A 13-year-old boy has been acquitted of three first-degree rape charges 11 months after a 7-year-old girl accused him of sexually assaulting her several times on a Chimacum school bus.

“I don't think this ever should have been charged,” defense attorney Scott Charlton said Feb. 1 after Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Keith Harper delivered his ruling. “It's been a nightmare for this family. He [the boy] was presumed guilty from the point of accusation by the community, by the school district, by social media.”

The report was made March 4, 2015, a day after the girl reportedly came home from school bleeding, according to a June 2 Seattle KING-TV story based on statements by the girl's aunt and guardian.

The boy, a Chimacum Middle School student at the time, was expelled immediately. That turned into a long-term suspension, his attorney said.

“He hasn't been in a classroom,” Charlton said. “It's been 10 months or so. He should be able to go to school tomorrow.”

SCHOOL RESPONSE

Chimacum Superintendent Rick Thompson, who returned to work Feb. 2 after a few days away, told the Leader that he could not yet say definitively whether the boy would be allowed back at school until he has a chance to review the situation.

When news reports of the allegations surfaced in June 2015, the girl's aunt and guardian called for changes to the district's school bus seating policy to ensure younger students sit separate from older ones.

Thompson said the district has not changed its policy. He said the district's general policy is to seat younger students closer to the bus driver, but seating decisions remain at the driver's discretion.

Thompson also said the district is currently upgrading on-bus video cameras to provide greater security.

The bus driver in this case retired soon after the allegations were made. The district's transportation supervisor at the time the report was made has since taken a job at the Renton School District, and was replaced in the fall of 2015 with a new supervisor hired from the South Kitsap School District, Thompson said.

COURT TRIAL

The girl, now 8, testified during the trial Jan. 27-28 at the courthouse in Port Townsend. Her aunt testified. A counselor testified. And the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office detective who investigated the case, among others, also testified.

“No matter how you look at it, the only evidence to these charges are [the girl's] statements,” Judge Harper said as he explained why he found the boy not guilty of all three charges. “There's a lot of reasons that cause doubt. No matter how I look at it there's too many questions, too much lack of any corroboration, too much lack of any support and too many questions in my mind about how could this possibly have happened as described.”

Jefferson County Deputy Prosecutor Julie Trejo said she is “disappointed,” but otherwise declined to comment.

The girl's biological parents, who did not testify at trial, declined to comment. The boy's family also declined to comment as they left the courtroom, hugging and smiling.

JUDGE'S REASONING

Though the girl was reportedly examined March 3, 2015 by a physician's assistant at Jefferson Healthcare, Judge Harper said he was not impressed by the meager amount of medical evidence.

“There simply was no medical evidence to support the allegations,” he said in court Feb. 1.

Overall, Judge Harper said the scenario presented at trial was not believable, especially without more evidence than the girl's story.

“The state argued that [the girl] had no motivation to lie,” Harper said. “I don't know that. It's not obvious to me [that there was] a motivation to lie, but on the other hand young kids can tell stories, young kids can make stuff up. At times her statements are inconsistent to varying degrees. Part of the argument is, 'Well, she didn't know about sexual stuff and these body parts before this or there was no reason to believe she knew'. Well, the problem is I don't know that. And, quite frankly, I don't believe that based on the way she presented herself and her testimony, the way she described things. I believe she had some prior knowledge of the body parts. I don't think at all that this was the first time she was exposed to this stuff.”

Trejo argued that the boy sat with the girl on the bus as many as three times between Feb. 14 and March 3, using a backpack and a blanket to cover and obscure from view their activity.

“The backpack was never admitted as an exhibit, the blanket was never admitted as an exhibit,” Harper said. “I don't know how big this backpack was and I don't know how big the blanket was. It was remarkable to me that there was not a single other witness to anything – to the blanket, to the backpack being placed for concealment of these two kids sitting together.”

The judge pointed out the bus driver had been looking out for the boy due to teasing from other students and likely would have noticed two children under a blanket.

“The bus driver never saw anything, never saw them sitting together,” Harper said. “No kids said they saw anything. The state argued this stuff typically happens in secret. Well yeah, that's true. This didn't. This allegedly occurred in front of 30, 40, 50 other kids.”

He also said there likely wasn't enough time for the alleged activity to have taken place.

“The time they were on the bus was very short,” he said. “The schedule Mr. Charlton suggested is seven minutes – seven minutes together on two bus rides, maybe three. Did something happen between these two kids? I don't know. Maybe. But I'm not sure what happened so I certainly am not sure beyond a reasonable doubt of what happened.”

Charlton said he's happy with the outcome, though he said charging the boy in the first place was irresponsible. Charges were filed June 25, 2015.

“I remember this hitting the newspapers before it was even charged, and the promises that there's going to be a followup investigation to corroborate the accusation,” the defense attorney said. “The followup investigation corroborated nothing. There's no witnesses, no medical evidence, no video that was promised, no nothing. I thought it was an irresponsible prosecution. It should not have come to trial.”