[Editor’s note: This article contains potentially disturbing material, including alleged sexual assaults on a child. Reader discretion is advised.]
WILMINGTON — On March 15, 2015, James Bader was arrested by the Wilmington Police Department on charges of sexually assaulting and abusing his adopted daughter. Over a year later, the charges were dropped. Earlier this year, a federal civil suit by Bader against the officer who arrested him ended in a $500,000 settlement, paid out by the City of Wilmington’s insurance company.
You can find Part I here: An arrest by a Wilmington police officer ended in a $500,000 settlement. What happened?
After WECT broke the story officials maintained there had been no wrongdoings: the Wilmington Police Department (WPD) and the District Attorney’s office both maintain that the case was handled appropriately and, since the settlement, no changes in policy or procedure have been instituted. WPD Chief Ralph Evangelous called it a “business decision,” saying the department was confident probable cause existed to arrest Bader.
A deeper look at the case reveals why Bader’s attorneys felt the investigation was flawed and sheds some light on why the city may have settled. It also reveals the difficulty of investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse cases, especially those involving children.
The case also provides a rare window into the relationship between the Wilmington Police Department and the District Attorney’s office. The two institutions often present a unified front but, in this case, things were more complicated.
Documentation for the following story comes from several sources, including depositions from Bader’s civil suit against Oehl, filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, as well as the expert witness testimony on behalf of both Bader and Oehl, and Oehl’s correspondence with Bader’s ex-wife, submitted during discovery for the lawsuit. The Wilmington Police Department and District Attorney’s office both declined to comment.
Why March 15, 2015?
It’s not clear why Oehl moved forward with the arrest when he did.
Shortly after being arrested, Bader was interviewed by Oehl. According to a transcript, one of the first things Bader asks — after asserting his innocence — is why Oehl waited for so long to arrest him, nearly a year after the DSS trial.
Oehl did not provide Bader with a concrete answer. He inaccurately told Bader the DNA test was inclusive, stating that “there is something there, we just don’t know what it is” and that WPD plans to send it out for testing. This does not appear to have been true, either. Court records indicate there were no further DNA tests performed. It does appear that the WPD’s computer forensic specialist was backlogged, and did not get to fully examine Bader’s computers until after his arrest. Neither Oehl nor Oehlrein could provide a timeline of when that happened, but did confirm nothing was found on the computers.
Oehl told Bader he had been “following up on leads,” but it’s not clear what those were. According to Oehl’s deposition, he conducted one further interview, with Bader’s neighbor, but didn’t record it in his investigative notes.
The last entry in Oehl’s investigation notebook is April 2, 2014. Oehl didn’t document the forensic results or the juvenile petition hearing, and apparently did not conduct any criminal investigation after the hearing, nor was any additional evidence uncovered. Over a year after his last entry, Oehl made the arrest.
In an interview, Bader said he felt the arrest was a result of Judge Noecker’s February 18, 2015, court order giving joint custody of both daughters. Bader said he felt his ex-wife likely pressured Oehl to “do something,” noting that it coincided with the apparent timeframe of Oehl’s request that Tilmon ‘overrule’ the DA’s office.
In his deposition, Oehl said only that he felt he need to ‘make a decision’ about the case.
“Well, I decided it was time to handle — to — to get the case off my — my desk, so to speak. I needed to make a decision one way or the other and so that’s what I did,” Oehl testified.
Did Oehl withhold exculpatory evidence?
Oehl took his evidence to Magistrate Brittany Parish but that evidence did not apparently include several facts, including that there was no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, that the same allegations had been heard and dismissed in their entirety by Judge Noecker, and that there had been no further investigation since that dismissal.
In his deposition, Oehl noted that he had “probably not” mentioned the dismissal to Parish.
Parish swore in an affidavit that she did not recall the particular case and that no notes or recording existed. Parish stated that, in general, she relied on officers to be “accurate” and “complete,” but that she would have no way of knowing if an officer provided false information or omitted relevant facts.
After reviewing details of the Bader case, she noted that “truthful information about Judge Noecker’s decision at the DSS trial” would have been important to her decision to grant an arrest warrant. Parish did not directly say Oehl withheld information but concluded that, had Oehl presented that evidence, she would not have approved the warrant.
Magistrates are overseen by Chief District Court Judge Julius H. Corpening, who said he was not familiar with the Bader case, but that “while we would like as much information as possible before issuing warrants, courts have no authority to impose a standard higher than probable cause at that stage of the proceeding.”
Apparently, ‘probable cause’ for a magistrate does not include weighing exculpatory evidence, which may have allowed Oehl to present evidence which indicated Bader’s guilt and omit evidence which did not.
Why were charges dismissed — and why did it take so long?
Bader was arrested on March 15, 2015. A year and three months later, Oehrlein dismissed all the charges on June 4, 2016.
Oehrlein testified that he assembled several prosecutors in the spring of 2016, for an informal panel review. Oehrlein said he informally convened three or four fellow prosectors and discussed the case. Oehl had wanted to attend, but was not able to, according to Oehrlein.
According to his deposition, Oehrlein was concerned that the fact the daughter had denied any sexual abuse in the years prior to making allegations would make it difficult to win over every juror. He also expressed concern that because the son was non-verbal, the drawings would be inadmissible.
“Some juror’s going to go in, they’re going to be educated by experts, they’re going to listen to the evidence, but to get 12 people when there’s a risk of delayed disclosure and denial of abuse earlier, and it just doesn’t end well. There’s only [one] juror that needs to not agree,” he testified, adding that he did not want to put the daughter through the trauma of a trial he thought might not end well.
In his deposition, Oehrlein explicitly testified that he still believed Bader was guilty.
“It wasn’t because we didn’t believe [the daughter]. And it wasn’t because I don’t believe Mr. Bader’s a pedophile, because I believe both of those things. But based upon some of the evidence that we couldn’t get in and some of the difficulty with our case, that’s why I decided not to pursue it,” Oehrlein said.
These appear to be the same concerns Oehrlein expressed to Oehl before the arrest — so what took so long to dismiss the charges? Bader said he felt the delay was intentional and malicious but the District Attorney’s office denied that.
According to Sam Dooies, assistant to Ben David, there was some delay in getting forensic results on Bader’s electronic equipment (his phones had been cleared before the arrest, Oehl stated while interviewing Bader after the arrest, but apparently at least one personal computer was still being analyzed).
The most significant delay appears to have been getting a transcription of a confidential of civil court proceedings concerning Bader, including a confidential DSS hearing. Several months after Bader’s arrest, the District Attorney’s office acquired “discs of proceedings” in June of 2015 using a court order. Two months later, in August of 2015, a second court order was issued to have the audio transcribed.
According to Dooies, “Over the next several months our office made attempts to hire a court reporter for this transcription and were unsuccessful.” Dooies noted that there are not many available transcriptions, and those that are available frequently have long queues.
By early 2016, it appears the DA’s office had a transcript, along with the rest of the evidence considered by Oehrlein and his fellow prosecutors. After deciding to dismiss the case, Oehrlein it would have taken time to “reach out to the victim,” as well as Oehl and other parties, in addition to delays potentially caused by his trial schedule.
What went wrong?
It is not uncommon for law enforcement to arrest a suspect, only to have charges reduced or dismissed by the district attorney’s office. Oehl is not the only officer to make such an arrest; Bader is not the only person it has ever happened to.
But this was the largest settlement from Wilmington in years aside from the $7 million Johnny Small case. So, while the DA’s office and WPD both defended Oehl’s, something set this case apart. But what?
In North Carolina, police officers are considered to have public official immunity — an extension of the state’s immunity from civil torts. The only exceptions are if the officers (or public officials) act outside of the scope of their authority or if their actions are malicious or corrupt. And that’s what Bader’s attorneys were preparing to argue in federal court — that Oehl maliciously pursued an arrest against Bader he knew was unsubstantiated.
David Cloutier, Bader’s expert witness, argued that Oehl’s mischaracterization of the DNA evidence, his apparent failure to provide key information to the magistrate, and his failure to collect sufficient evidence (including a failure to review DSS or medical records) were all part of a pattern that demonstrated Oehl was not acting reasonably or prudently. The expert witness report concludes this Oehl’s behavior “may be indicative of a wilful, malicious and vindictive intent to defame Bader’s reputation and standing in the community.”
The expert witness for WPD argued the opposite — that Oehl’s investigation was thorough, professional, dispassionate, and by the book.
But, at least in the court documents, neither side addressed a key question: why did Oehl arrest Bader when he did?
Bader said that he believed Oehl had become too emotionally involved in with the case — and his ex-wife, who Bader believed was able to manipulate Oehl. While Bader doesn’t think the two had a romantic relationship, he believed she was able to pressure him into taking action.
In the depositions of Oehl and Bader’s ex-wife, both stated that they had several short phone conversations, around five minutes long. But phone records show several longer calls from Oehl’s personal number (Oehl testified he lost his work phone); Bader’s ex-wife claimed not to remember any longer calls, as the deposition — in February of this year — was nearly four years after the arrest.
There were also emails between Oehl and Bader’s ex-wife — on several occasions before and after the arrest Bader’s ex-wife forwarded emails between her and Bader, keeping Oehl “in the loop,” including disagreements over finances, custody, and her frustration that Bader kept contacting her by email.
Bader said he believed that after Judge Noecker granted joint custody in early 2015, his ex-wife pushed Oehl to “take action.” Bader noted that this is around the time that Oehl’s superior, Lt. Tilmon, testified that Oehl had asked for Oehrlein to be “overruled.”
While Bader believed Oehl’s actions were malicious, and the expert witness in his civil case agreed it was possible, Cloutier’s report also pointed to a different possibility — that Oehl was inadequately trained.
In his deposition, Oehl stated he had been on the force for some 15 years but had just joined the child sex crimes unit. In 2018, Oehl testified he had still not had any training in handling child sexual abuse allegations that arise from “messy” custody cases. And Oehl had received only “minimal” training in the area of child sexual abuse cases when he took the Bader case.
Despite — or perhaps because of — these issues, Oehl also appears to have tried to reach out for help with the case. In his deposition, Oehl said he may have leaned on the senior detective at the time for advice, in addition to Tilmon, his supervisor, and Oehrlein. According to court documents, each told Oehl the same thing — he had probable cause, but it would be a “tough case.”
Oehl also testified he had not received any training on handling or documenting exculpatory evidence. In fact, when Oehl was asked about it, he requested that Bader’s counsel explain what it meant.
It’s not clear if Oehl was meant to read between the lines and interpret ‘tough case’ as an admonishment not to pursue the case. If it was, Oehl appears not to have taken the hint — as he stated in his deposition, “It was a tough case, yes. I think they’re all tough cases.”
In the end, Oehl was not disciplined and WPD did not change any of its policies or institute new training protocols. Again, officials say nothing went wrong with the Bader case, despite the settlement. But there has been no substantial answer as to why this case was different than other cases where charges are dropped — perhaps an uneasy precedent for law enforcement around the region.
Aftermath: The mess, the money, and the media
Bader spent two days in jail but said it might have been much longer had Judge Noecker not, coincidentally, been behind the gavel for his bond hearing. Since he was familiar with the case, Noecker agreed to lower Bader’s bond from $1 million to $100,000. Bader was forced to borrow money from his family but was able to get released.
Bader pointed out that he was lucky, not just to get the bond reduced but also to have the financial means to afford the deposit for a bond company. Other suspects, accused of similar or lesser charges, have not had their bonds reduced and have spent months, or longer, in jail; former New Hanover County School employee Nicholas Oates, whose bond was $1 million, spent over a year in the New Hanover County detention center before dying from a pre-existing liver condition and former teacher Michael Kelly spent over a year in detention under a similar bond before taking a plea deal.
Beyond the threat of jail, Bader also lost his job at NHRMC (which has apparently declined to rehire him) and was unable to see his biological daughter while out on bond. His neighbors had seen him arrested by multiple law enforcement officers.
Bader said he doesn’t like to say his life was ruined but acknowledges it was “derailed — the mess that my life became, it was difficult.”
The $500,000 settlement with the City of Wilmington wasn’t exactly a windfall, Bader said. Taxes, attorneys fees, credit card bills racked up while unemployed — they left Bader with little left over from the payment.
And, of course, there was the media coverage.
Numerous local outlets — including Port City Daily, Star News, Spectrum News, WECT, and WWAY published Bader’s mugshot, his million-dollar bond, and the allegations against him, including raping a child, crimes against nature, and other felony sex crimes against a child. But after the arrest, media outlets apparently lost track of the case or didn’t follow it at all. And, while the dismissal of the charges the following year was public record, the DA’s office did not send out a press release. Bader’s arrest continued to live online; the first thing that came up when his name was searched.
In May of this year, after his civil suit settled with Wilmington’s insurance carrier, Bader began contacting media outlets. Bader went first to WECT, which broke the story of the troubled investigation and the city’s settlement. He then agreed to interview with Port City Daily, at length, providing detailed records of the DSS cases, WPD investigation, and abortive prosecution.
But some outlets have not updated their articles or offered to write follow-up pieces. Some have not even returned Bader’s emails and calls.
Send comments and tips to Benjamin Schachtman at [email protected], @pcdben on Twitter, and (910) 538-2001
