NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Just days since the guilty verdicts in the Rutgers spycam case, suspect Dharun Ravi has broken his silence and says he will fight to prove he is innocent.

Ravi told New Jersey’s Star-Ledger newspaper, “I’m not the same person I was two years ago. I don’t even recognize the person I was two years ago.”

Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation as a hate crime for using a webcam in September 2010 to spy on his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, having an intimate encounter with another man.

However, Ravi emphatically said in the interview that “I didn’t act out of hate and I wasn’t uncomfortable with Tyler being gay.”

Ravi explained he was just leery of a stranger in his dorm room, saying “I thought it was something sinister, that maybe he got mixed up with the wrong guy.”

“If it was a girl who came to the room and she looked as strange as M.B. I would have done the same thing,” Ravi said.

Clementi later committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after discovering he was spied on through Ravi’s webcam.

Clementi’s parents, after the verdict, called it a lesson for everyone.

However, Ravi said he just wasn’t thinking by installing the webcam, and that he “never really thought about what it would mean to Tyler.” He now says “The verdict actually made me feel energized. We will keep going.”

Ravi could get up to 10 years in prison when he’s sentenced in May.

Share your thoughts on Ravi’s interview in the comments section below…

Comments (26)
  1. littlestar says:

    Sacco & Venzetti, Bruno Richard Hauptman, Dharun Ravi.

  2. David Ruffin says:

    The verdict made him “energized”? What a complete moron. What a horse’s ass. He needs to dig deep into his soul and answer why he really did what he did with his web cam, his tweets, his invitations, etc. He should have taken the plea, said he was so, so sorry, made speeches about respecting all people, cultures, sexual orientations, etc. He never would have been deported if he did that. Instead, either he or his arrogant, clueless parents, or both, decided to fight the charges. They’re all morons. And I say this with a nod to the deeply troubled Mr. Clementi, who was much more troubled than anyone probably realized, including his parents. Throwing yourself off a bridge because of a cyber peeping Tom event? Come on, he could have transferred schools. That’s one very sad boy there.

    1. Nibbor says:


      Well said!

  3. littlestar says:

    Ravi was LYNCHED !

  4. 2012 says:

    Tyler Clementi killed himself. Unfortunately in this society we have to blame everyone else for everyone else’s problems. Sorry, but if he couldn’t handle this blip in his life he certainly wouldn’t have been able to handle the much bigger blips that come along. People need to grow up and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.

    1. Think about it says:

      Ravi’s conviction has nothing to with Clementi’s killing himself. Ravi’s conviction is not society’s way of blaming Ravi for Clementi’s death.

      Ravi was convicted for his invasion of Clementi’s privacy, for intimidating Clemnenti because he was gay, for witness tampering, and for otherwise hindering his prosecution. Ravi committed all of these crimes, and was found guilty of them by a jury of his peers in accordance with the law. Now he will be punished for those crimes, which he committed.

      Ravi is not going to be punished for Clementi’s death. That is the case, even though Clementi jumped off of the George Washington Bridge, because Ravi invaded his privacy, because of his sexual orientation.

  5. Snajay says:

    We should not judge a person by the mistakes of his past but rather by the positive deeds he does in the future.

    1. Think about it says:

      Right. Throw open the doors to all jails.

      1. littlestar says:

        No, create jails for gay people. Luv Ya ! Moral criminals. It’s not me folks. It’s the book….and thus begins the athiest age in America. Yup. It’s all your fault.

  6. Ray says:

    This guy shows no remorse for his criminal act that led to the death of his roommate. He has no moral values. We live is a post 9/11 world and this guy is a danger to society.

  7. Glenn Erdmann says:

    He can say what he wants now…………….there is no cross examination. And by the way he had the chance to testify at his trial and he DECLINED.

  8. Frank says:

    So now he says he was concerned about Tyler and the possibility that he was mixed up with a sinister guy? So why was the webcam pointed at the bed? Why the viewing party? Why the tweets about daring people to watch? I agree with Pinto that Ravi is a pathological liar.

    1. Glenn Erdmann says:

      Well said.

  9. Pinto says:

    Mr Dharun Ravi is a pathological liar who is not in the habit of showing remorse or contrition unless he be looking at 5-10 as he is now.


    Ravi has been punished enough. He should be allowed to go back to school and put all this drama behind him.

    1. Richard says:

      Ah, wouldn’t it nice if his victim could do the same? Obviously 10 years is probably an outsized figure; but 6 months might be sufficient. Don’t minimize what he did & its consequences, however unforeseen. The drunk driver doesn’t foresee a child running in front of his car but he’s still punished for it. That’s the luck of the draw. I know some friends who drove home so drunk they spent half the morning trying to find where they parked their car the night before. But they were lucky. Their luck will run out eventually, unfortunately for them and for their vehicular victims. Ravi was unlucky that his victim killed himself; but it’s something that, with a little foresight, should have been seen as a possibility. Besides, the law is concerned with deterrence as well as punishment, rehabilitation, and compensation. Ravi is serving as a warning to other college students (and anyone for that matter): DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

      1. StupidCase says:

        in your analogy.. some driving drunk kills a child

        if you apply to this case dharun was driving drunk but DIDN’T kill a child but is being charge as if he did kill a child

        that’s why it’s unfair.

        1. Richard says:

          I can’t follow your argument. The analogy applies: a drunk driver CAUSES the death of a child; Ravi CAUSED the death of a teenager (a child of his parents). He certainly CAUSED the death of that person by REASONABLE criteria, unless you believe he would have killed himself anyway, which is a bit of a stretch.

          1. May says:

            No way Richard..not the same. A drunk driver is directly responsible for the death of killing the child. And yes, this kid was suicidal already. His own mother was upset with him about being gay and told him this. We don’t know what was the final straw that pushed him over the edge. What Ravi did was wrong but to lay all the blame on his shoulders for a man’s SUICIDE is the real stretch.

            1. nrichard says:

              Bottom line – what he did was criminal – no one NO ONE should have to worry about someone spying on them in their dorm room or bedroom period! For that alone he should be in jail AND the fact he states if it were a woman in the room he would have done the same thing – wow, really – he is disgusting and disturbed. It wasn’t cute and it wasn’t innocent and I certainly would not want my child to be in the same college with this man – he was being mean spirited and he most certainly is a homophobe and now he will be someone can worry about becoming a girlfriend to some guy name Bubba!

  11. Les Mangus says:

    I think the verdict was totally inappropriate. Tyler Clementi didnt have to kill himself over the webcaming. Unfortunately he can’t tell us just why he did that. He wasnt being bullied in the normal sense of the word.

    Moreover let’s not forget that the dorm room was Ravi’s too. He was being asked to vacate his own room so Clementi could have a sexual tryst.
    Why was that not an invasion of his privacy?

    1. Bob says:

      He had Ravi’s permission to use the room (although as it turns out Ravi was setting him up to humiliate him). If you do not comprehend that permission makes a difference, your as much a danger to society as this guy who doesn’t see he did anything wrong.

    2. Think about it says:

      The verdict is “appropriate”. Ravi was found guilty of invading Clementi’s privacy. Ravi surreptitiously pointed a webcam at a bed where he expected Clementi and another person would have physical intimacy, and then Ravi invited friends to gawk at it, along with him, on multiple occasions. How is that not invasion of privacy?

      Ravi was also found guilty of bias intimidation. The reason why Ravi did all of the above, and more, is because Clementi had physical intimacy with another man, i.e., because of Clementi’s sexual orientation. How is that not bias intimidation?

      Ravi was also found guilty of witness tampering and otherwise hindering his prosecution.

      Ravi was NOT charged with, or convicted of, causing Clementi to commit suicide (although that is what Ravi did).

      Ravi is also stupid to have made these statements after his conviction, but before his sentencing. He has been found GUILTY, under the law, and his statements show he shows no remorse, and he takes no responsibility for his crimes. This is something to be properly considered when imposing sentence.

  12. Richard says:

    Sure he ‘s not the same person he was two years ago: the prosecution effected that change. If there was no prosecution he probably would have shrugged it off. That’s what prosecution is all about: effecting change, in the perp as well as in the community. Besides, that phrase, “not the same person I was two years ago” it itself contentious if, as he implies, he did nothing wrong: if he did nothing wrong then what’s the point of saying he’s not the same person he was two years ago? At least it’s an incongruous statement to make.

    1. StupidCase says:


      I’m pretty sure he meant that he changed as a person because the media took away his life.

      He hasn’t been in college for 2 years, he mostly always at home, so he’s not the same person as was before. He’s constantly in stress.

      1. Richard says:

        That crossed my mind; and as I reread it it seems up in the air: it’s the fault of the writer. The writer just took a quote out of context and expected the reader to make whatever sense they can! And it’s a key quote too: if he felt changed because, as you say, the publicity, perceived persecution or unjust prosecution, etc. then that’s entirely different from feeling changed due to guilt, compunction, etc. The writer should know better than to include a floating quotation like that; kind of like quoting an actor, “I feel great” out of context! Great because she just got a child? Because she just had a medical checkup with negative results? Great because he just won the Oscar? I hope the writer of the article reads this.

Leave a Reply