Kasser Wants to Know What She Once Denied: Was a Crime Committed at Ex-Senator’s Home in 2014?

In the run-up to the 2018 election, Democrat Alexandra Kasser–then known as Bergstein–denied during a local radio program that a crime had been committed at her tony Greenwich home. Caller Felicia asked Kasser, running for the state Senate from the Greenwich-based district, how she justified her women’s rights credentials when she had “covered up a sexual assault in your own home.”

Felicia was able to pose the essence of her question before being cut off. The host asked Kasser what the caller was talking about. “I have no idea,” Kasser offered as her first response. She expanded her answer, revealing she did have an idea. “I’ll tell you what that is. That is an unfounded rumor that has been circulating and there is no basis whatsoever in it. I can only imagine what the source is.”

“We don’t like ugly rumors on the Lisa Wexler Show. We only like true rumors,” the host added. Wexler may have been an unwitting witness to a true rumor, it now appears.

In 2019, Kasser declared war on privilege and the patriarchy. The battleground seems not to have included what may have happened to a young woman at Kasser’s home–until weeks before Kasser’s divorce trial begins.

Four years after she won and a year after she resigned her seat, Kasser now thinks there is something to the story of a 2014 sexual assault at her home. On September 1st, seven weeks before the trial in her contentious and high stakes divorce action against husband Seth Bergstein begins, Kasser wants any evidence he may possess of what happened at their marital home in Greenwich in October 2014–and what may have flowed from it.

In a court filing, Kasser seeks from Bergstein, “Copies of all correspondence, payments or other proof of involvement Defendant [Seth Bergstein] had in managing or suppressing a potential criminal investigation involving an incident that may have occurred at 18 Flower Lane, Greenwich in October 2014; including but not limited to all communications, by text or email, with Brunswick School, any parent of a Brunswick student, any parent of a Greenwich High School (GHS) student, any GHS resource officer, any Greenwich police officer or any attorney of other person with whom Defendant may have spoken to delay an investigation or cover up of an incident.”

Seth Bergstein responded in a September 7th court filing that he “did not manage or suppress a potential criminal investigation.” He further claims “the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, intended to annoy and/or harass the defendant, and cannot be provided by the defendant with substantially greater facility than could otherwise be obtained by the plaintiff.” Bergstein also objects to the request because it “calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.”

If there was no incident in October 2014, it is difficult to see how Kasser’s request violates Bergstein’s attorney-client privilege.

In a 2018 case filed in federal court, Paula Scanlan v. Town of Greenwich, (the case was originally initiated as Jane Doe v. Town of Greenwich) the plaintiff Scanlan claimed the Greenwich police violated her civil rights by not properly investigating her complaint of a 2016 sexual assault. In a memorandum in opposition to Greenwich’s summary judgment motion Scanlan alleged “a years-long pattern of the Greenwich Police Department (“GPD”) to apply a less rigorous approach to investigations of criminal activity alleged against students of Brunswick School (“Brunswick”). Brunswick employed a back channel of communications with GPD designed to allow the school and its headmaster to intervene immediately in any case of possible criminal charges with the intent of dissuading victims from pursuing criminal charges and influencing witnesses to provide statements to the police that followed alternate narratives to avoid the potential for prosecution.”

The memorandum refers to an October 2014 alleged assault as evidence of a pattern by Greenwich police. Without revealing the location of the alleged incident or any names of parties who may have been involved, Scanlan’s memorandum claims, “On October 6, 2014, Greenwich Country Day School (“GCDS”) Security Director Mike Reynolds contacted the Greenwich Police Department (“GPD”) to report that the school had received a video of an apparent sexual assault of an unconscious teenage girl by a boy that was observed and video recorded by other teenage boys (“First Sexual Assault Video”). The video came with a text message from an anonymous source and showed ‘a juvenile male [who] appeared to be digitally penetrating [the girl’s] vagina under her shorts.’ The text message stated that a ‘[Brunswick boy] fingered [a Greenwich Academy girl] on the couch in front of everyone. . . . [the Greenwich Academy girl] is passed out and that’s rape.’” (Defs. Ex. 35 at TOG 1034). The video was one of two recordings of the sexual assault made by the boys, which were circulating widely among the high school students. One of the videos was recorded by a Brunswick School (“Brunswick”) student and the other was recorded by a GCDS student. (Defs. Ex. 35 at TOG 1040; Pl. Ex. FF at WICK 866).”

“Two days after GPD received the criminal complaint, on the morning of October 8, 2014, [Brunswick Headmaster Tom] Philip notified by email the school’s Upper School Faculty about the sexual assault investigation. In that email, Philip explained that ‘an impromptu gathering [was] held at the home of a Freshman boy’ during which ‘alcohol made its way into the gathering and in a somewhat circuitous way, [and] the party has gained the attention of the Greenwich Police.’ There was no mention of an unconscious girl being digitally manipulated by a Brunswick boy, with the assault being video recorded and the recordings being widely distributed by two other boys, one of whom was a Brunswick student. Philip had in that short time begun to construct a new narrative about the sexual assault that took place at that ‘impromptu gathering’ – that it was merely a case of underage drinking. (Pl. Ex. FF at WICK 864).” 

The fall of 2014 was a busy time for Greenwich police and young locals. According to Scanlan’s memorandum, “the mother of a female Greenwich High School student raised an alarm to GPD about two incidents involving Brunswick students. The mother, who is a medical doctor (“Dr. X”), picked up her daughter from a party held at the home of a Brunswick student (“F”). The father of the Brunswick student (“Father F”) walked her daughter out to the car and directed her into the back seat. He said nothing about the girl’s condition or about why he needed to walk her to the car. Dr. X watched her daughter with alarm because she was unable to walk by herself and was stumbling. When she got into the car she reeked of vomit, was very disheveled, and obviously drunk. The girl’s sweatshirt was on inside out and had vomit across the entire front. (Pl. Ex. W at 7:22-24, 8:1-5, 9:10-18, 12:6-14, 20:8-12, 21:4-25, 22:1-25). Dr. X was so alarmed by her daughter’s condition that she later made a complaint to GPD’s anonymous tip line about the underage drinking that occurred that night, as well as the fact that the parents were aware of the drinking as evidenced by the father’s lack of concern when he walked her daughter to the car. Dr. X provided the address of the residence and told them that the parents had to have known about the drinking because the father clearly knew her daughter was drunk when he walked her to the car. Dr. X was also upset by the fact that Father F was so nonchalant about her daughter’s condition, as if it were no big deal. (Pl. Ex. W at 31:9-21, 42:6-25, 43:1-8). 

“GPD personnel testified that for all complaints received, an investigation file should be opened even if it is found to be without merit. (Pl. Ex. JJJ at 86:3-24; Pl. Ex. R at 66:18-67:12). In contravention of this policy and practice, there is no evidence that any investigation was conducted in response to this complaint by Dr. X. (Pl. Ex. W at 31:6-8, Pl. Ex. Q at 214:17-25). 

“In addition to finding her daughter incoherent and disheveled, Dr. X made another alarming discovery on the night of the party. Since her daughter was too inebriated to answer her mother’s questions about what happened at the party, Dr. X took her daughter’s cell phone to see if there was anything she could find out. She found a group text with a video that showed ‘a girl who was completely naked. You could not see her face and she was laying face down with her head in the distance. And there were a group of boys on the side. One of them was digitally manipulating her. And she was obviously unconscious because she wasn’t moving when this was happening. And the boys were all laughing. . . .’ (Pl. Ex. W at 23:10-25, 24:1-6). The video (the “Second Sexual Assault Video”) Dr. X described was very different from the video confiscated in the First Sexual Assault Video investigation. In the First Sexual Assault Video, the girl was clothed; in this video she was ‘completely naked.’ In the First Sexual Assault Video, the girl’s face was visible; in this video, she was face down with her head in the distance. Capt. Zuccerella saw the First Sexual Assault Video and testified that it was different from the description of the Second Sexual Assault Video. (Pl. Ex. Q at 228:5-25, 229:1-4, 234:21-25, 235:1).” 

The two alleged incidents were followed by an unusual announcement by the GPD. According to Scanlan’s memorandum, “GPD provided information about the First Sexual Assault Video investigation to the press. (Defs. Ex. 41). In a November 13, 2014 article in the Greenwich Time, then Lt. Kraig Gray,5 GPD Public Information Officer, was quoted as saying ‘[t]he Greenwich Police Department does not generally comment on rumors, . . . but based upon the level of misinformation and confusion, we can say that we chased down two allegations that turned out to be unfounded.’ (Defs. Ex. 41 at 3) (emphasis added). In fact, in addition to being a departure from normal practice, the statements made to the press by GPD were entirely false. (Pl. Ex. Q at 208:8-25, 209:1-25; 210:1-20, 214:17-25). Lt. Gray is reported as saying that GPD ‘investigated at that time and determined the allegations were unfounded.’ The article further states that ‘[p]olice interviewed multiple students, parents and administrators, and determined that no crime had been committed.’ (Defs. Ex. 41 at 1). In fact, the First Sexual Assault Video case/incident reports established beyond refute that the allegations were true and that charges were not filed only at the request of the parents of the victim, not because no crimes had been committed. (Defs. Ex. 35). Further, neither the victim nor the attacker, nor the videographers were interviewed. (Defs. Ex. 35). 

“The Greenwich Time article also quotes from a November 12, 2014, letter from Brunswick Headmaster Tom Philip to the parents of students of Brunswick’s middle and high school. In that letter, Philip falsely stated that ‘Brunswick students . . . acknowledged that cell-phone images had been taken at various points’ but that none of the Brunswick students admitted to ‘participating in (or having knowledge of) any instance of sexual assault.’ (Pl. Ex. O at WICK 778). As the First Sexual Assault Video case/incident reports reveal, those statements are false because neither the Brunswick boy who digitally penetrated the victim, nor the Brunswick boy who video recorded the assault, denied they had done so to the police. (Defs. Ex. 35 at TOG 1041). 

“Philip’s letter goes on to describe that ‘[c]oncurrent to this inquiry, the school learned of yet another party, again involving students from multiple schools and of varying ages, at a private home, where alcohol was available.’ (Pl. Ex. O at WICK 778). The Greenwich Time article also refers to this second party, stating that ‘[t]he headmaster’s letter also made reference to a second party, which police addressed as well. . . . Shortly after their first investigation, department officials became aware of another alleged incident of assault at a high school party under similar circumstances. A similar investigation turned up the same result as the first one did, police said.’ (Defs. Ex. 41 at 2-3). This other party discussed by Headmaster Philip and Lt. Gray may have referred to the GPD anonymous tip line complaint filed by Dr. X about the party her daughter attended at F’s house, and it may have referred to the video recording that Dr. X. turned over to Lt. Keegan. However, there is no record of any second investigation, and no one at GPD can recall anything about this second party or investigation. (Defs. Ex. 36 at Interrogatory 2; Pl. Ex. Q at 214:17-25). However, since these statements given to the Greenwich Time are contemporaneous evidence of a second party and video, which is corroborated by the testimony of Dr. X, who had personal knowledge of both, a jury could conclude that Brunswick and GPD took steps to cover them up.”

Scanlan’s memorandum depicts one of the world’s wealthiest towns as a nest of connections that combine to protect the privileged from the consequences of their acts and deny their victims justice. The Bergstein divorce trial may inadvertently shine a light on a town where injustice can be accompanied by a hefty price tag. Scanlan is appealing in the Second Circuit the district court’s granting of defendant’s summary judgment motion in May.

Kasser would be remarkably incurious if only now has her interest been stirred in an alleged incident at her home. It would be willful ignorance for Kasser not to have known something about the alleged incident at her home that she dismissed as mere unfounded rumors. What Kasser might not have realized is that her 2018 emphatic public denial of an assault at her home would have been preserved—and is included above.

Published September 13, 2022. Updated on September 14, 2022.