Recently, three former patients of Dr. David Farley wrote an op-ed criticizing the investigation and prosecution of his criminal case. Because I have spent my career fighting for women who experience violence and have a commitment to transparency, I am replying to set the record straight.
Claim 1: More than 200 women filed complaints with WLPD, but fewer than a quarter testified at grand jury.
There were over 200 reports submitted to our office by investigators, not over 200 reported victims. All known patients with a colorable claim of abuse testified before the grand jury.
Claim 2: The independent review found Det. Christensen was unqualified.
Detective Christensen didn’t have specialized training in sexual assault interviewing. However, extremely qualified investigators from multiple agencies assisted the investigation, and the case was reviewed and presented by experienced prosecutors specially trained in sex crimes prosecution. The grand jury was allowed to ask witnesses questions, and witnesses were given all the time they wanted or needed to fully share their accounts. Witnesses who requested opportunities to return and share additional information were allowed to do so. The grand jury (of all women and one man) relied on sworn testimony of the witnesses, including experts, not Christensen’s reports, to reach its conclusion.
Claim 3: Victims were treated with indifference/disrespect.
The investigator commissioned by West Linn to review recordings of police interviews found exactly the opposite, concluding, “I did not discern unprofessional behavior on the part of the law enforcement.” Furthermore, the report shared that victim advocates present for many interviews, had, “no concerns about any of the interviews [they] witnessed,” observed “Christensen was competent and sensitive,” and “made every person feel as though they were believed.”
Claim 4: Evidence-gathering procedures were not followed.
This allegation, I assume, is about not searching Farley’s phone for nude photos of children. By the time reports to law enforcement were made — well after the photos were taken — Farley resided in Idaho, with no evidence he still possessed the same phone used to take the photos. To overcome jurisdictional and legal challenges, the FBI obtained a search warrant and searched Farley’s iCloud account, but found no nude photos of children. Forensic experts also searched Farley’s hard drive, but also found no nude photos of children.
Claim 5: Prosecutors did not present evidence (to the grand jury) Farley admitted taking nude photographs of children on his cell phone.
In fact, they did.
Claim 6: Prosecutors instructed WLPD not to interview Farley.
Oregon law prohibits police interrogation of a suspect without prior notice to their attorney. While my office correctly directed the investigator not to contact Fairly directly because he had retained a lawyer, we notified Farley’s attorney of the detective’s request to interview him and/or testify before the grand jury. Farley’s attorney declined. Any statement obtained from Farley without his attorney’s consent would have been suppressed, and the prosecutors aware of a detective’s attempt to circumvent the law would face significant discipline by the Oregon State Bar. The decision was made to comply with Oregon law.
Claim 7: The prosecutor said, “It’s really difficult because he’s a doctor.”
During exams, doctors must often touch their patients in intimate places. The medical context of these allegations did make proving criminal conduct difficult.
Claim 8: Farley’s license was revoked for “sexual misconduct.”
The Oregon Medical Board’s report suggests Farley violated the code of medical ethics in a way that exploited the doctor-patient relationship and was “sexual misconduct” under OMB rules. However, “sexual abuse” under the Oregon Criminal Code, and “sexual misconduct” under OMB’s rules are not one and the same. This office is bound by Oregon’s criminal laws and burden of proof, not OMB’s rules of conduct.
Claim 9: District Attorney Wentworth blamed Oregon law.
Due to legal challenges presented in this case, I recognized a loophole in Oregon law, crafted a legislative fix, went to Senator Mark Meek to get the law passed, and testified on behalf of the bill which became law in July, 2023. Unfortunately, Constitutional law prohibits us from applying the law retroactively to Farley’s actions.
I am proud to lead an office that vigorously prosecutes sexual assaults and protects vulnerable victims every day. Our work is driven by an oath to faithfully represent the people of Clackamas County while upholding the laws and Constitution of the State of Oregon. We continue to stand ready to prosecute anyone who violates the law in Clackamas County. But, facts matter and the record must be set straight.
Most Popular
Comments / 0