The supporters of Ajay Dev, who is serving a 378-year sentence that his friends and family believe is unjust, were finally able to provoke a response this week from the powers that be.

On Wednesday, two years after the conviction that his supporters believe to be wrongful, 250 to 300 people hit the streets in protest.  But it was another tactic that appeared to generate the response, in that every time someone filled out an online petition, the petition was set to generate emails to critical politicians and media that had previously ignored the efforts.

Those efforts hit paydirt when they provoked a response from the DA's office, Supervisor Matt Rexroad, and the Woodland Daily Democrat.

On Thursday, Matt Rexroad posted what he described, "This summary was put together for me and others regarding the case of Ajay Dev.  The facts below are exactly why I will not be asking for an investigation into the case."

Clearly, this was a lengthy response put together by the District Attorney's office.  One has to be puzzled by the need for them to respond.  Mr. Dev is incarcerated.  He is going through the appellate process which will be determined in the courts based on rules of law.  Why did the DA's office even bother to generate any type of response?

Second, Matt Rexroad would have been better advised to keep his nose out of this.  His response should have been that this was a matter for the courts and he would allow the legal process to work.  That is really all he had to say.

Instead, he allowed the fact that he received two hundred emails, perhaps half of them by people living in Yolo County and therefore constituents, to get under his skin.

He suggested that the Board of Supervisors will respond, but not as these activists would like.  Frankly, the Board of Supervisors should not respond and if they do, they should simply point out that this is a matter for the courts to decide.

But that is not what happened starting on Thursday.  This became a matter not for the courts to decide, but rather it was thrown into the public arena.

Mr. Rexroad stated, "The facts below are exactly why I will not be asking for an investigation into the case."

With all due respect to Mr. Rexroad, he has no knowledge of the facts other than the fact that Mr. Dev was accused by his adopted daughter of raping her over a five-year period, that he was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. 

Other than that, he does not know what a fact is or what is the opinion of the DA or what is fiction.  He did not go to the trial.  He likely has never read the court transcripts.  Instead, what he is doing is taking the DA's word for what the facts are in this case, without any type of inquiry.

In fact, what Mr. Rexroad posted on his site contains an appalling number of erroneous statements.

Wrote the DA's office as posted by Mr. Rexroad, "The defendant and his wife brought the victim (a distant relative of the defendant) here from Nepal in January of 1999 when she was barely 15 years old to live with them and be educated in the United States because her family in Nepal was poor.  The Victim testified that within weeks of her arrival in the United States, living with the Dev family in Davis, the defendnat began touching her inappropriately and soon moved to forcing her to have intercourse with him on average three times a week."

However, then it went on to say, "At some point during these assaults the defendant had the victim watch pornography with him some of which included child pornography."

The problem with that statement is that Mr. Dev was actually acquitted of any charges of showing the accuser pornography, and the child pornography that was on his computer was actually determined to have been downloaded by the accuser herself.

The facts surrounding her claims are in doubt, as well.  For instance, the accuser testified that Mr. Dev showed her a pornographic movie in 1999 when she was 15, however, the laptop was not even purchased until 2001.

Investigators discovered, further, that the movie did not even exist until January 2002.

They continued, "The victim alleged that the assaults of the defendant actually impregnated her once in late 2002 and another time in the spring of 2003. "

Actually the victim alleged that the defendant impregnated her at least three times, each of which resulted in an abortion.  The problem is that the medical history tells otherwise.

The medical records indicate a miscarriage in January of 2003 and an abortion in May of 2003.  In November of 2003, she had a negative pregnancy test.

The evidence that it was Mr. Dev who impregnated her is, at best, unclear.  She had claimed, when asked by the prosecutor, Deputy DA Steve Mount, at the preliminary hearing that she had had no sexual relations with anyone other than Mr. Dev.

However, during the court trial she described that her first sexual encounter with someone was in December of 2003 with her third boyfriend.

She would then testify that he was the first boyfriend that she had sex with, except that later it came out she had also had sexual relations that included sexual intercourse with her second boyfriend.

There was never any evidence presented at court that it was Mr. Dev who impregnated her.

The critical evidence that convicted Mr. Dev was a phone conversation, recorded by Detective Mark Hermann.  After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”

Other jurors made it clear that it was the pretext phone call that decided his guilt or innocence.

The DA posted this portion of the transcript:

>>>Defendant: I have been telling you from the very beginning that my life will be gone but how about your life, your life will be gone, how can you save your life, just tell me.

Victim: How is my life re . . ruining daddy?

Defendant: Because you have [expletive for sex] me after 18 years of your age.

Victim: Ok, so?

Defendant: That means you have given me consent.

Victim: No, I have not given any consent to you.<<<

The DA went on to explain, "This part of the translation of the phone call was agreed upon as correct by both the victim and the defense hired expert translator."

According to the family, in a response to Mr. Rexroad's post, "As for the "you fu...d me..." exchange from the pretext call - Ajay was not speaking English.  He was speaking Nepali.  The prosecutor and the defense attorney did agree that the word "Fu…d" was used.  However, and most importantly, they did not agree on the meaning or context in which that word was spoken."

It has been the contention of the family that that segment has been mistranslated and also taken out of context.  It was actually a hypothetical posed by Mr. Dev.

Writes the family, "This very controversial issue was the primary issue the DDA rested his case on, claiming Ajay 'admitted' to the sexual assault and rape by this sentence and was able to obtain a conviction and a 378 year sentence based on this so called 'admission.' "

They continue, "Although the DA argued to the jury that this telephone call was the most 'honest' communication between the parties, the detective testified that he scripted the accuser's part of the conversation and that he threw away his notes before trial." 

"The DDA completely ignored the 52 times Ajay directly and indirectly denied the accusations in English and Nepali," they write.  "The accuser herself during the call acknowledges that Ajay is not admitting anything."

Without ourselves listening to and being provided an independent translation of this conversation it is impossible to evaluate.  But this is the central point in dispute - whether this portion of the conversation means what the DA says it means and that will be decided in the appellate courts, not in the court of public opinion.

The protest, and more specifically the emails, also got the attention of Woodland Daily Democrat Editor Jim Smith.

Mr. Smith wrote, "Immediately after the conviction, a network of people began protesting the sentence, claiming among a great many things, that the victim lied, there was insufficient DNA evidence, the right questions were not asked, and there was no enough evidence."

"A lot of allegations have been heaped on the rape victim herself, including that she 'was convicted of passport fraud' by the government of Nepal. Some people have claimed Ajay was treated unfairly because of his race, or because the DA's Office was trying to boost its conviction rate to continue receiving federal grant money," he continues.

"For the past two years, there have been two protests of Ajay's sentence. The most recent protest was held Wednesday night at Freeman Park in downtown Woodland," Mr. Smith reported.  "It reportedly drew about 250 people."

What got his attention was what he called "more than 100 identical letters to the editor protesting Ajay's conviction and sentencing. Most of the letters were from people who live in Chico, some were from Florida, one was from Maine, another from Hawaii and still others from Las Vegas. I didn't see any from people in Davis or Woodland, but I'll be honest and admit I didn't look at every single letter."

I was shown the petition list, and about 90 people were from Woodland or Davis.

"Imagine going to your home mailbox, for example, and seeing it overflowing. It helps to visualize the first movie of 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,' when all those owls are outside Harry's house and the letters from Hogwarts suddenly come pouring through the fireplace," he continued.

"I love letters to the editor. We never get enough of them at The Democrat. But sometimes people go too far in trying to make their point. Identical letters are never treated very kindly by editors. We wonder, for instance, that if the issue is so important, why people don't think for themselves and express their own thoughts?" he writes.

"I'm also skeptical that people in Hawaii or Florida, would really have sufficient, independent knowledge about the case to author a letter," he adds.  "So, let this serve as kind of an object lesson. If you want to promote a cause, or make a statement on a public matter, send on your letters. But actually expend the brain power and write one yourself. It's not all that hard to do and it will go a lot father than passing on something someone else told you to write."

The problem is that Mr. Smith misconstrues what he actually received, which was not letters to the editor, but rather a petition that people signed agreeing with the said statement, which Mr. Smith thought was in fact a letter to the editor.

Mr. Smith cannot help but write, " I have no sympathy for child molesters. In my book, Ajay was found guilty by a jury after a trial. That decision which is being appealed. That's how our justice system works. Until that appeal is heard and the jury's decision is overturned, Ajay is guilty and must do the time as ordered by the judge."

Indeed, although as Mr. Smith knows, there are people who have been convicted and served twenty years and had their sentences overturned.  That is how our system works. 

I suppose Mr. Smith's feeling is, too bad for Mr. Dev if he has to serve twenty years for a crime he did not commit, that's how our system works and we all know it is not perfect.

I started covering this case two years ago.  I was invited by the family of Mr. Dev to look into the matter.  I was skeptical.  I mean, who wants to defend a child rapist?  I agree completely with Mr. Smith, I have no sympathy for anyone who harms a child.

But I also believe that not only are people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that sometimes the court of law makes grave mistakes and puts innocent people in prison.  That is why we have organizations cropping up all over the country looking into wrongful convictions, with the Innocence Project simply being the most prominent.

The more I look into this case and the more I see about how Yolo County operates, the more I am convinced that a grave error was made in this case.  I have not seen the full transcript or seen a proper translation of the Nepali from that phone conversation.

That is something that I deeply want to see before I say I am convinced of Mr. Dev's innocence.  But I can say, having met critical members of the family who have seen this evidence, I do not believe they would be defending a man that raped a young girl.

And that fact, along with so many others, has me very strongly leaning towards the firm belief that Mr. Dev did not do this and that there has been a terrible injustice in this case, one among many in this county, unfortunately..

---David M. Greenwald reporting

It has been two years now since Ajay Dev was convicted of raping his adopted daughter over 750 times over a five-year period and sentenced to 378 years in prison.  Since that time, family and friends have worked tirelessly to prove his innocence.

Usually, when activists will hold a protest, the first turnout is relatively large but the numbers decrease steadily over subsequent protests.  That has not been the case here.  If anything, two years after the verdict, we see more outpouring of support, and by all accounts this may have been their largest protest ever with between 250 and 300 people in attendance.

This perhaps was also the best program that family and friend organized in support of Mr. Dev, who has been unable to see his two young sons due to the nature of the charges against him.

The family and friends spent countless hours pouring through ten thousand pages of court transcripts.  They discussed in great detail a number of examples of what they call lies told by the accuser.

While these lies generally were peripheral to the case, the family argues this reflects a state of mind in which the accuser would tell different stories based on whom she was talking to.

As Terry Easley, Mr. Dev's sister-in-law, said, "Her story changed repeatedly, and alarmingly so upon the power of suggestion.  When she emphatically denied an act in one setting, such as the initial police interview, she would change her story or rather grow her story, upon the suggestion of the other party. 

One example that the family highlighted was when she testified that three times she had an abortion.  She was asked by the prosecutor, Deputy DA Steve Mount, at the preliminary hearing whether she had sexual relations with anyone other than Mr. Dev.  The accuser testified no.

However, during the court trial she described that her first sexual encounter with someone was in December of 2003 with her third boyfriend.

She would then testify that he was the first boyfriend that she had sex with, except that later it came out she had also had sexual relations that included sexual intercourse with her second boyfriend.

She also claimed to have had three abortions, though the medical records indicate otherwise.  In fact, the medical records indicate a miscarriage in January of 2003 and an abortion in May of 2003.  In November of 2003, she had a negative pregnancy test.

Finally, they showed evidence that claims about Mr. Dev showing his adopted daughter pornography were also false.  He was acquitted of these charges because the files did not even exist when the accuser said he showed them to her. It was also found that the files were viewed on the home computer while Ajay was at work and the accuser was the only one at home..

Moreover, she testified that Mr. Dev showed her a pornographic movie in 999 when she was 15, however, the laptop was not even purchased until 2001.

Investigators discovered, further, that the movie did not even exist until January 2000.

These are but three of several examples mentioned by the family of what they called lies told by the accuser.

As Sanjay Dev told the audience, "You heard about five or six lies.  I witnessed at least 50 lies inside the courtroom."

He continued, "Had it not been for Detective Mark Hermann interfering with her, taking her right before lunch, picking her and coaching her, telling her, it's better to say that you don't know - because he knew she was lying."

Mr. Dev told the audience that when she returned from lunch she repeated testified that she did not know or did not remember critical details.



Ajay Dev's wife, Peggy spoke to the group on what was her 14th wedding anniversary, saying that the accuser lied and explaining the girl's state of mind as that she was angry and was defying her parents.

Mrs. Dev said that she did not want to stand there and watch her throw her education away with her wild and carefree lifestyle.

"I brought her over here for a better life, I did not want to watch her throw her life away," she said.

"She lied, she was angry at us, but she tried to retract that," Mrs. Dev added.  She argued that the police's job is to investigate the facts and decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, "but that didn't happen here.  If you watch the video interview the first time this man speaks to her, she said, I would like to talk to my mom about this.  He replied 'that won't be good for the case.' "

"He had already made it a case," she added.

The DA, in their case, argued that Mr. Dev had raped his adopted daughter between 1999 and 2004.

The victim had been officially adopted by Mr. Dev and his wife in December of 1999 and, according to the victim’s testimony, Mr. Dev began inappropriately touching her within the first couple of weeks of her arrival and later progressed to forced sexual assault and rape on a weekly basis.

The assaults, the DA alleges, continued after the victim turned 18 and was attending Sacramento City College but still lived in the Dev household. The victim moved out of the home in December of 2004, and the prosecution said Mr. Dev continued to try to sexually abuse the victim and even offered to pay her to do so. Mr. Dev threatened to get a gun and shoot himself and the victim if she didn’t allow him to continue to abuse her, which ultimately led to the victim reporting the situation to law enforcement.

The trial lasted for two months. After the jury deliberated for one week, Mr. Dev was convicted of 76 felony counts including 23 counts of forcible rape; 23 counts of forcible sexual assault; 27 counts of lewd acts with a minor; and 3 counts of attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury hung on three of the counts and returned not guilty verdicts on 13 others.

Critical to the evidence was Detective Mark Hermann of the Davis Police Department, who, while interviewing the victim, had her call the defendant on the phone. According to the DA's account, "During the recorded phone call, the victim engaged him in a conversation about the abusive relationship and whether she should tell her school counselor that he, Mr. Dev, was the cause of her three abortions. What ensued was a conversation where Mr. Dev admitted the abuse and ultimately tried to talk the victim out of reporting it."

The family tells a different story though.  They argue that the conversation which meandered between English and Nepalese included numerous emphatic denials by Mr. Dev, and that the so-called admission was in fact a hypothetical taken out of context but mistranslated by the court.

On Wednesday, the family laid out their own version of events.

Terry Easley, sister-in-law to Ajay said that she was not related to either the accused or the accuser and that she had an equal relationship to both.

"What I would like to say today is that now, after two years since Ajay’s conviction, my belief in his innocence is not nearly as strong as it was then—it is in fact infinitely stronger," she said.

She discussed painstakingly going through the entire 10,000 page court transcript.  She said, "What became more apparent with my personal investigation into the evidence and the entire court case was simply astounding.  The prosecution’s case was not supported by actual evidence and in fact was proven to be false upon closer examination of the evidence."

"Their presentation of the evidence to the jury was blatantly inappropriate and misrepresented," she added.

While noting the lies and inconsistencies, she asked, "Wouldn’t that suggest to a trained investigator, or prosecuting attorney that she may not be telling the truth?  Shouldn’t that send up a red flag and warrant further investigation, like talking to those who knew her, and ESPECIALLY the IN-LAWS who would have nothing to gain by supporting a guilty man? "

She pointed out that in hundreds of private email communications between Mr. Dev and the accuser, there was "not ONE, and I mean not ONE insomuch as hinted of any inappropriate act, acts or relationship between the two.    Over the course of 4 ½ years, not one reference to anything sexual or untoward between the two of them, in what they believed were private conversations."

"Ajay IS innocent," she declared.

There was also anger

As a family friend, Tom Grothe, passionately told the audience, "A crime has been committed and a man sits in jail.  But the crime that was committed is not what the man sits in jail for."

Instead, the crime was committed by the "caretakers of justice" who have "betrayed that justice for the gamesmanship of their political payoff."

"When you have a justice system when the people that operate in it try to prove their importance to people in the society by committing acts of injustice - then you no longer have a justice system you have a legal system.  That's what you've got in Yolo County."

"You don't have a justice system when DA's get promoted based on their convictions," Mr. Groethe added.  "You don't have a justice system when the way that they pad funding to their department is based on those conviction rates."

"You'll never find a better example of cash for convictions than in the case against Ajay Dev," he said.

In a letter from Ajay Dev, he told family and friends, "My faith carries me forward until I hit my wall of fear. I have been cruelly forced into this horrible situation. But we are paving the way for so many people who have been or someday will be wrongly accused and unjustly convicted."



"The District Attorneys are so well connected that they feel as if they’re invincible. It is blatantly clear that there is no real oversight for DAs in our judicial system. So the only way to keep justice alive in the community is through the media and public outcry," he added.

"June 25, 2009, the day of my verdict, I broke down and cried as I was taken away from my wife, my child, my family, friends and all I hold so close to my heart. What happened that day devastated me beyond belief," he wrote.  "I am still trying to lift myself out of a cloud of depression and unhappiness, and crushed hopes and dreams."

He spoke of longing to hold his small children, including their son that was born after his sentencing had occurred.

Mr. Dev has been moved to Mule Creek State Prison, where he continues to serve his 378 years in prison.

---David M. Greenwald reporting