Thursday, April 24, 2008

A 7-hour coerced statement - UPDATED

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

ER Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statements
Testimony during David Gundersen’s preliminary hearing Wednesday revealed a different view on evidence that led to his arrest for spousal rape.

“Jane Doe 1” testified that she “felt coerced” by officials working in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office into making a statement about non-consensual sex with Gundersen.

Jane 1 testified that she never filled out a report with the HCSO about the non-consensual sex, and felt “lured” by the HSCO to talk about it.

She said it was never her intention to have Gundersen prosecuted and the only reason she is testifying is because she is under subpoena by the District Attorney’s Office.

The meeting turned into a seven-hour interview with three officials from HCSO, she said, including Lt. Dave Morey, where Doe 1 testified they wanted to talk about the non-consensual sex, and that she felt coerced to do so.

Doe 1 also brought up Margaret Gundersen, David Gundersen’s former wife, who also works at the HCSO.

She felt Margaret Gundersen orchestrated the interview because of a custody battle she was engaged in with David Gundersen, and wanted the interview to end.

“I wasn’t comfortable,” Doe 1 said. “I wasn’t OK with it.”

For more: ER Gundersen's hearing transcripts

TS Key witness in Gundersen case says testimony coerced
”I believe that there was a plan and I was part of it,” Jane Doe 1 said during cross examination by defense attorney Russell Clanton.

She claimed the investigators grilled her for about seven hours -- not letting her leave to take medication or smoke a cigarette -- and coerced her statements that Gundersen repeatedly raped her while she was under the influence of the sleeping aid Lunesta.

At some point, Jane Doe 1 testified, she asked for Gundersen's ex-wife, employed by the sheriff's office, to come into the room in hopes she would stop the examination. But she also testified that Gundersen's ex-wife had always hated him, and because of that had orchestrated the surprise interview.


TS Experts: Little impact from coercion charges in Gundersen case
University of California Hastings professor of law David Levine said the situations surrounding Doe's interview sound unusual, but likely don't cross the line into coercion. For the interview to have truly violated Doe's rights, Levine said, investigators would have had to deprive her of basic necessities like food, water, access to a bathroom or necessary medication.
***

ER Doe 1: ‘I don’t think I would have ever come forward’ 4/24/08
At the end of Wednesday’s session, Doe 1 made it clear that it was never her intention to press charges on Gundersen. She also said she “felt coerced” by the several people at Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to make statements she would otherwise not have made during a seven-hour interview.

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

51 comments:

  1. One does NOT have to talk to the police !! This case stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She didn't report anything but was brought in and interrogated for seven hours without being able to leave.

    This more than stinks. It calls for someone to picket. It is outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear professor

    Jurors do not like this kind of bullyragging. This must be a new "progressive" form of prosecution and investigation. If a defendant were treated that way, it would be a civil rights suit. If a victim is treated that way,
    that's fine. Huh?
    Like the man said in the movie
    "There's something really wrong here"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't you get it? It was figured out on the MIrror Blog. He's going to charge the cops who interviewed Jane 1 with police brutality, thus
    hopping from case to case, like ice flows, abandoning each one as it melts beneath him, but maintaining a never ending "cop on trial, I am the noble seeker of truth" magic show.
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I would like to know is what the f’k is up with Driscoll and that Greenson guy. Writing a blow piece that coercion with the alleged victim is ok. Are they completely dense, insensitive or what? That they are spinning this as ok is absolutely disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'But that is of little consequence, according to Timothy Williams Jr., a retired Los Angeles Police Department detective with 26 years of experience conducting and supervising investigations on domestic violence. Williams is now CEO of a private investigation company, T.T. Williams Jr. Investigations, Inc., and works as an expert witness.

    Williams said that if investigators had knowledge of the possibility that Doe had been raped, they were obligated to follow up on it.

    ”They would have been opening themselves up to liability if they had let her return to an environment where she could have been hurt or even possibly killed,” he said. “You have to remember that domestic violence is a crime against the state, and whether the victim wants to press charges or not is not the only factor.”'

    What about that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. And according to the Hastings Law professor (a very good school btw) it would only be coercion if they didn't allow her to use the restroom or take medicines, depending on the medicines. Apparently no one asked her in court what those medicines were. He also said that it is irrelevant now because she testified that what she told them was the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The question is, did she ask to leave? They can't keep her. And the cop's line about "let her return" to a an "environment" where she could have been killed? Hilarious. DV victims get "released into their natural habitat" every day- they go back to their abusers, and there's nothing that the cops can do. The cops don't have a choice about where a woman goes, unless she's under arrest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She reported a CRIME. And she testified that when she reported that crime she told the truth. He is a serial rapist that you are all rooting to go free out of hatred of the DA. Shameful! Maybe he'll meet up with a woman you care about next. I personally wonder how many other women he raped who either couldn't identify him or were afraid to because of his position. He raped all 3 of the women he was involved with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Any alleged violation of a California criminal statute is by definition a "crime against the state". That is the reason these cases are entitled: "The people of the state of California vs John Doe". That includes all crimes with private persons as victims. Prior to the success of special interest groups such as feminists and environmentalists in having their agendas enacted by the legislature the refusal of a victim to cooperate generally resulted in a lack of prosecution by reputable prosecutors. As a law enforcement officer I often found this to be frustrating. Such is no longer the case in the area of domestic relations. In the Gundersen case we are witnessing the result of a legislature run amok and a prosecutor with a political agenda. Make no mistake; Paul is playing to his political constituency and appears to be little concerned with justice. This is evident by the fact that more often than not genuine criminals' cases are either rejected or plea bargained down to ridiculous dispositions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Excuse me, isn't the Sheriff's department accused of coercing this 7-hour statement from her? Yet, you want to blame Paul? Is it your opinion that they are his tools? How is Paul at fault for their techniques, that independent experts say will not matter? She said she was coerced, but she also said everything was true. Do you not want the truth? Apparently with a cop defendant that is your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The TRUTH is what it is all about. 8:44. Pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was told the other day that after Gundersen was hired he went after the pot growers. Guess who defended them? Yep good ole PG. Guess who is x-wifes attorney is? Yep, JG. Now I want to say I heard this from a very good source and it may be old news but it does strike me that PG may have a vendetta going on. But then, what else is new.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, poor Chief Gundersen has been framed as a vendetta. Gallegos got 1 wife, 1 ex-wife and an ex girlfriend to claim he raped them all using the same techniques, took pornographic pictures of all 3, planted the drugs and illegal weapons on him. You people are unbelievable!

    The fact that you are hoping that a serial rapist goes free to make Gallegos look bad says more about you than you would like. Your insane hatred blinds you to how you are perceived by sane people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No one wants a rapist to go free. What is supposed to happen is 1) he gets a fair trial to determine whether or not he is proven to be rapist
    2) citizen's rights,- the rights of the accused and of the alleged victims are not trampled in the process
    3) the DA does not try cases based on politics, but on whether or not a crime was committed and can be proven. In this instance, there are serious questions on all three points.
    for those of you who have found him guilty based on the press--Duke Lacrosse.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If the Sheriff's Department investigators engaged in coercive "interview" tactics, it is the duty of the prosecutor to either require independent corroborative evidence or reject a filing. The reason for this is the likelihood that either the judge will toss the case or a jury will refuse to convict. Oh; I forgot, we're dealing with Oz, or more precisely, Humboldt county here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's wife testified at Gundersen's preliminary hearing Thursday that he threatened to “take her fishing” if she went to law enforcement with her allegations of rape.

    ”Did you think he was going to take you to catch some fish?” District Attorney Paul Gallegos asked Jane Doe 1.

    ”No,” she responded.

    ”What do you think he meant?” Gallegos asked.

    ”That he was going to take me fishing to hurt me,” Jane Doe 1 testified."'

    Keep in mind, this is the woman he is currently married to. What a great guy you are defending here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey I don't know if Gundersen is innocent or guilty. That used to be the job of a jury and an honest DA. Sorry put Paul has more "fish" to fry than to to set free. He has proven his inability to lead and to make sure the scales are fairly balanced. End of fish story.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He threatened to KILL this woman if she filed a complaint against him. It doesn't take a physicist to understand that. Now I want to know if Johnson notified Gundersen of Jane Doe 2's complaint and if that is why 2 members of the BLPD beat her in Arcata as she testified.

    Hate Gallegos or love him, scum like this in positions of authority is BAD NEWS.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm sorry, 7:05, that you cannot differentiate between defending the person, and defending the PROCESS,

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm sorry that you are so blinded by hatred of Gallegos that you can't admit his attempt to hang this guy is good for our community. DA's often charge more than they think they can convict on, as you well know. Now lets hear something about what a scum this rapist is and you hope Gallegos puts him in prison. Or do you only do that when he fails to get maximum convictions on every count?

    Some of your "readers" can't read evidenced by their "She didn't report anything but was brought in and interrogated for seven hours without being able to leave." Everyone isn't as dumb as your average reader so stop with the games already.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does anyone know why Clanton would ask Hislop who he believed, Jane 2 or Johnson? Isn't the first rule for attorneys not to ask a question to which you don't know the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 5:03 alleged to have raped 3 women. Don't cross the line till all the facts are in. Just might be he and his girl friends(wives) have a kink in their sex lives. Who knows? Maybe it's something they were OK with till they decided it was a way to get at him. Just might be the truth. Then again he just might be a bad guy. If so, screw him! Lets wait till all the facts are out.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What the hell happened to innocent until proven guilty 8:00am? Or does that only apply to everywhere but Humboldt County? If Gundersen did what he is accused of, I say hang him from the tallest Redwood. If he has been set up by a dishonest DA then I say hang Paul Gallegos from the tallest Redwood.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not on a jury and won't have to worry about being called for this one. I have already made up my mind as the evidence is overwhelming IMO. If you were being honest and this wasn't a cop accused and prosecuted by PVG, you would have already made up your mind too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anyone who makes up their mind by what they read in the press is simply not worthy of consideration.

    Paul has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt who he really is and he did it on his own with no help from the media.

    The jury is still out on Gundersen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 7:05 - you may want to REREAD the article because no where in it does she say that Gunderson told her he would take her fishing. What she said was that the investigators told her this during that 7 hour session.

    May I quote:

    Doe 1 testified that she feared for her safety when talking with HCSO, but her fears “became worse because of what was said to me during the interview.”
    At one point, Doe 1 recalled being told that Gundersen would take her “fishing.”
    Doe 1 said she interpreted it as “he was going to take me fishing and hurt me.”
    During the second interview with investigators from the district attorney’s office, Doe 1 testified that they claimed she committed felonies that she hadn’t.
    She said she feared prosecution and going to prison.


    Um - isn't that blackmail?

    ReplyDelete
  28. From today's T-S:

    "EUREKA -- Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's wife testified at Gundersen's preliminary hearing Thursday that he threatened to “take her fishing” if she went to law enforcement with her allegations of rape."

    I have no idea where you got the information you posted.

    ReplyDelete
  29. where you ask? Try the other more accurate paper that has a running transcript.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I looked at that. That is not a transcript. That is the reporters characterization of what was said with a few quotes, same as the T-S.

    I have found the T-S to be the more credible and less biased local news source.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well now 4:20pm that says it all.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ah yes, biased. because the Eureka Reporter asks hard questions of PVG. The Times-Standard has been taking a pretty good hard look lately. Put on your hard hats and bulletproof vests, shit will rain down on you if you knock Boy Blunder.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Reading the E-R account doesn't make sense. They have Gallegos bringing up the "take me fishing" story but not Clanton and it seems like it would be just the opposite if the ER account is correct. Clanton didn't even follow up on that, if the ER account is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  34. When are all these freak's going to be on the Jerry Springer show ??

    ReplyDelete
  35. Probably just after you 7:32pm.

    ReplyDelete
  36. let's see, we have our illustrous DA, airing Darcy and Dave's filthy linen in public. We have the other high-profile case involving serving line personnel of law enforcment. Time has already demonstrated that Mr. Gallegos does not mutli-task well, which one will go down in flames or will it be both? By history, Mr. Gallegos is far more interested in serving the interest of the progessive, socialist agenda than the mandates of his elected office. So, it begs the question, who really has it in for law enforcment? What interests are 'siccing' their lapdog District Asshole on the cops?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous said...

    I looked at that. That is not a transcript. That is the reporters characterization of what was said with a few quotes, same as the T-S.

    I have found the T-S to be the more credible and less biased local news source.

    4/25/2008 4:20 PM


    Yeah, the T-S is really on top of the game today. Might as well just drop the Jane Doe bullshit with this case, they are just doing a awesome job with this case, FUCK YEAH TIMES-STANDARD!!!

    Police chief's wife feared he'd hurt her
    John Driscoll and Thadeus Greenson The Times-Standard

    Article Launched: 04/25/2008 01:24:19 AM PDT

    EUREKA -- Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's wife testified at Gundersen's preliminary hearing Thursday that he threatened to “take her fishing” if she went to law enforcement with her allegations of rape.

    ”Did you think he was going to take you to catch some fish?” District Attorney Paul Gallegos asked Jane Doe 1.


    In all my life I have never threatened to take someone "fishing" I have however used "SLEEP WITH THE FISHES".

    So the DA has uncovered a plot that two grown adults may or may not have a odd sex life, and someone may or may not have a badge. The weapons may or may not be legal and this case may or may not be full of shit.

    Let's just wait and see what other shit comes out in tomorrow's paper!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Scott Petersen took his wife Lacey and their newborn baby, Conner fishing.

    Scott now looks out at the SF Bay from his room at San Quentin Inn, and watches other people fish. That is what Chief Gunderson must have meant. Wow not only is he a rapist, but the threatens to kill people too.

    You know just assume nothing was done, and this POS did kill his wife. I bet you folks would have some Paul criticism then. You would just be hypocrites compared to this spurious crap you are selling now.

    ReplyDelete
  39. UNBORN BABY, 12:23. Not newborn.

    And yes - it looks like the TS and ER have a discrepancy as to who said "Take her fishing."

    You need to relax. It is going to play out in court - IF it gets to court. And you're just going to have to forgive us for being skeptical. Gallegos has shown his - whatever you want to call it - and there is no reason to assume he knows what he is doing. No reason to assume he will be fair, especially when it comes to a police officer, especially when it might be one who might have had problems with Hislop in the past, especially after seeing the persecution of Sean Marsh, Debi August, especially after seeing little Mr. Bowman getting off... oh, yes. Even you ought to be able to undertand the skepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  40. To get some current insight to Gallegos read the articles about him and the code enforcement officers.

    This is pretty blatant stuff. A large group of SoHum marijuana growers complain to the Board of Supervisors and they but a 45 day hold on the code enforcement and then during that time PVG works to take away the code enforcment peace officer powers! I can come to only one logical conclusion and that is PVG is using his position and power to protect marijuana gorwers.

    One of the papers reported that Hislop testified (under oath) that he didn't know Sgt/Lt Johnson very well. He only worked with him on a small department for more than 20 years !!!!! And has "personal" disputes with Johnson while at EPD.

    From reading the papers I don't believe Jane Doe 2 or lead DA investigator Hislop. And I am not sticking up for Gunderson in any way. I'm sure Gunderson has done at least half of what they say he has.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Working with someone over 20 years in a small department or office doesn't mean you know them very well. If you don't socialize with someone, you know only their "business face" and can't be said to know them very well.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Claiming that all the people who spoke out against armed code enforcement were marijuana growers is a blatant lie. You growth at any cost" people are just upset that your ploy to get the homesteaders on your side failed miserably and Gallegos' actions contributed to your failure. Sour grapes!

    ReplyDelete
  43. BS, 8:07AM. It may be different in an office setting but NOT in a police department. Hislop knows Johnson very well. You'll have a hard time cleaning this one up.

    But it really doesn't matter. Gallegos has the support of the marijana industry and therefore the vote. He can do pretty much what he wants. Of course he looks like an idiot to those outside Humboldt and Mendocino counties and it doesn't mean he will prevail in the courtroom.

    "Justice for All" !!! MMP

    ReplyDelete
  44. Don't try to spin Gallegos' latest grandstanding on deputizing the Code Enforcement Officers. That blatant falsehood will bite you in the ass. Jus' tellin' ya. It won't fly.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And one observation I would make, after all the time I have spent watching this entire situation is this - you don't hear ANY law enforcement types defending Gundersen. And the only person they defend LESS is - Hislop.

    It would seem that the anti-cop faction, in their zeal to get all cops, will end up with their worst nightmares in the highest positions of authority if things continue the way they are.

    There oughtta be a name for that, kinda like "Murphy's Law."

    ReplyDelete
  46. It's really too bad no public interest group has ever video'd a PVG court performance. A youtube
    spectacular is there for the taking. Perhaps the nationwide attention in Douglas/Zanotti will
    produce a video of PVG arguing the inevitable motion regarding his grand jury presentation.

    Then we'll all be able to laugh along with the Palco judges.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Well well, is it possible that Judge Feeney doesn't know that rape with a firearm doesn't extend the statutue of limitations? Or is it the "blog attorney" who made that claim who doesn't know? Or maybe Feeney has joined the forces of evil with the usual suspects? Or does Judge Feeney just hate cops?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Seems to me your question has been answered before - it would be up to the defense attorney to have raised the issue, and the judge makes his ruling the way he sees fit.

    No. Feeney hasn't "joined the forces of evil" nor does he "hate cops" - spin it the way you want, then watch and wait and see,

    What I see is a case that's disintegrating. It'll go forward. Now the hard work begins.

    ReplyDelete
  49. California Penal Code Section 801.1 (b) allows for a 10 year statute of limitations on sex crimes to include Rape, 261 of the Penal Code. That is why Clanton didn't argue it. This Rape happened 9 years ago. So the pro-rapist arguments again fail. Gee, why not a blog posting, that all 19 of 19 Counts(only Kidnapping was struck, but probable cause for Rape was found) received a holding order by Judge Feeney. That is 100% in my book. I know it was just not a good day for the pro-rapist community. Gee what is the likelihood that two women who have never met each other, don't know each other would both accuse Gunderson of Rape, at different times. In multiple victim molest cases, Allison Jackson used that argument every single time, and it is very difficult if not impossible to answer. He is going down, and the only person that can save him is Clanton. I bet the pro-rapist bloggers are feeling mighty secure right now.

    ReplyDelete
  50. There are no pro-rapist bloggers. At least not in this county. Probably not in this state. You've got the pedophile who uses the web to encourage other pedophiles, but I think he is in Oregon, and not a blogger. But no pro-rapist bloggers - or commenters to my knowledge.

    YOU like to try to spin every comment, but you only look foolish. The consistent message that you pretend to miss, but really deliberately distort, is very clear.

    I realize that any criticism of Gallegos upsets you, and questions about his judgement, character and morality upset you. That's fine. It's your perspective. Keep trying.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.