Woman faces 6 months in jail after falsely accusing couple of attempted kidnapping

[Ursus]

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco...ed-kidnapping/

SANTA ROSA -- A former Sonoma resident and Instagram social influencer who reported an attempted kidnapping of her young children was convicted Wednesday of making a false report of a crime.

Katie Sorenson was immediately remanded into custody on the misdemeanor conviction and bail was set at $100,000, said the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office in a press statement. She faces up to six months in jail.

The 31-year-old Sorenson posted viral Instagram videos in December 2020 claiming a couple tried to kidnap her two children at Michael's store in Petaluma. The videos were posted about a week after Sorenson had reported the alleged kidnapping attempt to police. In the videos, Sorenson described a number of details about the alleged incident which had not been disclosed to police, the DA's office said.

Sorensen later went on a local news program to repeat her account of the alleged event, identifying a Petaluma couple seen in the Michael's store surveillance video as the perpetrators.

Before the accusation, Sorenson had enjoyed a modest following on her @motherhoodessentials Instagram account while also posting conspiracy theories espoused by QAnon followers of Democrats and Hollywood elites running child sex-trafficking rings. Her videos on the alleged kidnapping attempt were viewed more than four million times and gained her tens of thousands of new followers. They have since been deleted.

The DA's office said Sorensen's report was determined to be false and was resoundingly contradicted by the accused couple as well as the surveillance video from the store.

"This verdict will enable us to hold Ms. Sorensen accountable for her crime, while at the same time helping to exonerate the couple that was falsely accused of having attempted to kidnap two young children," said District Attorney Carla Rodriguez said in a press statement. "The case is also important in that it illustrates the importance of using social media responsibly."

Sorensen had been charged with three misdemeanor counts of making a false report of a crime: one to a police dispatcher, another to a police officer on Dec. 7, 2020, and a third a week later to a police detective. She was acquitted on the first two counts and convicted of the third for statements made to the detective.

Sadie Vega-Martinez, who was falsely accused by Sorenson along with her husband Eddie Martinez, told Elle magazine she was "happy" with the verdict.

"After [Sorensen] avoided accountability for years, and then hearing she was found guilty and walked out in handcuffs... yes, justice was served," said Vega-Martinez told Elle. "I feel like it's a step in the right direction for my family. I'm grateful for the support."

In a statement to the Press-Democrat, Sorenson's attorney Charles Dresow said, "The verdict of not guilty as to counts one and two rejects the theory that my client lied to the police on Dec. 7. The jury reviewed the actual evidence and found it to be very different than how the case has been portrayed outside the courtroom. We are disappointed as to count three and will evaluate our options moving forward."

Sorensen showed no emotion as the verdict was read while family members in the courtroom began sobbing, the Press-Democrat reported. She was quickly placed in handcuffs and led from the courtroom, the report said. She is being held in the Sonoma County jail.

A sentencing date was not set.

Only up to 6 months in jail for putting a completely innocent couple through hell and wasting law enforcement resources for no reason at all, really? 6 years in prison for the lying bitch would be more like it. I'm disgusted by the low sentencing guideline for something like this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Has more to do with who she is as opposed to what she did. Just like Jussie Smollett.

[unfilteredJW]

Both your takes are deranged.

[s_bushido]

Only up to 6 months in jail for putting a completely innocent couple through hell and wasting law enforcement resources for no reason at all, really? 6 years in prison for the lying bitch would be more like it. I'm disgusted by the low sentencing guideline for something like this.

So...why was "they lying bitch" acquitted on the first two charges if you think she's deserving of 6 years in prison?

[PosPosPos]

So...why was "they lying bitch" acquitted on the first two charges if you think she's deserving of 6 years in prison?

Eh, because it's one of those crimes that have a ridiculously high bar to prove. Take for example, how many swatters do you know that actually got successfully prosecuted against?

It's so easy to claim they called law enforcement in good faith along the lines of "I really genuinely thought a crime was happening teehee whoops".

[s_bushido]

It's so easy to claim they called law enforcement in good faith along the lines of "I really genuinely thought a crime was happening teehee whoops".

But...yeah. Unless you have evidence that establishes a person knowingly lied, you can't just throw them in prison for it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Eh, because it's one of those crimes that have a ridiculously high bar to prove. Take for example, how many swatters do you know that actually got successfully prosecuted against?

It's so easy to claim they called law enforcement in good faith along the lines of "I really genuinely thought a crime was happening teehee whoops".

That "ridiculously high bar" is also known as reasonable doubt.

[Lynarii]

That "ridiculously high bar" is also known as reasonable doubt.

The thing is, the reasonable doubt isn't about whether or not she lied, it's known that she did. The reasonable doubt is only about whether it was intended maliciously, which is almost impossible to prove unless they wrote down a note detailing their plan ahead of time.

That's why she was acquitted on the first two but convicted on the third even though the actions were the same. On the first two, she could feign ignorance and heat of the moment. But on the third, since there was time between speaking with the police and with the investigator, they felt that they could adequately prove that she knew no such crime had occurred and still claimed that it had.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The thing is, the reasonable doubt isn't about whether or not she lied, it's known that she did. The reasonable doubt is only about whether it was intended maliciously, which is almost impossible to prove unless they wrote down a note detailing their plan ahead of time.

That's why she was acquitted on the first two but convicted on the third even though the actions were the same. On the first two, she could feign ignorance and heat of the moment. But on the third, since there was time between speaking with the police and with the investigator, they felt that they could adequately prove that she knew no such crime had occurred and still claimed that it had.

I'm just saying that the "ridiculously high bar" is the same as it is in any other situation... it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. It seems as though with the first two charges... the jury felt there could be another reasonable explanation for her actions. That's all it takes for an aquittal of any criminal charge...a reasonable alternative.

I don't know much about this situation at all...but from what I've read here I think this woman needs psychiatric help more than she needs prison.

[Endus]

The thing is, the reasonable doubt isn't about whether or not she lied, it's known that she did. The reasonable doubt is only about whether it was intended maliciously, which is almost impossible to prove unless they wrote down a note detailing their plan ahead of time.

That's why she was acquitted on the first two but convicted on the third even though the actions were the same. On the first two, she could feign ignorance and heat of the moment. But on the third, since there was time between speaking with the police and with the investigator, they felt that they could adequately prove that she knew no such crime had occurred and still claimed that it had.

It is about whether she lied.

What's known and demonstrable is that she was incorrect. For that to be a knowing lie, she'd have to know it was incorrect when she said it, and that's the much-harder bar to pass without actually having a direct confession or evidence of explicit statements of intent.

"Lying" carries that implication of malice. There's a whole wide range of people being legitimately mistaken or confused where their claims may be demonstrably incorrect, but there's no intentional misrepresentation behind it.

[Lynarii]

I'm just saying that the "ridiculously high bar" is the same as it is in any other situation... it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. It seems as though with the first two charges... the jury felt there could be another reasonable explanation for her actions. That's all it takes for an aquittal of any criminal charge...a reasonable alternative.

I don't know much about this situation at all...but from what I've read here I think this woman needs psychiatric help more than she needs prison.

It is a question of framing. People are framing her acquittal on the first two charges as saying that she didn't do anything wrong. That's not what it is is saying at all. Her doing the wrong is accepted as a matter of fact, she was acquitted on whether it was her intent to harm or not at that moment. And then convicted on the third later on where it was clear that she was acting maliciously.

I also don't buy the psychiatric help angle. Nothing she did suggests anything but good old fashioned grift. Before this whole thing happened, she was a minor Youtuber who talked about conspiracy theories including how liberals wanted to kidnap people's children. Then she falsely accuses someone of attempting to kidnap her children, immediately uploads it all to her Youtube channel, which explodes in view count over it, and she makes a bunch of money from the whole deal. That's evil and immoral, but not really insane.

- - - Updated - - -

It is about whether she lied.

What's known and demonstrable is that she was incorrect. For that to be a knowing lie, she'd have to know it was incorrect when she said it, and that's the much-harder bar to pass without actually having a direct confession or evidence of explicit statements of intent.

"Lying" carries that implication of malice. There's a whole wide range of people being legitimately mistaken or confused where their claims may be demonstrably incorrect, but there's no intentional misrepresentation behind it.

A bit of a semantical argument, since ultimately we're saying the same thing. The point being tested in the trials was not about whether or not what she said was true, but about whether or not what she said was intentionally malicious.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It is a question of framing. People are framing her acquittal on the first two charges as saying that she didn't do anything wrong. That's not what it is is saying at all. Her doing the wrong is accepted as a matter of fact, she was acquitted on whether it was her intent to harm or not at that moment. And then convicted on the third later on where it was clear that she was acting maliciously.

I also don't buy the psychiatric help angle. Nothing she did suggests anything but good old fashioned grift. Before this whole thing happened, she was a minor Youtuber who talked about conspiracy theories including how liberals wanted to kidnap people's children. Then she falsely accuses someone of attempting to kidnap her children, immediately uploads it all to her Youtube channel, which explodes in view count over it, and she makes a bunch of money from the whole deal. That's evil and immoral, but not really insane.

Again, I'm just saying that beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for all convictions. The bar for her wasn't any higher than it would be for anyone else on any other charge. Whatever the charges are, it is the prosecutor's job to prove that the only reasonable verdict to reach is guilty. In this case, the prosecution managed to prove it on one out of three charges.

This should not be taken as a defense of her actions... it's just the reality of how the justice system works.

The best thing would be for the wrongly accused parents to bring the woman to civil court...where the burden of proof is much lower. The conviction here, even if only on the one count, pretty much guarantees victory in a civil lawsuit.

I also don't buy the psychiatric help angle. Nothing she did suggests anything but good old fashioned grift. Before this whole thing happened, she was a minor Youtuber who talked about conspiracy theories including how liberals wanted to kidnap people's children. Then she falsely accuses someone of attempting to kidnap her children, immediately uploads it all to her Youtube channel, which explodes in view count over it, and she makes a bunch of money from the whole deal. That's evil and immoral, but not really insane.

Again, as I said before, I don't know much about this particular situation...but it is very often the case that people that get caught up in these kind of conspiracy theories need some kind of psychiatric help.

Once again, not a defense of her actions...nor am I saying that she should not be held responsible for her actions. I think most of these QANON people need psychiatric help. Anyone that seriously believes that JFK jr is going to rise from the dead to lead an army to the White House to re-instate Donald J. Trump as President and Emporer for life has an elevator that isn't going to the top.

[Lynarii]

Again, I'm just saying that beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for all convictions. The bar for her wasn't any higher than it would be for anyone else on any other charge. Whatever the charges are, it is the prosecutor's job to prove that the only reasonable verdict to reach is guilty. In this case, the prosecution managed to prove it on one out of three charges.

This should not be taken as a defense of her actions... it's just the reality of how the justice system works.

I think you're somewhat muddying the water on this one. Nobody is arguing that the high bar is unreasonable or unfairly applied. What is being said is that proving malicious intent in a scenario such as that is an inherently difficult thing to do. This is because, lacking something silly like the person writing down plans to make a false accusation, it requires getting into the mind of the accuser... something it is generally trivially easy to create reasonable doubt on. Therefore, the fact that they were successfully able to prove it in even 1 out of 3 charges is pretty significant. Far more significant than the fact that they could not in the other two.

It came up because someone was trying to use the fact that 2 of the charges did not result in convictions as a defense. It is not as simple as saying 2 > 1 therefore she shouldn't get jail time.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I think you're somewhat muddying the water on this one. Nobody is arguing that the high bar is unreasonable or unfairly applied. What is being said is that proving malicious intent in a scenario such as that is an inherently difficult thing to do. This is because, lacking something silly like the person writing down plans to make a false accusation, it requires getting into the mind of the accuser... something it is generally trivially easy to create reasonable doubt on. Therefore, the fact that they were successfully able to prove it in even 1 out of 3 charges is pretty significant. Far more significant than the fact that they could not in the other two.

It came up because someone was trying to use the fact that 2 of the charges did not result in convictions as a defense. It is not as simple as saying 2 > 1 therefore she shouldn't get jail time.

I'm not muddying the water at all. The person I quoted said "ridiculously high bar to prove". Beyond reasonable doubt is not a "ridiculously high bar".

You say no one is saying that the standard is unreasonable..well to that I present to you the meaning of the word "ridiculous":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...20preposterous

: arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : ABSURD, PREPOSTEROUS

All I've been saying is that the bar is not "ridiculously high"... it needs to be that high... or you start seeing a metric fuck ton people getting convicted based on "well, we think they were probably being malicious"

[s_bushido]

It came up because someone was trying to use the fact that 2 of the charges did not result in convictions as a defense. It is not as simple as saying 2 > 1 therefore she shouldn't get jail time.

And that's not what I said, either. The OP made the laughable claim that "the lying bitch" should be in jail for 6 years, not facing 6 months. And yet they couldn't even substantiate the majority of the charges against her.

[Masark]

So...why was "they lying bitch" acquitted on the first two charges if you think she's deserving of 6 years in prison?

Because American courts are shit at holding racists to account?

You can barely manage to occasionally imprison outright lynchers, much less people attempting to lynch under colour of law.

[Canpinter]

These kind of cases are why I can't wait for fmri lie detection to advance.

[The Stormbringer]

These kind of cases are why I can't wait for fmri lie detection to advance.

And if she thought she was telling the truth? Some of these people allow their bigotry or ignorance to blind them. They hear about all the human trafficking and other badness going on, and they assume horrible things are going on everywhere.

Of course, it could also be that she just saw a suspicious moment and decided to use that to enact some "justice", not really thinking anything was going on, but hoping she could punish "those people" for their wicked ways, somehow.

[Canpinter]

And if she thought she was telling the truth? Some of these people allow their bigotry or ignorance to blind them. They hear about all the human trafficking and other badness going on, and they assume horrible things are going on everywhere.

Of course, it could also be that she just saw a suspicious moment and decided to use that to enact some "justice", not really thinking anything was going on, but hoping she could punish "those people" for their wicked ways, somehow.

If she legitimately believes she's was telling the truth at the time then she should be not found not guilty of any charge requiring malice.

Im just reasonably confident technology like FMRI lie detection will become reliable enough to be used to establish intent in a lot of cases where we can't do so yet.

[rayvio]

the sentence for a provably false report (ie: can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have knowingly and willingly made a false accusation) should have the same minimum as the sentence of the crime they accused somebody of
you tried to have that happen to them, it's the least that should happen to you