Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 55°
    Clear sky
  • Comment

Prosecution could have been avoided with more thorough investigation

Posted: July 1, 2014 - 8:48am  |  Updated: July 9, 2014 - 8:18am

Last Friday, June 27, a man on trial for his life in Kenai Superior Court was acquitted of all charges, yet the Clarion devoted no coverage to the verdicts. Jason Raymond had been accused of first-degree sexual assault of a minor from an incident alleged to have occurred in early 2013. He spent over a year in jail awaiting trial, and faced a potential 99-year sentence if convicted. Not only did the jury find him not guilty of all charges, but Judge Bauman noted the weakness of the prosecution on the record, finding personally that the state had failed to prove its case.

The investigation of Raymond was a sham. After a confused and implausible allegation that he had assaulted a friend’s daughter “sometime in late January or early February,” the Alaska State Troopers launched an investigation — not to find the truth, but to create a story of Raymond’s guilt by any means necessary. The AST either missed or did not care that Raymond had been incarcerated during the time frame of the alleged assault. They subjected a young alleged victim to a long and leading interrogation, ignoring any responses she gave that did not fit their narrative. They visited an injured and drugged Raymond in the hospital after a car accident, treating his confused responses as a “confession,” and relying on this for the bulk of their case. Thankfully, the jury didn’t buy it, and neither did Judge Bauman.

Sex crimes against children are and should be one of law enforcement’s highest priorities. If the Troopers had acted with greater diligence and professionalism, countless resources wouldn’t have been wasted prosecuting an innocent man, and Raymond wouldn’t have lost a year of his life awaiting trial for a crime he didn’t commit.

  • Comment

Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Suss 07/01/14 - 05:07 pm
Alibi wasn't enough?

Why was there even a need for a trial if Raymond was incarcerated at the time of the alleged crimes?

Why would it take almost 18 months to prove his innocence?

Something is beyond missing from this scenario, this is just sad.

What happened to speedy trials to prevent the innocent from exactly this type of unjust and prolonged confinement?

Finally, what is being done to prevent another tragedy like the one described in this letter to the editor?

jford 07/01/14 - 09:29 pm
You sticking up for the accused, Suss?

You might want to check his record before jumping to too many assumptions.

Innocence can be highly subjective.

Avoiding prosecution doesn't always mean what some might hope it means.

Suss 07/01/14 - 10:47 pm
You mean the acquitted?

He did not avoid prosecution, he went to trial. Being acquitted means 12 people agreed to a not guilty verdict.

Alibi don't lie, being in jail beats a bus load of nuns for witnesses. If he was in custody why was there a trial?

Somewhere between the letter to the editor and the acquittal gives me hope the jury got it right.

I know there are no "innocents" in this world, I liked using the word for its strength.

There is something really wrong if he, Raymond, had the alibi as reported, and yet, still had to go through a trial.

Then again it could all be lies, not my circus, not my monkeys.

Somebody got proof that he was guilty and the letter is all for show?

jford 07/03/14 - 01:49 am
The acquitted? Did you check his record?

……… no?

One acquittal doesn't prove innocence.

leewaytooo 07/03/14 - 02:52 am

from reading the timeline... it would appear that the defense

had tried to have any statements made by the defendant

excluded.............this would be one of the causes for

the length of time that passed before a trial.

the primary evidence would seem to be his own words....

those recorded while he was drugged lying in bed recovering

from a hospital, no less.

true he does have a problem with staying out of trouble...

still.... just because,, doesn't mean that he is guilty of


the police should be excluded from ever trying to interview

anyone that is under pain relief drugs.....

if it is ok to interview them in a drug induced state...

then just give the cops the drugs and then they can

just inject at will...

Suss 07/03/14 - 07:15 am
Back to the Alibi

I get it, he had a record. After all his defense was that he was locked up and could not have been somewhere else committing a crime.

Given that alibi concerning the time element, why was he tried?

Why would it take so long to show that this alibi exonerated him?

Was the alibi only discovered late in the process?

As far as admissions by the accused, proof is still required.

People are still confessing to killing Jimmy Hoffa and that is going nowhere.

There is still that darn pesky tenet in law that kind of states that one is always to be considered innocent.........(wait for it)...............

Until proven guilty!

For some it is just a bunch of words, for others it is their Life, Liberty and Freedom that is at stake.

Oh, Happy 4th of July, taste that freedom in the air?

jford 07/03/14 - 09:24 am
On the unverified premises posed in one letter to the editor,

you're going all in, without question, without doubt, that the letter writer's version of events is a wholly accurate story.

Not having been in attendance at trial, and not having read any of the actual court transcripts, you, without hesitation, accept that the single letter to the editor is the penultimate source to be relied upon in order for you to make declarative statements about events you have no personal knowledge whatsoever.

…and you can do so, you say, ...because freedom?

Yeah, you're free to form an opinion in that manner, though it does make the rest of your 'opinions' equally as suspect when one stops to consider that you might have formed those opinions as recklessly as this one.

Having made the declarative statements about guilt or innocence, you do, evidently, feel you have to defend those statements of yours, perhaps you can cite some objective source other than one very subjective letter to the editor?

Got anything?

Suss 07/03/14 - 11:31 am
Facts First, Speculate Later

1) Unverified? And what do you base that on? Assumptions?

The acquittal is, was, and had been verified!

2) The presumption of innocence remains.

Your belief otherwise is of no import nor is it logical for you to maintain that after a not guilty verdict you still fail to see the fallacy in the not believing in the jury finding. That is true freedom. Freedom from a factual reality.

3) Personal knowledge of the facts. Nice try!

A juror that sat through the trial would still not have "personal knowledge" of the facts unless they were a percipient witness to the events for which the defendant was being tried.

4) Objective source.

Yes I can name more than one other source, thank you.

I rather you did your own work, that way you might learn something important.

Start here:

3KN-13-00583CR feel free to review and you may even listen to the entire trial.

Do not miss the part where the absolute presumption of innocence is repeatedly stressed to help those that continue to have trouble following the concept.

What is suspect is that even after the acquittal someone would want to deny not only the presumption of innocence before trial but now profess to second guess the verdict.

I understand those beliefs will make sure you would never be seated as a juror.

Back to Freedom, Happy 4th to the True Believers, they know who they are.

jford 07/04/14 - 12:34 am
2 I said, you're all in,

based solely on the version of events provided by one letter writer.

It is as I suspected.

It was your questions in your first post, that questioned the events. Evidently you've forgotten your own questions.

First question Suss asked: "Why was there even a need for a trial if Raymond was incarcerated at the time of the alleged crimes?"

Why indeed? Suppose there was a reason? Something the letter writer omitted?

Did the indecent exposure charge give cause for investigation of related possibilities?

Second question: "Why would it take almost 18 months to prove his innocence?"

Again, why indeed? Suppose there were circumstances not covered by the letter writer?

Third question: "What happened to speedy trials to prevent the innocent from exactly this type of unjust and prolonged confinement?"

Unjust and prolonged confinement? What charge among the many to choose from was he supposedly incarcerated for at which time? Do you know? Was it the indecent exposure charge? Or was it something else.

Last question of Suss: "Finally, what is being done to prevent another tragedy like the one described in this letter to the editor?"

Tragedy? What is being done about the tragedy? Are you so sure there was a tragedy? Do you now, or ever have all the facts needed to confirm there was some tragedy?

Well, did you get any of your many questions answered? Any of them?

…or did you just decide to make some assumptions, side with the letter writer without any further research and forgot all about seeking answers to your very own questions?

I think you confirmed that the latter is what has transpired.

Have fun with your freedom, you're free to jump to any conclusions you care to jump to.

You're also free to attempt to defend that kind of thing too. (...not that you're likely to be very convincing.)

Because I still question the version of events as presented by one letter writer, you think you can condemn my wish for more facts before I would be making any conclusion? Don't expect I'll be looking to cater to your whims. I'm just fine with desiring more facts before announcing someone else's 'innocence'.

The presumption of innocence is a legal tenet, but it certainly is not incompatible with having a desire for more facts.

As I said, an acquittal by itself does not confirm the version of events presented by the letter writer. Too many questions unanswered. Too many possible reasons for an acquittal to make the assumption that there was some gross miscarriage of justice without having more facts. The presumption of innocence doesn't cause any conflict with the need for more facts.

Oh, and true believers? You speak of true believers? You take too much on faith to be talking about true believers.

Let me know when you get your own questions answered. Or is being consistent in finding the answers to your own questions too much for you?

Suss 07/04/14 - 10:46 am
Poor Math, Poor Premise, Faulty Conclusion

Timeline does not fit your desired premise.

You have consistently failed the presumption of innocence test to the point you are now twisting dates and times to support your failed attempt to convict post acquittal.

The dates of incarceration make it impossible to be two places at the same time.

Your flawed opinion is not shared by the jury.

Facts, dates and evidence are what matter, not your unsupportable suppositions.

This is not based on the letter writer.

Yes, I have answered the the timeline question. Independent of any letter to the editor.

Until you do your own research please contain your idiotic and erroneous conclusions.

Freedom of opinions does not free one from having a factual basis
to form their opinion.

12 random citizens are far more credible and believable than one myopic and obviously severely math challenged jford.

Do your homework, be an adult and admit you are wrong, until then you are waisting time that should be used on remedial
math and civics lessons.

cheapersmokes 07/04/14 - 02:03 pm
You will never convince this idiot of one thing!

Suss, You much better off to just ignore the drivel that jford spews out! He has no creditability whatsoever. I mean what better proof of innocence can you have than being in jail when the crime supposedly occurred? Do the jail records show he was out on a pass or something. He also apparently believes that once you commit one criminal act you will never, ever change and are automatically guilty of anything you might ever be charged with.

I am also quite positive that he believes that Obama will present a real birth certificate someday!

jford 07/05/14 - 12:54 am
Since I made no reference to mark any claimed timeline,

it's disingenuous of you to claim my timeline is a problem. I questioned the timeline, I asked what was he in jail for when the letter writer claims his charges were filed.

The timeline is a problem, but it's not my problem, I'm questioning the letter writer's version of events. You're buying the letter writer's story.

As for being wrong? I said I'm waiting for more facts, I'm waiting to have the letter writer's story confirmed. I'm not making declaratory statements, that's been your action.

So far you can't point to anything other than the fact that an acquittal did happen.

You didn't confirm why there was an acquittal. You haven't answered your own questions.

Your references to irrelevant ephemera might impress cheapersmokes, but that's probably the limit of your capabilities, capturing what passes for an imagination in the delusional doesn't impress me.

Suss 07/05/14 - 06:59 pm
Timeline is not yours

Why is it your timeline? That is goofy. Maybe that is your hangup with finding an answer.

The research was done. Timeline confirmed. He was in custody and the alibi held up.

Nothing to do with the letter.

You do your own research and find the truth. Not that difficult.

Does not matter that you want more, this is not about you, the jury has spoken.

At this point you are some kind of special needs.

Do you civic duty, show everyone how smart you are and how those 12 jurors had it all wrong.

The defendant was presumed innocent before trial and found not guilty at trial.

Get over it.

Both concepts seem to elude your comprehension.

jford 07/06/14 - 10:57 pm
Hearsay, ….or court view?

S1141460MISDB AS11.41.460(misdB): Indecent Exposure 2 - Victim 16+ (Class B Misdemeanor)

Date of Offense 01/31/2013

Sentencing Info
Jail Start: 02/01/2013, days: 25

25 days after 02/01/2013 is 02/26/2013

Original Charge AS1141434A1 AS11.41.434(a)(1): Sex Abuse Minor 1- Penetrate Vic Undr 13 (Unclassified Felony) Indicted Charge AS1141434A1 AS11.41.434(a)(1): Sex Abuse Minor 1- Penetrate Vic Undr 13 (Unclassified Felony) Amended Charge DV Related? No Modifiers None Stage

Date of Offense 02/26/2013

January 31, 2013, busted for indecent exposure, pleads guilty goes to jail on Feb 1, 2013, for 25 days, release date set at Feb 26, 2013,

New charges, date of offense, Feb 26, 2013. The date set for release.

Hearsay?, …or court view. Alibi?, ...or something not mentioned in the letter.

As you said, " something is beyond missing…(in the letter writer's) …scenario"

The letter is worth no more than embellished hearsay.

The tale of the 'alibi' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Avoiding prosecution doesn't always equate to any kind of innocence.

I expect by the time actual trial transcripts become available to the public, there may be some discrepancy between the letter above and the actual proceedings.

But then, a whole lot of people who write letters to the editor aren't likely to be offering the most honest or the most objective view of any given circumstance. Could be that some letter writers tend to oversimplify, at the least, …..or, at most, just plain make stuff up.

Some of the most confident are never cured of their own self-possession. I rather prefer an unassertive skepticism, especially before prostrating oneself to nothing more than faith-based certainty.

Suss 07/07/14 - 12:50 am
Bless his heart

Going through trial is the opposite of avoiding prosecution.

A not guilty verdict does not make you innocent but it is a resounding vote with confidence that you were not guilty as charged.

The entire trial on audio disc is available for you at your request.

Transcripts will be on your dime, nobody pays for transcripts after a not guilty verdict unless they are writing a book.

The direct and physical evidence is where you need to focus.

Business record exceptions for timeline and alibi with exhibits is another good start. Along with sworn testimony that allowed their introduction.

Have yourself a field day.

Witnesses are sometimes confused, mistaken or just plain out and out liars. Sort through, filter them with a critical eye and ear.

Waiting for your post analysis and findings after you have previously prejudged by not accepting the verdict and the jurors along with the author. This could be an enlightening and entertaining quest.

You could call the author but what would that tell you?

You could even call the jurors to ask them, "Are you sure, are you really, really sure"?

You have already prejudged their veracity.

On the off chance Chris Van Zele might enlighten you he is available at the Public Defender Agency. He probably would welcome someone buying him a meal to talk over the trial with since his is an intern and collectively they are famously known to be starving.

Good luck, and as they say down South, "Bless Your Heart".

jford 07/07/14 - 08:05 am
Going 'through a trial' isn't any guarantee of much of anything,

Innocent people are put to death after 'going through a trial'.'

Criminal people are let go after 'going through a trial'.

And nowhere is it guaranteed that a not guilty verdict equates to any kind of resounding vote of confidence that. That's simplistic fiction.

As I said, some of the most confident are never cured of their own self-possession.

Suss 07/07/14 - 11:46 am
Too Simple

Going through trial absolutely guarantees that you did not "avoid prosecution".

An acquittal guarantees that you were not convicted.

Again you think this man avoided prosecution by going to trial?

Too simplistic indeed.

A conviction after trial would absolutely guarantee a lengthy prison sentence.

I guess these concepts fall under your idea of "not much"!

Remedial civics is available to those in need.

Bless your heart, again and again!

Back to Top


Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title
  • title
  • title
My Gallery


  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback