You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:30 a.m.

The case of pediatrician Howard Weinblatt and what it says about privacy

By Pete Cunningham

Ann Arbor-based monthly magazine The Ann took an in-depth look into the case of Ann Arbor pediatrician Howard Weinblatt in its June issue.


Howard Weinblatt

Weinblatt pleaded no contest to surveilling an unclothed person in January after being accused of watching a 12-year-old girl, a patient of Weinblatt's, change clothes in her bedroom from his neighboring Burns Park home last year.

The girl's mother videotaped Weinblatt, who was allegedly masturbating, and said she had observed the behavior on multiple occasions.

During their investigation of the case, Ann Arbor police found images of suspected child porn on computers they seized from Weinblatt's home, a police report says. Some of those images the federal government considers "child exploitation material," the report says.

In a thoroughly researched piece, author Julie Halpert explores what the case says about privacy in our society.

She writes:

As details of the case emerged throughout the fall and winter, the unusual facts set off a firestorm of debate among neighbors and raised a host of privacy and criminal justice issues with national implications.

Should someone be prosecuted for looking out of his own window, no matter what he sees? Are the lines of privacy rights becoming blurred with the increased use of video and other technology in prosecuting defendants? Is judicial intervention wise in these cases or a last resort? What is an appropriate and effective punishment for this type of offense?

With input from neighbors, legal, psychological, sociological and experts Halpert explores these questions and more.

The Ann is distributed monthly in's Sunday print edition.



Fri, Aug 16, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.

I should be able to look out my window of my house and if somebody is too dumb or too trampy to change in private in shouldn't ruin my life. or his.


Fri, Aug 16, 2013 : 2:43 a.m.

Bunch of crap... what kind of 12 year old girl is naked in front of a window for an extended period. what kind of mother get a recording device instead of yelling at her exhibitionist daughter to pull the blind. This wasn't an eight year old kid here.


Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.

The piece in The Ann strikes me as imbalanced. I think the author does quote other points of view, e.g. the prosecutor, but does not tell the story accurately. The author completely leaves out the fact that there WERE curtains on the child's window, leading readers to continue assuming that the parents in this case were not concerned about their child's privacy. The Ann perpetuates this falsehood, as well as implying that the mother herself was the voyeur in this case, which is just wrong.. The Ann makes a big deal about the effect of Weinblatt's actions on the rest of HIS life. Why? what about how his crime affected this child and family? And quoting the one neighbor vehemently taking Weinblatt's side not once but twice, while not quoting anyone with a different opinion, is really biased. Certainly it is a sad thing, & a great shame that someone who made real contributions to the community would throw it all away. However, I feel no pity for Weinblatt's having to move & having his license suspended: this is a felony, he is a sex offender, and removing his access to his victim and to other children as patients is simply just & appropriate. Exploiting a child who has been in your care since birth is so sick and so wrong, on so many levels. Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?

Ms. Dawn

Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 6:07 a.m.

I first wish to commend for exploring this incident more in depth and in a larger social context. It truly is unsettling and sad that a man's life has been upended for a charge that likely would not have stood up in court. It was really scary to see how readily people toss out labels and brings to light some hard truths our society likes to keep under the rug. From a forensic psychology and biology perspective, I would suggest the doctor's activity was not criminal. Morally reprehensible given the relationship and in violation of trust? Poor judgment or and foolish behavior? A resounding yes on all counts. Here is the hard truth. Biologically it is considered "normal" for adult men to be sexually attracted to pubescent or prepubescent girls. If you look into the professional literature, sexual deviation does not encompass being aroused by girls ages 10-14. As much as it repulses many people; truth is that such an attraction is not a mental disorder nor is it an inherent crime. This means a large majority of our husbands or uncles or brothers could have had there mug shot here. The difference is the relationship involved and and the misguided judgment of a prosecutor It was not too long ago we sold our young daughters off to the highest bidder in exchange for a camel or a few cows. Now we set them up as bait to prove what? There is no evidence the defendant has broken any laws or physically harmed anyone. It is ironic to see people so wigged out and puritanical when we ourselves are immersed in a youth obsessed culture. In fact, "adult" women in porn look a lot like prebuscent girls. How is a complete lack of body hair natural? How can we see attraction to younger girls as abnormal, but yet rid ourselves of every trace of body hair to indeed appear as a young girl (or boy)? This is not done consciously, so what does it say about the nature of sexual attraction? How can any of us judge? This truly should have been resolved privatel


Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 10:27 p.m.

The entire disquieting episode was unappetizing and even repellent, like John Cheever and Charles Bukowski writing alternating paragraphs of a story about loneliness on 40-foot lots.

Pat Ardner

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.

I put as much blame on the parents as Dr. Weinblatt for what the your girl is going through. They should have covered the window right from the start. The first time they saw Dr Weinblatt looking, the parents should have confronted him and/or the police. Why did they continue to leave the window uncovered? Furthermore, how did the mother know exactly what Dr. Weinblatt was doing in his bathroom? I think Dr. Weinblatt and his family have suffer enough humiliation. I hope the parents have now covered the closet window with a blind or curtains.

Silly Sally

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.

"confront the police" and say what? "a neighbor is looking out of his window, my window is 11 feet away, I know this, and I don't care to purchase a window shade, so I want him arrested?" R U joking? Did you go to one of those ivy league schools that tried to control how long men could gaze at a woman, or where men looked? It failed. Oh, so silly. But this is now the twilight zone, and it really happened. Its a brave new world.

Silly Sally

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.

How do we even " know" that he was "masturbating" or using her for sexual gratification? All he is guilty of is looking out his window, then this prosecutor "reached" and used this as an excuse to arrest him and then found images of drawings on his PC. Not even photos of actual people, but drawings. I do not condone that, but neither do I condone the circumstances that were used to arrest him and convict him. Where does this lead us to next? This is the scary part. What is next? Thought control, as mentioned in the song, "The Wall'. In the 1990s, a supermarket had a commercial that used an old song from the 1960s by the Hollies, "Look through any window, what do you see? Smiling faces…" No one thought anything was odd about it. People kept blinds shut if they wanted privacy If it were to be run today, it would have to be changed to "Look through any window, GO TO JAIL!"


Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.

Police described what happened in the portions not posted by the Free Press as Weinblatt masturbating in the 2 minute long video the mother recorded of him. The Detroit Free Press posted an edited version in January, in which he is peering out through a crack in the window. They did not release the portions in which the sex act appears to occur.


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 9:46 a.m.

Interesting story, which I've followed on and off from the beginning. The now former Doctor still has a surprising number of defenders. Earlier in the case the commenters were mostly shrill defenders of this individual shouting down anyone including the reporter of this story who I am sure endured a withering verbal attack (calls for his job, etc.) My take has always been that the "limo liberal elites (faculty, doctors, lawyers, politicians) in town have a difficult time accepting that one of their own has been caught up in such a tawdry situation... and still do.


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.

Many people have been following this story. You have no particular expertise. What is the basis for your accusation that those who defended this doctor were liberals, much less faculty, doctors, lawyers and politicians? My "take", as someone who regularly reads comments on this site and recognizes many commenters' names and political leanings, is that the positions in this case spanned the political and economic spectrum. Those few who tried to turn it into a partisan issue were either criticized or deservedly ignored. Your post deserves nothing more.


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.

I think the case would have been best served by an old fashion punch in the nose and a window shade


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.

To ask questions about privacy rights is not to defend, excuse, or support any particular behavior.

Silly Sally

Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.

Wrong, our rights are defined by the constitution and laws written by our legislators, not by laymen juries or judges

Michigan Reader

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:30 a.m.

To ask questions about privacy rights is to get a definition, and that's what juries and appellate judges give as answers. That was short circuited in this case by the plea agreement. Not that I blame the doctor for the plea.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.

Simple solution to all neighbors. Keep your curtains closed at all times...make sure there is no light that shine through your home (house), no interaction with neighbors or neighbor kids, watch for cameras which are all over the place and have in place security measures when interacting with children. Don't engage children or be nice because your interaction could be mistaken. I post this with sarcasem because we are coming to a point in our society where trust like the disaonaur is becoming extant. Trust is built on the belief that we build communities to support each other not destroy each other. Other than this, I don't know what to say.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 9:04 p.m.

I wonder what the commenters think about this paragraph from the Ann article. Do they also feel that this is acceptable behavior that should be protected? ""You can't ascribe fault to the child, but in the bigger picture, when you live on top of one another, those are common sense things people normally do and when you follow common sense, we don't have these issues," Iacopino said. He recalls one case where children walking home from school observed a man masturbating in front of his window. He was found not guilty because the judge was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that what he was doing was indecent exposure designed for children to see. The fact that he did this in the privacy of his own home offered protection from being prosecuted, Iacopino said."


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

If it were your daughter, heaven for bid, would you want this to happen to her, of course not.....looking at this girl, masturbating and having child the math....nothing good can happen.....

Silly Sally

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 3:41 p.m.

@just 0verly curious - How do you know that he was "masturbating" or using her for sexual gratification? All he is guilty of is looking out his window, then this prosecutor "reached" and used this as an excuse to arrest him and then found images of drawings on his PC. Not even photos of actual people, but drawings. I do not condone that, but neither do I condone the circumstances that were used to arrest him and convict him. Where does this lead us to next? This is the scary part. What is next? Thought control, as mentioned in the song, "The Wall'.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:46 p.m.

He gave up his right to privacy when he used his undressed former patient for sexual gratification while masturbating. No defense in my book.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.

So, it has come to this. The majority of people who read this site choose to defend a pediatrician who pleaded no contest to watching his own former patient, an unclothed 12 year old, with video of him gratifying himself while doing it. Aren't you glad he was caught? Doesn't it make you feel creepy?

just sayin

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.


Matt Cooper

Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

justcurious, did you watch the video? "...with video of him gratifying himself while doing it. " The video shows no such thing, and you'd know this if you had actually watched it.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.

It makes me creepy to see the AAPD and Prosecutor Brian Mackie's office wasting tremendous resources on this case when there is a serial rapist running around that they never caught and numerous other fugitives they could be focusing their attention on apprehending. Judge Shelton saw no need to sentence Weinblatt to jail. The whole case was overblown.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:28 p.m.

While I am no fan of Weinblatt's behavior, it should be noted there has never been any public allegation that he inappropriately touched any patient or anyone else. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 in Stanley versus Georgia held that a citizen could not be prosecuted for possessing pornography in his own home. The Stanley case represents judicial liberalism of the most left-leaning Court in American history. This is due to the Fourth Amendment privacy rights granted us under the Bill of Rights. I fully believe that no American can be constitutionally prosecuted for staring out of his own window of his home. The charge against Weinblatt was ill-founded, however child porn on a computer that is downloaded receives no such protection under the Stanley decision. Weinblatt pled guilty to avoid any potential child porn charges. The federal judiciary has complained that the five-year minimum prison term for downloading child porn is too harsh and fails to alow for sentencing discretion in lesser cases. From a libertarian standpoint I find the Weinblatt case disturbing. We destroy this man's career for simply looking at inappropriate photos or staring out of his own window. Is this justice?

Matt Cooper

Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.

Roadman, you seem to think there was 'child porn' on Dr. Weinblatt's computer. There was in fact no proof that child porn was anywhere on his computer. The police themselves admitted they weren't sure if it was child porn or not. Let's not be so hasty to acquiesce to such notions if we don't have a shred of proof.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.

What was the probable cause to seize his computer? What judges will accept today as probable cause makes one wonder about our fourth amendment. Computer generated images were specifically found by the Supreme Court not to be child pornography, so we are left with clothed images in "sexually provocative positions". Is that child pornography? But who wants to take the chance of a trial with those kind of charges. It sounds like prosecutors over charging to gain an advantage in plea bargaining.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.

"We" destroy? How about individual responsibility?


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.

It tells me to utilize the drapes more often.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.

One thing to keep in mind - past patients did not come forward to complain of inappropriate incidents with the doctor. Usually, in situations like this, that is what occurs. What he did was wrong, but I find it unnerving the number of times the Dr. Was being watched. If this is the direction we are moving in as a society, I think both voyeurs and those potentially being watched had better invest in window coverings....and use them.


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

So leezee, how many "inappropriate incidents" must be reported before something is done. He is not a dog getting two free bites.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.

...and you don't find it unnerving to know what he was being watched doing? I would not put him in the category of voyeur, especially since he was in the position to see unclothed children all day in his work.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

This simply is not an issue of privacy rights, no matter how The Ann wants to spin it up. The parents of the child in question were gathering evidence of a crime. "Those computers, according to police, contained images that included photographs of minors in sexually suggestive positions, child erotica and computer-generated and hand-drawn pornographic images of what appeared to be children engaged in sexual acts." If I collect evidence that my neighbor may be running a meth lab in his living room (e.g. big boxes labeled meth stacked in the window), and that evidence is gathered materials that are in plain sight, and I turn it over to the police, they are obligated to investigate. Doing less violates the public trust. And at no point does the issue of privacy come into question. The parents of the girl did exactly that: retrieved evidence that was in plain view that posited a criminal act. There simply is no difference between looking at pornographic images of children on your computer and looking at them out of your window no matter what Mr. Moran says. Julie is trying to bend this into an issue that does not apply here by finding some folks willing to suggest otherwise. In the end, if Weinblatt was a responsible pediatrician, a good neighbor and the salt of the earth that his friends originally held him out to be, he would have told the parents that he could see what he saw and advise them to cover up the window in case someone, like a pedophile, happened to be passing by....

just sayin

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 3:31 a.m.

@matt cooper...once shows what Weinblatt is doing, do you really need it spelled out to you?

Matt Cooper

Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.

mcd: "The parents of the child in question were gathering evidence of a crime." What evidence are you referring to? Did you watch the video? I did. It shows nothing but the most blurry images wherein which it is impossible to identify who is on the other side of the frosted glass and what that person or persons might be doing. by the mothers own admission the window itself was only open 1-2 inches. So...please. Tell us all what "evidence" you are talking about. Dr. Weinblatt was never tried on any such "evidence" and was never convicted based on any such "evidence". So finally, here's a challenge for you: Locate and watch the video, since you're so convinced that "The parents of the child in question were gathering evidence of a crime." And just so you know, comitting a felony in order to catch someone else comitting a felony (especially when you are comitting the same exact felony you claim they are comitting), makes you a felon and there is no excuse for it.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:48 p.m.

thank you, on.....liberal minds are scary......


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.

Absolutely! McDunnough has it right.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

So "Gathering evidence of a crime" trumps privacy laws? The Supreme Court disagrees heavily.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.

"The plea was given so there would not be child pornography charges rendered which carries stiff penalties" Not true, the Feds can still bring charges because it involves interstate transmission of porn. Now the police should have records of everything he downloaded because ISPs keep logs of such things. They can tell from these logs if he was part of a child pornography ring. If he really did have did have child porn on his computer then the FBI will come calling. I believe the AAPD computer forensics expert said these images "were consistent with the file signatures in the national DB of exploited minors pictures." Being consistent and identical are two different things. The real test of him having actual child porn on his computer or not will be when he is arrested by the FBI. If he isn't then it calls in to question the evidence the police/prosecution have collected and how they portrayed it to the media. I'll be waiting for that article on

Silly Sally

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:13 p.m.

@Hume - A no contest plea still carries all of the punishments that a guilty plea carries. He still will have to register as a class 1 sex offender. He still has to move from his house. He still will lose his medical license. "He is on probation for five years, must complete sex offender treatment and not be within 500 feet of the neighbor's residence, school or place of employment." He entered a "no contest" plea so he could not have a felony conviction used against him in any potiential civil case. I understand the reasons very well. Do you?


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 5:37 p.m.

@SillySally Pleading no contest and being convicted are two entirely different things. You quote even proves my point. The problem is that you don't understand the difference between the two.

Silly Sally

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.

@Hume - Wrong He was convicted of it. From the Ann article: "Weinblatt pleaded no contest to one count of surveillance of an unclothed person, a felony conviction which required him to register on the Michigan sex offender registry."

Basic Bob

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

As much as it pains him to move from his home and give up his license, going to trial and losing would be substantially worse. The law doesn't equate a no-contest plea and acceptance of a plea bargain with an admission of guilt.

Laura Jones

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

If the question was so great, surely he would have gone to trial. Nothing would make me plead to these charges were I innocent.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Dewey Defeat Truman! Is this a news source, or are you guys the Drew and Mike of on line journalism, talking about what was on TV last night?


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.

Getting at the privacy issue I never quite grasped the difference between him watching the young girl in her home and the mother video taping him masturbating in his own home. Were Mr. Weinblatts rights violated? If someone videotapes you through your window in your own home masturbating or watching wheel of fortune (hopefully not at the same time....ugh), is that a violation of your rights in your mind? Granted...she was doing it for good reason but in the eye of the law he still has rights.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.

@Tesla--About the doctor's privacy issue---It comes down to prosecutoral discretion.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.

What time is Wheel of Fortune on? I now have Friday night plans!


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:52 p.m.

I'm with you Tesla!


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.

and save the Weinblatt lover or supporter baloney.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

Really Ann This news staff is censor happy.....


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5 p.m.

enough is enough. got other stories out go find them.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.

Weinblatt pleaded "no contest" because of the child porn found on his computer and not privacy issues. I still do not believe that a judge or jury would have convicted him of "surveilling an unclothed person" by simply looking out from a window in his house, irrespective of what was on the other side of the window.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.

@GeeWhiz--It's possible that a "reasonable expectation of privacy" means that because the doctors shades were closed, and he had a frosted window, that his neighbor had a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. (No one was visible from next door.)


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.

While the masturbation factor sounds gross, it is irrelevant from a legal perspective. The surveillance charge pertains to looking at a semi-clothed or unclothed person in circumstances where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". How can you violate another person's privacy by simply looking out a window from your own house?

Laura Jones

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.

Were it limited to that, I agree. Add in testimony about him masturbating repeatedly viewing the same child, which he after the first time had the ability to ignore or be elsewhere, I think he would have been convicted. Since investigators did their jobs well and obtained the computer material, it seems reasonable folks would have convicted or at least the chances were good for it.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.

My first reaction was to question how there could be this kind of "witch hunt" in Ann Arbor. Then came the info about computer child porn. Then the plea. This whole morass is sad and disheartening...for the neighborhood, community, the young victim, the doctor's own family and home privacy vs legal issues/ramifications. The plea was given so there would not be child pornography charges rendered which carries stiff penalties. This case is another instance that shows a book can't be judged by its cover...a pillar of the community had his own demons, too. Sad.

Matt Cooper

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.

jane, you seem to presume guilt because of the 'suspected porn'. Well, let me tell you, just to see for myself, I went to the same "porn" site Dr. Weinblatt went to, and it is not in fact child porn. As a matter of fact, it has a legal disclaimer stating that all the models used were of legal age at the time of the photography, and while some of the models look rather young, it is obvious they are most likely over 18. Secondly, as reported in several news sites, the police couldn't even positively say whether it was in fact child porn or not, so where you get this from I don't know, unless you have evidence that police simply don't have. Finally, you don't know why he plead out. It could have been due to the reasons you state, or it could be that he didn't want to drag this child and her family through more trauma. Or maybe he didn't want his own family to have to sustain any more trauma. The fact is you simply don't know, and it's never good to pronounce someone guilty based on guesswork, misinformation and videotapes that show nothing.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.

He was just looking back, to see if she was looking back to see if he was looking at her daughter. (and he was) End of story I hope.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.

"Should someone be prosecuted for looking out of his own window, no matter what he sees?" the answer is NO. Sorry...If I'm looking out my own window and my next door neighbor is undressing with no blinds or curtains....that is no fault of my own.

just sayin

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 2:12 a.m.

@matt cooper They did edit the video, but it still is pretty obvious what he is doing....and it is Howard....definitely, the contents of his computer...just sayin'

Matt Cooper

Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.

Rural Mom: I'm wondering what "proof" you are talking about. Certainly you aren't referring to the video she recorded while peeping into his house from her own window (which she plainly admitted to, and this is a part of the court record). I watched this video and it is impossible to 1. See if it was even him on the other side of the stained glass, and 2. To identify what he, or whomever it was, was doing on the other side of same. Have you watched the video? I'm thinking probably not. Obviously not if you think this video is "proof" of anything involving Dr. Weinblatt.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

The mother at least gathered PROOF verses going off on a tangent with no evidence to back her up. So you can defend this guy into the ground all you want, there is a REASON he pleaded the way he did, get a clue! Innocent people don't plead otherwise!


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

If he was masterbating to a 12 year old who is his neighbor, that's a tad different in my book.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.

switch up the know and no!


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.

The neighbor was a child, I know of no self respecting man who would allow this to go on and not say something to the parents, let alone continue to observe it.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.

"and said she had observed the behavior on multiple occasions."


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

Sorry, what I meant to say was: "and said she had observed the behavior on multiple occasions."??!?

Jake C

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

He could have been doing anything behind that frosted glass! Rolling dice.. Prepping some shake & bake.. Mixing up a cocktail.. Shaking up a paint can... The list goes on and on.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:10 p.m.

Protecting her child?? Haha, protecting her child would have been closing her blinds, not having her do it again to catch him. Plus, his bathroom window has frosted glass, he could have been doing anything.

Laura Jones

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.

The difference between the two? One for sexual gratification, one to protect their child from being the object of that gratification. Seems intent matters.

Craig Lounsbury

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.

that is an interesting twist. Two neighbors peeping in to each others windows.

Top Cat

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.

Good fences make good neighbors.


Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.

Actually, good neighbors first put up good curtains where the desire privacy.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:22 p.m.

But first, good neighbors put up good fences.


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.

Thank you! I don't know what I would have done without another article on this case!


Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.

Sorry I stand by my original assertion that if he was so innocent, he would have AVOIDED looking out that window, informed the parents of this situation (with the young ladies window), AND there would not have been images found on his computer.