Hill Case Demands Scrutiny, Answers

By the time Erica Hill’s letter landed on the desks of political potentates, two disturbing possibilities existed.

She’s a deeply troubled woman bent on character assassination.

Or we have a two-term sheriff unfit for office.

If it’s the former, we shake our heads and hope Ms. Hill gets herself some help.

If it’s the latter, things are spookier in the real O.C. than anything the TV series can produce.

Hill joins a long list of women out to bring down powerful men with allegations of improper sexual liaisons or outright crimes. That these can be among the most difficult of allegations to prove isn’t lost on Hill, who spared little in her incendiary letter to the Board of Supervisors, the state attorney general and the county’s two members of Congress.

The last eight years have yielded a spate of various-sized scandals or controversies in the county’s sheriff’s and district attorney’s offices. Even for inherently political offices, the two administrations have outdone themselves; the attorney general’s office has spent an inordinate amount of time on Orange County matters in recent years.

However, this is the first time something as personally explosive as sexual misconduct has been laid at the sheriff’s doorstep.

Unlike Gov. Schwarzenegger, for example, whose showbiz background and bon vivant demeanor made similar allegations less shocking, Carona has built his reputation as a God-fearing straight arrow who wears the uniform well.

So when Hill referred to him in her letter as a “perverse individual,” and an “extremely dangerous man” and one who “hides his wickedness,” you quickly conclude that either Hill or Carona are not what they seem.

Don’t even try to read between the lines, because I have no idea what’s at play here. And as you may already know, there is layer upon layer of subtext and possible intrigue.

Hill is the sister-in-law of George Jaramillo, once Carona’s close friend and No. 2 man in the department, until Carona fired him in 2004. Jaramillo faces trial on corruption charges, and it would be naive not to wonder aloud if Hill is trying to tarnish Carona as vengeance for her brother in law. As if the matter needed further complication, released grand jury testimony revealed that Hill and Jaramillo had what she called “an inappropriate relationship” in the past.

But in a sweet irony, prosecutors frequently say that people bringing accusations aren’t always squeaky clean. In addition, the history of powerful men and the women who accuse them suggests that we not reflexively dismiss Hill’s allegations.

Hill’s letter to the supervisors quickly found its way to the county counsel, who informed them this isn’t their business. I reached three of the five supes Friday, and all seemed relieved about that. The consensus seemed to be that the attorney general should handle things.

But that is not a done deal. The A.G.’s spokesman says its office needs more than broad allegations from Hill before even deciding whether to investigate. Meanwhile, the office is awaiting a formal request from Carona that it investigate Hill’s claims.

If you now have a migraine trying to figure all the possible angles, I feel your pain.

To recap: Hill asked the supervisors for help because she fears retaliation from Carona and Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas. The board gladly handed the hot potato to its lawyer, who said it’s not in their job description. Carona asked the attorney general to investigate, but that office isn’t sure if it will or won’t until it sees particulars.

It’s unclear to me how this will unfold or who will do the unfolding. If Hill is a crackpot, she’s willing to risk public scrutiny. If Carona is a masher, asking the attorney general to investigate is pretty brazen.

I want the truth, so much so that I’ve polished an old chestnut: What will we know and when will we know it?

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana

.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.