Serial rapist Richard Troy Gillmore is up for parole again this month, and two of his victims who fought to be heard at his last hearing in 2010 have been told they can't speak this time.

The Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, citing an administrative rule adopted in December 2010, says the two women don't meet the state's definition of victim.

Danielle Tudor, who was attacked by Gillmore in her Southeast Portland home when she was 17 in 1979, and Colleen Kelly, who was 13 when Gillmore broke into her Southeast Portland home and raped her on her mother's birthday in October 1980, say to have to fight to be recognized as a victim is infuriating.

Once again, the women are struggling to persuade the state that they were harmed irreparably and deserve to be heard. They're planning a media blitz Monday and Tuesday to draw attention to their struggle.

"It's crazy," Tudor said. "The whole reason they had a work-study group a few years ago is to make the parole process more victim-friendly. They've taken a huge step backward."

More

Jay Scroggin, the parole board's executive director, said the new rule was adopted six months after Gillmore's last parole hearing to clarify the board's practices, bring them in line with state statute and avoid litigation.

It was the Gillmore case that drew widespread scrutiny of the parole board in 2007 when it voted to release Gillmore, known as the "jogger rapist," after failing to notify Tiffany Edens, the victim he was convicted in 1987 of raping. She protested and filed a lawsuit that forced the board to hold a new hearing. Her battle to be heard prompted a work group to consider reforms to make the parole review process more transparent, accessible and less traumatizing for victims.

The board's new rule defines a victim as "any person determined by the prosecuting attorney, the court or the Board to have suffered direct financial, psychological, or physical harm as a result of a crime that is the subject of a proceeding conducted by the State Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision."

The last clause is what Scroggin said restricts Tudor and Kelly from speaking out during Gillmore's parole hearing, because he was never prosecuted for their rapes, though he admitted to them.

Gillmore admitted to sexually assaulting nine women in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But he was convicted only of the December 1986 rape of Edens, then 13. The other crimes were too old to prosecute, because the statute of limitations for rape -- then three years -- had run out.

He was sentenced to at least 30 years with a 60-year maximum as a dangerous offender, with the other victims only testifying about their attacks during the sentencing phase. Yet in 1988, the parole board cut the minimum sentence in half.

Russ Ratto, a Multnomah County senior deputy district attorney, prosecuted Gillmore and tracked down many of his victims before Gillmore's last parole hearing. He will again argue that Gillmore be kept behind bars for up to 10 years before he's considered for parole again. He can't understand why Tudor and Kelly wouldn't be allowed, considering their testimony was heard at his sentencing phase and influenced the court's classification of Gillmore as a dangerous offender.

Scroggin said that even though Tudor and Kelly testified at Gillmore's sentencing, "At this point, the board does not consider that to be a direct impacted victim of the crime before the board."

Tudor was the sole victim to see Gillmore's face and helped police draw a composite sketch that aided in his arrest in 1986.

Two years ago, Tudor was told she couldn't speak because her case wasn't prosecuted. Yet after media inquiries, she got word from the board that she could.

This year, Tudor, now 49, and Kelly, 45, anticipated speaking against Gillmore's release again. On March 8, each received a letter from the parole board that identified them as a "victim" of offender Gillmore, and said they could participate in his June 13 parole hearing.

Yet, in an e-mail Wednesday, the board's victims specialist, Debbie Wojciechowski, clarified the new rule. While she wrote that the board does recognize Tudor and Kelly as victims of a crime, they're not considered victims as defined by the board.

"The Board does recognize and respect you as a victim of a heinous crime committed by the offender. It acknowledges that being a victim of a crime can have a significant impact on your life and well-being," Wojciechowski wrote. But the letter was clear that while they could attend the hearing and submit written comment, they couldn't speak.

"I think it's a bunch of B.S.," Kelly said. "It's like how many times do we have to battle the board on this? It gets frustrating and maddening."

Tudor said she believes the board made the rule change because Gillmore has an appeal pending before the Oregon Court of Appeals in which he partly objects to the testimony she and Kelly offered at his 2010 hearing.

In his request for the board's review of its 2010 ruling, Gillmore wrote, "Up until the hearing in 2008, the Board only considered my commitment offense and now people were being allowed to present testimony outside of prior considerations. ... Nothing in the board's rules allow for anyone other than these very specific individuals to appear or speak at a parole board hearing."

On Jan. 12 this year, the board denied Gillmore's administrative review request and defended its decision to allow Tudor and Kelly to speak at the 2010 hearing. Board chair Aaron Felton cited another state rule that allows the board to "consider additional information and recommendations from those with a special interest in the case."

"In your case, the Board exercised its discretion to determine that persons who believed themselves to be victims of uncharged crimes you previously acknowledged committing would be allowed to make a statement," Felton wrote.

Tudor and Kelly question what's changed. They're hoping public pressure might sway the board's stance. If not, they joke they'll be at the parole hearing with tape across their mouths.

"There's only one reason why I'm doing this," Tudor said. "We know eventually he's going to get out. I want to be able to say I did everything I could and not look back with regret and wish I could have fought harder. It's not for me. It's for other potential victims."

Rosemary Brewer, an attorney from Oregon Crime Victims Law Center representing Tiffany Edens' parents, said she recognizes Kelly's and Tudor's frustration, but does think the board is trying to be more accommodating to victims.

"What Danielle and Colleen and all of us want is for Gillmore's parole to be denied," Brewer said. "And, we're going to ask for it be for another 10 years. These victims should not be going through this every two years. This is ridiculous."

Edens' mother and father plan to speak at the hearing on behalf of their daughter, Tiffany Edens.

"She chooses not to be involved in this anymore," her mom Rebecca Edens-Ahsing said. "She just had enough of it. It's too big of a toll."

--

Written comments may be submitted to the parole board regarding Gillmore's parole request up until 5 p.m. Wednesday, June 6, and can be mailed to the Oregon Board of Parole, 2575 Center Street N.E., Salem, OR 97301.



Emails with testimony included as an attachment can be sent to the board's victims specialist, at debbie.wojciechowski@doj.state.or.us.



June 6 also is the deadline in order to attend Gillmore's parole hearing, set for 8:30 a.m. June 13, at the Oregon State Correctional Institution in Salem. To apply, call 503-945-0902.