Friday, June 17, 2011
By Geoffrey Fattah
SALT LAKE CITY — A state lawmaker wants to allow the least serious of Utah's registered sex offenders to be able to petition to have their names removed from the state's official registry after five years.
Rep. Jack Draxler, R-Logan, has drafted a bill that would allow a person convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old, unlawful sexual activity with a minor 14 or older, or voyeurism to petition the court for removal from the Sex Offender and Kidnap Registry.
Draxler said the bill would not apply to people convicted of more serious offenses, such as rape or sodomy, or sex with a minor below the age of 14.
The bill requires a petitioner to have successfully completed any court-ordered treatment and not to have any subsequent convictions. Copies of the petition would also be sent to the case prosecutor and victim to give them a chance to object. The person must also undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation and be deemed no longer a threat by a judge.
The bill was presented to lawmakers during the interim session on Wednesday. It had been introduced last legislative session but failed to pass.
Dr. Kim Openshaw, a therapist and researcher who treats sex offenders and victims, testified Wednesday before the Legislature's Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee that for certain people, being on the registry does them more harm than good. The proposed changes would allow them to move on and improve their lives, he said.
Draxler said he was aware of a 19-year-old man who was convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old girl, whom he later married. Draxler said the two started a family, but because the man was on the sex offender registry, he was having difficulty finding work to support his family.
By Jesse B. Gill
Former sheriff's Deputy Nathan Gastineau admitted that he had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old police Explorer, according to court documents.
Those documents - prepared by San Bernardino County sheriff's detectives - show that investigators found a video and photos of Gastineau having sex with the girl when she was 15.
Gastineau, 31, of Redlands, was arrested April 22 on suspicion of having sex with the girl. He was charged June 10 with three counts of lewd acts with a child and three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse.
He has not yet been arraigned on the charges.
When reached at his home Thursday, he declined to comment through a friend.
His attorney could not be reached for comment late Thursday.
Sheriff's detectives Tyson Niles and Roberto Lomeli interviewed Gastineau on April 22 at the sheriff's Highland station, where he worked.
At first, Gastineau - a 10-year veteran - repeatedly denied a relationship with the girl, according to a report prepared by Niles. After a lengthy round of questioning, Niles and Lomeli told Gastineau that they knew he had sex with the Explorer. Gastineau insisted the girl was lying.
The detectives told him they had used the girl's cellphone to send text messages to him, posing as her.
"I told Gastineau we had the cellphone and that I had been messaging him all day long," Niles wrote in his report. "I told him that she was not lying; we knew it was the truth and now I needed to know why. I asked if he forced himself on her or if it was consensual."
"Gastineau replied by saying, `No!' I replied by saying, `No what?' Gastineau replied by saying it wasn't forced."
After the detectives read Gastineau his Miranda rights, he told them, in detail, about how he and the girl had sex a single time at his apartment, Niles wrote.
"I just went along with it," Gastineau told Lomeli, according to a report he prepared. "I didn't try and stop her. I didn't force myself on her."
The girl, who lives in Redlands, first met Gastineau through Explorer program, where he was an adviser.
After they met, he told her about the Inland Empire Ghostbusters, a group of fans of the movie who dress up as ghostbusters for community events. The girl then joined the group.
When Detective Julie Brumm interviewed the girl, she told Brumm she and Gastineau began having sex in November 2010, according to a report the detective wrote.
The two had sex about six times before she turned 16 on Jan. 24 and about twice a week after that until mid-April, Brumm wrote.
The girl also told Brumm that, at least once, Gastineau performed a sex act on her during a ride-along in a patrol car.
"She said Gastineau would take her to a secluded area while in the patrol vehicle and they would kiss," Brumm wrote. "He took her down Alabama Street (connecting Redlands and Highland) when the road was closed due to the flooding and he also took her down Greenspot Road (in Highland) in an area that was dark."
During interviews, Gastineau also admitted to sex acts other than intercourse and taking nude cell phone photos of the girl, Niles wrote.
After serving search warrants at Gastineau's home and locker at work, investigators found the photos - and more, Niles wrote.
They found videos, and one of them "clearly shows Gastineau having sexual intercourse with (the girl)," he wrote.
Some of the photos they found showed Gastineau having sex with the girl, Niles wrote. The video and some of the images were taken in November 2010, leading detectives to deduce Gastineau had sex with the girl when she was 15 years old, according to the report.
A second man, Jason Anguiano, 27, of Rialto was arrested days after Gastineau and accused of having sex with the same girl. He was charged June 10 with two counts of sexual penetration with a foreign object and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.
Anguiano is not a deputy. He works for a fence company in La Habra. He knows the girl and Gastineau through the Ghostbusters group.
Niles' report suggests that the girl began a sexual relationship with Anguiano while still in a relationship with Gastineau. Both men expressed their love for her, according to the report.
But when Gastineau found out about the girl's relationship with Anguiano, he became upset.
"Gastineau decided to quit the Ghostbusters because he could not bear to be at the meetings with Anguiano and (the girl) together," Niles wrote.
During his interview with Niles and Lomeli, Gastineau agreed to participate in a phone call with Anguiano to illicit details to contribute to the investigation, according to the report.
During the phone call, Anguiano never explicitly said he had sex with the girl, but made several comments to Gastineau implying that they performed sex acts together, according to Niles' report.
When investigators served a search warrant at Anguiano's home April 25, they found a receipt for a stay at a Redlands hotel.
The receipt matched credit card and check-in information the detectives obtained from the hotel, according to Niles' report. It also confirmed information the girl gave detectives about the place of a sexual rendezvous for her and Anguiano, according to the report.
When Anguiano was arrested, he immediately asked for a lawyer and did not answer detectives' questions, according to the report.
When reached by phone Thursday, he continued his silence. When asked about the validity of the charges against him, Anguiano declined to comment.
Gastineau is no longer employed by the Sheriff's Department, officials said last week. He is set to be arraigned June 27 in San Bernardino Superior Court. He has a second arraignment date set for Aug. 15.
Anguiano is set to be arraigned June 28 in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Both men are free on bail.
SACRAMENTO - A former Stockton police officer is facing up to 20 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to child pornography charges.
Federal prosecutors say John Krivokapich pleaded guilty Thursday to receiving child pornography.
Krivokapich was arrested after the mother of a 15-year-old girl notified Stockton police in 2008 that he had been exchanging pornographic emails with her daughter.
Prosecutors say Krivokapich had left the department in 2001, but Stockton police recognized him as a former officer.
The 43-year-old Krivokapich is due to be sentenced on September 8.
Besides a prison term, he's also facing a lifetime of supervised release when he's released from prison, as well as a $250,000 fine.
By William L. Anderson
Because we don’t have cable or satellite television in our home, I rarely watch the cable "news" shows that feature confrontational "debate," as people scream unfounded accusations at each other, all in the name of discussing "issues." Thus, we are deprived each night of watching Nancy Grace "seek justice," and that alone makes missing The History Channel and Mythbusters worth the self-denial.
These days, Nancy Grace (Video, Video), the former prosecutor turned television host, is a popular person. Fox Business News apparently wanted to "balance" the liberty-minded shows by Judge Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel with a show in which anyone accused by the State automatically is guilty of whatever crimes the show’s host claims. Alas, the deal fell through because Grace kept upping the ante for salary and perks, and she stayed with the HLN network.
I must admit to not being very familiar with Grace until the Duke Lacrosse Case burst into our body politic in the spring of 2006. A stripper with a criminal record made rape accusations against three members of Duke University’s lacrosse team, and despite the fact that her stories did not match the laws of time and space, Grace immediate declared the lacrosse players guilty, and permitted her nightly show on CNN to be a conduit of outright lies, fabrications, and innuendo.
Because the show’s clips were available on the Internet, I was able to watch her interrogation of anyone who did not agree with her assessment, and I am not sure that I ever have seen a nastier person at work. When one skeptic of the case noted that the law required criminal defendants to be regarded as "innocent until proven guilty," she declared that such viewpoints were what one would expect in Nazi Germany. (That is right. Nancy Grace declared that the Rights of the Accused really were a product of Adolph Hitler, and that declaring someone guilty even though there were no proof was a product of a free nation. And people enthusiastically buy these lies.)
As people familiar with the case know, the whole thing began quickly to unravel when at a December 15, 2006, hearing Nifong’s supposed DNA expert admitted under oath that he and Nifong conspired to withhold important DNA results that would have been considered exculpatory to the three defendants. That bit of news never made it to Grace’s show, as it violated the established narrative.
In April 2007, North Carolina’s attorney general, Roy Cooper, announced after an extensive investigation of the charges by two experienced prosecutors that there had been no rape, that the stripper-prostitute Crystal Mangum was lying, and that Nifong was a "rogue prosecutor." The players, Cooper declared unequivocally, were "innocent." Now, one would think that such news would be very important to Grace, who declares often that "I want justice." After all, justice clearly was being done here.
The truth, however, is not Nancy Grace’s style. She refused to appear that night, leaving a guest host to announce Cooper’s actions and at that point, the Duke Lacrosse Case went down Grace’s Orwellian Memory Hole. In a recent post on his famous blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, K.C. Johnson included a Daily Show commentary on Grace's performance during the lacrosse case, including her non-appearance on the night of the exoneration of the players.
Why is Grace so afraid of the truth? Perhaps it is because Grace herself has had a problem with telling the truth in important situations. When Grace was a college student in the late 1970s, her fiancé was murdered; that much can be verified. Furthermore, Grace, whose shattered life was changed by that event, decided not to be an English major and went into law and became a Georgia prosecutor instead. Unfortunately, after that fact was established, Grace began to play fast and loose with the facts of the case.
Grace publicly has claimed a number of things about the murderer and the case:
- The killer was a 24-year-old career criminal who killed her fiancé after robbing him;
- The killer denied his crime and a jury took three agonizing days to convict him;
- In a moment of weakness, Grace told the court she did not want the killer executed;
- After that, the killer filed a series of appeals, further traumatizing Grace and her family.
Thus, her own personal experience, according to Grace, is "proof" that the American justice system is too much weighed toward the "Rights of the Accused," and if we want "justice," the "rights of the victims" must be put front-and-center. While Grace’s emotional appeal seems to be rooted in her tragic story, it turns out that Grace has not been telling the truth. The New York Observer, after investigating the case, found out the following things:
- Her fiance was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker;
- The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior convictions;
- Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested;
- The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days;
- Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn't get it, because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded;
- Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.
For that matter, Grace has failed even to get the year correct (the murder was in 1980, not 1979) and her fiance’s age right (he was 23, not 25). So, while Grace’s fiancé, indeed, was murdered, the real story does not fit Grace’s "the killer thumbed his nose at the justice system" narrative.