The following is the complete transcript of an interview with Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, on the subject of pleas by Michael and Jeffrey Derderian on charges they faced stemming from The Station nightclub fire. The interview was conducted Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006, in Lynch's office in Providence by Journal reporters Tracy Breton and Mark Arsenault.

Q. When did you first become aware that your prosecutorial team had put this (deal) on the table?

LYNCH: To suggest that we put it on the table would be wrong, and would be to accept Kathleen Hagerty’s [a lawyer for the Derderians] representations, which I would call nothing more than spin at this point. But more importantly, it was never acceptable to me and the buck stops here. To suggest that four years (in jail) for Michael Derderian, after Mr. Biechele [Daniel Biechele, a third defendant, who pleaded guilty to the same charges] got four years to serve is an appropriate sentence, is wrong. It’s wrong on its face for several reasons.

Q. Are you saying that wasn’t an offer?

LYNCH: Over the course of a long period of time, different suggestions came up – the judge [Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan Jr.], what he would do? What he wouldn’t do? What the defendants – would they plead to jail? They wanted misdemeanor counts. It’s the same as any criminal case that comes in over three-and-a-half years. I know people talk about the past six weeks, or – I don’t know what the judge just referred to. This has been a three-and-a-half-year process. There were similar back and forths about where they were positioned, just as you check in with any multi-defendant case going back six months or more…

Q. What was that piece of paper (that Hagerty says represents the state’s plea offer)? Did your prosecutor [William Ferland] write that out?

LYNCH: From what I understand – I talked to Billy Ferland today about it – is … he was sitting, talking to Kathy, saying what numbers would your client work with? He wrote those down, they talked about them, and handed it back. That has nothing to do with whether the attorney general will agree to that. To suggest that an Alford plea [which acknowledges there is enough evidence to convice a jury to convict but does not admit guilt] or any of those other terms would be agreeable, or a plea was offered is frankly ludicrous and gets away from the point at hand, which is that in eight days Jeff Derderian is going to walk away without a prison sentence. I think that’s not correct.

Q. So that scribble was in answer to the question that he asked? What would [the defendants] go for? As opposed to, this is what the state’s final offer would be?

LYNCH: Absolutely.

Q. Because Kathy Hagerty says that Ferland offered this, and she had told him: If you really want me to take one more pass at them to see if they’ll change their plea, put it in writing.

LYNCH: Kathy Hagerty would have it like Michael Derderian was being chased down the hallway by Billy Ferland. That’s preposterous. The only thing that I take from her comments today, other than they’re inaccurate, grossly inaccurate – the only thing that I take from them today – sadly because I’ve spoken to a good majority of the families that are most particularly touched by this – is that there is not a scintilla, not a syllable, not even a sentence, but not even close to that, of remorse. … It’s all, Michael [Derderian], he’s a good man, we’ll let him off. That to me speaks resoundingly and betrays all other comments and couching … about any other event that has occurred. Spin sometimes works. Bottom line is that this sentence is inappropriate. I’m the one who makes that decision. The judge has every right, every right – and Judge Darigan I have enormous respect for – I just respectfully disagree here.

Q. You’re saying that your prosecutor was talking to Hagerty, that he asked her what [her clients] would accept, that she throws out numbers, and he took notes. So you’re saying that that piece of paper…

LYNCH: He wrote them down in course of the discussion with Kathy. That is as I understand it anyway …that writing as I understand it is Billy Ferland’s writing, and then at the conclusion of it he gave it to her or she held onto it.

Q. So those are his notes of what she told him?

LYNCH: Of what their discussions were about what the defendant would do or wouldn’t do.

Q. Not what you guys were looking for?

LYNCH: The office of attorney general, the office of attorney general, Patrick Lynch, would never, ever have accepted those terms. That’s all that matters.

Q: Were any of your prosecutors…acting without your authority in putting those numbers down and giving it to them?

LYNCH: No. We’ve had discussions at this table over the last week of – ‘this defendant wants four, this defendant wants this,’ and I said, ‘Absolutely not.That’s unacceptable.’

Q. Kathy Hagerty is saying … it was only after they decided to change their pleas and do the deal that you wanted to back off, but that you had originally agreed to this.

LYNCH: That is ludicrous, preposterous, inappropriate and inaccurate. Wherever she’s living with that, that’s fine. That would never have happened. … So to suggest to me, for anybody to try to rationally suggest that I would (do) for the Derderians – who I believe on a factual basis are far more culpable than Mr. Biechele – to suggest that three months later, after victims are put through three months of preparation, after we had to notify 958 witnesses, after Miss Hagerty, who for two-and-a-half years said we won't have to put forward the witnesses on crowding, suddenly changes two weeks before the trial, for those (things to) happen and then come to me and suggest that we would have agreed to that?

Q. Let me just tell you her story…

LYNCH: I don’t care about Miss Hagerty’s story. I don’t care about her story.

Q. She said that when Ferland came with juror questionnaires to give her copies to go over, that he put a piece of paper on the top, because she says she asked him to write ... the state’s final offer so she could talk to her clients about this, and that’s what Ferland wrote down as the state’s offer. That’s not true, you’re saying?

LYNCH: This includes a conversation with Billy Ferland on several occasions, including this morning…

Q. So Ferland is denying he offered that?

LYNCH: Correct.

Q. And none of the other prosecutors … put it in writing, what your offer is?

LYNCH: From Kathy Hagerty, from what I’ve read and what I’m hearing from you, and particularly in the tone she set, in setting Michael Derderian up as this nice guy, and not showing one ounce of remorse, I don’t believe a thing she says. The bottom line is that eight days from now, Jeffrey Derderian and Michael Derderian will walk into court, I don’t think that’s right. They should have walked in on October 3 and went to trial. Judge Darigan, however, has every opportunity and right to come in and say: if you won’t agree to it, I can, over your objection.

Q. How did your prosecutor’s notes become the heart of a plea deal? That seems inconceivable, that he could just make some casual notes and the next thing you know the judge is blessing this as some (irrevocable) deal. How could that happen?

LYNCH: It shouldn’t happen. It didn’t happen. It was not this office’s recommendation. They all were trying to look for a resolution to this case. It was not this office’s recommendation. It was not a plea offer from this office. It’s absolutely not agreeable to this office.

Q. Was this just a huge mistake? Did Billy Ferland make a mistake making this offer thinking you’d go along with it?

LYNCH: No, I think you’re making a mistake focusing on some discussions that are irrelevant now. When it came down to it, people asked – the people who had the authority to make a decision as to what the terms were. The terms the judge is offering, while I respect the judge, are wholly inappropriate in my estimation.

Q. So you’re saying that neither you, nor Ferland, nor White, nor Bush made this as an offer from the state to them?

LYNCH: My understanding from talking to them, certainly me, most importantly me…

Q. But you weren’t there.

LYNCH: It doesn’t matter. I’m the attorney general. While there are 16,000 criminal cases a year and I can’t involve myself in every one of them, I’ve been intimately involved in this one, particularly after Daniel Biechele comes in and the judge does give some evidence of what he thinks is the appropriateness of the sentence. Then you come through the last three months when we bring people in and put them through the reviewing process and the torment of preparing for trial. To suggest that those numbers are accurate, now or next Friday when he says them, they’re not.

Q. I understand you don’t like these sentences…but my question is, did anyone on your team below you ever make these offers to the defendants on these terms?

LYNCH: They had no authority to and they – I don’t know. Billy Ferland told me those notes were created from a discussion with the judge and (Hagerty) about what terms were out there they might agree to. This is one of a series (of talks) where we started at many, many years to serve; they wanted misdemeanors running consecutive. They wanted this, they wanted that. None of that matters.

Q. But he’s saying, I never offered her that?

LYNCH: Correct.

Q. So then I guess my next question is, since you don’t like this deal, once somebody is indicted, the only one under the law here in Rhode Island who can dismiss counts is the attorney general. If you don’t like this deal and they’re indicted on 200 counts of manslaughter, and they’re only willing to plead to 100 counts – and they only could have been convicted of 100 counts anyway – isn’t there a way you can stand up when they come into court and say we’re not dismissing this other 100 counts?

LYNCH: No. Because the shrugged shoulder part in the aside is most significant part. When you said, ‘even though you can’t go forward on them,’ that is the whole point here. … Once the judge accepts (the plea), legally everyone on the planet is precluded from going forward on this. Sadly, it’s the case. … Any amendment (to a charge) I have to agree to, or dismissal of counts for plea on another count, I have to agree to. But if a defendant comes before the court, enters a plea to all the counts, I have nothing more to do other than objecting respectfully to the court, which I will do. And so that distinction is critical here…those other counts are moot, legally inactable.

Q. Other than objecting to this, is there anything you can do to stop this deal?

LYNCH: I couldn’t emphasize enough, as someone who served in front of him on many trials, I couldn’t emphasize enough the respect I have for Judge Darigan. … I asked for 10 years to serve for Daniel Biechele. I spoke out about how I disagreed with his sentence. What I think may have in some ways – it frustrates a little bit but more often helps – is that in that process the victims had a chance to have input. … So I guess, your question, to answer your question I say that, if anything, I hope Judge Darigan thinks about them in the next seven days. I’m sure he will.

But if he does, I cannot and will not get by the fact that Jeffrey Derderian is not going to jail. Particularly when the judge has said that Biechele should go to jail for four years. They (allowed) pyro in that club more than 20 times, they put up foam, they crowded the place. Dan Biechele, I know he was painted… as a sympathetic fall guy who came in and set off this. He came in and intentionally … set off these things when he knew they were the inappropriate ones, even though they should have never been there. But Jeff Derderian and Michael Derderian allowed (other bands) to use them 20 some-odd times in there. I’ll never be able to resolve that. And the families I’m talking to will never be able to resolve that. And so if anything, I presume he will and I know he’s a good man and he’s thinking about it.

Q. Your hands are tied at this point?

LYNCH: Save for getting up and arguing, absolutely. It is within the discretion of this justice to make the decision he is making.

Q: You say the Derderians are far more culpable than Biechele, you went through some of the reasons. What else?

LYNCH: I see it as comparative elements. I’m just hitting a few…those are the obvious things, the foam and the crowding, and the [past pyro usage].

Q. So your office never proposed that they plead under an Alford plea?

LYNCH: No. Absolutely not. People have trouble enough understanding nolo contendere, never mind that Alford is in my mind looked upon as ‘I didn’t do it.’ And that’s insulting.

Q. And you’re standing by Ferland. He’s not going to be disciplined or fired?

LYNCH: Bill Ferland, Randy White, Chris Bush [prosecutors] more recently … a host of others…in good faith time and time again (had) a host of discussions. ‘Is there any opportunity?’ ‘What are those terms?’ And as I said, there were all sorts of ranges that were kicked about. That note represents one of them. It was not my office’s numbers. It was the result of discussions about if this case could be resolved. As I take it, that represents nothing more than, ‘if this case can be resolved, this is how it can be resolved.’

Q. Why did he give that note to Kathy Hagerty if those are her numbers?

LYNCH: I have no idea. I have no idea. I asked him that today. I said, ‘Why didn’t you let her write them down?’ He said it was just the way they were talking, handing them off and it was kind of casual. They’ve worked together a long time at different matters.

Q: Is Hagerty being correct when she says that you didn’t care which brother went to prison? That you were leaving it up to them to decide which one would go?

LYNCH: I think I’ve spoken at length about Jeff. I could go back through that again with even more energy if you’d like me to. That’s absolutely not true. Jeffrey Derderian should not walk from that courtroom. That is not to suggest that this is a life-sentence case. People know this is a case we struggled with. What they’re talking about is there was a lot of discussion, and I’m sure there will be some sort of pity plea before the court about Michael Derderian stepping up for his brother. Kathy intimates that in her comments today. Whatever works I guess you use. Is that agreeable to me? Jeffrey Derderian should go to jail.

Q. For how long?

LYNCH: He should go to jail.

Q. What deal would have been acceptable to you?

LYNCH: That’s rank speculation. I’m not going to get into that. I think they both should have served longer than Biechele. Beyond that I’m not going to get into it.

Q. What do you think the strengths and weaknesses of your own case would have been if the case had gone to trial?

LYNCH: I mentioned a couple of the elements … I will tell you this, it was a difficult case for a host of different reasons, but we were more than confident and prepared to go to trial. I got an indication probably Monday morning that the judge was going to do this – intervene where he never said he would after Biechele. Now suddenly, because I wouldn’t agree to anything, suddenly he’s saying he was going to intervene. And I said, fine, but we’re still preparing … we were still preparing yesterday before these letters went out, because we’re thinking maybe the judge will think about this. Think about the victims that he saw, think about the other families that weren’t in there. Think about the other people. Maybe he would not do what he suggested he would. Maybe there will be a trial.

Q. Kathy Hagerty told me she sent an e-mail to Alan Goulart, who is head of your criminal division, on 9/14, laying out the parameters of what she said in her e-mail was what she called the state’s offer, which was that scribbling. And she said that she wanted to memorialize it with him. At least somebody in this office knew more than a week ago that this was what her spin was on it. Did Alan ever talk to you about it?

LYNCH: Did she tell you what Alan told her? He said ‘That’s ridiculous, Kathy. That will never happen and we’re never going to be involved in that.’ … Kathy is the same one who said it’s outrageous, we couldn’t indict her people, it was politics. Now [Michael Derderian] is going to walk in and plead guilty and he’s going to go to jail. Kathy’s the same one who hasn’t said anything about the victims on behalf of Michael Derderian. She’s the same one who walked into the room with Michael and Jeff, shedding these horse tears on February 24 (2003, shortly after the fire) shedding these horse tears about them doing an investigation. Three and a half years later, we were prepared for trial, to bring in hundred of people to go through the worst testimony this state or the nation, arguably, had ever seen. Many of those people, amputees, injuries that exist after that. And all she has to say today is to spin things? And then she has to say what a good guy Michael is. That doesn’t move me at all.

Q. Hagerty says the judge is only holding the attorney general to the deal…

LYNCH: That is ludicrous, outrageous. The judge has a right to do what he’s doing, in good faith. We all struggle with this. The judge has every right to step in if we won’t move. He has that right. And I admire him, (though) I’m troubled, concerned for the families, most particularly. If I won’t move and this office won’t move, he does have the right to turn to the defendant and say, listen, they won’t do it but I will.

Q. So he wasn’t under the impression that that scribbling was your offer?

LYNCH: You’re caught up in this scribbling. … The only one who has created this is the fantasy in Kathleen Hagerty’s head, and now she spins it to you and you run with it. This was never acceptable. The plea was never acceptable. It was designed by her. The picture that is displayed now by you, no disrespect, at least how I read it, of Michael Derderian being chased away by Billy Ferland begging him to plea is ludicrous. It’s hogwash. It’s nothing more than spin. She’s quite simply not stating the truth. That’s what she’s doing. She’s attempting no more than to turn you away from the point at hand that Michael Derderian was involved in the killing of 100 people. Jeffrey Derderian was involved in killing 100 people. Killing 100 people. What has she said about that? Has she or he said anything? Nothing. Except Michael is a good guy., He needs to live his life. You know what? I’m talking to families who have kids, they’re never going to see their loved one again. … For Kathy Hagerty to come out here and turn the focus on something else with a bunch of lies, it’s not only insulting to the process, it’s grossly inappropriate from a human perspective. I’m going to focus on the task at hand, and that’s why I took 24 hours to call as many (victims) as I can…he’s a good person, the judge, he just sees it differently.

Q. What of the judge’s comments today? He was strong about your letter coming out.

LYNCH: My responsibility is to the victims, his is to the process. There has never been a case going back to ‘89 when I started in the office where a judge contacted the victims first. Do you know how difficult it is in one murder case to reach out to one family and make sure they’re all on board? Now you have 100 people who see things differently. And you have 458 people who were actually in there, all of whom I consider victims. What I do agree with wholeheartedly on is we have to get back to the merits here …

I was in North Providence yesterday speaking at a senior center, this is how it finally go to me personally. I was at a senior center in North Providence speaking about consumer protection. A couple called me over to the side and they said to me – they had a grandchild who was injured, not dead, injured in the fire – and they said to me, what is going on with that case? And I said to them, honestly we’re preparing for trial and I stopped because I knew there was something – what I thought wrong -- was going to happen. I’m thinking, ‘I’m not going to lie to these people.’ And I said, ‘listen, the judge can get involved and insert himself. He hasn’t yet and he said he won’t but there’s a chance this case turns around a different way that we all think it’s going to.’ Back at the office I got confirmation. I get my letter going and I sent it out. But before I sent it out, I’m on the phone calling people I have a responsibility to.

Q. Was it yesterday [Sept. 20] that you got the final confirmation that this was happening?

LYNCH: Yes. I didn’t want to believe it up to then.

Q. Who told you?

LYNCH: Probably Gerry Coyne [assistant attorney general] ….I learned on Monday that this was going to go. I just didn’t believe that it was going to happen, honestly, humanly, if you continue to think about how deeply people are injured and you compare it to what Biechele got and these people have been waiting three months, and we prepared for trial and I’ve been calling witnesses that are coming in and we have experts, I kept thinking, yeah, I guess it might happen but I can’t believe he’s going to do this, from a judge who said he wasn’t going to insert himself in the middle if we came to agreement. … It was Monday morning that I got the confirmation that the judge was inserting himself. I think in a way I was hoping it would be different, and then once I learned it wasn’t, I got on the phone.