Just stop! This is my message for those posting comments blaming Sandra Birchmore for other sexual encounters besides Matthew Farwell. Someone commented on a Facebook post recently about Sandra Birchmore: “She’s no angel! What was done to her was wrong, but she knew what she was doing as she got older.” That statement and others like it reflect a profound misunderstanding of grooming and childhood sexual exploitation. As I explained on @JusticeServedTV Sandra's sexual encounters with other men cannot be separated from the grooming that began when she was just 12 years old. Grooming is not simply about obtaining sex from a child. It is about systematically dismantling that child's understanding of love, trust, boundaries, and relationships. Farwell exploited Sandra's vulnerabilities and her admiration for police officers. Through years of relentless manipulation, he conditioned her to associate sexual availability with affection, acceptance, and approval. This is the reason groomers like Farwell can continue to sexually exploit victims into adulthood and leave them vulnerable to exploitation by others. That conditioning did not disappear when Sandra turned 18. A birthday does not erase years of psychological manipulation. What some characterize as promiscuity, actually reflects the lasting consequences of childhood sexual exploitation. Sandra's adult behavior must be understood in the context of what was done to her as a child. As a Juvenile Court judge for more than two decades, I saw firsthand how grooming and sexual trauma can distort a young person's understanding of relationships and personal boundaries. Stop judging and blaming Sandra for behaviors shaped by years of grooming that distorted her understanding of personal boundaries and left her vulnerable to continued sexual exploitation. Just stop.

CLANCY CASE: AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CHALLENGE On October 6, Judge Sullivan effectively granted the relief sought by the defense in their motion at the September 29 hearing by amending his prior impoundment orders. Juror notes, the court's responses, and sidebar discussions surrounding the mistrial may now be disclosed, with juror-identifying information redacted. This is an important first step in the defense's challenge to whether the mistrial was declared without manifest necessity. These records may reveal what the court knew, what alternatives were considered, and why the mistrial was declared. In my analysis of this particular issue on The Justice File just two days ago, I explained the constitutional issues surrounding the impoundment orders and identified this likely outcome writing: "One possible middle ground would therefore be a partial grant: disclosure of appropriately redacted material necessary to litigate the constitutional issues while maintaining the impoundment of juror identities and unrelated deliberative material." The court has now taken that approach. Read my full legal analysis from October 5 and why this matters to the defense's double jeopardy claim as well as issues related to the juror questionnaire and alleged cell phone use here: thejusticefile.com/2026/10/0…