Judge William Skretny Told Oertelt She Took Advantage of a Helpless Person “With Impunity”
A health care worker in Western New York who took advantage of an 87-year old blind man claimed she committed crimes to feed a gambling habit. The judge in the case did not appear to trust the woman’s story, citing other expenditures she made with the cash she pilfered.
Kathy Oertelt, a 32-year old health care provider in the town of Tonawanda, New York was sentenced on Wednesday to 18 months in prison. Mrs. Oertelt was convicted of stealing $75,333 from the man for whom she provided healthcare. The man authorized Oertelt to write checks on his behalf, but she put a signature stamp on 32 checks written to herself.
Judge Skretny Shows Leniency
U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny castigated Kathy Oertelt during the sentencing phase of the trial. He told the defendant, “I could throw the book at you. You have a helpless victim and, with impunity, you took advantage of that person.”
Despite his critical words, Judge Skretny gave less than the maximum sentence, which would have been 27 months. Skretny did not elaborate on whether he gave her a lighter sentence because of her compulsive gambling history, her years of service in the health care profession, or her family considerations in raising four children.
Lupiani Provided a Doctor’s Note
Oertelt’s attorney, Scott M. Lupiani, had argued that the judge should be lenient in the case, due to Oertelt’s history of gambling addiction. Lupiani produced a doctor’s letter which documented her struggles with problem gambling, which also was highlighted by the defendant in her statement.
Kathy Oertelt told the court, “I stole money from the victim and then gambled it away. Not a day goes by that I’m not sorry.”
MaryEllen Kresse Remembered the Victim
Assistant U.S. Attorney MaryEllen Kresse, who tried the case for the federal government, reminded the judge that the victim would receive no early recompense in the case. Even though Kathey Oertelt was ordered to pay back the $75,333 to the victim’s family, repayment is likely to take many years, given her 18-month prison sentence and the damage the conviction is likely to do to her career in the health field.
While choosing to focus on the tragedy of the victim and not the perpetrator of the crime, MaryEllen Kresse told Oertelt, “Nothing can repay or fix what was done to the victim.”
Gambling Addiction or Not?
Questions still remain whether Kathy Oertelt’s crimes were motivate by gambling addiction or not. Judge Skretny noted that the defendant bought a car and a motorcycle with the money she stole. Assuming these were new vehicles, that would account for a large proportion of the money stolen.
That leads one to believe the judge’s leniency had more to do with putting a mother of four in prison for a long period of time. The federal “good conduct time” policy allows a person to get a reduction of 54 days off a sentence for every 365 served (87% of time served), so Kathy Oertelt is unlikely to serve the full 18-month sentence.
Is Addiction an Excuse?
Gambling addiction is no excuse for a crime, of course. It might explain what happened, but does not excuse what happened. Desperation sometimes causes good people to do bad things. Still, many people would argue that taking advantage of an 87-year old blind person is crossing some kind of a moral event horizon.
That is, a lack of empathy for another human being seems to play a role in the crime. Perhaps she performed her duties as a health care worker perfectly well, while believing the elderly man would not miss the money. Whatever the truth may be, the gambling media covers theft-for-gambling addiction stories from time to time. Often, problem gambling is seen as the problem, as if innocent people commit crimes because of their gambling debts. While that no doubt is the case in certain instances, some cases might be better explained as old-fashioned sociopathic behavior. In those cases, compulsive gambling is just an excuse.
Kathy Oertelt will pay for her crimes, as well she should. Hopefully, she regrets what she has done and she finds a way to turn around her life, both for herself and her children. Given her young age, Oertelt’s children are still minors. For that reason, William Skretny’s lighter sentence is probably warranted.
