Court Watch

VO L U M E I

A PROGRAM OF KCSARC

OFFENDER

CHRONOLOGY Winter 2013

A P U B L I CA T I O N O F T H E K I N G C O U N T Y S E X UA L A S S AU LT R E S O U R C E C E N T E R

King County Sexual Assault Resource Center (KCSARC) is the largest and most comprehensive sexual assault services organization in Washington State. We are a private, non-profit organization headquartered in Renton (located in King County, WA, just south of Seattle).

We are there. We’re on the frontlines with victims and their families, ensuring that all people affected by sexual violence and abuse get the treatment they need and the advocacy they deserve. We’re at the forefront of change, guiding public policy development and delivering researchbased education to create safer environments for everyone. Across the full spectrum of services, we bring a roll-up-our-sleeves commitment that is tirelessly working to eliminate sexual violence and abuse from our communities. We’ve got big ideas about how to tackle this complex problem, and we’re not shy about turning them into real solutions-because they’re working.

1989

• Convicted of Telephone Harassment (Cases A & B)

1992

• Investigated for Sexual Assault (Case C) • Investigated for Telephone Harassment (Case D)

1994

• Charged with Assault (Case E)

1995

• Investigated for Telephone Harassment (Case F)

1998

• Investigated for Telephone Harassment (Case G) • Arrested for and charged with Domestic Violence Assault (Case H)

2000

• Convicted of Harassment (Case I)

2002

• Charged with four counts of Sexual Misconduct With a Minor in the 1st Degree (Case K)

2003 © 2012 KCSARC design © Debi Bodett King County Sexual Assault Resource Center PO Box 300 Renton, WA 98057 425.226.5062 425.271.6332 TTY 425.235.7422 fax www.kcsarc.org

• Convicted of two counts of Sexual Misconduct With a Minor in the 1st Degree (Case K) • Convicted of Assault in the 4th Degree (Case L)

2003-2004 • ** State Prison**

2005

• Investigated for Indecent Exposure (Case N)

Page 1 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

OFFENDER

CHRONOLOGY

Compiled by L. Jones CourtWatch prepares offender chronologies to highlight how the justice system handles cases in which an offender has committed multiple crimes. A chronology summarizes these cases based on information contained in the public record. This offender chronology about John Doe1 documents over 20 different victims and 17 cases, many of which were never prosecuted, against Doe over a period of more than two decades.

1

Name changed to protect the privacy of individuals involved with this chronology

2006

• Charged with and convicted of three counts of Indecent Exposure (Case N) • **County Jail**

2008

2011

• Convicted of Disorderly Conduct (Case O)

2010-2012 • **Federal Prison**

• Charged with Assault in the 4th Degree With Sexual Motivation and Stalking (Case O)

2010

• Charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the 2nd Degree (Case P) • Charged with Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft (Case Q) • Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the 2nd Degree charge dismissed (Case P) • Convicted of Social Security Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft (Case Q)

kcsarc.org | Page 2

Cases A & B JULY

1988

Case Docket: In July of 1988, Doe was charged in King County District Court with Telephone Harassment. We were unable to locate information about the victims in these cases.

Outcome: After hearing the evidence presented at trial, a jury convicted Doe in March of 1989. Doe received a 90 day suspended sentence in September of 1989.

Case C

Police Department I MARCH

1992

Case Report: In March of 1992, Police Department I was contacted by the principal of a private school regarding the possible sexual abuse of eighth grade girls by their basketball coach, Doe. As part of the investigation, the detective interviewed the girls individually:

Victim 1 stated that while she was sitting on the bleachers wearing her basketball shorts, Doe grabbed her leg and licked it, moving his tongue toward her thigh. She also reported that Doe called her afterward to ask how she felt about what he had done, and said “it tastes like good and plenty.”

Victim 2 reported that while she was sitting in Doe’s car in the parking lot, he put his hand on her bare thigh and said, “Does this make you horny?” She stated that Doe also liked to “squeeze butts” with his hands and would say “nice butt” while doing so.

Victim 3 stated that she had “kind of weird” phone conversations with Doe where he would ask her what she was wearing to bed, and told her that he was going to come and kidnap her and take her places where they could be alone. She also described incidents where he would pull her to him and wouldn’t let go.

During Victim 4’s first interview with the detective, she stated that Doe pinned her against the wall and put his tongue inside her ear, and that he also attempted to French kiss her. She later reported that Doe had rubbed her vagina on the outside of her pants.

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed in this case. The public record does not indicate why charges were not filed.

Page 3 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

GROOMING

How Sex Offenders Gain Access to Their Victims K. Newport Grooming is a term used to describe the preparatory steps a sexual offender takes to facilitate sexual abuse, to reduce the risk of detection, and to discredit victims. Offenders may spend days, weeks, months, and even years grooming potential victims. Regardless of a victim’s age, relationship to the offender, or the length of time they have known each other, the grooming processes employed by different offenders almost always contain certain elements and characteristics in common.

According to researcher David Finkelhor, Ph.D., there are four pre-conditions that must be met before an offender sexually abuses children.2 Those are: • An offender’s motivation to sexually abuse • An offender overcoming internal inhibitors • An offender overcoming external inhibitors • An offender overcoming the resistance of the victim and preventing disclosure Precondition #1, Motivation – In order for a sex offender to commit the offense, he or she must have a desire to be sexual with children. This desire may stem from a high degree of exposure to sexual activity or pornography at a young age, and/or may be that the offender is seeking emotional gratification through sex with a child. It could also be that the offender is primarily or exclusively attracted to and sexually aroused by children.

Precondition #2, Overcoming Internal Inhibitors – It is the social norm that sex with children is wrong on many levels. A person may think of being sexual with a child, but there are internal forces in place to prevent that activity from occurring such as a healthy conscience, societal taboos, and a fear of what others might think. A sex offender consciously decides to ignore those internal factors, rationalizing his or her decision to move forward with the offense.

Precondition #3, Overcoming External Inhibitors – Protective factors that keep children safe from sexual offenders include the laws criminalizing child sexual abuse, a non-offending parent, and routine contact with other non-offending adults. In order to accomplish the sexual abuse he or she hopes to perpetrate, an offender must remove or reduce the efficacy of those protective factors. This is why sexual offenders will often choose a victim who has little family support, is a loner, has a physically or emotionally absent/unavailable parent, or has unmet needs. Sexual offenders sometimes choose an adult partner who already has children, but has issues that decrease their ability to protect their children. These issues include substance abuse, multiple children, and/or a child with high physical or emotional needs. The offender may also offer something highly desired or prized, creating the illusion of having the child’s best interest at the forefront.

2

Finkelhor, David. Child Sexual Abuse. New York: Free Press, 1984. Print.

kcsarc.org | Page 4

Precondition #4, Overcoming Resistance – The offender has to find a way to keep the sexual abuse from being discovered. In almost every case, the offender has the advantage of age, size, and/or authority over his or her potential victims. It is typical for the offender to exploit these advantages, manipulating the child’s emotions. Children are typically desirous of attention, and they do not tell out of fear of no longer having their emotional needs met. An adolescent may be embarrassed, or risk peer humiliation if they disclose ongoing abuse. Offenders often proclaim their “love” for their victim, creating the illusion of a “relationship” between the victim and the offender. Adolescent victims usually lack the experience and insight to recognize and understand that this is an unhealthy relationship based on sexual deviancy. Offenders are masters at normalizing inappropriate touch and breaking down personal boundaries. They may hug, kiss, and touch everyone so that their attention to the identified victim is not as noticeable. In other cases the offender offers something highly desired or prized, so that victims remain silent in order to attain whatever the offender is offering. Offenders often set up their victims to look like liars, manipulators, sore losers, vindictive, and/or emotionally disturbed, in order to cast doubt on their story if and when they decide to tell. A small number of offenders use threats of harm to keep their victims from disclosing the truth about their abuse. These threats may be against the victims, family members, friends, and even pets. Sexual offenders will go to great, and often unimaginable, lengths to prevent discovery and protect themselves.

When targeting young children, the offender must begin by manipulating or grooming the child’s parents and other significant caregivers in the child’s life in order to gain access to the child. The offender gets to know them, shares common interests, is helpful, and makes his or her way into the inner circle of the child’s life. Sex offenders are often described, in retrospect, as “charming” and always willing to help. Offenders often work hard to ingratiate themselves to the child’s family, gaining their friendship and trust. As the relationship with the parents builds, the offender is allowed greater access to the children.

When targeting adolescents, the offender often fosters his or her relationship with the victim and caregivers simultaneously. The offender creates reasons (excuses) for separating the adolescent from their parent, establishing him or herself as a competent, caring substitute who has in mind only the best interest of the adolescent. He or she also maintains the close relationship with the victim’s family to ensure continued access to the victim.

Sexual assault is planned and does not occur by chance. People who victimize determine that their needs, wants, and desires override those of anyone else. They manipulate individuals, families and whole communities to fulfill their selfish gain. Grooming, then, is a tactic to enable continued access to children and youth who are vulnerable by the mere status of their age and lack of life experience.

Page 5 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Case D

Police Department I DECEMBER

1992

Case Report: In December of 1992, Police Department I received complaints from Victims 5 and 6 about obscene phone calls they had received earlier that day. Victims 5 and 6 reported that they received multiple calls during which the caller was breathing heavily on the phone, saying “Tits, tits, tits! My dick is hard!” and “My dick hurts”.

According to the victims, it sounded as if the caller was masturbating. Doe was suspected of making the calls because he had asked a friend of Victim 5’s for the last four digits of Victim 5’s phone number the same day that the calls were made.

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed in this case. The public record does not indicate why charges were not filed.

Case E

Police Department II FEBRUARY

1994

Incident Report: In February of 1994, Victim 7 was watching his daughter’s high school basketball game. Doe was also watching the game, and was blocking Victim 7’s view. When Victim 7 confronted Doe about blocking his view, the two exchanged words. Then, Doe, punched Victim 7 in the face. Witnesses corroborated Victim 7’s account of the assault.

Outcome: Doe was charged with Assault in Seattle Municipal Court in March of 1994. The case was dismissed without prejudice in May of 1996. The reason for the dismissal is unclear.

kcsarc.org | Page 6

Case F

Police Department I

NOVEMBER

1995

Case Report: In November of 1995, Police Department I investigated a harassing phone call made to Victim 8, a church employee, at her workplace. According Victim 8, the caller told her that he had just picked up a juvenile hitchhiker and that he “didn’t know what to do with her.” The caller stated the girl was dressed “like a slut.” He then asked Victim 8 if she was wearing a bra.

Victim 8 responded that it was none of his business, and that he should let the girl go.

The caller then told Victim 8 that he had the girl in the back of his van and that he was going to teach her a lesson. When Victim 8 said he should just let the girl go, the caller said “Oh my God I have to rape her,” and that he couldn’t let her go because she would call the police. He then said that he’d pinned her down and “Now I’m going to do her… can you hear me? I’m doing her, I’m doing her.”

Victim 8 hung up the phone and did a *57 trace. When officers went to the residence that the call was traced to, Doe answered the door. He allowed the police officers to look around, but denied making the phone call. He said that phone was in his former roommate’s name, that two former roommates were at his apartment all morning, and that one of those former roommates had been in trouble before for “his phone calling problem.”

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed in this case. The public record does not indicate why charges were not filed.

Case G

Police Department III FEBRUARY

1998

Incident Report: In February of 1998, Victim 9 stated to Police Department III that she had received a phone call at the McDonalds where she worked from a male who asked, “Do you have any panties on?” He also said “I’m here just thinking about you and I’m jackin’ off.” Victim 9 hung up the phone and did a *57 trace. She told the police that this caller had called approximately five times before, but this was the first time she was able to trace the call. The call was traced to Doe.

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed in this case. The public record does not indicate why charges were not filed.

Page 7 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Case H

Police Department III MARCH

1998

Incident Report: In March of 1998, a detective from Police Department III responded to a call that a man had seen his neighbor, Doe, grabbing Victim 10 by the throat and dragging her toward Doe’s house. She had screamed for him to leave her alone, and the neighbor heard Doe calling her a “fucking bitch.” Upon his arrival, the detective witnessed Doe physically moving the victim inside the residence. Victim 10 refused to sign a statement, refused medical attention, and also refused to sign a temporary protection order. Doe was placed under arrest at the scene and booked into jail.

Outcome: Criminal charges were filed; however, the prosecution dismissed the charges when Victim 10 was unwilling to testify.

Case I

Police Department IV AUGUST

1999

Incident Report: In August of 1999, Police Department IV responded to a call reporting threats and harassing conduct toward Victim 11 by Doe. Victim 11 reported that Doe made numerous threats against him, while shaking his fingers, hands, and fists at him, saying that he:

• “Could pound [Victim 11]’s ass, kick [Victim 11]’s butt and that [Victim 11] couldn’t dodge bullets from him”, and • Would take Victim 11’s “rich ass down financially, and otherwise,” if he heard that Victim 11 had said anything bad about him.

Outcome: Doe was charged with Harassment in King County District Court. A bench trial was held and after hearing the evidence, the court entered a guilty verdict in March of 2000. Doe received a deferred sentence of 24 months probation, 3 days on a work crew, and anger management treatment and, 15 months later, Doe was found to be in compliance with his sentencing conditions, so the case was dismissed.

kcsarc.org | Page 8

Case J

Police Department V OCTOBER

2002

Victim 12 reported a sexual assault to Police Department V and a criminal investigation was opened; however, the case did not result in criminal charges because Victim 12 did not want to go forward. Later, when she found out criminal charges had been filed against Doe in Case K, Victim 12 made a statement to Police Department III about Doe sexually assaulting her when she was 13 years old.

Victim 12 stated that she began playing basketball for Doe when she was in 7th grade.

He was very friendly with her and would flirt, hug her after games, and tell her that he loved her. The “relationship” quickly progressed to him touching her underneath her clothes, and then to Doe orally and vaginally penetrating Victim 12, often in hotels or public places.

She stated that while traveling to an out-of-state basketball tournament, Doe told Victim 12 he wanted to have sex in his hotel room. When she said no, he threw her on the bed, got on top of her and began slapping her. Then he pulled her pants off and raped her as she told him to stop. Afterward, he hit her in the jaw. Victim 12 had bruises on her wrists and face after the rape.

Age of Consent In Washington, the “age of consent” is 16 years of age. This means that individuals 16 or older are legally competent to consent to sexual contact with an adult, unless that person is a teacher, supervisor, or other authority figure.

Page 9 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Case K

Police Department III APRIL

2001

Police Investigation: Victim 13 reported that she had been sexually assaulted to Police Department III and provided a statement in April of 2001. She stated that she began playing basketball for Doe in 1997. Shortly after she began playing basketball for Doe, she began dining out with him, going to movies with him, and working out with him outside of regular practice. In early 1998, he began calling her on the phone and making sexual comments like “you have a nice butt” or “you would be a great fuck.” The comments escalated to sexual touching, and then Doe orally and vaginally penetrated Victim 13, just before she turned 16 years old. When Victim 13 stated that she was uncomfortable with the sexual contact, Doe told her that he was doing it because he cared about her. If Victim 13 refused sexual advances made by Doe, he would threaten that she would not get any playing time or a college scholarship if she did not comply.

Over time, he used these threats to coerce Victim 13 into sexual activity.

Victim 13’s mother said that when Victim 13 started playing basketball for Doe, she was told that there was “minimum parental involvement” other than paying the bills. She was also told that kids with the right kind of focus and intensity are hard to live with, and was warned about becoming a “problem parent” and arguing with her daughter. Finally, she was told that it was important for Victim 13 to develop a relationship with the coach, and that there would be social activities outside of practice.

Additional Investigation: During the course of the investigation of Doe’s assaults of Victim 13, the detective interviewed several girls who had played basketball for Doe, many of whom said that Doe was appropriate with them, and that they “would have known if something inappropriate was going on” with other players. However, other victims were discovered during the course of this investigation: Victim 14 reported that she played on Doe’s select team when she was 16 years old. Her parents were both very ill, and she told the detective that she did not have much to look forward to except flirting with him. Doe told Victim 14 that she was beautiful, and that he wanted pictures with her. He inquired about her sexual experience. Victim 14 quit the basketball team shortly after Doe rubbed her upper leg on the inside of her jeans and tried to kiss her on the lips.

Victim 15 stated that she played basketball for Doe in 1998 when she was a freshman in high school. She told the detective that Doe invited her to his house, kissed her, removed her clothing, and then orally and digitally penetrated her. On another occasion, she said that he photographed her naked.

Victim 10 (See also, Case H) reported numerous sexual assaults by Doe after she heard about Case K. No charges could be filed against Doe for his sexual abuse of Victim 10 because the statute of limitations3 had expired. According to her report:

3

The “statute of limitations” prevents the prosecuting attorney from filing charges against someone after a certain

amount of time has passed since the commission of the crime.

kcsarc.org | Page 10

Victim 10 played basketball for Doe in 1992, and he made her the team captain. Soon after, he began telling her she was pretty, patting her bottom, and kissing her. Doe vaginally penetrated Victim 10 two weeks before her 15th birthday at a hotel, and numerous times after that when she was 15 and 16 years old. He did this in parking lots, hotels, parks, and even a high school gym.

Once, Victim 10 told Doe she did not want to have sex, so he ripped off her underwear and raped her, holding his arm across her chest and throat. When she was 16 years old, he told her he liked to role play as a rapist and held a knife to her throat during sex. He also told her he fantasized about raping women.

When Victim 10 was 16, Doe began playing a “game” where he would drive around town to find a bus stop where a homeless person or someone who looked like they didn’t speak English was sitting. He would sit in the bus stop wearing a black overcoat with a hole in it, and make Victim 10 come up to him as if she was a stranger and have sex in front of whoever was at the stop.

Doe blackmailed Victim 10 into having sex because he had naked photos and a video of her. In fact, in 1998 when the police were called in Case G (discussed on p. 8), he had physically assaulted Victim 10 after she asked him to give her the photos and video. After he was arrested in that case, he told her to bail him out of jail, and threatened that she better not press charges.

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: In August of 2002, Doe was charged in King County Superior Court with four counts of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor in the First Degree for his assaults of Victim 13.

Charges Amended: In May of 2003, charges against Doe were amended to include Witness Tampering.

He had contacted Victim 15 in 2002, asking her if she had been contacted by the police and saying, “You are not going to say anything, are you?” Doe called Victim 15 again on two separate occasions.

Case Outcome: Doe pled guilty to two counts of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor in the First Degree.

On August of 2003, Doe was sentenced to 40 months in prison on each count, going above the standard sentencing range. The judge noted that an exceptional sentence was justified because “It is clear that [Doe] groomed them for his own sexual desires … and basically preyed upon [the victims] to satisfy his sexual appetite.”

On appeal, Division I of the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had no legal basis for imposing the sentence outside the standard range4 and remanded the case back to Superior Court for Doe to be resentenced.

Doe was re-sentenced in August of 2004 to 20 months on each count of Sexual Misconduct With a Minor, as well as 36 months of community custody.

4

The court may impose a sentence outside of the standard range if it finds substantial and compelling reasons. Any fact that contributes to a sentence above the standard range must be presented to the jury and proved beyond a

reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).

Page 11 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Case L

Police Department VI FEBRUARY

2003

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: Doe was charged in King County Superior Court with Assault in the Second Degree in February of 2003 based on an incident that ocurred in June of 2000. Police Department VI responded to a call at a grocery store. Upon arrival, they determined that Doe and Victim 16 had an argument in the store and parking lot, where Doe punched Victim 16 several times in the face causing a fracture to Victim 16’s orbital bone surrounding his right eye.

Outcome: In August of 2003, Doe pled guilty to Assault in the Fourth Degree and was sentenced to a 12 month suspended sentence with 90 days to be served in jail concurrent with his sentence in Case K.

kcsarc.org | Page 12

Case M

Police Department V OCTOBER

2005

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: In October of 2005, Police Department V responded to a reported indecent exposure. Victim 17 stated that while she was waiting at a bus stop, Doe pulled up to Victim 17 in his truck and asked her what time the bus arrived. Then he said something like, “You don’t need to wait for the bus, I’ll give you a ride. Look in here. I’ll show you a good time.” When Victim 17 looked into the vehicle, Doe was masturbating, his penis exposed and erect. Then Doe laughed and drove away.

Victim 17 recorded the license plate number and reported it to the police. In January 2006, the detective received a bulletin from Police Department II stating that they were investigating several indecent exposures by an individual in that same vehicle (See Case N).

Outcome: No criminal charges were filed in this case. The public record does not indicate why charges were not filed.

Page 13 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Case N

Police Department II FEBRUARY

2006

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: In February of 2006, Doe was charged in King County Superior Court with three counts of Indecent Exposure with Sexual Motivation after a criminal investigation conducted by Police Department II. This case involved three different victims, as well as two of their young children:

Victim 18 reported that Doe exposed himself to she and her 4 year-old daughter while she waited for her other daughter to be dropped off by the school bus. He drove up in a black pick-up truck with his pants pulled down and he was masturbating.

Victim 19 reported that while she was walking to work she heard a voice say “hello.”

She looked and saw Doe sitting in the driver’s seat of a black truck with his penis exposed and he was masturbating. He said, “Hop in my car baby, I really want you.” Upon further investigation, the detective learned that Doe was on his way to check in with his probation officer when he committed this crime.

Victim 20, who was nine months pregnant, was walking with her five year-old daughter.

She reported that Doe drove by them slowly in a black truck, and then backed his truck up next to them and rolled down his window. He had an erection and was masturbating.

Plea Hearing: In July of 2006, Doe pled guilty to one count of felony Indecent Exposure and two counts of misdemeanor Indecent Exposure.

Sentencing Hearing: In August of 2006, Doe was sentenced to six months in jail under the Work/ Education Release program for the felony Indecent Exposure. He was sentenced to three months in jail on each of the misdemeanor counts of Indecent Exposure, to run concurrently with the felony count.

kcsarc.org | Page 14

Case O

Police Department III OCTOBER

2008

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: Victim 21, who was five months pregnant, reported that Doe approached her in a shopping center parking lot and asked her “How much is it for pussy?” He said that he liked pregnant women because the “pussy” is real good and large. He then reached out of his car window toward her vaginal area. In October of 2008, Doe was charged in King County Superior Court with Assault in the Fourth Degree with Sexual Motivation.

Charges Amended: The charges against Doe were subsequently amended to include one count of Stalking. According to the Statement of Probable Cause, in mid-August, Doe approached Victim 22 in the same shopping center parking lot. While driving up alongside her, he said, “Hey baby, I’d like to get myself between those legs. I’m going to go home and jack off. I’d like to use my tongue to lick your pussy.” As he made these comments, he would open his mouth and stick his tongue out. This happened to Victim 22 on two other occasions, and then in September of 2008, Doe drove up alongside her and said, “Come on, come on- let’s go back to my place. I’d love to see myself between those legs, between those thighs, I’d love to flip that dress over your head.” Doe then reached out of his car window and tried to grab Victim 22.

She ran to her office and called the police.

Outcome: In April of 2011, Doe pled guilty to a reduced charge and was convicted of one count of Disorderly Conduct. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment in jail to run concurrently with a sentence he was serving in Case Q (discussed on p. 17).

Case P

Police Department III JANUARY

2010

Certification for Determination of Probable Cause: In January of 2010, Police Department III responded to a report of a possible armed robbery at a hardware store.

A store employee witnessed Doe wrestling another man for control of a handgun in a car parked in front of the store. When the police arrived on the scene, several hundred ounces of marijuana were also found on Doe’s person and in a duffel bag in his possession. Doe was charged in King County Superior Court with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the Second Degree.

Outcome: This case was dismissed due to a plea bargain in Case Q (see p. 17). Doe pled guilty to federal charges of Identity Theft and Social Security Fraud, and all other charges in this case were dropped. In the Order of Dismissal, prosecutors agreed not to charge Doe for: 1) any state crime for possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; 2) any violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; and 3) any assault charges.

Page 15 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

PERSPECTIVE

of a Sex Offender Treatment Specialist G. Hover, Ed.D. Successful treatment of a sex offender requires the offender’s active participation and motivation to change. Sex offender treatment is about changing one’s core thoughts, thereby making deliberate behavioral changes. Ultimately, successful treatment is defined by a sex offender choosing to use acquired skills to stop offending.

Amenability has been defined as a person’s “ability to engage in treatment.”5 Over the last 20 years there has evolved a broadly accepted format of the essentials for determining whether or not an individual is amenable to sex offender treatment including: whether he admits or denies the assault; whether he takes responsibility for his actions versus blaming the victim; his sexual history, interests, and attitudes; his mental health stability; his problem solving strategies; his impulse patterns; his employment, housing, and financial histories; and his cooperation with treatment and supervision.

Doe’s extensive criminal history as documented in this chronology leads one to believe that his evaluation for amenability to treatment would be challenging, to say the least. He does not appear to understand or agree that there was anything wrong in what he did. He expressed callous disregard for the people he victimized, his behavior was compulsive, and he seemed to be sexually aroused by violence and humiliation.

With the information presented here, it would appear that Doe would not be considered a successful candidate for treatment.

After serving time in prison, sex offenders undergo a Risk Assessment Evaluation, which includes the results from standardized tests and historical data, before they are released in the community. This is the process of evaluating the probability of future dangerousness and sexual offending. There is no single risk factor that predicts recidivism; however, the strongest indicators are variables related to sexual deviancy.

Doe’s history against both acquaintances and strangers includes obscene phone calling, sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography, and physical assault. He reportedly enacted rape fantasies on some of his victims and he also exposed himself to vulnerable individuals, including children, women with young children, pregnant women, and the homeless. Despite being arrested and criminally charged, Doe continued to sexually offend in a diverse and compulsive manner.

Individuals with such predatory sexual behaviors, compulsive behavior patterns, and long histories of these types of behaviors usually continue to offend. Without treatment, it is highly likely that the patterns of sexual predation will continue, and will become more frequent, as demonstrated by Doe’s chronology.

5

McGrath, R.J. (1991). Sex-offender risk assessment and disposition planning: A review of empirical and clinical

findings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 329-351.

kcsarc.org | Page 16

Case Q JANUARY

2010

In January of 2010, Doe was charged in United States District Court with Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft for stealing the identity of a deceased infant. Using that stolen identity, Doe was able to receive benefits through the Department of Social and Health Services and to secure employment.

Outcome: In December of 2010, Doe was sentenced to two years and eight months in federal prison after he pled guilty to one count of Aggravated Identity Theft and Social Security Fraud.

Doe served his sentence and was released from federal prison in June 2012, returning to the Seattle-area.

He is classified as a Level 3 sex offender and has not participated in sex offender treatment.

Sex Offender Classification Sex offenders are assigned a level (1-3) based on their potential risk to reoffend: • Level 1: Considered low risk to reoffend • Level 2: Considered moderate risk to reoffend • Level 3: Considered high risk to reoffend The offenders listed on the King County Registered Sex Offender Notification website are only those offenders classified as Level 2 or Level 3.

Page 17 | King County Sexual Assault Resource Center • Offender Chronology • Winter 2013

Conclusion Access to Information

The research required to put this chronology together was extensive. First, a search of all court cases against Doe was done on the Washington courts webpage and through the King County Electronic Court Records (ECR) application. Review of court documents in those cases revealed information about police investigations that did not result in criminal charges being filed. Public disclosure requests were then made at each of those police jurisdictions, as well as other jurisdictions within King County. Through this process, we also learned that one police jurisdiction would not necessarily have information about criminal investigations in another jurisdiction unless an arrest was made or charges were filed.

By ensuring that all county law enforcement agencies (and even agencies statewide) have access to information about all reports made against a particular offender, including those that did not result in arrest or the filing of criminal charges, this would assist law enforcement in conducting investigations. This is especially true if an offender demonstrates such an extensive pattern of victimization as we saw with Doe.

Filing Decisions

This chronology raises the issue of how to balance transparency within the system against the privacy of those involved in the process. When a police investigation is completed, it is sent to the prosecutor’s office and the State decides whether to file criminal charges against a person or to “decline” the case. After reading about Doe, one’s immediate reaction is likely to wonder why the State chose not to file charges against him in many of these cases.We recognize that filing decisions are complex, and that the prosecutor is required to consider several interests such as the victim’s, the offender’s, and the greater community; however, when Doe was not charged, there were fewer opportunities for him to be held accountable for his criminal behavior.

Many of the reasons for keeping the State’s filing decisions confidential are likely victim-related (e.g. the victim does not want to go forward with the case, the victim is fearful of the defendant, or there are perceived issues with the victim’s credibility), and that information may put victims at risk or have a deterrent effect on victims reporting offenses if they know it will be subject to public scrutiny. On the other hand, if more information about filing decisions was part of the public record, that information could be informative to future investigations of a particular offender. Additionally, it could help to provide information to the public (and potential jurors) that would debunk common rape myths and illustrate the unique complexities associated with sexual assault cases.

Reduced Charges

Although classified as a Level 3 sex offender (considered the highest risk to re-offend), the most prison time that Doe served in relation to a sexual assault case was 20 months. In fact, he served more time for identity theft and fraud than he did for any sexual assault crime that he committed. In many of the cases where Doe was criminally charged, the cases were resolved by entry of guilty pleas to reduced charges instead of proceeding to trial. The reduced charges resulted in lesser sentences and convictions where the crimes that Doe was convicted of did not always represent the true nature of the crimes committed. We understand that plea bargains are critical to our overburdened systems, but sexual predators benefit in this environment and continue their crimes untracked. When offenders plead guilty to non-sexual assault offenses, this impacts the conditions of their sentences: they do not have to register as sex offenders and they may not be supervised by the Department of Corrections. It also fails to alert future employers and community members of issues regarding contact with children. kcsarc.org | Page 18

King County Sexual Assault Resource Center PO Box 300 Renton, WA 98057 425.226.5062 425.271.6332 TTY 425.235.7422 fax www.kcsarc.org

A P U B L I CA T I O N O F T H E K I N G C O U N T Y S E X UA L A S S AU LT R E S O U R C E C E N T E R