The Portland police decided yesterday not to file any charges against Zach Randolph in a strange case involving sex shows, cash and tequila. Today a memo from the Portland District Attorney is available for download here as a PDF file, and it’s pretty naughty stuff.
I’ve spent the morning going through the case files to break this all down. Here’s everything worth knowing from the memo…
1) The memo begins…
This case was reviewed for criminal prosecution of Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, Promoting Prostitution and Prostitution. The Portland Police Bureau became aware of this case on August 14, 2006 when WOMAN A told the staff at St. Vincent Medical Center that she had been seually assaulted by Zachary McKenzie Randolph on August 11, 2006 at the Hotel Vintage Plaza in downtown Portland.
2) Reading on, we learn that three of the four main people involved in this case — two women, identified as WOMAN A and WOMAN B, and a friend of Zach’s referred to as MAN — were interviewed by Portland authorities. The one person who wasn’t interviewed? Zach Randolph, who “through his attorney, refused to be interviewed by police.”
3) The memo allows that WOMAN A and WOMAN B each have a prior conviction (one theft and one for possession of a controlled substance). Another witness in the case who was not at the hotel but “offered information to police regarding events before and after the August 11th event” also had a previous theft conviction. I’m not sure why this is relevant, other than establishing that we’re dealing with people here who have some previous knowledge of how the legal system works.
4) On the night of August 11, the memo says Randolph offered $500 to view a live sex show between the two women. The memo never says how that money was promised — $500 apiece? $250 for each?
5) The memo says the two women disagree on what was promised for the $500. WOMAN A thought the agreement was to simulate sex, and WOMAN B thought the two women were actually supposed to get it on. As the memo notes…
This is significant because ORS 167.002 defining prostitution related terms requires actual contact. There is apaprently no dispute, whatever the agreement, that the sex show consisted only of simulated sexual activity. As a result, WOMAN A told police that Randolph expressed his lack of satisfaction with the show and refused to pay WOMAN A.
6) Now it gets really graphic and, frankly, gross. After the “show,” WOMAN A “engaged in consensual sexual intercourse” with Randolph’s friend, MAN, then either passed out or fell asleep. She alleges that when she woke up Zach was trying to, well, go backdoor, but she didn’t let it happen. She says they then had intercourse while she “‘shook her head no.’”
7) WOMAN A says she was wasted, reporting that she’d had three cocktails and the equivalent of six shots of tequila before they arrived at the hotel.
8) The memo notes that WOMAN A did not report any “specific acts of force nor any threats by Randolph. Additionally, there is no medical evidence to corroborate WOMAN A’s statements regarding the sexual contact with Randolph.”
9) WOMAN B recuses herself from most of the mess, saying she was “physically ill from intoxication” and spent two-and-a-half hours in the bathroom. She says when she left the bathroom, Zach was gone.
10) MAN is now formally introduced in the memo. He says he’s a barber who’s known Zach for five years and is a member of Zach’s crew, apparently called the “Hoops Family.” MAN also says he “frequently shares women with Randolph.” MAN denied knowing about the financial arrangement between Zach and the women, and he says he missed the simulated sex show because he was too busy “setting up music on his laptop computer in order to play music in the hotel room.”
11) MAN says he saw Zach and WOMAN A have relations and that it was consensual. He also says he “attempted to join the pair.”
12) The next day, the two women and Zach were apparently supposed to meet up at the Portland Art Museum for a concert, although I can’t figure out who was playing there that night. Regardless, the group never met up and WOMAN A allegedly sent a text message to WOMAN B asking for $10,000 and threatening to go “through lawyers.” WOMAN B allegedly responded that she could come get $500.
13) Now a person referred to as “C,” a friend of WOMAN A and a roomate of WOMAN B is introduced. C says that WOMAN A said that Randolph and MAN “did a train” on her, and that Zach had sex with her while she was sleeping. C also tells us that when B paid the $500 to A, she told A, “Zach gave me that money to have you keep your mouth shut.”
14) The night of the 14th, WOMAN A sent to a Portland-area hospital and “sought an examination and reported the sexual assault.” It notes that she gave a detailed statement which “was consistent with her later statements to police,” but because it was three days after the event occured, there was no forensic or medical evidence obtained.
15) The memo closes by noting there was no “objective, independent witnesses…who can provide corroboration of WOMAN A’s statements regarding the sexual contact with Randolph. Therefore, the sexual assault charges are declined.”
16) Finally, the memo notes that “the evidence Randolph directed and paid for an act of prostitution between A and B is much stronger.” Due to a previous ruling, however, and because Randolph “makes no admissions” and WOMAN A denies agreeing to “engage in sexual contact or conduct,” the “prostitution related comments are declined as well.”