LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET Page 1 012 AGENCY NAME DA CASE No_ 36054878 DATE 01/06/2016 FELONY LAPD - MISDEMEAN AGENCY FILE NO. (OR OR URN) DA OFFICE CODE VICTIM ASSISTANCE REFERRAL 150619473/150804518 SXC CI YES - NOTIFY VWAP CI N0 SUSP CHARGES OFFENSE REASON SUSPECT CODE SECTION DATE CODE NAME (LAST, FIRST COSBY WILLIAM HENRY PC 261.3 01/01/65 12/31/65 DOB SEX BOOKING NO. VIP Yes -- No 07/12/1937 VIP (1 Child Sexual Abuse/(04l Sexual Abuse - Stranger Gang Member Name of Gang Victim Gang Member Name of Gang: Victim Name: JANE DOE #1 Victim DOB: NAME (LAST, FIFIST PC 06/01/08 08/31/08 PC 314{1} 06/01/08 08/31/08 2 DOB SEX BOOKING NO. VIP -- Yes -- No Gang Member Name of Gang Victim Gang Member Name Of Gang: Victim Name: JANE DOE #2 Victim DOB: NAME (LAST, FIRST 3 DOB SEX (MIF) BOOKING NO. VIP -- Yes -- No Gang Member Name of Gang Victim Gang Member Name Of Gang: Victim Name: Victim DOB: Comments: The District Attorney's Office evaluated two separate allegations Of sexual assault by the suspect. The first allegation was made by Jane Doe #1 who reported that in 1965, when she was 17 years Old, the suspect tOOk her tO a jazz club in Hollywood and bought her alcoholic beverages. She reported that he took her tO an unknown residence in the Hollywood Hills and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Filing the crime Of forcible rape is barred by the statute of limitations and as such, any consideration Of a criminal filing is prohibited bylaw. Therefore, prosecution is declined. The second allegation was made by Jane Doe #2 who reported that in the summer Of 2008, when she was 18 years Old, she attended a party with a friend at the Playboy Mansion where she was introduced to the suspect. During the party, the suspect gave Jane Doe #2 an alcoholic beverage and another tO her friend. Shortly after drinking it, Jane Doe #2 felt dizzy and sick. The suspect escorted her tO an upstairs bedroom tO lie down. When she awoke, her clothes were Off, her breasts felt moist, as if they had been licked, and the suspect was at the foot of the bed biting her toe. He appeared to be masturbating. Once she awoke, he quickly left the room and she found her clothing on the floor, dressed, and left the Playboy Mansion with her friend. Initially, the incident described by Jane Doe #2 was reported to have occurred at an event called a "Midsummer Night's Dream Party?, held on August 9, 2008. During the course Of the investigation, however, Jane Doe #2 tOld investigators that Rev. 697-9/10/10 DA Case 36054878 CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET A8800 3EIINVN lSV?l INVITIIM 82979098 iaElEllN?N EISVO VG LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET Page 2 of 2 she was unsure if the incident occurred during that event, but was certain the party she attended took place in the summer of 2008. in order to establish the date of the incident and to obtain evidence of the suspect's presence, investigators reviewed video footage taken during the ?Midsummer Night's Dream Party.? The video captured images of the outside perimeter of the Playboy Mansion, but none from inside the property. Neither the suspect nor Jane Doe #2 appear on any images. Investigators also obtained evidence that the suspect was in New York the weekend when the "Midsummer Night's Dream Party? was held. They also reviewed guest lists of 56 documented events at the Playboy Mansion in 2008. The suspect did not appear on any guest lists for events held that summer. His name only showed on a guest list for one event in February. The investigator?s efforts to interview the victim's friend who had accompanied her to the Playboy Mansion, as a potential ?fresh complaint? witness, were unsuccessful. Jane Doe #2 provided investigators information of that potential witness, including an old cell phone number and a prior place of employment, located in San Diego County. Investigators located and contacted, in San Diego County, a female who matched the identification information provided by Jane Doe The potential witness acknowledged having previously worked at the location described by Jane Doe #2 and having previously possessed a cell phone with the same number provided by Jane Doe The potential witness, however, denied knowing Jane Doe#2 or having ever visited the Playboy Mansion. instead, the potential witness directed investigators to another individual who also denied knowing Jane Doe On November 4, 2015, a pre-filing District Attorney interview of Jane Doe #2 was conducted in the presence of the lead investigator. Her statements were consistent with prior statements provided to investigators, but did not yield further evidence or investigative leads. The incident as described by Jane Doe #2 included two potential criminal offenses: misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor indecent exposure. Both of these offenses occurred in 2008 and are barred by the statute of limitations and as such, any consideration of a criminal filing is prohibited by law. Therefore, prosecution is declined. Additional potential felony sex offenses not barred by the statute of limitations were also evaluated. Sexual battery by restraint, a felony, was contemplated but there is insufficient evidence to prove the elements of this crime. Sexual assaults by intoxication or of an unconscious victim and the attempts to commit such crimes, as well as assault with intent to commit a sex offense were also considered. However, there is no evidence to support the filing of these crimes. Consequently, after evaluating all potential charges, there is insufficient evidence to prove these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. COMPLAINT DEPUTY (print) COMPLAINT DEPUTY (SIGNATURE) STATE BAR NO. REVIEWING DEPUTY (SIGNATURE) JODI M. LINK 183039 A - i have conveyed all relevant-information to the above-named Deputy District Attorney to bWi?? ation of a ?ling decision. FILING OFFICER (PRINT): JUAN GONZALEZ FILING OFFICER SERIAL #2 32274 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE D. Victim Unavailable/Declines H. Other (indicate t?'e reason in L. Prosecutor Pre?ling Deferral REASON CODES To Testify Comments section) (FORM ?715) Witness Unavailable/Declines I. Referred to Non-California to Testify Jurisdiction A. Lack of Corpus F. Combined with Other J. Deferred for Revocation of M- Embat'on V'OIatm" ?Ied B. Lack of Sufficient Evidence Counts/Cases Parole 0f C. Inadrnissible Search/Seizure Interest of Justice K. Further Investigation N- R?fe"r?d ?0 C'ty Attorney f0? Misdemeanor Consideration Rev. 697-9/10/10 DA Case 36054878 CHARGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET