DID JUSTICE OR GROSS INCOMPETENCE BY DA SET BAINBRIDGE FREE??? Over the weekend as I have become informed how this Grand Jury appearance was handled by the DA's office I feel compelled to post their actions to get the public's opinion. Please take a few minutes to read this and if you share my shock, my dismay, my disbelief, my anger, then please speak your mind. Not only on here but to the media in the Portland/Saint Helens, Oregon area and to the DA who supposedly handled this case steve.atchison@co.columbia.or.us Keeping in mind it is the prosecution who is supposed to present evidence proving a crime has been committed and the defense who is supposed to present reasonable doubt as to whether a crime has been committed, draw your conclusions to what you are about to read. (1) The DA's office, the police, the court system and animal control all state they have never had as many phone calls, emails and other contact about any case in Columbia county as they did about this case. One would think that having received so much contact and public outrage DA Steve Atchison would be handling all phases of this case personally to insure the fullest possibility of justice and to assure the public he was on it and fully capable of doing his job. Here's what happened...... With the DA's office knowing they were going before a Grand Jury on Thursday morning at approximately 10:00 a.m. they had John Berg from their office call Michelle at 4:45 p.m. on Wednesday, the night before, to notify her of the proceeding. The voicemail which he left and I have personally heard several times stated, "Michelle this is John Berg with the DA office, we are taking the case to the Grand Jury tomorrow morning and I REALIZED I need to have you testify..." REALLY???!!! Am I the only one dumbfounded by this statement? Mere hours before a Grand Jury convenes you "realize" you need to have a key witness who is also the victim testify? Not only do you realize this at the last minute but you are asking a witness to testify that you've never even spoken to let alone met!!! What competent attorney, be it for the prosecution or the defense does such a thing? Would not even an attorney fresh out of law school want to know what evidence this witness has so he can present it in an organized and convincing manner. What attorney would not want to know if this witness was a friendly or hostile witness to their case. Why would you not want to first interview the key witness and victim of a case who has full knowledge of the events before putting them in front of a Judge, a Jury or especially a Grand Jury??? What attorney would not want to know all the facts of a case before presenting it? What attorney would not want to discuss the presentation to be made with their witness, to inform the witness of how the procedure proceeds? The apparent answer to those questions is DA Steve Atchison, his office and his staff... Wait for it, it gets even more dumbfounding. Upon arriving at the courthouse Michelle discovered it was John Berg presenting the case to the Grand Jury, not Mr. Atchison himself. The first thing Mr. Berg said upon meeting with his witness for the first time was "We have to hurry and be quick, we don't have much time." You sir are presenting a case to a Grand Jury over the cruel and drawn out taking of a life and you are in a hurry and don't have much time to present it? Did the Grand Jury have an important tee time they had to make. Did you have a movie you had to get to? What? If there was not time to fully present a case, which in all actuality you knew very little about, then why present it at all??? Here's how he "allegedly" (so I can be PC correct) presented the case. Keep in mind whose job it is to present evidence supporting a conviction and whose job it is to present reasonable doubt. He presented a picture of the fence line that once was buried in blackberry brush, and consisted of wire fencing secured by fence posts. The picture "allegedly" showed only fence posts remaining. It is reasonable to expect a prosecution presentation of this picture might be, "Miss Fudge, is this the remains of the fence line that Mr. Bainbridge tore down?" To which the reply would be yes. This would place in the jury's mind there was once a fence, that it had been torn by Mr. Bainbridge and that there was confirmation of it. It is reasonable to expect the defense, to place reasonable doubt in the juries mind would present the picture in this manner, "This is a picture of the fence line once covered in blackberry, I know goats eat blackberry brush do pigs..." This would place in the jury's mind that if a 50 pound goat eats away at blackberry brush, certainly a 900 pound pig could as well. A brilliant defense strategy. But alas, the defense didn't use this strategy, Mr. Berg did!!! Part of Mr. Bainbridge's defense was Pigs eat people. guess who implanted in the minds of the grand jury that pigs eat people. Was it the defense? No. it was Mr. Berg by stating something to the effect of , "Miss Fudge I understand pigs eat people..." do you think the jury heard the rest of the question or the answer to the question? I wondered why Mr. Bainbridge hadn't hired an attorney to represent him in this case. I tried to figure out what he had up his sleeve. Now the answer is clear. He knew from years of past experience he couldn't get a better attorney working for him than the DA! The voicemail that the DA's office left for Michelle telling of the Grand Jury's verdict, which I have also listened to several times, included the lady leaving the message stating, "I hope that when he is released you pay special attention to your surroundings and if you feel endangered contact...." Well no shit!!! You bungled yet another case and all you can say is watch your back???? You tell me, is this justice or incompetence? If you believe it to be the latter I implore you to remember two things said by people much wiser than I. (1) What it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to simply do nothing. (2) Lawlessness does not need to be fought for, it occurs naturally. It is law, order and justice that must be valiantly fought for and defended. If you believe these statements to be true, then do something, continue to fight and contact the media and the DA, share this wherever you can. Fight for and demand "Justice for DJ!" In doing so you are fighting for all the future victims of this style of brutal torture and killing for I promise you, this case, if left as is, sets a precedence for all future Bainbridge's to have free reign in committing these crimes without fear of punishment or consequence. We must not, as a civilized people allow this to happen... Mr. Bainbridge is supposedly to appear in court concerning this case Monday morning at 11:15 a.m. in front of Judge Callahan, please let your voices be heard before then...