Inside Stories

Alleged Victim in Robinson Case Speaks Out

For the first time since the November 16, 2023 incident, the alleged victim in the domestic assault case against City Councilor Corey Robinson is speaking out.

On Monday evening, the woman released her statement to “Insider” Jack Mitchell, in his capacity as Moderator of the Lowell Life Feed Forum Facebook page. Mitchell posted the statement in its entirety.

InsideLowell was also able to confirm the statement came from the woman through local Attorney Michael Najjar, who formally released it to us early this morning.

“I recently had been consulted by a person involved with the events which ultimately triggered charges against Councilor Corey Robinson,” Najjar wrote. “Yesterday, she issued a statement giving her viewpoint of the incident and of the unfortunate subsequent publicity. I am authorized to verify that the statement was written by her and her alone. It is our hope that the privacy of everyone involved in this matter is protected and maintained, and that it be left for resolution with the Court. It is our understanding that the Court had issued orders designed to protect privacy. I will not be naming the individual, and I will not answer any questions beyond what I have written above.”

How the alleged victim’s statement affects the court proceedings and the prosecution’s willingness to proceed remains to be seen. Megyn Kelly, Spokesperson for District Attorney Marian Ryan, told InsideLowell “we don’t comment on ongoing cases” when reached for comment.

The full text of the alleged victim’s email is published below.

On November 16th, 2023, following a verbal argument at my residence – between myself and Lowell City Councilor, Corey Robinson, a hearing was held and stipulations where (sic) put in place by the Honorable Judge Fabbri. It was ordered that any and all information pertaining to my identity, residential address, place of work, etc. be impounded and redacted from public record and access. I was NOT present for the proceedings that day and was grateful for the Judge’s discretionary action to impound.

I remain under the impression that the Courts intention behind impounding and redacting someone’s identity is used as a safety measure to protect and preserve the lives, dignity, integrity and privacy of “alleged DV victims”, their families/ children and in some situations a pending investigation or case. My sincerest gratitude for the motion of 11/16 still stands.

It is my further understanding that the criminal justice system is designed to “Protect the innocent until proven guilty” as the presumption of innocence is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment.

After weeks of public scrutiny, speculation, inflammatory speech and lack of regard for the aforementioned motion, The Lowell Sun’s reporter, Melanie Gilbert, and partnering local media outlets have reported false narratives.

Most notably, I am troubled by the fact that Ms. Gilbert reported clearly and accurately, the name of my street (one of one in the town in which I reside) and description of my dwelling on more than one occasion.

On December 2, 2023 privileged and confidential exhibit photos of my person were also made available to the public by way of another article written by the same reporter and published by The Lowell Sun.

The lack of discernment demonstrated in this situation is shameless on its face and has compromised lawful efforts made to conceal my identity as an “alleged victim”.

Through my expression of the above grievances and sentiments, I release the following statement:

“Mr. Corey Robinson is innocent of the allegations being yielded against him, including, sexual misconduct and Domestic assault and battery against my person.”


10 responses to “Alleged Victim in Robinson Case Speaks Out”

  1. Carlos Zamora says:

    Attorney here. It is extremely inappropriate for Mitchell to have any contact with this witness, let alone release statements for her. The courts are likely going to haul him looking at witness tampering. Her lawyer should know better. If you think this is over, you’re wrong.

  2. Kendrick Del Orbe says:

    This whole situation has become increasingly toxic and has infiltrated even the highest level of local government. This whole “statement” seems odd, and the fact that Mr.Robison still has yet to recuse himself from public service by resigning his role as councilor is an even bigger testament to the overabundance in his ego.

  3. Ray says:

    Stepping in to defend John Mitchell here. While we may not always see eye to eye on politics, anyone claiming that John engaged in ‘witness tampering’ is a Liar, a Damned Liar, or a Fool.

    Very simply, John falls under the protections of a news reporter for these purposes and he has an absolute privilege to relay the statements from the alleged victim so long as he is reporting on matters of public interest. He would be perfectly protected and within his rights to interview the witness should he choose, to call or contact her, or engage in any other form of communication (while here, SHE reached out to him and had her lawyer confirm the source). Only a fool or a damned fool who never passed 1st Year Constitutional Law would claim otherwise.

    As for “her lawyer” (who ‘should know better’)… rest assured he does… certainly better than anyone pretending to be a lawyer so they could take a cheap (and absolutely false) shot at him. That guy has been around longer, and is probably more respected than, most judges in the Commonwealth.

  4. Carlos Zamora says:

    Mitchell, the campaign manager and whisperer into Corey’s ear is a journalist now? You literally cannot be both. It’s called “conflict of interest”. Not understanding this simple truth makes you a Liar, a Damned Liar, or a Fool.

  5. Ray says:

    You didn’t really say something that stupid, did you? Please tell me it was a typo. If not, you should sue whatever (imaginary) law school gave you a degree.

    If you attended law school, you would have learned in your very first semester that status as a journalist is not a function of employment, although that may be indicative of a presumption. even the most restrictive of states only classify a “Professional journalist” as a person regularly engaged in collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing news, for gain or livelihood,.
    However, since the Supreme Court’s 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, and the Second Circuit’s 1987 decision in von Bulow, the Courts recognize that the term “reporter” cannot be limited to employee of the institutional press; indeed, the “informative function” of the press is also served by “lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.” The Court recognizes that any individual qualifies as a “reporter,” and thus the reporter’s privilege, so long as they can show they intended “to use the material [collected] in order to disseminate information for the public” and that their intent existed at the “inception of the newsgathering process.”

    In the age of the Internet, anyone with an iPhone can qualify as a reporter so long as they set out to gather information to disseminate to the public. This includes amateur bloggers like Jack Mitchell.

    But since you are a “Attorney here” you must have already know it to get past your first semester without failing out (and I was confused: were you pointing out that you were both “here” and an “Attorney,” or just an “Attorney here” in the comment space but not in real life?).

    Oh, one last thing… putting conflict of interest in quotes doesn’t make something a conflict of interest. You actually need to spell out the fiduciary duties owed and explain how the action conflicts with them (but you would know that if you were an Attorney, right?). As for journalism, conflicts of interest are those facts which prevent a journalist from reporting news accurately. In this instance, Jack Mitchell reported the statement verbatim (meaning word-for-word – but you knew that if you graduated high school) and without commentary. The statement was confirmed by the maker’s own attorney, with no indication it had been misreported or taken out of context. All Mitchell did was republish a statement that had been published to him in his capacity as a journalist (blogger), and that statement was confirmed to be accurate by the maker’s attorney – thus no allegation of misreporting.

    So have you thought about filing a lawsuit against your alma mater? It looks like you didn’t even get the benefit of a single semester. Or maybe you were just a liar when it came to claiming to bean “Attorney here”?

  6. Carlos Zamora says:

    Ray. When a campaign manager interviews his own client it is an informercial, not “journalism”. It is not a matter of employment, it is an ethical concern. When a campaign manager interviews the alleged victim in an open case in which the campaign manager’s client is the defendant or releases statement on behalf of the alleged victim, it is very clearly inappropriate and an obvious lapse in ethics. Mitchell should have no contact with the alleged victim, let alone speaking for her. I wish we could have had this discussion without the name calling but if that’s how you do things then that’s how you do things. Jack is not a journalist in this situation, he is a biased advocate.

  7. Stephanie Leavitt says:

    Apologies in advance for the buzz kill her folks- Fact Check: John Mitchell was not Corey’s Campaign Manager. His Campaign Manager was a bright, strong, intelligent power house of a Woman from Lowell. Corey and his team CRUSHED the first election that pulled in record breaking numbers. We must give credit where it’s due in life. Jack I believe is a United States Veteran and has a sharp moral compass.

    The “alleged Victim” after weeks of silence and public scrutiny felt safe enough to reach out to John Mitchell in his capacity as a Moderator for LLFF and as a result she was given a voice to be heard, which is vitally important in these circumstances. He appropriately and respectfully delivered, her statement. Give credit when due.

  8. Ray says:

    Carlos, there was no election going on… that ended in November. The woman in question reached out to Jack and released her statement on his blog (hint: there was no interview – Jack would have done a better job grammar checking). Jack Mitchell has been running a news blog for over a decade and has been recognized by the City of Lowell as a news provider and part of the citizen press and invited to attend City events as such. In fact, he is a regular panelist on this site. Whatever your fantasy hatred is for the man, the fact remains that SHE approached him and delivered her statement on his site (the Lowell Live Feed Forum). Pretending to be the ‘Attorney here’ (without even bothering to read the first year textbooks) and threatening John with criminal charges informs the public as to who is really the biased advocate here.

  9. Carlos Zamora says:

    Cute Ray. I never read first year textbooks? You came to this conclusion because you disagree with me. That has me not taking you very seriously. It’s a childish thing to say. I didn’t threaten anyone with criminal charges. I do not have the power to charge him. Giving an opinion that he could face charges is not a threat. What are you even talking about.

    I am aware of Lowell Live Feed and don’t exactly consider his being a panelist on this site “journalism”. He’s a commentator, sure. But he also has a conflict of interest due to his close association with the charged individual. It is not even a stretch to say that he has a conflict of interest when it comes to this case. All the alleged victim had to do was what she eventually did; release a statement through her attorney. If I were representing her I would have had a sit down with her about releasing this statement the way she did and I would have told her to fire me or let me do my job. Her choice. Her attorney, lest we forget, is, according to the police report, the person who called the police due to his concern for her safety.

    I don’t hate this Mitchell person, he is an irrelevant person to my life and have no idea what “fantasy hatred” is supposed to mean. I was making an observation. I am not biased nor am I advocating for anything. It is very easy to see that he should have not released that statement as he is in fact quite biased.

  10. ALLISON says:

    I realize that I’m late to the party but my only concern is the quote “innocent until proven guilty”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *