Chittenden County State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan says he’s dropped a short-lived inquiry into a five-year-old allegation of sexual assault in the Vermont National Guard.
Donovan’s investigation stemmed from an anonymous letter that prompted a candidate for adjutant general to exit the ongoing race to lead the Vermont National Guard last week. The author of the letter wrote that she had been sexually assaulted by a senior Guard officer in December 2007 and claimed that Jonathan Farnham and another senior officer failed to report it to civilian law enforcement officials.
After Seven Days wrote about the episode, Donovan said last week that he hoped to contact the victim to determine whether she could provide more information about the alleged perpetrator — and whether she would cooperate with an investigation.
Donovan says he spoke to the woman over the weekend and found that she was not interested in revisiting the episode further.
“We had a good talk. While I think that a crime was most likely committed five and a half years ago, the victim expressed to me her desire not to go forward with any criminal prosecution,” Donovan says. “Given that, we will not go forward.”
Her unwillingness to cooperate, Donovan says, “would render an investigation extremely difficult to prove any allegation” — even if he were to subpoena records from the Vermont Guard of its own internal investigation of the incident.
“Even if you were able to get some information, you would still need real, live testimony from a victim at trial, because you’d be dealing with essentially hearsay if you were relying just on documents,” he says.
Is Donovan concerned that the alleged perpetrator remains free and may still be serving in the Guard?
“My sense is, given the recent publicity of what occurred in the last few weeks, this individual knows who he is, and this publicity will likely be the best deterrent in him engaging in any future conduct.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Publicity is not punishment. And while I completely understand the survivor’s unwillingness to rehash her traumatic past (that’s her prerogative) I nonetheless question the State’s own unwillingness to shine a light into the Guard’s closet – at least to have a little look around. After all dropping the case at this stage does little to force the Guard to take any real action on this issue.
Why does this response feel like enabling on the part of the AG’s office?
And also, based upon the facts contained in this article, no real investigation, short lived or otherwise, was actually undertaken. Mr. Donovan had a discussion with the survivor but that’s all. Why does this rather abbreviated inquiry feel like a whitewash job?
Finally, according to RAINN:
“There are certain circumstances in which the prosecutor will move forward with charges based solely on the evidence presented. For instances, cases involving incidents of sexual violence may be pursued by the state regardless of the victim’s decision to be involved with the investigation.”
I’d like to hear the AG respond to why he feels no urgency to intervene in this particular case and at least pursue a investigation. There is likely a paper trail and perhaps other compelling evidence available that the State could use to consider pursuing a conviction. But we’ll never know since the State dropped it all. Whatever happened to due diligence?
What a shame and what a poor message it sends to other guard members and to the civilian public. Without additional background I am left to wonder if prosecuting aggravated sexual assault is really a State priority? But than again, I wondered the same thing in the aftermath of Vermont’s Catholic church sex abuse scandal.
You can’t prosecute a case without a victim who’s willing to cooperate.
Per my research, and contrary to your assertion, the State apparently can do so in certain situations. Perhaps a legal professional working in Vermont can clarify?
Time Out! The victim composes a letter to her legislator describing
how frustrated she is by the outcomes of her sexual assault case 5.5 years ago.
Proceeds to name officers who she claims acted inappropriately by not reporting
her assault to the police. The Officers/Guard are unable to discuss the case
due to privacy concerns. She has now been given the opportunity to report the
crime and chooses to remain silent and anonymous! Unfortunately, I am seriously
questioning the motives of this “victim.†Was her intention to seek justice or
just smear General Farnham and the Guard’s reputation? Did she ask her
legislative representatives to pressure this candidate to withdraw? What is her
motive/reason?