http://web.archive.org/web/20120311033708/http://roguerambler.com/live/curts-blog
the original article
http://web.archive.org/web/20120311033708/http://roguerambler.com/live/curts-blog
click to view the original article
Sunshine Bucy Story
Jury Doesn't Fall for D.A.'s Claim of Sexual Molesting
Full disclosure: I have never met Sunshine Bucy. His young daughter, however, is best friends with my niece, and thus my sister knows Sunshine very well and, in fact, appeared as a character witness at his trial the week of May 17-20, 2011.Despite all that, I am positive I can remain an impartial juror throughout the course of my investigation and subsequent article. As a confirmed Gonzo journalist, my personal observations will be sprinkled throughout, and I will not attempt to hide anything behind the alleged ethics of mainstream journalism.
Speaking of which, the above-the-fold headline of the Ashland Daily Tidings of August 6, 2010, read, “Ashland man suspected of sexually abusing 10-year-old girl,” complete with a mug shot. That headline enough was for any father of two daughters to reach for the tar and feathers.
In the grand old journalistic tradition of “guilty until proven innocent,” the Tidings wrote that the “police got a report on Sunday” about the “sexual contact” at a party on Saturday night and arrested Bucy on Monday. Police Sgt. Jim Alderman noted that “we’ve had information come to us that there have been other allegations” and asked that “anyone with information regarding any other suspicious behavior by Bucy to call Ashland police detectives.” Being good citizens, the Tidings even gave the phone number.
Nowhere in the article did it mention anything about the possibility that the incident may never have happened or that the mother of the child may have had a history of less than stellar behavior and/or truthfulness. They just immediately assumed Bucy was guilty and they wanted to dig up as much dirt as possible to confirm their suspicions.
Nor did the police ask the public to come forward with information about the mother that might shed some light on the matter. If they had done that, they certainly would have had their hands full and might have learned that the victims and perps in this case easily could have easily reversed roles.
Unlike the police and the mass media, I’m not going to state that as an undeniable fact; I’m willing to hear both sides. But after listening to the 20-hour audio transcript of the trial and talking with various actors in this made-for-television Shakespearean tragedy, I’m seriously leaning toward the possibility that the police and the District Attorney did not do their homework nor did they ever put the blinders on. And as the deadlocked jury proved on the day of May 20, 2011, quite a few people agree with me.
A Going-Away Party
From what I have learned, Sunshine Bucy is the divorced father of two children—a daughter 14 and a son 10. He has worked as a craftsman/carpenter over the years and is currently seeking his degree in Theatre Arts at Southern Oregon University.
After the Police Department sent out its request to the public for information on Bucy, they learned that he had dated some young girls in the recent past, all of them over 18 years ago.
They were trying to establish a pattern to justify their arrest and apparently failed because nothing heinous ever came out in court, other than one person who claimed he was “grooming” a 15-year-old girl at Camelot Theatre. That accusation was vehemently refuted by Camelot Artistic Director Livia Genise, who turned up in court as a defense witness.
Under cross examination, it was learned that Bucy had actually dated Genise’s 18-year-old daughter, which Genise didn’t think was a big deal since she still showed up as a character witness for Bucy.
The Tidings and Mail-Tribune, in their never-ending search for the lurid, reported that Bucy had dated “Genise’s teenage daughter” (italics mine). Seriously, doesn’t that make you think she was 13 or 14, or at least under 18? It is character assassination at its worst. So much for ethics in journalism.
The question the Police Department surely had to ask themselves was this: Was he capable of “sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl” in full public purview, with his young son no more than five feet away and his daughter and girlfriend coming into and out of the room at 4-minute intervals? No sexual predator on earth would run with those odds.
It all happened on the night of July 31, 2010. Bucy, 37, was throwing a going-away party for his girlfriend, Natali, at his Ashland townhouse. It was also billed as a “cast party” for members of the Ashland Contemporary Theatre play, Illyria, which was set to open the next weekend. Bucy, who was very active in local theater, had a leading role in the play.
One of his fellow actors, Shawn, showed up at the party with his girlfriend, Rheanna, their infant son, and Rheanna’s 6-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter, whom I shall name Susie.
(Note: If indeed, the allegations are false, the accuser [Rheanna] should be publicly identified and branded, just as Sunshine Bucy was in this case. In fact, in a fair world, she should be made to pay Bucy’s legal fees and be put on trial for slander. Then the daily newspaper could put her mug shot on the front page and ask for input from the public about her past behavior. If the allegations are true, however, the victims deserve some anonymity, which is why I’m giving only their first names just in case. Either way, the 10-year-old girl is a victim, either by Bucy or her mother, and she will remain anonymous.)
According to accounts I have heard, “Susie” immediately became a hit at the party. She knew all the songs to Illyria and sang one of them to the crowd. Bucy was effusive with his praise, putting his arm around her and exclaiming, “I want to marry this girl in ten years.”
(Note: There are various accounts to exactly how this phrase was worded. By that time, the party had been going for 3-4 hours and most people had had their share of booze. Recollections of exact words are fuzzy at best but almost everyone, including Susie’s stepdad Shawn, agreed that Bucy was just trying to get a laugh and that the comment was harmless.)
One person not impressed with Susie was Bucy’s girlfriend Natali. During the trial she said, “I thought she was a little rude. There was no ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ for anything. She followed people around who’d give her attention. It was enough to be annoying. It was not the normal seeking of attention.”
According to Natali, when Susie got to the party she went straight up to Sunshine Bucy and began asking him questions about the play and theater. Later, when a few of the adults went into the kitchen for “shots,” Susie followed them in. Shawn and Rheanna were two of them. Rheanna, Natali said, was wearing short shorts, high heels, and a bodice top, and “she never spoke to anyone throughout the whole night.”
At that point, Susie asked Bucy for a “tour of the house.” It was actually more of an apartment/duplex, and with a wave of the hand, Bucy covered the entire first floor. Then they went upstairs for a small tour and ended up in his room where Susie’s 6-year-old brother (whom we’ll call Charlie) and Bucy’s 9-year-old son were playing a computer game.
Conflicting Accounts
At this point in the narrative, piecing together what happened becomes extremely painful. In the courtroom, and during her initial interview with the police (which was played in court), Susie claims Bucy placed her on the bed, kissed her, nibbled her ear and stroked her thigh. There are some inconsistencies in her story from August to May, but for a 10-year-old to remember exactly what she said nine months earlier would be hard to do.
It is agreed by everyone that they were in the room for a total of 10-15 minutes. Natali and Bucy’s 13-year-old daughter, however, both bounced in and out of the room and swore in court that Bucy and Susie were sitting on the floor playing a board game the entire time.
Neither Charlie nor Bucy’s son recall anyone being on the bed, but both were so absorbed in the computer game that they weren’t really paying attention. Natali testified that the bed was full of clothes, her laptop and hard drive, and that the room was a mess.
In her initial testimony in August, Rheanna, the mom, claimed the door was closed and that when she went upstairs alone, Bucy “bounced off the bed” and her daughter “was shaking.” Natali totally refuted that.
“When I went upstairs the first time, the boys were on the computer and Sunshine and the girl were sitting on the floor playing a board game,” she said in court. “I went downstairs for five minutes to clean up, and then Shawn, Rheanna and I went up the stairs together to get the kids. The door was open, and everyone was exactly where they were when I left them.”
Shawn agreed with that statement. “The door was open, and Sunshine got up and was doting over our infant child,” he said in court. Where was Susie? “I don’t remember.” Did anything seem strange? “No, everything seemed normal.”
The Police Don’t Do Their Homework
From bits and pieces that I have gleaned from the court testimony, what happened next was very strange. Shawn, who by the time of the trial had turned from State’s evidence to a witness for the defense (more on that story later) said that he sensed something was wrong in the car driving home.
“I asked what was going on, but she wouldn’t tell me,” he said.
At home he finally learned that Susie was claiming she had been molested, and when he began to ask questions, he was asked to leave the room.
Peter Carini, lawyer for Sunshine Bucy, found that very strange. During his closing argument at the trial, he asked the jury, “Does that seem weird to you? Shawn was asked to leave the room, then Rheanna got out a pad and wrote down word for word what happened, having her daughter pause while she was writing. Can any of you imagine doing that after your daughter had been molested? Wouldn’t you have called the police immediately?”
To top it off, Rheanna waited twelve hours before she even notified the police. Twelve hours. That was on Sunday, August 1, and Detective Carrie Hull asked them to come down to the police station for statements. Shawn wasn’t a whole lot of help because even during his court appearance he admitted he didn’t see anything untoward in the room that night. He was just trying to be supportive to the mother of his infant child.
The next morning Detective Hull had Susie and Charlie taken to the Children’s Advocacy Center for an interview. I listened to that tape, and I will tell you point blank that neither child sounded even remotely traumatized. In fact, a witness for the defense in court on May 19 said she’d seen Susie at a play audition on Monday, August 2, the same day she gave her statement, and that she seemed happy and normal.
That didn’t deter Detective Hull. She sent a police officer to pick up Sunshine Bucy for questioning with the intent to arrest him. Her mind, apparently, was already made up.
According to Carini’s closing argument, both Bucy and his girlfriend Natali were totally freaked out about getting called to the police station and being grilled about events of the night of July 31. Neither of them knew what was going on, why they were being questioned, or what the consequences would be.
Natali, however, let her emotions flow during court on May 18.
“I was totally surprised at the accusations,” she said. “I gave a full account of what I had seen in the room, and Detective Hull indicated that if I was covering up, I would be legally culpable. It was extremely distressing to me because I knew Sunshine was totally innocent. She had me completely frazzled, and I was crying a lot.”
That didn’t stop Detective Hull. Within minutes of the interviews, she had Bucy arrested and placed in the Jackson County Jail on $100,000 bail. Then, and only then, did the Ashland Police Department decide to start investigating the case. Two days later they sent a press release to the daily newspapers. Sgt. Jim Alderman noted that “we’ve had information come to us that there have been other allegations. We can’t prove or disprove those allegations at this time.”
The article ended by asking people with any concerns about Bucy to contact the police. It was, in effect, a witchhunt sponsored by the Ashland Police Department, with the Daily Tidings and Mail-Tribune as honored co-sponsors, and the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office joining the club a few days later.
A Hypothetical Situation
When I called Detective Carrie Hull and Police Chief Terry Holderness, I posed this hypothetical situation: “If a couple came down to the police station and gave testimony that one of their neighbors was selling drugs to high school students, would you go out and arrest him the next day? And then would you put his mug shot on the front page of the daily paper and ask people to report on any other rumors of heinous actions by that individual? AND, would you even take the time to investigate whether or not the couple who initiated the complaint were not indeed crazier than outhouse rats and might have a grudge against their neighbor?”
Both Hull and Holderness claimed there was probable cause for an arrest on Bucy, based on the testimony of one adult and two children, although the testimonies of two adults and two children completely refuted everything they said. With a score like that, you’d think the police would do a little more investigating, or at least hold off the arrest until they had convincing evidence. Or, gasp, just drop the whole thing for lack of evidence.
When I talked to Detective Hull, she made it sound as if the counselors at the Children’s Advocacy Center who interviewed Susie where godlike figures who could determine if a child was lying. I listened to that tape, and her belief in the system is overrated. The child went out that night and auditioned for a play! She could have pulled off the same performance that morning. Why wasn’t that possibility taken into consideration?
Detective Hull claims that she based her arrest solely on the child’s interview and slapped Bucy with a $100,000 bail. That was followed with a mug shot on the front page and a call to arms for more gossip.
To this impartial observer (and I say impartial because if I thought the accusation had any merit, I’d be all over this), the police rushed into this thing based on the testimony of one person and without any physical evidence at all. In fact, the evidence pointed to an opposite conclusion.
Yes, the child’s testimony sounded authentic, but there was no testing for DNA, no visits to the “crime scene,” no taking of fibers from the child’s clothing, no nothing. Everyone else in the room refuted everything that she said. Why didn’t their testimonies count for anything? Why didn’t the police investigate a little further?
In my humble opinion, the Ashland Police Department completely dropped the ball in this case, and like lemmings rushing to sea, the Jackson County District Attorney’s office followed suit. The taxpayers of Jackson County, who ultimately footed the bill for this travesty, should not be very happy.
Sly References in the Courtroom
While Bucy’s lawyers failed to return any of my numerous phone calls, I really wanted to ask them about their references during court proceedings to Rheanna’s state of mind. At one point, Carini asked Detective Hull if she had known that Rheanna suffered from Munchausen Syndrome. “That never came up,” she said.
Out of curiosity, I Googled it and this is what it said: “Psychiatric disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma in order to draw attention or sympathy to themselves.”
Even scarier, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is “a mental illness in which a person acts as if an individual he or she is caring for has a physical or mental illness when the person is not really sick; the adult perpetrator lies about illness in another person under his or her care.”
Somehow that phrase was spoken by Carini in open court and the D.A. did not make an objection, nor did the judge say anything. I’m not sure if the attorneys and the judge spoke about this in private chambers and made an agreement that Carini could not openly broach the subject but would be allowed to surreptitiously slip the phrase into a conversation, or what was going on, but either way it certainly piqued my interest.
It was obvious that Carini was under some court-mandated rules for questioning the witness about her mental status. He started off by asking her if she suffered from bipolar disorder, and she said no. Have you ever been institutionalized? No. Did you ever live on the street? No. Are you into dominatrix sex? No.
All of those answers were refuted by a series of ex-boyfriends who testified second-hand that all of the above were true. It certainly made her look like a serial liar.
Carini knew he had to be careful with that one because he obviously did not have any psychiatric reports in his hand. If he had, they would have been introduced into evidence. All he had was hearsay. And every time one of them mentioned it, the D.A. never stood up with an objection. That, to me, was very curious, and it makes me wonder how scripted these trials are beforehand.
From the Mouth of a Child
As painful as it was to listen to Rheanna break down under questioning, especially when the subject of her proclivity for master/slave sex preferences was revealed (with a lot of slapping involved), it was nothing compared to Susie’s testimony.
I have helped raise two beautiful daughters, and the thought of either of them being molested at age ten sends my brain into turmoil. Susie, however, was cool as a cucumber on the stand, although her statements conflict with what other witnesses recall. But what the heck, 10-year-olds can’t remember what happened last month, much less nine.
Without getting into the gory details, she basically recalled that he got her on the bed, nibbled her ear, kissed her, stroked her inner thigh, and tried to unzip her hoody (a new accusation). All of this during a 15-minute span in which her brother and Bucy’s son were in the cubbyhole of a room, Bucy’s daughter came in to say goodnight, and Bucy’s girlfriend came in to gather some of the things she was packing.
Unlike Detective Hull and Police Chief Holderness, I’m trying to put this thing in perspective logically, and it doesn’t make sense. There are just too many witnesses and not enough time to do everything that the victim alleges. And if Bucy really was traumatizing her, why didn’t she scream? The door was open, her brother was five feet away, and Bucy’s daughter was one door away with a clear view of the room. It just doesn’t make sense!
During court, Carini specifically asked Susie’s brother Charlie if he heard anything. He and Bucy’s son were, after all, just five feet away. “I heard slapping,” he said. “Do you love your sister?” Yes. “Would you protect your sister?” Yes. “Why didn’t you do anything when you heard slapping?” I don’t remember.
Painful. And who is to blame? When I first read the report about the trial in the Friday, May 20, issue of the Daily Tidings, I was extremely upset with the mother of those children for putting them through this. Complicit in this error of judgment was the APD and the D.A.
And honestly, the Friday article in the Tidings was the first I heard about Sunshine Bucy since early August 2010. Not even my sister mentioned this case to me for ten months. My first reaction was that any mother who would put her 10-year-old daughter through this ordeal either better have foolproof evidence or be subject to having the state remove the daughter from her care. At this point, I’m leaning toward the latter option.
I also believe the Ashland Police Department and the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office made a huge mistake in taking this case to court and should apologize to everyone involved, including the general public. I’m not sure when the current D.A. is up for reelection, but he has some explaining to do.
Everyone Please Stand
The trial began on May 17 in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County, Judge Tim P. Barnack presiding. The prosecuting attorney for the D.A.’s office was David Orr. Almost an entire day was spent on jury selection.
The D.A. then presented a couple of witnesses who were at the party and testified that Bucy was “hammered” or “extremely drunk.” (Later witnesses refuted that account and said he was “tipsy” but not falling over drunk.)
Next up was Rheanna, who had to tearfully admit to some predilections for sexual rough-housing and that she liked to be slapped. She also had to explain what happened between her and Shawn.
In a nutshell here’s what occurred: In October 2010, three months after the party at Bucy’s house, the couple broke up. According to Rheanna, “Shawn was fun with the kids, but he was violent sexually. He owned my body, and I couldn’t say no to him.”
Rheanna eventually got a restraining order against him, claiming that he had “raped” her, a claim that Shawn categorically denied in court. “Everything we did was consensual,” he said.
Shawn, however, had joint custody of their young child and was given visitation rights (Rheanna by that time had moved to Eugene). He also informed Rheanna that he was going to “tell the truth” about what happened at Bucy’s apartment on July 31, 2010, and all hell broke loose.
On Mother’s Day 2011, he sent a Mother’s Day card to Rheanna, and she busted him for violating the restraining order. When he came to testify at the trial on May 18, he was still in custody at the Lane County Jail.
During Defense Attorney Peter Carini’s closing argument, he recognized Shawn as a hero. “The easiest thing for him would be to go along with Rheanna,” Carini said to the jury. “The whole history with this woman tells him that—when you cross her, you end up in jail. He is sacrificing his relationship with his infant son to stand up and tell the truth.”
Actually, even Shawn admitted there wasn’t much to tell. When he walked up into the room with Rheanna and Bucy’s girlfriend, there was absolutely nothing going on. “I didn’t see anything, so there’s nothing to tell,” he said. In fact, if for one second he thought that Susie had been molested, he would’ve been there for her.
Unfortunately, he didn’t think that was the case. He eventually told the police and the D.A. that Rheanna was “an avid fabricator who, as a youth, suffered from Oppositional Defiance Disorder and had to be institutionalized.” That, of course, is second-hand information coming from an ex-boyfriend who would love to see his son again, so take it for what it’s worth.
What Was the D.A.’s
Office Thinking?
Here’s the rub: how in the hell did the Ashland Police Department and the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office ever get stuck in the middle of this dime store novel? What were they thinking?
Did they think that a loving father of two young children would actually seduce a 10-year-old girl in a span of 15 minutes in front of them? Did they not take the time to check out the background of the accuser to ascertain if maybe some unhingedness might be involved?
It doesn’t make any sense, and I think our public officials have lost their focus. As an example of how lurid and nasty it can get, the D.A., David Orr, called a woman named Rose to the stand in the waning moments of the trial. She was obviously one of those who responded in August 2010 to the plea from anyone who had dirt on Sunshine Bucy.
Rose recounted how she and her friend Julia, both 18/19-years-old at the time, had gone to a party at Bucy’s house and how Bucy had taken Julia up to his room. Rose tearfully recalled how Julia had never been kissed and how horrible it was that she was going to lose her kissing virginity that night.
The histrionics of Rose on the stand were unbelievable, and Carini immediately demanded a mistrial. The judge sent the jury out of the room, and everyone discussed what Rose could or could not say. The judge even admonished Carini because he’d opened a can of worms by questioning the sanity of Rheanna on the first day of the trial, and he was now getting a taste of his own medicine.
Later, while the jury was out of the room, Carini reached Julia on the phone and she completely refuted what Rose had said, that it wasn’t a big deal, that she and Bucy went up to the room consensually, that yes she had her first kiss, but get over it.
The judge commiserated with Carini about that development and told him it was too bad he hadn’t called Julia as a witness. Everything she said was inadmissible in court unless she was there in person … and it was too late for that.
Amazingly, in the Mail Tribune and Daily Tidings article of May 20, 2011, they reported that “the young woman (Julia) then corroborated (Rose’s) account of the evening.” I listened to the tape of that phone conversation, and it was the exact opposite.
“He didn’t molest me or force me to do anything,” she said. Apparently, the reporter for the daily newspapers was selectively hearing things. Either that or the Mail-Tribune is on the payroll of the D.A.’s office.
Unfortunately, those close to the trial think Rose’s testimony was a deal breaker, that her crying and moaning on the stand made Bucy out to be a child molester at heart. When the jury finally came back on Friday afternoon, May 20, they informed the court that they were hopelessly deadlocked 6-6. Despite the judge’s attempt to get them to find a verdict, it ended as an empasse.
Onward and Upward
As it stands now, the D.A.’s office is talking about a retrial. What they hope to gain by that is anyone’s guess. So far, countless number of people have been traumatized by their decision to take an almost unwinnable case to court in the first place. Whichever way it is decided, Susie is scarred for life. Her brother Charlie is not far behind, and their mother may be beyond redemption. Letting them get on with their lives is probably the only sane decision to be made.
On the flip side, the children of Sunshine Bucy have also been traumatized. Their dad, guilty or innocent, has had his life turned upside down and his reputation ruined. Every friend and acquaintance of the Bucy family has been put through the wringer. And in the end a jury of twelve citizens could not agree on a final verdict.
That alone should be the clincher. The jury could not find a verdict because there was not conclusive proof, and the girl’s story was refuted by five different people. The District Attorney’s Office made a huge mistake and practically destroyed the lives of two families by taking this thing to court. They should now do the right thing and end it.
(Epilogue: This story was written on Thursday, massively edited and re-written on Friday, and edited one more time on Saturday. On Sunday, just before going to press, one of Mr. Bucy’s lawyers, Mark Hanneberg, finally called. Among other things, he had this to say:
“The court, meaning all the parties in that courtroom—judge, jury, attorneys, witnesses—are charged with the immensely important role of truth-finder. A child advocate who would set herself or himself up as knowing better than the judge, better than the process of law itself, how to determine the ‘truth,’ and testify accordingly for a newspaper, in my opinion, must be seen, at best, as very naïve.
“The advocate assumes that his or her subjective opinion after learning of only one party’s side is accurate. In our system of justice, we are fortunate to have a system in which every side can be heard.
“The defense team is allowed to put on a full defense for a very good reason—so that people who are falsely accused, or mistakenly accused, do not go to jail.
“False accusations cause tremendous trauma to those who are the target of the accusation. False accusations tear apart careers and throw families into financial turmoil. The children of the falsely accused person end up confused, sometimes separated from a loving parent, because of the allegations and the fallout from them.
“When the falsely accused person has loyal and loving friends, and deep family support, he or she can survive it, but the damage it causes is very real.
“Once someone is accused of child abuse, people jump to the conclusion that he is guilty; they look at him in a different light; they never completely change their minds. It is difficult to show that the accused is not guilty even when the accusation is the only evidence, even when there is ample evidence that the allegations were false.
“We have a term, false vouching, for what occurs when an ‘expert’ bolsters a person’s credibility (such as the credibility of the accuser) without any real basis except his or her own biases. It is not based on evidence, but on subjective opinion, often when the ‘expert’ has not even heard all the facts.
“This is the worst kind of false witness because it seduces a jury into believing an expert who simply wants a conviction. It’s an attitude that backs the accuser regardless of the truth.
“When this happens, there are always going to be people who believe the expert. But these ‘experts’ need to know that they do not write the law. When they engage in false vouching, in my opinion, they have lost their expert status and become quacks.
“Many people like Mr. Bucy have been swept up in an epidemic of unfounded accusations and false vouching. In the courtroom we have an opportunity and a duty to present all the facts, to examine them for truthfulness and expose inconsistencies and lies.
“We must not send innocent men and women to prison for crimes they did not commit. Nor should we continue to assume someone’s guilt when they have not been proven guilty. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ has become a cliché, but it is a very noble idea, one that we must not forget.”)
Finally we have a way to access the actual facts of this case again
ReplyDelete