Ventura Sheriff’s Office Faulted in Woman’s Death

The handling of spousal abuse complaints from a Moorpark woman whose husband beat her to death typifies the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department’s uneven approach to domestic violence calls, a leading group for battered women charged Monday.

“What I have seen, frankly, is a lot of inconsistency in the Sheriff’s Department,” said Jeri Gray-Reneberg of the Coalition Against Household Violence, a Ventura County group that offers counseling and shelter to battered women and their children. “Sometimes they follow through on calls, and sometimes they don’t.”

JoAnn Linkenauger, 40, was beaten and strangled Jan. 17. Her battered and half-naked body was found the next day in a muddy ravine in the Ventura County community of Somis.

Her husband of three years, James M. Linkenauger, was convicted of the murder and sentenced two weeks ago to 25 years to life in prison.

A transcript of a call to 911 by a neighbor the night JoAnn Linkenauger was murdered shows that the Spanish-speaking neighbor’s call was misinterpreted by a translator.

The neighbor reported to the translator that “there’s a man on the ground dragging a woman” and that “the woman is screaming . . . a lot.”

Instead of conveying exactly what the neighbor had reported, the transcript shows that the translator incorrectly gave the dispatcher this account: “Male subject is, ah, pushing a woman and, ah, she’s screaming.”

The translator and dispatcher also failed to give the deputy who responded to the neighbor’s call the location of the incident, according to a report by the Ventura County Probation Department. Even though a caller’s telephone number and address appear on the 911 screen when emergency calls are made, the report said “the dispatcher was unable to provide an exact location of where the call originated.”

The report said the deputy cruised the area, looking for a victim or sounds indicating a disturbance, but was unable to find either and eventually left the neighborhood.

Sheriff’s officials said they are investigating the alleged 911 foul-up, which prosecutors first brought out during James Linkenauger’s trial. Last week, sheriff’s commanders acknowledged that they are investigating the conduct of their employees in the Linkenauger case.

Undersheriff Richard S. Bryce said criticism of the department as insensitive in its handling of domestic violence complaints is unwarranted.

“I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any statistics that we are any less sensitive to domestic violence” than any other department, Bryce said.

He acknowledged that there seem to be “some unique circumstances in this case.”

“If we made a mistake in this instance, one or more errors, we will deal with them,” Bryce said. “And we will deal with them appropriately.”

A pre-sentencing report prepared by the Ventura County Probation Department criticized the Sheriff’s Department’s handling of previous complaints JoAnn Linkenauger made against her husband. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles W. Campbell, who sentenced Linkenauger, also criticized the Sheriff’s Department and the criminal justice system as a whole for failing to heed the woman’s pleas for help.

Bryce, though, said it was the Probation Department that allowed James Linkenauger to complete a diversion program after beating his wife in 1990, even though he continued to assault her while in the program.

“I’m not on a witch hunt,” Bryce said. “I’m just a little sensitive when other agencies are taking pokes at us when they are at least as culpable as we might be.”

In one instance, on Oct. 15, 1991, JoAnn Linkenauger called the Sheriff’s Department and reported that her husband had tried to strangle her and had punched her in the face three times. Despite a cut on the woman’s lip, Sheriff’s Lt. Steve Giles decided not to arrest James Linkenauger, the probation report said.

Even though that incident occurred 14 months before her death, the report suggested that it was one of several instances in which the Sheriff’s Department could have helped JoAnn Linkenauger but did not. Giles has not returned phone calls seeking comment.

“I can say that Lt. Giles is a very highly trained professional,” Bryce said. “He makes good decisions. He’s a top manager in the department.”

Bryce would not confirm which deputies are under investigation but said of the probe: “From what I’ve seen so far from the investigation, I don’t anticipate that there is some substantial or gross error or negligence on anyone’s part.”