Carla at Preeemptive Karma has most of the latest details.

To add clarity, the young woman will now be subject to a presentencing investigator who will inspect her life to determine whether she’s a serial criminal, whether she’s the issue of a fit and functional family, or whatever. The investigator’s report will include a recommended sentence based on his or her interpretation of her life.

Nobody will be investigating the three rapists and their families and backgrounds. No sword remains over their heads, because their inconsistent stories were less inconsistent than the woman’s, in the mind of the last interpreter (the judge).

Judge Ackerman, by the way, claimed he’d received threatening messages after declaring her guilty, though he offered no details of what those threats were. Based on his previous interpretations in this trial, it’d be enlightening to see the evidence of those threats. (I certainly would never threaten an officer of the court, or anyone else, for that matter. Threats to a court officer are criminal, so presumably, the city will be investigating and pursuing those writers making such threats. Unless they’re merely opinions or threatened perfectly legal responses.)

The community service and monetary restitution that Carla mentioned were part of the city’s original recommended sentence, but when the defense attorney queried about this, it was determined the city had withdrawn its recommendation in favor of the presentencing investigation.

In the judge’s original decision, it was clear by his own statements that the BARD level had not been reached (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt), yet he felt compelled to make a ‘best guess’ anyways. In this sentencing hearing, where he chided the defense attorney for not putting an expert on rape victims on the stand, it suggests he remains open to the possibility that the woman is not guilty… which leads to the question: why did he convict on less than a BARD level of evidence? If his finding was meant to tell the defense attorney he could have done a better job, it adds to the victim’s trauma needlessly.

Veteran observers of court trials in Oregon - attorneys and others, some present at this trial and some not - have been pretty consistent in their opinions. Which include:

- many murder trials take less time and effort than this one has, so this is unusual for a class C misdemeanor.

- as Carla noted, why were charges brought against the victim a year after the rape occurred and the investigation began? All the pertinent details the judge cited in his decision were discovered in the investigation within the first 2 or 3 months, so why the delay in filing charges? Was someone behind the scenes - perhaps family and friends of the men - agitating for charges to be brought?

- the evidence presented, to unbiased observers, was not conclusive and everyone I spoke to in researching this was clearly surprised at the judge’s decision. (this doesn’t include me, as I didn’t hear the evidence nor the judge’s rationale firsthand. I simply phoned several attendees.)

It’s not surprising that the judge was unhappy with the media’s reporting, but given that he again could issue a written explanation of his decision, and hasn’t, he’s done a poor job clarifying anything. Instead, he’s chosen to pass the buck, blaming the media, the defense attorney and the threatening message senders for interpreting his actions incorrectly, in his opinion).

I imagine it must be hell to have one’s actions so misunderstood. The judge should have had an ‘expert’ explain it to everyone, don’t you think? I mean, to be consistent with his own opinion about the attorney of the young woman he convicted after she was raped.

Tune in next time to see if the judge continues to confirm what a putz he is, and whether the woman ever gains any justice.