, referring to the director of national intelligence. Officials familiar with the matter said that another, more heavily redacted version took care to hide more information about U.S. sources and had been considered for release. Ms. Gabbard said on social media that Mr. Trump had declassified the report. Kash Patel, now Mr. Trump's F.B.I. director, was a key author of the report released on Wednesday, according to officials. Only Republicans on the committee participated in the drafting of the 2017 report and revisions in 2020. The House report found that most of the judgments made by the intelligence community in 2016 were sound. But it argued that the work was rushed, as a recent tradecraft analysis by the C.I.A. also found. The assessment that Mr. Putin had favored Mr. Trump did not follow the 'professional criteria' of the other findings, the House report said. The findings were at odds with a bipartisan series of Senate reports from a committee that included Marco Rubio, then a Republican senator from Florida and now Mr. Trump's secretary of state. The Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed the work of the C.I.A. and the other intelligence agencies on the 2016 assessment. The judgment about Mr. Putin's preference, the House report said, was based on a single source who was biased against the Russian government. The raw intelligence was fragmentary and lacked context, the report added. The detailed discussion of the source has not been made public before, although the U.S. decision to extract and relocate him, first to Virginia, has become public. Russia officials made the source's identity public and said he was an aide to a senior Russian official. The 2017 report portrays the information as incomplete and subject to interpretation, pointing to a single piece of intelligence from the man that said Mr. Putin had decided to leak emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee because Mrs. Clinton had better odds of the election and Mr. Trump, 'whose victory Putin was counting, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.' But current and former American officials pushed back on the characterization of the source's intelligence, saying he was well placed and had provided sound information to the United States on Mr. Putin's intentions. While details about the debate over the source are new, the overall view of the House Intelligence Committee was well known, and members frequently took issue with the finding. But the full report with details of the C.I.A.'s work on the 2016 intelligence assessment has not been released. Attacking the conclusions of the 2016 assessment that Russia sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump has been a hobby horse of some of the president's supporters. Republicans have long taken particular aim at the idea that the Kremlin favored Mr. Trump, arguing instead that Russia was simply trying to sow chaos or undermine democratic institutions. The attacks on the documents have intensified in recent weeks as first the C.I.A. and then Ms. Gabbard's office have raised questions about the effort. Bipartisan Senate reviews have validated the C.I.A.'s work in 2016, and John H. Durham, a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr during Mr. Trump's first term, also failed to find any evidence undermining the intelligence agencies' conclusions. While Mr. Trump's Republican supporters criticized the assessment during his first term, the president focused much of his ire on Robert S. Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director appointed to investigate any ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The newly released House document also takes a close look at the role that a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, played in the 2016 assessment. Trump administration officials have maintained that the 2016 intelligence review was tainted by unverified information in the so-called Steele dossier. A classified annex to the report mentioned the dossier, but former officials said the C.I.A. did not take it seriously and did not allow it to influence their assessment. Few if any of the claims in Mr. Steele's work about Mr. Trump have been verified in the ensuing years. In interviews this week, former officials insisted the Steele dossier did not influence the findings of the 2016 assessment. But the House report took issue with that, noting that in one of the bullet points in the original, classified version, the assessment referred readers to the annex discussing the dossier. The House report said the two-page annex summarizing the dossier 'misrepresented the significance and credibility' of Mr. Steele's work. The dossier 'was written in an amateurish conspiracy and political propaganda tone that invited skepticism, if not ridicule, over its content,' the report continued. The House review also said one C.I.A. officer said he confronted John O. Brennan, the agency's director at the time, with the flaws of the dossier. Mr. Brennan, according to the House report, acknowledged the flaws but added, 'doesn't it ring true.' Mr. Brennan, who emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Mr. Trump, has long denied that the dossier colored the assessment and said that he backed C.I.A. officers who wanted it kept out of the main body. He has said he placed the dossier in the annex at the insistence of the F.B.I. Former Obama administration officials acknowledged in hindsight that including the unverified dossier in the annex was a mistake, given the justifiable criticisms Republicans had of Mr. Steele's assertions. But the officials said the F.B.I. felt it had no choice but to include it in the annex to avoid appearing as if they were hiding something from Mr. Trump. C.I.A. officials wanted to be sure the F.B.I. signed on to the overall assessments, and they felt that the bureau would do that only if the annex was included, former officials said. The existence of the dossier was initially exposed by CNN, and then Buzzfeed published its contents. Since Mr. Trump's return to office, the C.I.A. and Ms. Gabbard have tried to sow doubts about the assessment. Ms. Gabbard has contended that the intelligence work in 2016 was not just flawed but also amounted to a conspiracy against Mr. Trump. On Friday, Ms. Gabbard issued a report that she said exposed a 'treasonous conspiracy,' claiming senior Obama administration officials had pressured the intelligence committee to change its views on Russian meddling. The documents presented showed that the Obama administration was eager to quickly complete its work but not that the intelligence agencies were altering their conclusions. Mr. Trump has praised Ms. Gabbard, after criticizing her work just weeks earlier. Referring to Ms. Gabbard's report, Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that while in office, President Barack Obama 'was trying to lead a coup.' Ms. Gabbard has said she wants to end the weaponization of intelligence. She has condemned politicians for what she sees as the use of selective bits of intelligence against their opponents. While she has portrayed the release of the documents as a corrective to the errors and missteps of the Obama administration, former officials and even some allies of Ms. Gabbard have said her effort to throw a lifeline to Mr. Trump is an example of the very politicization she has vowed to stamp out.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Sicko Bryan Kohberger delivers grim 3 word response as he refuses to explain Idaho slaughter
Bryan Kohberger will keep his secrets. The sicko killer refused to speak during his sentencing, uttering only three words — despite demands from his victims' families and even President Trump to explain why he butchered the four roommates in Moscow, Idaho in 2022. This means the world may never know his motives. 3 Bryan Kohberger refused to speak when given the opportunity during his sentencing Wednesday. AP 'I respectfully decline,' was all Kohberger said when a Boise judge asked if he had any comments during the hearing Wednesday. Those were the most words the world has heard the convicted killer speak since his 2022 arrest – at his plea hearing earlier in July, he said nothing more than 'Yes,' 'No,' and 'Guilty.' And during his sentencing, he said nothing beyond declining to speak. That cold comment came after nearly three hours of heart-wrenching victim impact statements from the friends and family of his four victims — Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, Madison Mogen, 21, and Ethan Chapin, 20. Those statements moved numerous people in the courtroom to tears – the judge himself was seen wiping his nose at one point. Prosecutor Bill Thompson became emotional while speaking – but Kohberger remained cold as ice as he stared down the people whose lives he destroyed. Whether Kohberger would speak and explain his actions before he was sentenced was at the front of everyone's mind Wednesday. While a plea deal he accepted earlier in July landed him with four consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole, he was not required to offer a motive for the killings – and so far, no explanation has been revealed. The family of Goncalves was particularly outspoken about wants Kohberger to be made to explain himself, while Trump even weighed in with similar sentiments. 3 Kohberger murdered four university of Idaho students at their home in 2023. 'These were vicious murders, with so many questions left unanswered,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. 'I hope the Judge makes Kohberger, at a minimum, explain why he did these horrible murders.' But Judge Steven Hippler said people begging for answers from Kohberger should think twice. He said trying to get the truth out of Kohberger played into his hands, allowing him to cling to the power that he clearly wants. And there's also no guarantee he'd tell the truth, either, the judge added. 'Even if I could force him to speak, which legally I cannot, how could anyone ever be assured that what he speaks is the truth?' Hippler said. 3 'I respectfully decline,' he said when the judge asked. AP 'Do we really believe after all this that he is capable of giving up the truth, or some piece of himself to help the people whose lives he destroyed in the first place?' He added that the killer's '15 minutes of fame' were now over. Hippler then handed down the sentences, and hit Kohberger with about $200,000 in restitution fines for the families of his victims.
