by Antoinnette Borbon
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, the jurors came back with a guilty verdict on almost all counts in the state’s case against defendant John Timothy Ganthner, who was charged with child abuse and sexual abuse of a child, among serveral other charges and enhancements.
Deputy District Attorney Robert Gorman even added a count of torture, the only charge the jury acquitted on.
Reading the DA’s account of the trial, however, I was concerned that the public would get a faulty impression of the case. To me it is far from clear that the child was sexually abused.
I read and re-read each article, studying all testimony meticulously, and researched the medical evidence of sexual abuse/penetration.
In the DA’s account, the case was complicated because of the inability of the child to communicate as to when and by whom he had allegedly been molested.
“When the grandmother returned home around 12:30 p.m., she noticed the child had severe injuries to his private areas and chest,” according to Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven. “Dr. Angela Rosas conducted a sexual assault exam and determined that the child had at least three areas on his body where he had been beaten and sexually assaulted.
“Initially, Ganthner, who had been the only person with the child, denied injuring the child,” Raven continued. “Eventually, he admitted to a Woodland Police Department detective that he kicked the child one time because the child would not stop crying. Police arrested Mr. Ganthner on Aug. 24, 2011.”
Despite the jury’s verdict after 10 hours over two days of deliberating, I found enough points to raise some very serious questions in regard to the evidence presented. I found there to be more than a few thought-provoking points to, in my opinion as well as the opinion of several of the other interns who monitored this trial, raise a reasonable doubt about the charges of sexual abuse.
I felt compelled to share these points:
1. The defendant stated the baby was crying, and was not able to be consoled. Maybe he was already in pain? After all, anal fissures are quite painful.
2. The defendant stated he noticed bruising around the anal area shortly after the fall. Bruising does not appear within minutes, but has an average of at least 24 hours, per medical experts.
3. The baby’s mother insisted they NOT take him to the hospital. Why? Was she hiding something?
4. The defendant summoned help in a reasonable time. If he had just sexually penetrated this baby, is it reasonable to believe he would want anyone to find out?
5. A licensed psychiatrist performed an eight-hour evaluation on the defendant and found he did NOT meet the profile of a child molester. So the jurors and prosecutors know more than the doctor?
6. When Dr. Rosas testified, she was asked to draw a diagram and mark with different colored pens where she found injuries and what they meant in her opinion, although she has only seen one other case like this one. In her markings, she labeled an “anal fissure” at the 12 o’clock position and one at the 6 o’clock position on the outside of the rectum. She testified that these symptoms are more indicative of severe constipation and bowel problems than anal penetration. Again, this is the testimony of a medical expert.
7. During testimony from the defendant’s girlfriend, Tina, the jurors were told about the size of the baby’s bowel movements. She stated, “He had large poop like a grown man.” If this is indeed true, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say the anal fissures could come from large bowel movements? In fact, it is very possible! Medical experts state several possible causes, which include: constipation, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, poor hygiene, constant diarrhea, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, passing large stools and anal canal injury – all of which can cause such tears.
8. Vanessa, the baby’s mother, had been homeless, staying in a homeless shelter in Sacramento. How many people from the shelter were interviewed in regard to the events leading up to the day she dropped off the baby? To my knowledge, none.
9. The matter of DNA was critical. Investigators found that there was NONE linking the defendant to the area of anal injury. In fact, forensics did not test any DNA for lubricants either, and found nothing else – no hair, no semen, no latex from a condom, nothing on the diaper. How is this possible? Especially if the alleged assault happened the day the baby was examined.
10. The Department of Justice never ran a database check for DNA of anyone else. This may not have been necessary for the case, but shouldn’t this be standard procedure in a sexual assault?
These are points I found to be alarming in this case. Just a few, but I felt they were worthy of writing about. I would also like to assert the defendant never denied hurting the child and, understandably, he will have to pay the price for losing control.
But that does not mean he is guilty of child molestation. The evidence here is too thin.
The evidence proves insufficient and there was plenty of reasonable doubt raised.
Unfortunately, when you are talking about the well-being of an innocent and helpless child, it is easy for the jury to burden-shift, and give the benefit of the doubt to the protection of the child.
I hope this decision is appealed. If this young man is innocent, it’s devastating for him. He did the right thing, reporting the baby’s injury. (Even overriding the Mom to do it.) This seems to bring suspicion to the Mom. Interesting about immediate bruising, too. Wonder why the jury didn’t take any of this, and the psychiatrist’s testimony, into account? Maybe someone on the jury could shed some light on this? Yes, I agree, Antoinette. Many facts in this case are alarming. Astonishing.
Just one comment about immediate bruising. The length of time to bruise depends upon the amount of blood flow to an area, and how close an injured blood vessel is to the surface. In the area around the anus, which is highly vascular, bruising could be almost instantaneous.
Antoinnette thank you for sharing your observations from the court and the testimony you heard. It truly sounds like a case where the jury got some of it wrong. The man should be punished for the harm he has done. I concur, from my readings of the case it seems to me that the child wasn’t sexually molested, but was physically hurt.
Great reporting. You give very compelling arguments in this case. Maybe you should consider being a defense attorney. As you have seen defendants come to court with everything stacked against them-especially in child sexual assault cases. There have been many cases in which the doctors examining the child doesn’t have the knowledge of what else could have caused the injuries. You have also hit on the fact that there didn’t seem to be any investigation to see if the defendant might have been innocent. This seems pretty consistent with the Yolo County DA’s office.
“Reading the DA’s account of the trial, however, I was concerned that the public would get a faulty impression of the case. To me it is far from clear that the child was sexually abused. I read and re-read each article, studying all testimony meticulously, and researched the medical evidence of sexual abuse/penetration.”
Antoinnette, please clarify what you did with respect to this case. Were you in the courtroom for all of the trial? What do you mean by “reading the DA’s account” and reading and rereading “each article”?
When you were “studying all testimony meticulously,” are you referring to the trial transcript? Is it available on-line? Did your research of “the medical evidence” go beyond what was presented in the courtroom for this case?
You appear to have provided an excellent summary of the defense case in this commentary, along with some personal research of issues the defense may have neglected to present in court.
I looked for your earlier report to see what you wrote about the prosecution’s case, but it seems to have disappeared from the Vanguard. I do remember asking why you wrote “(facts not in evidence)” regarding two prosecutor closing comments, but never heard back whether those were your personal opinions or whether the judge made such rulings.
It’s apparent you’ve concluded that John Ganthner has been wrongfully convicted because “the evidence is too thin” and because the defense has raised much more than reasonable doubt for you. It’s not easy to make such judgements (even when one’s heard all the evidence) without spending the ten hours of time evaluating everything with the jurors.
Thank you for your reporting and commentary for the Vanguard.
Okay JustSaying, while I’m not Antoinnette, I did practice law for 30 years, so of it in this county.
So let me tell you what’s wrong with your comments.
The DA has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and Antoinnette appears to have come up with 10 reasons we should all doubt the verdict.
I’m sure the DA’s account refers to the DA’s press release and I can tell you there is no way they would be able to have the trial transcript. First, it takes a long time and second, it’s quite expessive. A ten day trials would cost in the thousands. And no, they don’t make them available online and they are proprietary and heavily guarded. The fact that you didn’t know any of this, suggests that you really don’t understand how the system works.
Next you write… “You appear to have provided an excellent summary of the defense case in this commentary, along with some personal research of issues the defense may have neglected to present in court. “
How do you know what the defense did or did not present in trial. All Antoinnette did was list off ten problems she had with the verdict as rendered by the jury.
Instead of addressing those or probing those further, you attack Antoinnette subtly as though she were the mouthpiece of the defense attorney.
“It’s apparent you’ve concluded that John Ganthner has been wrongfully convicted because “the evidence is too thin” and because the defense has raised much more than reasonable doubt for you.”
What it appears to me is that there was no real evidence to conclude a sexual assault as opposed to a physical assault occurred. There was no DNA evidence, the medical evidence was conflicting, and the defendant didn’t fit into a category of a sexual predator. The DA’s account acknowledged the victim, being two years old, was unable to communicate what happened. So we are left to wonder if there was evidence at all of a sexual assault.
If there was it was neither in the DA’s account, this account, or the previous articles on Ganthner that I was albe to pull up.
Having been an attorney, when you have an innocent and helpless victim, it is not very surprising that the jury would err on the side of the prosecution, but without having spoken to the jurors, I’m not sure where the proof beyond a reasonable doubt was in this case.
Thank you very much medwoman…Just one of many necessary explanations with regard to this write up…
Siegel, If I may respond to one point. You wrote: [quote]the defendant didn’t fit into a category of a sexual predator. [/quote]
The defense paid-for purported “expert” can utilize current testing mechanisms and state his/her opinion about whether a defendant “fits” into a “catagory.”
With that said, it does not mean the defendant did not commit sexual offenses against a child like John/Jane Doe.
Not too long ago, a female Bay Area [former] teacher faced 100+ years in state prison for commiting nearly 30 counts of sexually related acts agsinst her female victim (over about 3 yrs.). In that case the test results also did not find she fit into said catagory. Her attorney repeatedly stated her client did not rape the female victim. She pled and received 8 years.
Apples vs. Oranges
Antoinnette, I don’t haave the time right now to fully repond. But suffice is to say…Re: #7 I find it interesting that you appear to give great weight to the “Tina’s” testimony/opinion.
Permit me to use your line of questioning. Does Tina know more than a medical doctor, police officer, District Attorney?
Really?
Siegel, you didn’t indicate that you practiced criminal law or environmental law? Which is/was it?
Wow, Siegel, you’re certainly in a foul mood today. I’m sure that upon the slightest reflection you’ll realize that I did nothing to attack Antoinnette. I appreciate her work and asked how she got to her conclusion that the jury got this case so wrong. I thought she and David would like the feedback.
If you don’t see that her commentary is an excellent and compelling argument for the defense, feel free to call it what you like. My questions are how she got to this point, what she saw and read to convince her of her conclusion.
You claim there is no real evidence to conclude a sexual assault happened, yet it appears you were not at the trial to hear the prosecution case either.
Antoinnette, I’m still interested in hearing your report on this case. I hope your original writing and comments will become accessible again. And, I hope you’ll accept my comments and questions for for the appreciative commentary they are, not what Siegel attempts to make them out to be. Keep on doing what you’re doing.
The never-ending, nasty, disregarding comments that show up regularly following Vanguard CourtWatch stories do very little to help make the well-intentioned project credible. Feel free to attack everyone with whom you disagree. As for me, I’ll stick to the Vanguard’s political coverage from now on.
Ad: “The defense paid-for purported “expert” can utilize current testing mechanisms and state his/her opinion about whether a defendant “fits” into a “catagory.””
If you deal with professionals, you don’t usually get doctored findings. There were a lot of cases where I got a psych-eval and ended up not using the individual because it would have harmed my client’s case.
The example you provide doesn’t exactly prove anything, she may have plead because they believed the risk was too high if a jury didn’t side with them.
And I was a defense attorney.
Thanks very much to Ms. Borbon, the Vanguard, and Mr. Siegel.
This is yet another case demonstrating massive injustice – problems with the DA and the public defenders office, problems with the jury selection process.
“Wow, Siegel, you’re certainly in a foul mood today.”
Not at all, just didn’t think your post was all that insightful.
“I’m sure that upon the slightest reflection you’ll realize that I did nothing to attack Antoinnette. I appreciate her work and asked how she got to her conclusion that the jury got this case so wrong. I thought she and David would like the feedback.”
I didn’t have a problem with that part of your post.
“If you don’t see that her commentary is an excellent and compelling argument for the defense, feel free to call it what you like.”
I viewed a comment like that as though you were calling her a “shill” for the defense, whereas I think her points had a lot of merit.
“My questions are how she got to this point, what she saw and read to convince her of her conclusion.”
Again, that wasn’t really my objection.
“You claim there is no real evidence to conclude a sexual assault happened, yet it appears you were not at the trial to hear the prosecution case either.”
Actually the crux of what I said was: “What it appears to me is that there was no real evidence to conclude a sexual assault as opposed to a physical assault occurred. There was no DNA evidence, the medical evidence was conflicting, and the defendant didn’t fit into a category of a sexual predator. The DA’s account acknowledged the victim, being two years old, was unable to communicate what happened. So we are left to wonder if there was evidence at all of a sexual assault… If there was it was neither in the DA’s account, this account, or the previous articles on Ganthner that I was albe to pull up.”
If it was there, then the write-up here is not very accurate and the DA’s office failed to explain it in their press release.
Antoinnette, I’m still interested in hearing your report on this case. I hope your original writing and comments will become accessible again. And, I hope you’ll accept my comments and questions for for the appreciative commentary they are, not what Siegel attempts to make them out to be. Keep on doing what you’re doing.
The never-ending, nasty, disregarding comments that show up regularly following Vanguard CourtWatch stories do very little to help make the well-intentioned project credible. Feel free to attack everyone with whom you disagree. As for me, I’ll stick to the Vanguard’s political coverage from now on.
Adremmer:
[quote]Antoinnette, I don’t haave the time right now to fully repond. But suffice is to say…Re: #7 I find it interesting that you appear to give great weight to the “Tina’s” testimony/opinion.
Permit me to use your line of questioning. Does Tina know more than a medical doctor, police officer, District Attorney?
Really?[/quote]
It doesn’t appear that you have read #7 all the way through.
She states[u]Medical experts state several possible causes, which include: constipation, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, poor hygiene, constant diarrhea, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, passing large stools and anal canal injury – all of which can cause such tears[/u]
Great article with very good insight into the mistakes made. Since the McMartin preschool trial back in the 1980’s the police and the DA should always be suspicious when one parent makes an accusation of abuse against the other parent. Just curious if this was a vertical prosecution case?
Antoinette: Now that I’ve found the earlier story about the conclusion of this trial, I see that Charmayne did the writeup. So, with respect to my question about whether “fact not in evidence” was the writer’s opinion or the judge’s: never mind.
The answer to the question about the vertical prosecution is: yes
Vertical Prosecution – now it’s all starting to make sense.
Siegel I’d like to encourage you to keep commenting. 30 years experience is invaluable. Thanks for your insights.
@N, let me correct you — I read all of#7! The writer indeed addresses what she calls fact. Yet did not note that this information was presented at trial. So possibilties are endless,huh? The trier of fact, here didnt seem to agree?
@Adremmer. Maybe No 6 can clear it up. The writer states that Dr. Rosas testified it can be due to all those things. Just scroll up for exact quote. Sorry my keypad’s not allowing easy copy and paste.
Thank you Iyah for pointing out to AdRemmer that he needed to read #6 too.
I am not surprised to hear that this was a vertical prosecution case. The sad part about these cases is that if the detective just pursues one one theory and excludes all else justice is not served. It seems like this happened here. The fact is the prosecutor and detective didn’t investigate the issues and leads you would expect them to in any case, especially sexual abuse.
There seems to be a problem with vertical prosecution cases here. The series of articles you just published on Ajay Dev seem to be similar. Either there isn’t much investigation going on or anything leading away from the accused is discarded.
@Siegel speculated, [quote] she may have plead because they believed the risk was too high if a jury didn’t side with them.[/quote]
Sorry, pal, the defense heavily relied on said report. No lawyer-like “probably” needed. Thanx, for playin’ tho.
@N&l: I read #6 too…We got here…Here’s my point:
The tier of fact, in this case, presented with the law, jury instructions and the facts, rendered a decision and the intern was NOT impaneled on said jury.
Let’s see how did the story teller pose it? Oh, yea — does Antoinnette Borbon “Know more” than the jury?
“does Antoinnette Borbon “Know more” than the jury?”
In most cases – by design – a courtroom observer would “know more” than the jury.
I’m not sure your point, do you believe that the points that she raised unimportant? Or are you simply accepting on faith that the jury had access to those points, duly considered them, and properly weighed them before discounting them for reasons that we are not privy?
May I ask, you’re professional expertise? Attorney? Law enforcement? Deputy DA? Bug catcher?
Wow! I want to say “thank you,” for each and every response! I am humbled by your support, defense, and encouragement given by deeming my commentary having merit. No, I do not know more than the jurors, not the point, I did however do my homework on this case and thought it reasonable to raise a few eyebrows..boy, did I!!
I am busy at the moment but I will answer your questions soon! Stay tuned!!
Kindly, Antoinnette
P.s. not offended by any comments..but I appreciate those protecting my integrity!
Point of clarification.
How does this being a vertical prosecution case affect one’s thinking about the case?