Recently, Bond Investigations was engaged by a family to investigate a sexual assault that they believed was a case of wrongful imprisonment. A woman from Gilbert, Arizona had claimed to have a fiancé in Australia – let’s call her Jane. She had accused her American family doctor – let’s call him Dr. Stevens – of a sexual assault during her medical examination prior to her trip to Australia. Following the accusation, Dr. Stevens was briefly investigated and quickly arrested based on her accusation. After enduring a month in jail, his family hired Bond Investigations in to determine what really happened, and gather crucial evidence for the trial in an effort to set him free.
Our investigation also discovered that she had gone on a date the same evening of the alleged assault with a man she had met very recently online. We were able to identify the man from this date and interview him for the case.
During our investigation, we uncovered that Jane’s many trips to Australia left a trail of broken hearts. We were able to uncover that Jane had a history of dating men for less than romantic reasons – one may say, she was motivated solely by finances. We were able to establish that she had two current boyfriends / fiancés living in Sydney Australia.
Dorian Bond’s instincts told him that the key to the case would be found in the “Land Down Under.”
Understandably, the family hesitated funding a trip to the other side of the world. It was an expense that they wished to avoid. They preferred the investigation rest in the States and be conducted over the phone and internet. I assured them, however, that the investigation would be stalled if not pursued directly. My point was unfortunately validated when an attempted call to Jane’s first Australian boyfriend proved a futile exercise. He immediately hung up the phone when the attorney and Mr. Bond contacted him via telephone.
After their first failed attempt to gather the crucial evidence needed to help free the doctor, the clients agreed to finance my “gumshoe” approach. I flew to Australia, staked out the other boyfriend’s house, and was eventually able to approach him face-to-face.
During the crucial interview, he admitted that he had uncovered during her recent stay in Australia that she had accused the doctor of sexual assault in an attempt to shake him down for enough money to finance a trip back to Australia to see him. Prior to that trip, he had declined to finance any more trips for her. This denial of finances was just prior to her accusation of the sexual assault by Dr. Stevens. He informed Mr. Bond that he became aware during her last visit with him that she had made (what he felt) bogus claims against that doctor in an effort to fund her trip back to Australia.
Furthermore, during our interview with the “fiancé” he expressed some reluctance on his part to testify for Dr. Stevens (he still held romantic feelings for Jane), but he also recognized, after we explained the full situation, the injustice in her actions and could not deny the harm she had done to an innocent man and his family.
The fiancé agreed to come to the United States and testify against her. His testimony was instrumental in obtaining a verdict of not guilty. Dr. Stevens was released the day after the verdict came down. After the trial, members of the jury told the defense team that the testimony of the Australian boyfriend was a major factor in determining their not guilty verdict.
In conclusion, while every good investigator knows the value of technology in today’s overly saturated world of smartphones, social media, Google searches, and emails, it is true that every once in a while the old-fashioned sleuthing gets the job done more effectively.
In this case, it was made quickly evident that no amount of technological research or communication was going to uncover the necessary evidence to set an innocent man free and ensure that justice was delivered.