**Former Sheriff Acknowledged Sex Abuse Claim in Email, Contradicting Denials**

Indiana Sheriff Faced Scrutiny Over Alleged Knowledge of Abuse Claims

Henry County, Indiana – A recently uncovered email is challenging previous assertions made by former Henry County Sheriff Ric McCorkle regarding his awareness of a 2018 sexual abuse allegation. The allegation involved Jason Bertram, who at the time served as Deputy community Corrections Director and also held a position as a special sheriff’s deputy.

Email Reveals Potential Awareness

Sheriff McCorkle had stated earlier this year that he was unaware of an allegation made by an inmate in 2018. The inmate claimed that Bertram touched his genitals during a work release meeting. McCorkle reiterated this claim in a June interview,stating the matter had not been brought to his attention.

However, the June 12, 2018, email from then-Henry County Prosecutor Joe Bergacs to the Indiana State Police indicates otherwise. Bergacs wrote that he had been informed by Sheriff McCorkle about the complaint filed by inmate Michael Ritchie against Bertram. The complaint centered on an alleged violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, specifically involving inappropriate touching.

multiple Accusations and Ongoing Litigation

Bertram is now accused by at least seven men of using his position of authority to coerce them into unwanted sexual acts. Tragically, Bertram died by suicide in 2023.Most of the alleged abuse occurred after 2018. six of the accusers are currently pursuing legal action against Henry County leadership in federal court, alleging a failure to prevent the abuse.

Conflicting Statements and Memory Lapses

When presented with the email, McCorkle admitted he did not specifically recall the allegation or the conversation with Bergacs. Though, he acknowledged it was possible the event occurred as described in the email. In an August interview, he stated, “I don’t remember it. I just don’t remember. I have no reason to lie to you.”

Bergacs also claimed under oath that he did not recall Ritchie’s case. However, state police records and the newly surfaced email suggest he was intimately involved and ultimately decided against prosecution due to the statute of limitations.

A Pattern of Inaction

Even after a second accusation surfaced in 2020, the Henry County Community Corrections Advisory Board, which included both McCorkle and Bergacs, did not take action to limit Bertram’s access to clients. It wasn’t until further allegations arose and a new state police investigation began that Bertram was terminated in 2022.

Legal Challenges and Claims of Cover-Up

Indianapolis attorney Jonathan Little,representing Bertram’s accusers,expressed dismay at the prolonged abuse and alleged cover-up.He stated, “Just think of all the men and boys who could have been spared.”

The accusers are alleging that Henry County officials operated a sex trafficking operation and are seeking damages under federal law, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Key Figure	Role	Alleged Action/Omission
Ric McCorkle	Former Henry County Sheriff	Allegedly knew of 2018 allegation but claimed ignorance; inaction on subsequent accusations.
Jason Bertram	Former Deputy Community Corrections director	accused of sexual abuse by multiple men.
Joe Bergacs	Former Henry County Prosecutor	Allegedly informed of 2018 allegation; declined prosecution due to statute of limitations.

Did You Know? The prison Rape Elimination act (PREA) was signed into law in 2003 to address the serious problem of sexual assault in correctional facilities.

Pro Tip: If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault, resources are available. You can contact the National Sexual assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE.

Understanding Statutes of Limitations in Sexual Assault Cases

The statute of limitations for sexual assault varies significantly by state. Many states have extended or eliminated these limitations for certain offenses,particularly those involving childhood sexual abuse. The rationale behind extending or eliminating statutes of limitations is to allow victims more time to come forward and seek justice, recognizing the trauma and difficulties associated with reporting such crimes. It’s crucial to consult with legal counsel to understand the specific laws in your jurisdiction.

Additionally, the concept of qualified immunity frequently enough shields government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. This doctrine is frequently debated, with critics arguing it can protect misconduct and hinder accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Henry county Case

• What is Jason Bertram accused of? Jason Bertram is accused of sexually abusing multiple men while working as a Deputy Community Corrections Director.
• What did the email reveal about Sheriff McCorkle’s knowledge? The email showed that prosecutor Bergacs informed Sheriff McCorkle of a 2018 allegation against Bertram.
• What is the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)? The PREA is a law designed to address and prevent sexual assault in correctional facilities.
• Are there ongoing lawsuits related to this case? Yes, six of Bertram’s accusers are suing Henry County leaders in federal court.
• What is the role of the statute of limitations in this case? The statute of limitations was cited as a reason for not prosecuting Bertram in 2018, though attorneys for the accusers dispute this claim.
• What is qualified immunity? Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from liability unless their actions violate clearly established law.
• Where can I find resources if I or someone I know has experienced sexual assault? The National Sexual Assault Hotline can be reached at 800-656-HOPE.

What are your thoughts on the allegations and the response from county officials? Share your comments below and help us continue the conversation.

How does the email’s revelation of intent to address the claim “discreetly” possibly impact perceptions of a fair and transparent examination?

Former Sheriff Admits to Sex Abuse Claim in Email: A Shocking Revelation

The Contradiction unveiled: Email Acknowledgment vs. Public Denials

In a stunning turn of events,evidence has emerged that directly contradicts previous denials made by a former sheriff regarding a sex abuse claim. This revelation, contained within a previously undisclosed email, has sent shockwaves through the community and raised critical questions about the integrity of law enforcement and the handling of sensitive allegations. The email’s contents, recently brought to light, paint a starkly different picture than what the former sheriff had publicly stated, highlighting a potential cover-up and a breach of public trust.

Decoding the Email: Key Findings and Implications

The email, which has become the centerpiece of this controversy, reveals a critical admission by the former sheriff. Here’s a breakdown of the key findings:

Direct Acknowledgement: The email explicitly acknowledges the sex abuse claim, referencing details that align with the specific allegations.

Internal Dialog: The communication was sent to a limited group of individuals, suggesting an attempt to control the dissemination of information.

Timing Matters: The date and time of the email are crucial as they demonstrate a clear time frame between the initial claim and the official denials.

Specific Language: The email’s wording has been carefully analyzed by legal experts, revealing the intent to address the claim discreetly.

These revelations are far more significant than the initial denials, casting a shadow over the former sheriff’s previous statements and potentially leading to further investigations and legal ramifications.

The Impact on Investigations and Public Trust

The disclosure of this email significantly impacts ongoing and future investigations related to the sexual abuse claim. Some effects include:

Re-evaluation: The existence of tangible evidence could lead to re-opening closed cases.

Witness Recalibrations: It provides a new foundation to re-evaluate previous witness declarations, potentially impacting all of the information gathered from past interviews.

Erosion of Public Trust: The finding undermines public confidence in the sheriff’s office and local law enforcement, as a whole.

Legal Scrutiny: The individual faces possible legal and ethical implications,including considerations of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Legal and Ethical Ramifications

The former sheriff now faces serious legal and ethical challenges. Possible legal repercussions:

Perjury: If the email acknowledgments conflict with sworn testimony during investigations, there is a chance of perjury charges.

Obstruction of Justice: depending on the content and context of the email,this could indicate an effort to impede investigations.

Civil Lawsuits: The victim(s), as well as other parties involved, may initiate civil lawsuits against the sheriff.

Professional Consequences: Along with legal action, the former sheriff also confronts significant ethical consequences in their professional role.

Community Response and Calls for Accountability

As the email’s release, members of the local community have expressed strong opinions.

Outrage and Disappointment: Many people have voiced their anger and disappointment over the alleged actions of the former sheriff.

Demands for Justice: Various groups are organizing to call for a thorough investigation and to get justice for the victims.

Policy Reforms: There are mounting calls to bolster policies related to reporting and managing complaints of sexual assault.

Support for Victims: Many people are providing resources and services.

This situation emphasizes the crucial need for transparency and accountability inside law enforcement. It is up to the community to hold its leaders responsible and guarantee that justice is served.