SETH DAWSON
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF COUNW
MISSJON BUILDING

.3000 HOCKEFELLEFI 
EVEEIT, WASHINGTON 98201

I WHOM
AEF WM 

DAR-HELL L. WEED
GIEFGVI. 

JEANNE LONG
CHEF DERJTY ADMINBWTOR

 

October 25, 1991

 

Dear 

was (205) . ass-3333

(sow - 640-3333

mm DIVISION - ass-3330

FAMILY SUPPORT omsm - ass-72w
FEE-PROSECUTION - 388-3427
wmmness ASSISTANCE um sea-3370
I 259-W31

As you know, at your request, I have undertaken a thorough review
of the oils ations of sexual abuse committed upon 
by h. In this process I have considered the

following:

A complete review ?of the police reports, counseling
records, medical records, family court documents and other
materials provided during i?ua police investigation

(including your affidavit);

2, ?Two tel?ephone'conferences with Edmonds Detective Jeff

Jones who investigated this case;

3. i went to Harborview Sexual Assault Center and met with

Dr. Mary Gibbons and reviewed this case,

again with her.

(This was our second in-person conference on this case);

4. On October 23, 1991, I attended a therapy session with
at the office of Lynda Bridges and had a brief

conversation with 

5. An? in-person Conference with .Lynda Bridges, as well as

prior telephone conferences with her,
prior testimony in the civil adtion;

and review Of her

6. Telephone discussions with you and review of your
letters, dated July 11, August 10, August 15 and October 8,

1991;

1 The materials provided to me from attorney
indicating the anticipated testimony of the defense

witnesses;

An Equal Employment Opporiuntty Employer

 

 fans

8. I have reviewed and discussed this case with our Chief
Criminal Deputy, the lead of the Sexual Assault Unit and our
most experienced child advocate in the office.

This is the third time I have examined the facts of this case to

determine whether criminal charges are appropriate to Ina filed
against {In addition to the initial review,

resulting in a decision to decline this. case, I made an
additional examination of the case when I received a copy of
Lynda Bridges? deposition.)

You asked for this re?examination of the case to be given full
attention, and it has.

In my prior letters to you, I outlined my reasons for originally
declining prosecution. I will not recover old ground sun this
letter.

It is the independent opinion of my colleagues, of Detective
Jones, of Lynda Bridges, and of myself that there is insufficient
evidence to convict By "evidence" I mean evidence
which is admissible, relevant and credible, sufficient to prove
these allegations beyond all reasonable doubt.

I specifically re eat that this conclusion is one acknowledged by
Lynda BridgeS, therapist, and the principal witness for
the State in the event of prosecution. Certainly none of us,
most specifically Ms. Bridges, mean to imply that the abuse did
not occur. Instead this decision is made based upon application
of the restrictive rules we must apply and the high level of
proof needed to obtain a criminal conviction.

In your letter of July 11, 1991 cu remind us of our "legal and
moral obligations to protect It is the opinion of

therapist (Lynda Bridges] that not only would a
prosecution likely be unsuccessful but may well be detrimental
to the best interests of and be harmful to her
therapeutic needs.

I recognize that you will disagree with my decision in this case.
I am satisfied that this decision has been reached only after
extensive investigation by police and myself. Until new and
compelling evidence is obtained, this decision will not be re-
evaluated a fourth time.


ourm/
. 

    

6' .
STERN
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
cc: Detective Jeff Jones

Lynda Bridges
Representative John Beck