Attorney: Pediatrician charged with window-peeping will fight charge
Previous story: Ann Arbor pediatrician accused of window peeping takes leave of absence
An Ann Arbor pediatrician accused of window peeping and watching a 12-year-old girl change her clothing on four occasions intends to vigorously defend against the charges, his attorney wrote in an email to AnnArbor.com on Tuesday.
Attorney Larry Margolis, who is representing Dr. Howard Bruce Weinblatt, disputed an initial report by Ann Arbor police that Weinblatt went to a neighbor's home on Olivia Avenue and looked through a window. Weinblatt is charged with four counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two counts of window peeping.
"The allegations of the complaint are limited to the claim that he was looking out the window of his own home," Margolis wrote. "No one has ever made the claim that Dr. Weinblatt has done anything outside the privacy of his own personal residence."
Ann Arbor police Lt. Mark St. Amour declined to comment on what Margolis said.
St. Amour said at least one of the girl's parents witnessed Weinblatt window peeping and watching the girl change her clothing on four occasions between Oct. 18 and Oct. 31.
Police arrested Weinblatt early last Tuesday morning as they executed a search warrant at his home on Olivia Avenue.
St. Amour said a computer was seized, but declined to specify why. A forensic examination of the computer has not yet been completed, he said.
Weinblatt, who is married, has worked for years at IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor. He requested a leave of absence from work and it was granted, the company said in a statement Tuesday.
Weinblatt has been licensed to practice medicine in the state for more than 34 years and can continue to practice because no disciplinary action has been taken against his license, state licensing officials said Tuesday.
Margolis wrote that Weinblatt has an "unblemished record and a distinguished medical career."
Weinblatt, who is out on a promise to appear, is scheduled to return to court Wednesday afternoon for a preliminary hearing. At that hearing, prosecutors must show there is probable cause a crime was committed and that Weinblatt committed it.
Surveilling an unclothed person is a felony punishable upon conviction by up to two years in prison.
Comments
juju10junk
Tue, Dec 6, 2011 : 2:01 a.m.
I support Dr. Weinblatt.
annarbor28
Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:19 p.m.
Regardless of what happens with these charges, any parents that allow a 12 year old to undress in front of an uncovered window, esp when they think someone is watching the child, need to be investigated. It is very easy to cover windows, you can even tack up a sheet! But to knowingly put a child on display unclothing is really something that Protective Services needs to know about. It is certainly as bad as mistakenly giving Mike's Hard Lemonade. I assume that aa.com will remove this comment, since they consider parents who display a child to be victims. What will they do next with the child? Read Nicolas Kristoff for examples of what can happen.
Jack
Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 5:27 a.m.
Why is this story so poorly research that all of the above speculations are being made? Why doesn't annarbor.com explain any discrepancies between this article and the one it previously wrote. Were the errors created by annarbor.com? (I have seen both the A2 News and annarbor.com completely muddle facts.) Or were they really given an inaccurate quote? What exactly are the charges and were charges dropped? What charges were dropped? Why were they dropped? Why is this so terribly poorly reported?!!
Jim
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.
Why do you keep removing comments that are valid complaints on how you are handling this story?
Jim
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
You writing this article and the information it contains is potentially damaging to the 12-year-old victim (or alleged victim).
Jim
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 8:17 p.m.
OK, I will try it again: (If the following message is deleted, then I think we have a problem)
Tony Dearing
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
Our readers are welcome to challenge us and criticize us. Many comments critical of us on this story and previous stories continued to be published. Where comments have been removed, the most frequent reason is because of attacks on the family that reported this incident. Such attacks are a violation of our commenting guidelines.
BhavanaJagat
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
MAN IS A MORAL BEING : Thank you Phyllis M for your reply to my comment on speculation. The Law says that man is innocent until proven guilty. That is the basic presumption of Law. However, I derive my understanding of man from what I learned about man as a biological species. I describe man as a physical, mental, social, moral, and spiritual being. Because of my assumption of man being a moral being, I read this story to understand if there is a moral failing. In medical practice, problems are clinically diagnosed using the complaints and history provided by the patient, and by finding the signs and symptoms that are related to the complaint. The fact that an incident was reported to the Police displays the moral concerns of an adult. If we lack the ability called moral discernment, we will not know the problem of transgression. It is proper to investigate the incident and obtain evidence as needed to understand the incident. The probable cause in this matter relates to man's nature and ability to know right from wrong; and good from evil.
RM
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 2:04 a.m.
I haven't read anything so far that proves to me the Doctor did or did not do something unlawful. I do however have a greater understanding of how the former assistant coach at Penn State, Sandusky, may have gotten away with multiple counts of alleged child rape/abuse. As I read these comments from people who, like me, have no idea whether the Doctor committed any crime or not, I am struck by the number of people who are confident he did nothing wrong. He may not have, I certainly hope he did not do what he's been accused of doing. But insisting he did not do anything wrong without knowing the facts just because you find it hard to believe he would do the crimes alleged in the news may very well have been the response of all those people who believed Sandusky was a stand-up guy. All I'm saying is keep an open mind. Wait and hear the evidence.
say it plain
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
and also @RM, while we're considering the Sandusky case, one can consider that authorities should tend to want to charge someone with the fullest, "deepest offense"count they possibly can use for prosecution, right? But here apparently, unless new charges appear, they have 4 counts of looking into his neighbor's window. All the trying him in the court of public opinion would of course be countered by others who liked him quite well. There are physicians *other than this one* whom I have had seen by my child or myself whose style I didn't really care for. Indeed, some whom I found a little creepy even, awkward. I changed physicians. But I never had any reason to believe that I should worry about the integrity of the ones whose styles I didn't love. Sometimes, and so far it feels like this is one of those times, keeping an open mind means allowing a lot of nastiness to pour in and muddy everything. We can only wait and see and hope that someone who was in a position of trust in the community did not violate that trust. But how awful too for him and really for his accusers too, and for the community at large if this was based on rumor, mistrust, misunderstanding--there, the analogy to witch-hunts seems apt!
say it plain
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
I'd agree with you @RM on the analogy to Sandusky if the accusation were something more like "horseplay in a shower". And I don't mean to defend the idea that people would categorically disbelieve that someone is capable of something awful just because they also were capable of something good. It's just that this particular set of accusations --thus far anyway!-- look relatively questionable as an indication of criminal activity or intent. I agree that it is worrisome that the authorities saw fit to seize a computer. I would hope that authorities only do that with well established probable cause. But I also know that this isn't always the case, not by a loooong shot. So, we all have to wait and see...
Phyllis McDermott
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.
yes, of course, RM, we will wait and see the evidence. But go to the most extreme scenario here....the girl was undressing in front of an open window along with one of her parents, and the Dr happened to be looking out his own window in his own home and saw her and her parent. In your view, has a crime been committed?
BhavanaJagat
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.
WINDOW-PEEPING vs SURVEILLANCE : I like speculation which describes the act of thinking about various aspects of a given subject. Here, the concern is not about the age, qualification, and social status of the individual who is charged by the Police. I think about various aspects of this act that is reported as "window-peeping" and the individual is charged for what has been stated as "surveillance". Window-peeping demands getting close to the window and the culprit often leaves fingeprints on the window. Secondly, the culprit often leaves his footprint or impressions just outside the window. Such objective evidence is essential to prove or to substantiate subjective findings and reports by eyewitness. Surveillance involves observing objects from a safe distance and it involves the use of special gadgets to record the observations, and the observer often devises methods to conceal the fact of surveillance. The observer may stand behind a bush, or drapes, or curtains to make the secretive observations. The act called voyeurism describes the actions of a person who is sexually gratified by viewing another person who is disrobing. If window-peeping, or surveillance is intented for purposes of deriving sexual gratification, the culprit would most possibly obtain photo images to satisfy his sex cravings, or the culprit could be habituated to viewing such images of persons in the acts of disrobing. Very often, people upload these photo images using an electronic device like computer and it is very reasonable to speculate that the computer that has been seized at the residence would give us clues about the motivation of these acts which are under scrutiny now. The behavior of the parents and the child are not the subjects of my speculation. I would only speculate upon the intentions of the person as supported by the process called discovery in crime investigation.
Phyllis McDermott
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
good points Bhavana....however how, simply based on an eye-witness account of the parents who claim the Dr was looking out his own window at a time while their daughter is changing, would you justify the the police obtaining a search warrant to search his home and his computers for possible evidence of digital images of the child undressing? Understandable if he was found lurking in the bushes right outside the window with a hand held camera or video recorder, that you would then arrest him and obtain a search warrant to search his home and examine his computers for evidence, because there would be probable cause. Where is that in this case, in your view?
Roadman
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
The law in question that the defendant was charged under only took effect on September 1, 2004 as an amendment to state eavesdropping statutes. There have been a number of Court of Appeals cases that began coming down staring in 2007 regarding MCL 750.539j, the law at issue, but those cases involved not "surveilling" but a related subsection of taking photos of victims. Obviously taking photos leaves a evidence trail and I believe that is likely why police may have executed a search warrant here to find hard proof. There is a Muskegon County case where a plea-based conviction occurred where a photo was taken of an undressed child through an unshaded window, so it appears the violation "reasonable expectation of (the victim's) privacy" requirement of the law could be argued to be satisfied even where the window is open to the public view.
Roadman
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 1:26 a.m.
The text of the relevant subsection: (1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Meral
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.
You the AA.com put out this story and yet you have blocked many many comments. What do you base your ultimate decision. You are so amateur in AA.com even a fifth grades can do better then you. If there is something called THE FREEDOM OF PRESS you should have no problem with all the comments.
nicole
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
You say you took off comments that blame the victim. What victim? We don't know that a crime was committed. So there is no victim. In fact, if this turns out to be a bogus claim, it will the the doctor that is the victim.
Hunybee3
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:36 p.m.
I have read the article, and others. Plain as day it states, he was arrested as they executed a search warrant, not AFTER they searched his home. It also says the parents observed him on 4 occasions, not the child. Innocent till proven guilty. He's been my kids Dr. For 23 yrs, and I will continue to see him and trust his judgement. I have never nor have my kids ever felt uncomfortable with him doing his job. From what I read, it just really don't add up. My opinion is.... I think this is a misunderstanding, or a little conclusion jumping.
A2centsworth
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.
I think we have to first slap the hand of the author of the first article. No where in the first article did the author acknowledge that Dr. Weinblatt was in his OWN home on all four of these alleged occassions. Now in the second article it states that the parents of this child were the witnesses on all 4 alleged occassions. This makes no sense to me. After the first time they witnessed this, what kind of parent would not tell their 12 year old daughter it is not appropriate to dress in front of the opened window? What about curtains? If they are living next door to Dr. Weinblatt we can assume it is in a neighborhood where people can afford curtains. Another point would be why were the parents standing around looking out there window into Dr. Weinblatt's home in the first place. this whole accusation looks sketchy at best. This appears to be a set up. Disgruntle neighbors trying to make a buck, and a news reporter who sensationalized the story for their own gain. Shame on them both!!! Lee Higgins you lost all credibility with me! Go back to writing stories about dog shows.
BhavanaJagat
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.
THE FISH IS NOT OUT OF THE BAG : I am concerned about AnnArbor.com comment moderation policy that prohibits speculation. In my opinion, speculation is a valid method to acquire knowledge. Scientific knowledge is verified by observation and experimentation; empirical knowledge is based on sense experience. Knowledge is also intuitive and could be obtained by applying speculative reasoning. An adult or unknown or unnamed parent has intuitive knowledge about the nature of an incident and has reported it to the Police. The Police had conducted an investigation and obtained sufficient knowledge to formally charge a person. A search warrant was duly authorized by using the process of speculative reasoning to understand the data obtained by Police investigation. It is not about subjective impressions of the child or adult who had reported. There is objective evidence that indicates that the bag smells and may have a fish in that. I am not impressed by the statement issued by this attorney who is defending this case. I would have shown some appreciation if the attorney has provided some knowledge about the incident and has given us the reason to speculate about the innocent nature of an alleged act. If there is no fish in the bag, we still need to uncover the bag to know the reason for that smell. This story is not about Pediatrics and standards of Pediatric Care.
Hunybee3
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.
Is it possible that the smell comes from a misunderstood moment? A man looks out his window of his home and is accused of looking in a window? History is full of moments, and false accusations! Witches burnt at the stake and hung for crimes that were never real!
newold
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
It saddens me that there have been so many knee-jerk responses to this "news." There is simply insufficient information to make a judgement at this point. Dr. Weinblatt has cared for my daughter when her pediatrician was out sick. He was very good and, in my judgment, trustworthy. What we must remember, though, is that history and reason dictate a necessity to imagine the best among us being capable of doing "impossible" things. Anything is possible. It is not surprising that a disparity exists between what the accuser and accused have said. We will simply have to wait to discover the truth.
Angel Rowlands
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
Dr.Weinblatt has been my kids pediatrician for 23 yrs. 2 boys 2 girls. Not once have I felt like he did anything inappropriate, and my kids have NEVER felt uncomfortable talking to him! I think people have already made their decision on his guilt! A man who has seen countless children, boys and girls undressed, picks a neighbor to watch? Makes zero sense! A highly intelligent man would surely make a better choice then that with all that he has axcess too! I would still bring my kids to him, and I wouldn't hesitate to discuss my daughters issues and allow him to do his job. Sad that we have such a great judicial system that is being undermined. Innocent till proven guilty!
kilroy
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.
If Dr. Weinblatt was in his own home and looking through his window into the uncovered window of the house next door, without the aid of binoculars, then there was no crime whatsoever. How in the world can such activity, if true, cause the police lieutenant to make the statement quoted below to the press? "Ann Arbor police Lt. Mark St. Amour said Weinblatt went to the girl's home near Burns Park Elementary School on four occasions between Oct. 18 and Oct. 31 and looked through a window, watching as she changed her clothing." If Dr. Weinblatt is correct, and the police knew that then Lt. Mark St. Amour should be terminated and stripped of retirement benefits. Magistrate Horne should have asked questions at the arraignment to get to the bottom of this and, if Dr. Weinblatt was in his own home as stated by his attorney, the magistrate should have dismissed the charges on the spot. Moreover, if the detective (Lt. St. Amour?) who asked the court for a search warrant had disclosed that scenario to the magistrate (who should have asked probing questions) the search warrant should never have been issued. It may develop that Dr. Weinblatt, whose reputation has been so devastatingly tarnished, has a good claim against the AAPD for abuse of process, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of civil rights, etc.
Phyllis McDermott
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.
to justcurious, who knows....in the wake of the Penn State mess, a lot of things are going to happen that defy logic. The parents of the child signed the complaint and made the charge, and they ultimately will be accountable for doing so. THe police have to follow up. Search warrants are often obtained without proper evidence, etc. However, there is no correlation between the charge and obtaining of a search warrant. What are they seeking to find? and how might that be related to the charge?
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
The problem is with your word "If". Why would the officer and the Magistrate subject themselves to all of your supposed punishments? Do you think they got snubbed at a party by Dr. Weinblatt or something like that? Let's see how this unfolds.
Ron Granger
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
I can see how a doctor, especially a Pediatrician, would be generally concerned about the welfare of his neighbor's children. And if he observed something like has been suggested, he might wonder how to proceed. If it was a one time thing, he could ignore it as a fluke. But if it is a pattern, then he probably should *somehow* mention it to the parents, or does he mention it to child protective services? Reporting a neighbor to CPS is a big deal.
Hunybee3
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
I agree,It's a possibility and how would you proceed? but also could it be he was just looking out his window and someone is a little bit on the overprotective and jumping to conclusions? And I said it before..why would you allow it to happen 4 times? I would have knocked on the door, put up curtains, discussed with my daughter about undressing in front of an open window, and there would not be a time number 2 let alone 4!
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Yes, actually, I think that such a scenario is in the realm of possibility. Imagine that you live next door to a child who undresses by a window...say you live in those narrow narrow Burns Park lots, and you can essentially see into her window very well as she does this. You look up from your computer or something in your house, see her across there, maybe she notices you 'seeing' her. Maybe, just maybe, then she continues to undress in front of the window in full view of you and everyone else who might be walking by, and you start finding it disturbing that she would do this. You might think to yourself that her parents should hear about it if it's true that she seems to be almost unconcerned about disrobing at an easy-to-look-into window...while at the same time, the parents might be trying to determine if their neighbor is doing some weird inappropriate peeping! See my scenario? It might sound like weird speculation, but I can imagine it happening actually... Again, I have no agenda here. And we'll find out how and why this has happened, but I think that the 'this' might be misunderstanding-based, is all I'm suggesting as a possibility given what we know, and in response to @Ron Granger's suggestion about the situation.
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Are you saying that perhaps he noticed that she didn't close her curtains and then didn't know how to tell the parents? That is all I can get from your comment. This is getting really twisted.
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.
"Reporting a neighbor to CPS is a big deal"... Indeed! And totally unwarranted for merely 'allowing' a child to undress however she'd like in the privacy of her own home. Of course it would be smart to warn a child that undressing at a window is probably *not* a good idea, but that hardly seems cause to call CPS in my opinion... But yes, one can imagine all sorts of scenarios whereby a physician might find it curious that she'd repeatedly do this, and seem to be therefore 'monitoring' it for the sake of understanding why it happens over and over and deciding how to tell parents about it. It seems to me that *everything* hinges on whether there was anything suspicious turned up on the seized computer. Elsewise this looks a lot like a terribly unpleasant set of suspicions and missed opportunities to actually *communicate* between neighbors. I guess we'll see...
Ron Granger
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
If he was looking out his own window, then the original police statement that he "went to a neighbor's home" seems excessively sensationalized beyond the facts.
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
The key word in your statement is "if". But even if that was the case, the prosecutor and the courts would have to decide the gravity of the situation.
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
'excessively sensationalized' to the point of being factually inaccurate, I'd say!
Jen Eyer
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Comments that blame the victim have been blocked, in accordance with our moderation guidelines, found here: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/about/annarborcom-conversation-guidelines-comment-moderation/">http://www.annarbor.com/about/annarborcom-conversation-guidelines-comment-moderation/</a>
L. Brooks
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
Just who exactly is the victim at this point? Shouldn't this say "accuser"?
GeeWhiz
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
Could you clarify who the "victim" is in this case? Dr. Weinblatt could be considered to be a victim based on the alleged inconsistencies in the reported story. I think that it is also legitimate to question how an "adult" could observe someone peeping through a 12-year old's window four times and not act to put blinds on the window after the first or second incident!
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Everyone can run over to the court and find out what the details are for the charges I suppose. I'm not sure at which 14A court will hold the preliminary though. Looks like you can call and see. Seems to me there is a lot of blaming the victim going on here. She is 12 years old, you know. Preliminary Examinations - Service Center (Calendar created 11/25/2011 10:30:32PM) Preliminary Hearings are usually held at the 14A District Court. Confirm location with the 14A District Court staff directly at (734) 973-4545 CR-W-11-0001680 FH WEINBLATT, HOWARD BRUCE PRELIMINARY EXAM - JG SHELTON MARGOLIS, LAURENCE Count: 001 SURVEILLING UNCLOTHED PERSON ----- 002 SURVEILLING UNCLOTHED PERSON ----- 003 SURVEILLING UNCLOTHED PERSON ---- 004 SURVEILLING UNCLOTHED PERSON
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
I think that none of us know the true nature of this situation. It is easy to take a few statements and surmise possibilities from them, but only the courts will be able to get the true picture of what is happening, hopefully.
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
Thanks for that info, interesting... I don't feel like people are blaming 'the victim' so much as trying to understand what actually happened and wondering about someone, even an only-12-yearold someone, who would repeatedly undress at a window and then note whether someone was watching, you know? I mean, I am *very* into the idea that one should have the 'right' to be free of being 'surveilled' in one's own house, but I think it's tricky territory when you're speaking of windows across a yard and 'peering'. I guess the nature of the alleged 'surveillance' would affect my feelings about it all. Glances? Stares? Use of visual aids like binoculars would be troubling of course... I guess that will all come out at the pretrial hearing. I suppose that inherent to any claim of 'surveilling' is visual 'following' but it's unclear to me how that is established in any charge of it.
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Seriously, do attorneys typically make such clear statements about charges that are then disputed as untrue? Either the complaint *does* include claims about 'peering' from anywhere but his own house, or it *doesn't*. Why is that held out as a mystery issue?! Either the police were wrong in their statements about the case, and the AA.com took it, ran with it, and let this man's reputation be dragged through the mud, or the attorney is straight-out lying, no?!
average joe
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
Maybe AA.com made an assumption that it was from 'outside' the victim's window..., like most of us would when we hear the term 'window peeping'.
craigjjs
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Attorneys make all kinds of statements and some are, indeed, not true. We will, at some point, find out the facts.
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:59 p.m.
Many people have commented about how bizarre it seemed for the initially alleged story to be 'right'. It seems now that the attorney is saying that AA.com and/or the Ann Arbor police who told AA.com what the allegations actually *are* were WRONG?! That is, that it truly *doesn't make sense* for what was reported to have allegedly happened, because that isn't even what the plaintiff is claiming?! I'm confused. It sounds like Dr. Weinblatt's lawyer is saying all the complaints have been about him looking out his *own* window and on to the plaintiffs' daughter undressing by her window?! That would explain away the oddness of imagining that somehow a person would be walking around the neighborhood and appear at exactly the right time to catch the disrobing scene on (at least) 4 different occasions. It would explain away the oddness of imagining that the parents didn't "do" anything about this peering until it happened at least 4 times, wouldn't it?! Because you'd have to wait a while if it was merely someone 'peering' out their *own window* into your (presumably adjacent) home, to establish a 'pattern' of 'peering' at the exact time someone is undressing in view! Why did the police "decline to comment" about the veracity of their reports on the *content* of the complaint?! That seems a rather simple issue...it either *does* contain complaints about walking up to a window and peeping, or it *doesn't*?!
Bob Sly
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:59 p.m.
Is "Surveil" even a word? If so, what's the definition? Could hundreds of spectators be charged at the Nude Mile event at the U?
Lac Court Orilles
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
Dr. Weinblatt should take maximum legal means against the "one" person who claims that she observed him peering from inside his own home into a window of a nearby house. Even if proven innocent his life and career are ruined by this "one" person making this report. Because of the Penn State debacle modern day people are now on a Salem witch hunt for anyone and everyone. Better not get caught walking your dog anymore because someone will accuse you of peeping into their windows.
A2centsworth
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
the article indicated the one person was one of the girls parents. After they "observed" it the first time, why did they not instruct their kid to close the curtains? @anonymous how can anyone "expect" privacy while dressing in front of an open window? If the curtains were drawn, there would be an expectation of privacy. This is indeed a witch hunt. These parents must smell money...
craigjjs
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
Guilt or innocence is not determined by the number of witnesses or the number of sycophants posting here.
A2K
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 8 a.m.
As a kid (7-11 years old) I used to go over to Dr. Weinblatt's house with my mom (they went to med school together/colleagues) and he was always a kind and decent person. Wait for the whole story to come out and a full investigation before you assume someone is guilty?
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:40 a.m.
Well, now at least we have a clear conflict between what the police say (they have the reports) and what Dr. Weinblatt's attorney says. It's still too early to say much more and it'll be a matter of serious interest to see how the charges are handled , whether the prosecutor will proceed and what, if any, more facts come out in a trial. We must keep in mind: the doctor's personal computer is in the hands of investigators. There's also still the question of whether or not they find anything supporting the criminal charge on his computer. In other words, so far, this is just a matter of conflicting statements by the police and the doctor's defense attorney. AND - even if the doctor is proven NOT to have trespassed on the other property: it's still illegal to systematically observe an unclothed purpose in an act of voyeurism - from concealment.
JS
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 7:49 p.m.
OK, but does that mean that if I see someone disrobing with their blinds open I can call police and have them charged with indecent exposure, maybe get 'em thrown on the sex offender list? If so then something is really wrong here. I can see how a kid might forget to shut the blinds, but any adult that disrobes without closing the blinds knows exactly what they're doing. If I don't want people to see me naked, I won't get naked where people can see me. Although many find the idea of exhibitionism quite exciting Pretty simple.
Anonymous
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
You are exactly right. Myself being a victim of voyeurism and the one who pushed the legislation a few years ago to update the law, it is that 'intentionally viewing someone in the state of undress without their permission or knowledge while in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a felony,' no matter if they're on private property or public or their own. It was just nice to find a logical comment on here.
justcurious
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.
So far you make the most sense to me. Who can we believe? The authorities have said one thing and the defense attorney another. But both are most likely leaving out parts of the story, but for different reasons. The defense attorney gets paid for rigorously presenting information that will clear their client. The authorities agenda would be?? I can't figure that one out. I just can't buy the witch hunt explanation touted on here. I remember the trusted tae-kwon-do coach, priests, dentists and doctors that have been convicted recently and so this is not implausible. When I see his photograph I feel sad, but not to the point of being naive about this.
Bear
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 8:58 a.m.
So, what you are saying is that if a neighbor, leaves their blinds open, disrobes, knowing you can observe. from inside your own home, you are guilty of a felony, simply because you observed them? HORSEPUCKEY!
Roadman
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:37 a.m.
I fail to see how it is a crime to look outside your own window.
Candice
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
Brad, you're creating false allegations. Never once have any of those things been in question. Don't allow your imagination to get in the way of reality.
A2centsworth
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 7:49 p.m.
Curtains? Curtains? where are the curtains? Why is a 12 year old undressing by an open window????? Even my 6 year old knows better!!!!
average joe
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
@ Brad- Do we know what exactly is in the "complaint" ? I don't see in the story any mention of binoculars,telescope, etc., unless one dissects the word "surveilling" to mean using these.
EyeHeartA2
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
I don't see any mention of binoculars, a telescope or maybe a camera.
Brad
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
What if your "looking" were to include binoculars, a telescope or maybe a camera with telephoto lens. Would that change anything for you?
Candice
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 5:08 a.m.
I stand behind Dr. Weinblatt...I know he is innocent. I look forward to reading all the apologies from the people who jumped to conclusions and have aided in the ruining of this good mans career. Karma is a harsh thing to deal with.
liekkio
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
Thank you for posting Candice. It's good to have some facts for a change.
Candice
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
Yes, I REALLY know he is innocent. Three of four charges have already been dropped, and that last one that hasn't will be dropped as well. Once he's proven innocent, I sure hope he sues the heck out of his neighbors, the Ann Arbor police department, and all the media sources who printed the story wrong.
Hunybee3
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
For a man to be left innocent after all this, it sure will be tough! Even " super powers" couldn't help him there...the old saying sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me...yeah right. I would rather say something like if found guilty or not guilty justice is served! Then to resort to slanderous names that can do more harm then good....
craigjjs
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
Really, you know he is innocent? Is that based on your super powers or the words of his lawyer? If he did this, he is a disgusting pervert and belongs in jail.
jcj
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 4:18 a.m.
I have done my share of bashing A2.com but before you rip them read from the original story: "Ann Arbor police Lt. Mark St. Amour said Weinblatt went to the girl's home near Burns Park Elementary School on four occasions between Oct. 18 and Oct. 31 and looked through a window, watching as she changed her clothing." It appears from this statement that Ann Arbor police Lt. Mark St. Amour was the one giving out the wrong information. What else is A2.com supposed to report?
say it plain
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
But @Brad, are attorneys typically paid to contest the *very content* of a complaint?! Isn't that beyond 'spin' to pretend that something actually alleged is not what's in the report? The charge must either include claims that he walked up to windows or not include claims that he walked up to windows. The plaintiffs may have given police confusing stories, but presumably they get to point where they can actually *charge* someone with something, and when that happens, it is a simple matter of reading the text of the complaint?!
Brad
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.
To me it appears from this statement that the doctor's attorney is doing what attorneys are paid for.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 5:02 a.m.
If both that story and this one are true, I'm absolutely disgusted with the police lieutenant. There are still a lot of holes in this story. I think it's shameful that this blog may have ruined this man's reputation without much of a thought as to fairness.
treetowncartel
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 3:47 a.m.
Ok, so with the third update we get a few more facts, but piecemeal for sure. Based on what has been put forth so far I to comment that I find it ironic that it is a crime to expose yourself in public, and the same time a crime to look at someone exposing themselves in plain view of the public. Seems like there is a Constitutional challenge lingering here. That might be a good question for Officer St. Amour next time you talk to him.
thinker
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 3:47 a.m.
I am delighted that the charges will be vigorously defended by Dr. Weinblatt. As we have seen recently, careers, marriages, and personal lives have been destroyed in a minute by an overzealous press who do not investigate and corroborate the truth of the charges made. The desire of the press to be the first to report "news" should be balanced against the severity of the charges and the possible veracity and reasonableness of them.
tinkerbell
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 4:13 a.m.
It is important that the press report what is happening in the community. Can you imagine the outrage if this was kept quiet and Dr. Weinblatt continued to practice.
Michigan Man
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
The current press cares little about your ideals of caution, fairness and restraint. On a more sinister note, the current average media/press can be compared to parasites - just feeding on the demise/death/unhappiness of the newest and latest tragedy/event - once that victim is replaced by a new story - the press simply moves on .
Are you serious?
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 3 a.m.
At this point we really don't know anything. That is what the system is about. Everyone should just take a deep breath and wait for the system to run its course.