Jury Convicts on 11 of 57 Counts in Sexual Relationship Case

By Dan Williams

The jury remained in deliberation for most of the day. The question on their minds was not if the alleged actions took place, but rather if the victim was mentally able to give consent; and if she was, whether she communicated it.

The issue that this case raises is an interesting one. The outcome of this case could set a dangerous precedent. We could be seeing what is essentially an IQ floor on sexual relationships and consent. Now, I’m not saying that anybody who’s ever had the privilege of being a sexual partner of dim-witted cousin Skeeter is at risk of being thrown on the sex offender list; but this is something we should be concerned about with regard to those who have issues communicating, and to their biological urges.

The evidence sheds plenty of doubt about whether or not the victim wanted the relationship. Her testimony has been contradictory in the best of lights. In the taped MDIC (Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center) interview, the victim is seen responding to nearly every question with the phrase, “I said no, Tom, no.” like clockwork, even if the phrase made no sense in the context of the question. However, in her time on the stand, she admitted to wanting sex with Mr. Vukodinovich, “just a little bit,” and that she loved him and wanted a relationship with him, “just a little bit.”

The next issue is the unusual ability for the victim’s performance and testimony, both in court and during the investigation, to be influenced by those close to her. This was touched upon in closing by the defense.

It is worth noting that during the tour of the locations where sexual acts were performed, the victim was in the car alone with her sister. The defense brought up that, during this time, their conversation was completely unmonitored and nobody was able to stop any potentially influential statements.

The prosecution during this case, honestly, seems not to have presented much. The lion’s share of their argument was, as usual, getting the details of the case correct. Many officers were brought in, but the crux of the officer testimony seemed to be an attempt to prove that the sexual actions did indeed happen.

They have plenty of evidence that the sexual acts in question happened, and some evidence that the victim did not communicate consent. (much of which was weakened by other testimony). The only evidence they have to the point that she cannot consent, due to mental issues, is an evaluation of her mental state that is over 30 years old.

This evaluation puts her at the mental capacity of a three-year-old. In closing arguments, the prosecution beat this point until it was six feet under and growing a flower bed. Is a 30+-year-old evaluation enough to remove the ability to consent entirely?

Before the verdict was read, the defendant was facing 29 counts of oral copulation with a mentally disabled person (California Penal Code section 288a(d)); 28 counts of penetrative sex with a mentally disabled person (Penal Code section 289a(d)); attempted rape (referring to a time in the bedroom) and rape. As the jury filed into the room to read the verdict, they confessed that apparently they had had some issues in deliberation.

They hung on 46 lesser charges, but convicted on 11 others, including rape and attempted rape. This came as a shock to me as I would have given the advantage to the defense. They played this case well, both reactively and offensively. However, the prosecution beat their “mental capacity of a three-year-old” dead horse until it was black and blue. In this case, evidently that dead horse bleeds convictions.

Commentary: Verdict in sexual abuse case leaves a few stunned

It was quite surprising to hear parts of what came from the jurors today, in regard to the state’s case against 74-year-old Thomas Vukodinovich.  Mr. Vukodinovich had 57 counts against him for his sexual relationship with a 49-year-old disabled woman.

As the trial continued day by day, there were moments when Mr. Vukodinovich would break down into tears. It was apparent during his interrogation, by his own words, that he had remorse giving into a sexual relationship with the victim – about which, Mr. Vukodinovich asserted, he could not penetrate due to illness. He was well aware he would have to answer for the relationship between him and the alleged victim at some point, albeit not in a court of law.

On Thursday, Mr. Vukodinovich was found guilty of 11 charges, 2 of which entailed rape and attempted rape on a disabled person. A far cry from what the state wanted, I am sure, but they were able to convince a panel of jurors to convict on some of the proverbial “spaghetti noodles” thrown against the wall.

Laying all of this aside for a brief moment, I was not surprised to hear a few counts of guilty on some of the charges but rather stunned to hear convictions of “rape and attempted rape.”  My shock was over the gross lack of evidence on the prosecution’s side for the charges of rape.

If we go back to the testimony pertaining to the incident at the house, there were two different stories told, one of which seemed to be more of a coached story, if you will. It was said she told the defendant, “No, Tom, no more,” but that appeared to be a repetition of a statement, as if she were a trained parrot. In fact, in much of her testimony, which clearly was not understandable, she seemed to repeat a few of the same answers over and over again. It raises questions.

In the convicting on rape and attempted rape, I fail to see how the prosecution could summarize that the victim had been forced to do anything, as she admitted rather honestly to “loving the defendant.” It was evident by witnesses’ testimony how much she cared for him and did not want him to get into trouble. Would those feelings of endearment come from a person who had been forced to have sex with someone? Even being disabled? I would think she would be in a state of terror around Mr. Vukodinovich; instead, it was her family who intimidated her – so much so that in years past, she would often lie, and beg supervisors not to tell on her, when she found herself in trouble. It raises questions..

Also, from the defense’s persepctive, looking over the interrogation tapes, Mr. Vukodinovich tells every single ugly detail of his personal sexual contacts with the victim. He told the officers about his illnesses and his “lack of being able to perform.” So that being said, if he did try to rape or actually raped, how in the world did he keep an erection long enough to do the deed? I am not a male but I am under the impression that, without sustainability more than seconds, one would not be able to go through with rape or the attempt thereof – unless they proved he raped with his “two fingers,” and is that even possible? And what about the DNA – why was it so inconclusive regarding sperm findings? If rape happens, wouldn’t it seem logical to find a lot more sperm? Somewhere? Like in the bed, sheets, underwear, pants, shorts, towel? All of which were introduced into evidence..

Adding to the gross lack of proof, in my opinion, was the fact not one investigator, cop or counselor thought it necessary to do a rape kit on the victim – why? Isn’t this mandatory in each rape case/charge?  It was told by investigator Steve Gail it was not needed due to time frame. Hmmm…if I recall, back in the case against defendant Sonne, bruises, tearing and other injury would have been visible for more than a few days. If a rape kit had been used, it may  have given the state stronger evidence of rape, wouldn’t it?

In testimony, it was told that the victim felt discomfort when Vukodinovich used two fingers while engaging in their sexual activities. The victim was able to express this to him.  It was also said by the victim that “it would just fall down, get soft,” when questioned about the details of their encounters. It leads one to believe she knew how things worked in that department and she knew when she felt uncomfortable, expressing this to Vukodinovich.

As to the state’s constant reiteration of the “four-year-old childlike mental capacity,” I have only questions as to why Judge Mock denied the defense’s motion to have the victim re-evaluated.

After all, it was 30-plus years ago.

My questions are: Does a four-year-old know how to use a debit card, manage a bank account, prepare meals for herself, work a job, catch a bus to and from that job, bathe and groom herself, work a camera phone, understand pregnancy and what causes it?  Just to name a few?

I do realize many four-year-olds are pretty sharp these days, but I fail to see how even the smartest of them could do these things on their own. What I do know is a four-year-old in my experience, most of the time, has to be taught to lie. Ring any bells?

If it is true, that the victim is of a four-year-old’s mindset, it would make sense she had been coached, as defense opines. However, Mr. Vukodinovich was not the first to be on the receiving end of the victim’s tall tales, as we heard testimony about her history of untruthfulness. I tend to believe that Tom Vukodinovich will not be the last, either. It does not make her out to be a bad person, just a person who may be more mature than a four-year-old and may just be desperate to have her own life beyond her sister’s control. A life with a husband, as she expressed to others.

So. we are left with the million-dollar question; the question the state raised in closing: “Was the victim legally able to consent to sex?” Well, if we take the state’s 30-year-old evaluation, we must conclude that she did not have the mental capability. But if memory serves me, several witnesses testified under oath about the victim being an adult and taking on a job like one; fully understanding things taught to her; having sex education, knowledge and hobbies; and enjoying and desiring relationships just like the average woman.

We do know she did grow up quite a bit since 1978, so even if she was not quite 49 in her mind, she was clearly much older than four years. But it was not good enough for the jury.

As I conclude, the question of mental state of mind of the defendant seems to plague me. I cannot stop wondering why Vukodinovich was deemed of a sound mind. Given his age and disability, along with the interrogation tape, it appeared to me this man had some mental health issues himself. Perhaps old age? His past?

This puzzle/case was a difficult one and, for me, the pieces need to be a “spot-on,” matching to convince me the defendant is indeed guilty of the crimes charged.  In short, this means no stone unturned to find the truth; to prove the truth. But the reality is, most cases lack all the perfect pieces and we are left with holes.

It would seem this is a case of a woman who, in spite of her disability, wanted so badly to lead a normal life, a life with a partner in love and marriage. So badly that she would keep it hidden from family for quite some time. It seems as if during this “secret life” of the victim’s, she appeared “happy” to most of her closest friends and co-workers. I wonder how this has affected her well-being now?

What I do believe Mr.Vukodinovich is guilty of is sexual misconduct while on duty. Along with abuse of his authoritative position/power with the disabled; it puts him in a higher level of accountability.  He needs to answer for whatever laws those fall under, if any.

However, a jury of his peers deemed him guilty of the 11 charges and he will now answer for them.  Not quite what they wanted, but I believe this is where the buck stops!