- This updates story an initial story Wednesday, Oct. 29 with additional details and statements made Thursday.
By SHAYLA ESCUDERO and QUINTON SMITH/Lincoln Chronicle
Lincoln County authorities tried to explain their actions and legal procedures Thursday after overwhelming public reaction that a grand jury had indicted the father of 2-year-old Dane Paulsen on misdemeanor neglect charges seven months after his son drowned in the Siletz River.
Aaron Paulsen, 40, of Siletz is scheduled to be arraigned Monday morning in Lincoln County circuit court on second-degree child neglect charges.
Dane Paulsen disappeared from his family’s riverside property March 1 and wasn’t found until 11 days later after a massive community and law enforcement search effort that transfixed much of Oregon. An autopsy determined he had drowned.
A seven-member grand jury issued a secret indictment of Paulsen on Oct. 16 after hearing testimony from seven members of the law enforcement community involved in the search and subsequent investigation.
An arrest warrant wasn’t issued for Paulsen until Oct. 23 and news of the indictment didn’t break until Wednesday when court documents became public. Paulsen was cited and released by the sheriff’s office and told to appear in court Monday for arraignment.
Most times when an indictment is issued there is an accompany court document called a probable cause affidavit made by investigating officers that lays out the circumstances for the charges.
But there has not been one filed yet in Lincoln County circuit court, although could be after Paulsen’s arraignment Monday. Given the widespread interest in the case, the district attorney could also request it be sealed — although a judge would have to agree to that.
Without a clear explanation by authorities or court documents laying out the evidence why the father was charged with child neglect, reaction to the developments Thursday was swift and negative.
Dane’s mother, Chamet Jackson, who was home at the time her son disappeared, has not been charged.
In a tearful interview Wednesday night with KPTV News at their Siletz home, Jackson was critical of the sheriff’s investigation and said she was checking on her father in his backyard trailer when Dane disappeared that Saturday afternoon. She offered no explanation of her husband’s whereabouts.
Juan Heredia, the experienced Stockton, Calif. diver who found Dane’s body after a two-hour search March 12, made a social media post Thursday asking authorities to not punish the family twice. Heredia said his wife lost her adult son to a drowning accident two years ago and is still traumatized by the loss.
“If Aaron made a mistake, he’ll live with it every night beside his wife’s nightmares,” Heredia said in his Facebook post. “Please, don’t punish the mother again. Don’t kill her twice.”
Statements a day later
The Lincoln County sheriff’s and district attorney’s offices seemed unprepared for the reaction once Paulsen’s indictment became public Wednesday, with neither Sheriff Adam Shanks nor District Attorney Jenna Wallace responding to media inquiries.
On Thursday the sheriff’s office issued a statement at 11:45 a.m. in “response to several community and media inquiries.” Wallace followed with a statement two hours later.
The sheriff’s statement said while “our hearts remain heavy with this tragedy” it followed established procedure and with the help of the FBI “conducted a criminal investigation congruent to the search efforts.”
It further said “Before his disappearance, Dane was reported to be playing out of sight in his yard. Evidence suggests he wandered down to the river.”
“While evidence consistently pointed to the Siletz River, 40 investigators continued to pursue leads by interviewing, investigating, and following up on community tips,” the sheriff’s statement said. “Countless tips lead to investigative interviews, review of surveillance footage, and further investigations on possible leads. At the conclusion of this multi-agency investigation, evidence pointed to Dane being at the river’s edge before falling in. An autopsy confirmed his cause of death was drowning with no additional trauma to his body.”
The sheriff’s statement said once investigators were finished, they submitted their work and evidence to the district attorney for review.
“It is standard for the Lincoln County District Attorney’s Office to review all death investigations,” it said, and then referred any questions to Wallace.
In her four-paragraph statement Thursday, Wallace said she presented the investigators’ evidence to a seven-member grand jury Oct. 16.
“The grand jury is responsible for listening to and evaluating testimony to determine whether the evidence is such that it would warrant a conviction by a trial jury,” Wallace said in her statement. “The grand jury also has the authority to request additional evidence or direct further investigation. After deliberating and voting privately, a grand jury returns a true bill charging an individual with a crime only if at least five out of seven jurors determine there is sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.”
“After listening to the evidence, the grand jury deliberated and chose to indict Paulsen with one count of child neglect in the second degree,” Wallace’s statement said.
The indictment said that Paulsen while in “custody or control of Dane Paulsen, did unlawfully and with criminal negligence leave Dane Paulsen, a child under the age of 10 years, unattended in or at a place, for such period of time as was likely to endanger the health or welfare of said child.”
Lincoln Chronicle was unable Wednesday to reach the lawyer representing Paulsen.
Jackson told KATU News on Wednesday that her husband had just gotten home when Dane went missing and denied he played a role in their son’s death.
- Shayla Escudero covers Lincoln County government, education, Newport, housing and social services for Lincoln Chronicle and can be reached at Shayla@LincolnChronicle.org
- Quinton Smith is the editor of Lincoln Chronicle and can be reached at YachatsNews@gmail.com
OK a few points:
1) When a grand jury issues a true bill, that means they think the evidence is enough to bring it to trial, not that it “warrants a conviction.” Jumping the gun there, Jenna? Deciding what does & doesn’t warrant a conviction – that’s what the trial is! Can’t believe I have to remind a sitting DA of this, but hey I admire her confidence/optimism.
2) Separate from the whole question of whether to charge the parents at all for this, why charge the father and not the mother? The mother is quoted in this very article confessing to the neglect charge and absolving the father.
3) “Reaction to the developments Thursday was swift and negative.” What reaction? Do I presume correctly that you’re referring to Facebook here? Facebook the much-beloved surveillance hellscape of bots and trolls? It has been and remains a sad state of affairs when what passes for “the public discourse” happens in Mark Zuckerberg’s back pocket.
Shame on them. Just shame.