You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:44 a.m.

Weinblatt in police report: 'I don't look in people's windows'

By Lee Higgins

The FBI won't say whether it's investigating an Ann Arbor pediatrician after records show 69 images of suspected child pornography were found on computers that Ann Arbor police seized from his home.

Records also show the 12-year-old girl who Dr. Howard Weinblatt was convicted of watching while she changed her clothing in her bedroom closet, told police she also saw him watching her two years ago.

The police report, released by the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office, also details Weinblatt's reaction to the peeping allegations, describing a conversation in which he told a detective he was "floored" by the claims.

howard-bruce-weinblatt.jpg

Weinblatt

Weinblatt, 65, resigned from IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor after pleading no contest Tuesday to a felony charge of surveilling an unclothed person.

He was convicted of watching out his second-floor bathroom window as the girl changed next door in her walk-in bedroom closet in October. Weinblatt was originally facing four counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two peeping counts, but five counts have been dismissed.

During their investigation, Ann Arbor police found images of suspected child porn on computers they seized from Weinblatt's home Nov. 22, the police report says. Some of those images the federal government considers "child exploitation material," the report says.

While Weinblatt reached a plea deal with county prosecutors that prohibits the county from filing any additional charges in the case, it's unclear whether federal authorities will step in. Simon Shaykhet, an FBI spokesman in Detroit, declined to comment.

According to the report, the 12-year-old girl saw Weinblatt staring at her two years ago when she looked out her window while she was getting changed. The blinds were not down and her family thought nothing of it. Her mother told her that Weinblatt was probably "looking at their house or daydreaming."

In an recent interview, the girl told police that "it was scary," the report says. She said that "she could see Howard leaning over and looking at her out of his kitchen window."

She considered him like a family member and he was her pediatrician since she was born. She told police that "she would agree with some people who think he would never do this and she wouldn't expect him to either if she hadn't seen it."

Police said the girl's mother used an iPad to record a video of Weinblatt peeping while he appeared to be masturbating. Investigators said the video showed Weinblatt looking out his second-floor bathroom window between the privacy glass and blinds.

Investigators suspected they might find child porn at Weinblatt's home when they searched it Nov. 22 and arrested him, according to the search warrant affidavit by Detective Amy Ellinger.

The girl's mother had seen him "eight or nine" times over the years, sitting at his kitchen counter or dining room table, masturbating while looking at a laptop computer, the affidavit says. She never saw what was on the computer, but police believed those instances were relevant to the investigation.

"In this case the named suspect, Howard Weinblatt, is watching a 12-year-old female undress, is masturbating while watching a 12-year-old female undress and is seen masturbating in front of a computer," the affidavit says.

"This information by the reportees would also provide a reasonable belief that Weinblatt is stimulated by unclothed images of underage children. Furthermore, based on my training and experience that if the suspect Weinblatt is masturbating to the viewing of an underage girl and seen masturbating in front of a computer, there is reason to believe that the computer(s) to which Weinblatt has access would contain child sexually abusive material."

In addition to recovering suspected child porn, police found a receipt email for a paid credit card subscription to a website called Teen Dreams, the report says. Police also found that various teen-themed and incest-themed websites appear to have been visited.

When Weinblatt was approached by a detective Nov. 22, he said he had no idea why the neighbors thought he was looking into their house, the report says.

"No, I don't look in people's windows," he told police. "You can imagine how floored I am."

Asked by the detective whether he looked at the children next door through the windows, Weinblatt said, "I've seen them in their house, like they've seen me in my house."

Told that the neighbor had videotaped him, Weinblatt responded, "It's strange that they were videotaping through the windows. I don't know what to say."

Weinblatt told police that he suspected the neighbors thought he was "looking in their daughter's window."

"From the kitchen window you can see in their office," he said.

He said he was shocked at the allegations.

"These are my patients...," he said. "They are like family. I have no idea what else is going on. The only thing I think is they've seen me looking out the window multiple times."

Weinblatt told police he'd like to see the video. Police let him call his office to say he wouldn't be at work, then arrested him.

Records show the victim's parents consulted with an attorney before coming forward. They have since put a heavier cloth over their daughter's window.

Weinblatt's license to practice medicine will be suspended because of the conviction, state officials said, and he must register annually on the non-public state Sex Offender Registry.

He faces up to two years in prison when he is sentenced March 6 in front of Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Donald Shelton.

Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.

Comments

anonymous

Sat, Jan 28, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.

The neighbors could see each other. No doubt about that. 11 feet. It was still probably kind of semi-dark out, and lights were on. Twilight around that time in October starts around 7:30, sunrise closer to 8AM. The doctor was well respected in his neighborhood and community, but four times can hardly be a coincidence. Forensic investigators will be able to determine what happened when and develop a timeline by taking a closer look at the data on the iPad. Behavior like this needs to be disclosed. There is definitely a problem with this individual's behavior, given his profession, and the nature of his professional and personal relationship with the victim and her family. An understanding of this type of behavior can help us prevent suffering of other innocent people. Again, this wasn't just a "neighbor", this was a pediatrician, well thought of in his community. Furthermore, the girl was his patient from birth! Given these circumstances, and the fact that many parents trusted this person with their children, this behavior is incredibly problematic. Four times is more than just a coincidence. I sincerely hope that there aren't any other victims. And while we don't want to accuse innocent people of doing things they didn't do, we also don't want to allow that to be used as a loophole by pedophiles so they can continue doing what they do. One way to look at this is that he has an addiction. He needs his fix. That fix is CP. So that fix needs to be readily available - on the hard drive, thumb drive, etc... Similar to a heroin addict. Heroin addicts tend to be in possession of heroin from time to time, or it would be physically impossible for them to be heroin addicts. So the CP often gets found in cases like this, because it's being used on perhaps a weekly, if not daily basis. The nerve of this guy is just outrageous.

Matt Cooper

Sun, Jan 29, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.

"The neighbors could see each other. No doubt about that". Did you see the freep video? If not I'd suggest you check it out. The window was only open an estimated 1-2 inches. The bottom half was frosted glass, the top covered by an opaque window blind. You couldn't possibly identify that it was even Dr. W in this video because of these two facts. Don't believe it? Go see for yourself. "The doctor was well respected in his neighborhood and community, but four times can hardly be a coincidence". The mother admitted to looking into Dr. W's home through a similar window and watching him supposedly masterbate "8 or 9 times" over a period of "several years". This is in the court record. Was this also coincidence? Or surveillance? Legal? Or illegal? And why is it that you seem to not have an issue with any of that? Just curious. "Given these circumstances, and the fact that many parents trusted this person with their children, this behavior is incredibly problematic". A medical practice spanning nearly 35 years offering some of the best pediatric care to be found (myself, my 2 sisters and all 4 of my sisters children were all patients of Dr. Weinblatt and know personally the level of care he provided) is not suddenly wiped off the record because of an extremely unusual and extraodinarily evidence-challenged felony charge in which said evidence is flimsy at best. "One way to look at this is that he has an addiction. He needs his fix. That fix is CP". And you know this...how? The web site he was accused of allegedly getting CP from is not in fact a CP site and includes a disclaimer that all models there are over 18.

Scott

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.

With respect to the comments criticizing the mother for watching, I would point out that there is a big difference between "seeing" and "watching". You see a car accident, you watch a sunset. The reasons driving this behavior are night and day. For those who have lived in a neighborhood similar to these families, you know that it's quite common to "see" your neighbors from time to time given the proximity, particularly at night. I have often stood in front of our kitchen window at the sink, looked up, and "seen" our neighbor doing the same thing. This is not unusual in this type of neighborhood. That said, this women did not "watch", she "saw", and much to her dismay, I am sure. Seeing cannot be undone or erased from memory, but I suspect she would do this if she could. Furthermore, I do support a previous comment that encouraged a complete investigation to ensure that any individuals that may have been harmed while in Weinblatt's care have the opportunity to receive the help and support they may need.

eCoaster

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.

@lisam - Felony conviction aside, Weinblatt was NOT the "best out there". We left his care a year ago because he he failed - even neglected - to diagnose a serious medical problem in our child. He was arrogant, belligerent, and distracted. There seem to be a lot of commenters struggling to reconcile the Weinblatt they think they know/knew with the one that got off watching children undress.

lisam

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.

He was our pediatrician almost 30 years ago. A lot can happen to anyone in that time. I can't speak for your experience, only my own.

Laura

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.

@ Hume. Apologies to all. I wish we had an editing option...realized later I misread the report and that the girl simply informed her mother two years ago regarding Dr. Weinblatt; there was police no report filed. Laura

lisam

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.

In response to "Laura".... have been stuck like glue to this story, as he was my sons' pediatrician from day #1 and have had many replies to responses as well as my own initial thoughts. My husband (not my sons' dad) has heard every update. What you have written is my husband's reaction. I watched the "video" and it does state that the portion where he is supposedly masturbating has been removed, but it shows him "peeping" out of his window. For once, Detroiters are actually in favor of Dr. W. The first article they slammed him, not this time. I am riding both sides of the fence at times and now I'm stuck in the middle in my thoughts. Bottom line for me that I have known him for many, many years; having him see my children, as well as having "regular" conversations out and about, on the street, at SJMH and UMMC in the hallways...this over a span of almost 30 years. Also, in the early part of his career, one of the UM Residents told me...He "IS" Ann Arbor Pediatrics...meaning he is the best out there....and now forwarding 30 years....his career is over. Yes, it hurts.

Hume

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

@ Laura There was a police report filed 2 years ago? Is this confirmed or is it available online somewhere?

Laura

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 6:55 a.m.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the police report from two years ago was ignored? Doesn't anyone wonder why if this had happened prior to this incident that the girl's room would not have more privacy? What was the charge in the original police report? It obviously was not taken seriously, so I can see why the mother wanted video this time. However, doesn't anyone find it odd that the doctor was able to get away with this for two years undetected? If he were the pedophile and horrific child molester everyone seems to think he is wouldn't he have been caught by his neighbors long before doing something like this? This is merely a crime of opportunity. He has a thing for looking at young girls/boys and took advantage of having a peep show next door this makes him...pedophile? No one was physically harmed or violated. The family doesn't seem particularly traumatized by it. I feel this is getting blown way out of proportion. If they were indeed like family, why did this even happen? If they were that comfortable around each other, I would think that the girl's parents would have intervened the second time that he was seen masturbating. If the woman could see him through the window doing this surely her daughter could have seen it. While it is a delicate subject, I would think that if I respected and trusted someone enough to see him as family, I would have had a talk with him first. If something had been said and the doctor still could not control himself then I could see seeking counsel and filing a report. Instead they seek counsel on what? How to ruin a man's life because he was doing what many millions of people do when they think they are in the privacy of their own home? Albeit doing it in front of a window is a bit dense. Quite honestly, I see no victims here; just big lapses in reason and judgment all the way round. This whole thing gives new meaning to needing a "privacy fence".

sHa

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.

What about the child pornography found on his computer?

gracelikerain

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:27 a.m.

i am so sick to my stomach!!!!!!!!!!!! Over the last year this man has given me his number to call him with concerns to my daughters high risk health. On numerous occasions he has told me to bring her to his house that he would would her to give us a break. I keep replaying every office visit did i leave them alone? He kissed her and I thought nothing of it then. This makes me so sick to my stomach!!!!!!!!! How did he fool us all for so long? He was such an amazing dr- how could he have these demons?? I am so sick to my stomach. What if I would have took her to his house??

myopinion

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:49 a.m.

I know it really is sickening. I'm so glad you never took your daughter over there.

chucklk

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.

It's scarey that they used the Free Press video to arrest him and confiscate his property. I viewed the video and can conclude absolutely nothing from it.

sHa

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:51 a.m.

You saw 30 seconds; not the entire two-minute video.

myopinion

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:48 a.m.

They wrote at the beginning of the video, "It excludes a segement described by police as appearing to show a sexual act". You can see how he is peeping between the frosted glass and the blinds, he is naked from the waist down and has his hand down there the only thing you don't see is the act itself which they said has been excluded. Disgusting!

Wondering

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.

Which is not AT ALL to excuse criminal behavior, or to see Dr. Weinblatt as the victim..........but rather to say that there are causes of such behavior that are not all genetic........and that it might be very possible to reduce the frequency of the behavior if we understood the (many) causes better. For example, @hmsp, do we not believe that there were many understandable and very predictable conditions that led to the very large number of cases of priest child sexual abuse? And that, if those many reinforcing conditions had been addressed by the entrenched interests, that the number of cases of abuse would have been much much smaller?

Alison

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:42 a.m.

I genuinely hope everyone who was attacking the victim's family feels ashamed of themselves. People like you are exactly the reason why victims remain quiet in situations like this.

sHa

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:52 a.m.

My thoughts exactly.

Lee Higgins

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:05 a.m.

The Free Press has posted a portion of the iPad video in this case: <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120126/NEWS06/120126056/Video-released-alleged-peeping-by-Ann-Arbor-pediatrician?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120126/NEWS06/120126056/Video-released-alleged-peeping-by-Ann-Arbor-pediatrician?odyssey=tab</a>|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Wondering

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 2:02 a.m.

@mhirzel-- Well said. I was going to add that it might be worthwhile to undertake a thoughtful open-minded thorough investigation of what drug therapies and psychiatric/psychological therapies many of these folks who show these aberrant behaviors might have been subject to prior to the observed aberrant behavior, including anti-depressants and various other neurotransmitter disrupting drug therapies, as well as possible drug interactions.

mhirzel

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:14 a.m.

Wondering, Absolutely! But, the big problem is the impediments to open-minded research in this country.

mhirzel

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:59 a.m.

Part 2 Lastly, to those of you who expressed personal anguish over this case because you have known, respected and liked Dr. Weinblatt, I suggest that you consider that there is a strong possibility that Dr. Weinblatt may be a victim of the medical/justice/corrections, chemical, etc. industries' rigid and highly effective defense of the status quo, by which we all lose. I am not cheerleading for this approach because it is an "appealing theory," but as one whose children have benefited from this unconventional approach to teasing out the cause of behavior that, otherwise, appears "psychiatric," or "criminal." It pains me to know how many are demonized and suffering so needlessly. Such is the price for monopoly medicine. Do not look there for answers. There will be no solution to any problem for which the cause is grossly misunderstood.

Roadman

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:25 a.m.

Much of the sexual deviant behavior we see reported in the media as child molestation, possession of child pornography, and pedophlilia-related abuse are a product of impairment of judgment engendered by bipolar mental illness and/or traumatic brain injury. The areas of the brain that control decision-making activities are compromised and the person cannot conform his or her conduct to societal norms. Additionally, it has been reported that MRI tests to the brain can reveal organic inpairments in brain functioning that would essentially render criminal activity involuntary and thus questions the entire basis of the efficacy of criminal justice intervention. Impairment of judgment due to traumatic or congenital deficiencies in the brain can also lead to substance abuse as a product of that impairment which further impairs decision making abilities and additionlly compromising an individual's executive functioning abilities and thus an ability to lead a normal life. A great percentage of our prison population - perhaps 20% - is mentally ill by medical diagnosis; others have not even been diagnosed. They engage in a revolving door penal system that creates revenue for lawyers, court staff, corrections officers etc. The cases of John Hinckley and Jared Loughner should have been clarion calls to change public atttitudes but the opposite has occurred - it has steeled public opinion aggainst the mentally ill. Ted Kennedy's son, himself a bipolar patient, urged the public to regard Loughner as not a criminal but a victim of mental illness. I am sure at sentencing that Dr Weinblatt's attorneys may make a case that illness is the culprit in pleading for mercy.

mhirzel

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.

(See Part 2 of comment below) Wondering asks a question that will be easily dismissed by those convinced that so-called "criminal" behavior is explained in words like creep, evil, pervert, slime, sin, predator…. I think, however, it's the ONE question that, pursued honestly by researchers and physicians, unfettered and unbiased by corporate, political and economic interests, would do any good at all in understanding aberrations like this and, consequently, knowing what to do about it. So, yes. I'm here to defend Dr. Weinblatt by asserting that, for decades, the work of conscientious researchers has been suppressed, ridiculed and consigned to near-oblivion by powerful interests whose very "bread and butter" would be threatened if the public came to realize that human behavior and impulse control can be RADICALLY affected by the dysregulation of enzymes and metabolic processes downstream from the brain. That dysregulation is caused by the soup of toxins we all now eat, drink, breathe and get from our physicians. Impulsiveness and absolute loss of volitional control, alcohol/drug abuse, aggression and sexual deviance is a common result. What solution can the justice system offer for dysregulated physiological processes that produce unrelenting cravings (look to the neurotransmitters), compulsive behavior, and a wide variety of risky/socially unacceptable behavior???? Anyone interested in solving the many dire problems we're facing, including the fact that we now have more than 1 in 6 children with developmental, emotional or behavioral "disabilities," please google "Biological Determinants of Mens Rea: When Choice Fails to Compensate for Biopsychological Perseveration, by Joseph Mitchell, for theory and history behind this research. See also the work of Martin Kafka, M.D. (Harvard). Follow up by looking for the papers of those researchers found in the footnotes to Mitchell's article. <a href="http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/toc1.shtml" rel='nofollow'>http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/toc1.shtml</a> (continued Part 2)

hmsp

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.

@Wondering   Re: "...the exponential increase in this sort of disturbing criminal behavior in our society..." The only "exponential increase" has been that of awareness and prosecution. Just a decade ago, a scandal involving the Catholic Church broke, finally airing what had long been common knowledge, the source of a lot of eye-rolling, and no small number of off-color jokes. These days, fewer people laugh about it. There was a story here in town about the gym coach at my Lily-White elementary school back in the 50s, who left town in a hurry just before I would have had him as a coach. Who knows if it was true, but the Catholic Church has shown us that, back in the day, the SOP was to hush it up, and hustle the guy of to a new start. These days, we read about it in the news.

nicole

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.

I still think Dr. Weinblatt deserves respect for all the good he did up until this time. He has saved countless children's lives and helped countless more with various medical conditions. Yes, he has another side, but I frankly don't think it negates the good he did. I agree with another commenter, that what he has done is nothing compared to the Sandusky case, so let's put things in perspective. And for all those out there that are looking back to office visits they had with him, and attributing something devious to every word or look or thing he said, it may not be true. He was more than likely being very professional at his office, with no weird thoughts or gestures toward your kid. My kid saw Dr. Weinblatt too when her regular doctor couldn't, and I thought he was great.

sHa

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:42 a.m.

Sort of like Joe Paterno's exemplary good deeds?

say it plain

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:08 a.m.

I was among those willing to consider this situation weird and wrong if it was 'merely' that he looked out his window to see his neighbor undressing. I always felt that the *whole thing* would turn on whether they turned anything up on his computer, and, apparently, and very horrifyingly, they did. I hope he's well ashamed of himself for his enormous violations here. I feel bad for the colleagues and family members and friends he may have lied to as he tried to weasel out of admitting his horrific 'problem'.

Roadman

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

Let me make no bones about it. The &quot;peeping&quot; case is only a &quot;high misdemeanor&quot; under state law with only a 2-year maximum jail term. The spectre of federal child pornography charges could result possible prison sentence of many years. The child pornography computer image allegations are very serious and should be resolved after a thorough investigation by the authorities to determine if any federal laws were violated. The public interest as well as the doctor's reputation are implicated by such nefarious allegations. If any of the images are found to have violated federal law then swift action needs to be taken by the Office of United States Attorney. Dr. Weinblatt in such a scenario is entitled to a presumption of innocence and an opportunity to defend any charges in a United States District Court in the event he is indicted by a federal grand jury. As of right now, however, no FBI investigation is even confirmed, per this article. What I have seen, however, is that a number of the items seized have no apparent relation to child pornography.

Wondering

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:39 p.m.

@YpsiVeteran-- I think what isn't addressed in your thoughtful comments is the exponential increase in this sort of disturbing criminal behavior in our society, and by folks who have had apparently very successful professional and family lives--that is, by folks who have everything to lose by engaging in such self-destructive and other-destructive behavior. I think this is a quite disturbing trend that our society needs to acknowledge, understand, and address. Dr. Weinblatt should receive appropriate consequences for any/all criminal behavior (and appropriate professional assistance in coming to terms with whatever he has done), but I think the issue is also far bigger than any single perpetrator, Dr. Weinblatt or anyone else.

johnnya2

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:21 a.m.

&quot;the exponential increase in this sort of disturbing criminal behavior in our society&quot;- not supported by evidence of any kind. The fact is people HEAR about crime much more today than they did 30 years ago. I know this never satisfies the knee jerk reactions of the right wing, but get some data and then have a conversation <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-child-sexual-abuse" rel='nofollow'>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-child-sexual-abuse</a>

Marshall Applewhite

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.

I'm not sure why the site &quot;TeenDreams.com&quot; is included in the report. After a quick perusal of the site, it clearly states, &quot;All models appearing in pictures and videos in <a href="http://www.teendreams.com" rel='nofollow'>www.teendreams.com</a> were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of photography.&quot;

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:37 p.m.

...and you believed it.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:28 p.m.

Exactly my point. Everything that comes out of the AAPD and the office of Prosecutor Brian Mackie should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Check their facts and challenge their conclusions.

jmho

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:43 p.m.

Would whoever is moderating please explain to me why my comment (explaining my previous comment) to &quot;DwightSchrute&quot; was removed?

steve h

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:34 p.m.

I can't get the picture of this man masturbating out of my head. Gross! I think I will get some shock therapy

YpsiVeteran

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

I'm quite glad the truth about this man's conduct has been exposed and will be dealt with. I can't help feel some compassion, however, for all who knew and respected him, like EMU Prof and the many parents of his patients, who feel betrayed and violated. It's difficult to reconcile years of expert and care with a man who finds gratification in heinous images of the exploitation of innocent children. It's also scary to consider that the fear of public humiliation, the loss of a distinguished career and the potential for prison were not strong enough to outweigh his disturbing other side. People like this Dr. are often quite successful at compartmentalizing criminal urges and living a double life. It's quite possible that he was, in fact, the caring medical professional AND the disturbed individual he now appears to be, and that he was able to keep the two parts of himself separate. I think I posted this before, regarding the Ann Arbor firefighter who was killed on 696, but it applies here, too. People who do great things are often not great people, but that doesn't automatically negate the good they managed to do.

Wondering

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.

I think it is comforting for all of us now to think of Dr. Weinblatt as a &quot;creep&quot; as some in this thread have described him, but based on my very limited interactions with him over the years, that was not my impression at all. My impression was of a kind, caring man who seemed to care very much about being a competent well-respected professional, seemed to care about the welfare of children (including his own), and seemed devoted to his family. I think we need to think deeply about the epidemic of child abuse/child pornography--as well as other types of abuse of the most vulnerable in our society--and investigate very thoughtfully what might be causing that epidemic and then do something very visible to address those causes. Or we may find increasingly more instances of dedicated professionals and caring spouses/parents going down this same road. Perhaps the epidemic is caused by a sudden increase in genetically transmitted &quot;quirks&quot;......or perhaps instead we are training our minds into quirky habits by the lines we choose to blur with the activities we choose to engage in and the ways we choose to find pleasure and the sense of entitlement that many of us seem to think we have. I suspect that Dr. Weinblatt may have no more or less genetically transmitted &quot;quirkiness&quot; than any of the rest of us. Therefore, we'd best get busy figuring out what causes folks to engage in such self-destructive and other-destructive behavior, and do something to address those causes--ASAP.

N. Todd

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:22 a.m.

@Wondering - You bring up several interesting points. The first paragraph makes a point that seems to bring amazement to people every time it occurs. That's that someone in a position of authority, trust or power can generally gain easy access to their prey. It's sad but true. The second paragraph, although not stated directly, sounds like you are advocating the legislation of morality. Although it would be easy to argue that that is already occurring, there are plenty of reasons to avoid doing so moving forward. At least in my view. The third point was the genetically transmitted quirks you mentioned, although I'm not sure I'm interpreting that the same way you intended. Are you questioning whether the current ills of our society, i.e. glorification and desensitization of sex, violence, etc., are predisposing us to genetic mutation that leaves us more prone to participating in these behaviors? Well, even if you're not questioning that, I am. Can/does evolution work that way? Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject could answer that.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.

Self-destructive behavior has always been around. It's only because of the Age of Information that we are more conscious of it. Using the internet to self-destruct puts oneself on display.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.

Several questions need to be answered: Will the computer images alleged by Mackie's office to be pornographic be introduced by the prosecution at his criminal sentencing before Judge Shelton to support an argument for possible jail time for Dr. Wenblatt? Will the FBI investigate possible federal violations of child pornography laws with respect to material retrieved from Dr. Weinblatt's computer? Will the Michigan Board of Medicine try to seek license revocation and will Dr.Weinblatt fight any disciplinary proceedings? Will Dr. Weinblatt stay in Burns Park? Will Dr. Weinblatt face a civil damages suit from the family next door? Ann Arbor is engrossed in the Weinblatt matter and will no doubt be following these developments as they occur.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.

Prosecutors sometimes try to introduce criminal acts upon which there is no conviction. Under Michigan law, an evidentiary hearing can be held on facts relevant to sentencing upon which there there is no criminal adjudication. Peeping at an unclothed girl and downloading child porn are at least arguably related and a proscuting official may try to raise it during sentencing and see how the judge reacts.

YpsiVeteran

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:07 p.m.

Wow. &quot;Alleged&quot; pornographic images? Any sexually explicit material involving a minor is against the law, and you don't have to be Supreme Court Justice to declare it so. The images from his computer have zip to do with the charge he pled to, so why would they be introduced at his sentencing. He pled No Contest to a surveilling charge, which means he declined to have any evidence, for or against, be introduced. He will be sentenced based on the statute and sentencing guidelines, and any pre-sentencing report that may have been completed.

hmsp

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.

@burl Re: "Weinblatt masturbates in front of the window, his right." Actually, that is most definitely against the law. There is an important -- and legal -- distinction between walking past a window and seeing something (and I'm sure she felt uncomfortable, and didn't linger!) and looking out your window with the express purpose of looking into your neighbor's. No way are those two situations "the exact same in both the moral and legal sense!" And it is astounding that you think they "clearly are."

jmho

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.

I do not assume to know what the girl's mother might have thought when she saw him masturbating in front of his computer; as others have said, how could she know what he was looking at? But he had to know he could be seen doing that, and I would think that even if you didn't suspect child porn, there would be a sense of (for lack of a more sophisticated word) an ICK factor that would make me want to change doctors. I can understand her consternation, given that they were neighbors and doctor/patient and not wanting to believe bad things. Still, ICK.

DwightSchrute

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

on the flip side, jmho, I can easily understand the woman's efforts to capture the guy if she felt he was a pedophile or a predator who needed to be stopped. The story does mention that she contacted an attorney early on. I imagine most likely to see what needed to be done to have a case against someone peering at her daughter and masturbating in clear window view with his laptop. Had she reported him right away with no video/visual evidence, it's her word against his word, maybe a judge orders both to shade/drape their opposing windows, and the doctor gets to continue doing what he's doing - illegally, by the way, at least on computer, as it turns out. Who knows? Without her building a case, who's to say we're not reading about a former patient of his actually being molested by him a couple of years down the road? I know I'd have killer guilt on me if I, say, saw what appeared to be a creep always hanging out near the bus stop but I never said anything, only to find out the guys' been busted for kidnapping one of the kids coming off the bus.

johnnya2

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.

Why are all of a sudden those that took their kids to see him 'shocked and disgusted&quot; ? Just because the guy got off on staring at kids or looking at child porn does not mean he did anything wrong to YOUR child. What he did is wrong to this girl and disgusting, but why now start thinking that changes whether he was a good doctor or not? Obviously you thought enough of him to keep going back. If on th eother hand he inappropriately touched or fondled your child, then all bets are off. There has not been any complaint that I know of. I think there needs to be a major distinction on this case and what happened in a case like the Jerry Sandusky case. One involved looking and pictures, the other involved RAPE. There is a huge difference in my mind.

johnnya2

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:12 a.m.

Again, what did he do to the patient? EVEN if you say the Dr was aroused at the site of the child, did he do anything to her? The fact is, NOTHING changed today knowing he was aroused versus all the years he was there being a good doctor. The only thing that changed is in YOUR mind. If you did leave your child alone, then shame on you. Maybe the question to you is, have you talked to your child. There has been ZERO claim that he actually touched any patient inappropriately. Until that happens, it really is more of a creep factor than a danger factor.

girlhunter

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:56 a.m.

I think I feel the way I do .. because this WAS a patient of his.. and if he feels it is ok to do it to this girl.. who's to say that there were not others.. as parents of patients of his.. makes me wonder.. sorry I guess you could call it nature of the beast...

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.

You can't understand the kind of feeling a parent might have? Perhaps just wondering what the Dr. was thinking as he looked and examined their child would be extremely upsetting now. I don't get why you don't get it.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.

Maybe their kids/teens were once actually alone with him in the exam room. In hindsight, it's not hard to understand why a parent might be concerned or upset about the &quot;what ifs&quot;. Not just for their own child, but other innocents as well.

burl

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.

@dark dichotomy. Yes quite a double standard. Without being in the houses ourselves, we are able to piece together evidence that the windows face eachother somewhat. Weinblatt masturbates in front of the window, his right, and his neighbor sees it. His adult neighbor sees another adult pleasuring himself. On the flip side we have an adult watching the room of a minor and then masturbating when the minor in question undresses. As those two situations are clearly the exact same in both the moral and legal sense we must demand justice for doctor.

mkm17

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.

Those who defend Dr. Weinblatt remind me of those who defended Coach Paterno, a.k.a. &quot;Joe Pa&quot;. Disgusting.

JGS

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

I just can't fathom the attraction to children by adults, it doesn't compute. @smokeblwr - Agreed all you wanted were 100% of the facts like everyone should demand. Otherwise we assume and we all know what that makes us. In hindsight I would like to offer Dr. Weinblatt a suggestion for his future home, get some window treatments.

a2scio

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.

He was my kids' pediatrician, until my oldest, a girl of about 11 at the time, asked to switch to a female dr. I was always in the exam room and have no concerns with his medical care. That was 10 years ago. A year and a half ago, I ran into him downtown and said hello and reminded him that he had been my kid's pediatrician. He said something like, 'of course I remember &quot;Sue&quot; and &quot;Mary&quot;.' (he used their actual first names). At the time, I thought if a little unusual that he remembered names of ex-patients he had not seen in nearly 8 years. Now, it makes me uncomfortable.

lisam

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:59 a.m.

Actually I ran into him in Ypsilanti at the Bomber 2 years ago. My children who he cared for are now grown adults and he remembers their names...and they are both males. Big deal. I absolutely would expect him to remember their names. I also worked at both hospitals where he treated patients and not one time when he saw me in the hallway did he not recognize me and ask how my sons were. We had a long history as I am sure many of us writing here do. Am I shocked? Absolutely. I am more disappointed.

lisam

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.

Give me a break on that one. It's only because of the circumstances you say that. If he were some kind of celebrity, you would have been flattered.

girlhunter

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.

At this point in the game.. those who supported him and those who did not.. really do not matter anymore! The only thing that matters is that this man and his habits are brought to light! I am very sorry to hear that such a well respected man would do these very vulgar activities!I appalled that he would engage in this type of sexual activities! especially with it being the very children to which he is the doctor! This family trusted him .. treated him like one of the family.. and all the while he betraying their trust! It is all just heartbreaking! Just hope that from here on out the families and people involved can heal.

Peregrine

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.

@Ron Granger: Perhaps RuralMom was referring to the people who: 1. Kept suggesting that something just wasn't right about the story, implying the parents of the girl were lying. 2. Suggested that the parents of the girl acted inappropriately by trying to gather evidence. 3. Claimed that because Weinblatt was in his own home that he could not be held legally accountable for his actions. 4. Suggested that Weinblatt would have an excellent civil case against the parents of the girl. 5. Suggested that Weinblatt would have an excellent civil case against the Ann Arbor Police Department.

Peregrine

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

With all due respect, RuralMom, I don't think this was about being politically correct.

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.

Thank you Peregrine! I will ALWAYS want to shield, protect the child or other potential children. We all sit silently wanting to be politically correct, meanwhile these things happen repeatedly everyday to children, who grow up to be new offenders due to their traumas!

thinker

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.

I can actually see why a pediatrician might want to see what child porn is, and what exploitation of children is. Are we sure he was not just informing himself about what travesties are perpetrated against kids?

justcurious

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : midnight

Nicole, does this sound familiar? &quot;Sorry Ms. Castle, but you place way too much faith in the AAPD and AANews.com. The prosecutor in this case is a left-wing liberal and is out on a witch hunt.&quot;

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.

The only travesty against kids here is a pediatrician pleasuring himself while watching children performing sexual acts and a 12yr old girl undressing next door.

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.

What was he trying to inform himself of exactly while pleasuring himself watching children in sexual acts and watching a 12yr old undressing? The only travesty here is that this didnt come out sooner and he was able to treat children being a sick pediatrician for 35yrs.

nicole

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9 p.m.

I see some cyber bullying going on by those who think the Doctor is guilty and can't tolerate any other point of view. Where is Ann Arbor.com now?

burl

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

Yeah, I mean police officers and the FBI look at child porn all the time to investigate it, why can't a private citizen conduct years long research into this. What makes police officers and FBI agents so different from a pediatrician? I mean a pediatrician helps kids with strep throat and colds and flu's, are you telling me they don't also have time to help fight child porn? I suppose I could continue. Weinblatt doesn't deserve any defense, no matter how flimsy.

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

as the old saying goes...and I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

a2scio

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.

NO WAY! I can not believe that anyone would even think that!

just sayin

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.

are you serious?

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

The search warrant affidavit contains allegations linking the computer to the reasonable probability of viewing pornography, so it appears that there was a good likelihood that the District Judge's decision to issue the warrant would have been upheld. The media should have made a Freedom Of Information Act request from the start to have the AAPD or County Prosecutor disclose this for public consumption many weeks ago. The plea agreement with Mackie's office is understandable given the images on the computer as Mackie could have added additional charges based upon state child pornography laws. I still believe the facts alleged against Dr.Weinblatt do not constitute a criminal offense as a person has no reasonable exectation of privacy in an unshaded window. That said, the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice may investigate and the doctor may be facing many years in prison if convicted on a federal indictment of downloading child pornography. Think of all the prominent people in recent years who have ruined their careers by stupidity like this on a computer while leaving a trail for others to find . Congressman Weiner comes to mind. Dr. Weinblatt's legacy will be an example for others toward deterring this type of conduct.

Matt Cooper

Sat, Jan 28, 2012 : 2:48 a.m.

Dwight: Only one problem with your argument. It is NOT a criminal offense to look out of your own window, regardless of what's going on on the other side of that window. Nor is it a crime to masterbate inside your own home. This whole case sets a very very dangerous precedence!!!! Pray that you never, ever look out your window at just the wrong moment!

DwightSchrute

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 4:12 a.m.

Roadman, when you get a chance, go check out the 25 seconds of video footage of Weinblatt at the Free Press site, than see if your opinion changes. He clearly was peeping on her by peering through a 1-inch or so gap between the bottom of the shades and the top of the frosting that covered the lower half of his window, such that one could reasonably assume that if they were in the room across from that window, nobody could see them, especially if they were in the closet in the room across from that window. The footage is very disturbing in my opinion, and that's without the masturbation footage, which the police edited out.

Michigan Reader

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.

@Roadman-- You don't think the girl has a &quot;reasonable expectation of privacy&quot; when the DOCTOR'S bathroom window is frosted on the bottom, and has closed shades on the top half? I guess &quot;reasonable&quot; minds can differ.

YpsiVeteran

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.

Roadman, your repeated twisting of the facts is pretty transparent. The girl was not &quot;situated in an unshaded window.&quot; As has been repeatedly reported, she was in a closet, in the interior of a room, a closet that happened to be across from window. She was not, as you seem to like to insinuate, standing in front of a window dressing/undressing. Perhaps you should read up on the Castle Doctrine before you continue to pretend people have no right to privacy inside their own homes.

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.

We may have agree to disagree because: expectation of privacy is not related to being protected from criminal activities. I did not say &quot;fire through&quot; I referred to the act of pointing a weapon at someone &quot;through&quot; an unprotected window. In fact, your position blames the victim and their guardian (the mother/ parent). I doubt you'll now say it should be a law to force the shuttering or elimination of all windows.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

@TruBlu76: Firing a bullet through a window is a criminal act. Looking into a window from where one is lawfully situated is not a crime. &quot;Reasonable expectation of privacy&quot; is a statutory term originally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Katz versus U.S. A person situated in an unshaded window that faces others in the public lawfully situated cannot be expected to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.

&quot;a person has not reasonable expectation of privacy in an unshaded window&quot; -- Please consider: Except they DO have undeniable rights when a crime is being committed by exploiting that unshaded window. It's the same as if a sniper had pointed their gun at the child &quot;through an unshaded window.&quot; If the mother had seen a gun being pointed: it would be completely right to &quot;violate&quot; the sniper's privacy rights.

trespass

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.

Since he pled guilty to a felony charge he must have been guilty of something but some of the things in the affadavit and police report seem rather flimsy. All sorts of adult websites say they are about &quot;Teens&quot;. You can go to this Teen Dream website and it is a run of the mill porn site and has nothing to do with child porn. If that was supposed to be evidence that he had child porn on his computer, did anyone just Google the site and look to see what it was? How many men masterbate in front of a computer watching porn? Very few are watching child porn. What does &quot;child explotation material&quot; mean? Is it child porn? There used to be quite a few stories about &quot;child modeling&quot; sites that apparently skirted the law. Is that what they mean by &quot;child exploitation material&quot;. I am glad he isn't seeing patients anymore but I am still not quite sure what he is guilty of.

trespass

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:20 a.m.

I read a deposition given by a State investigator for computer crimes and he testified that it takes more than just finding the files or fragments of files (if the images have attempted to have been deleted) because you also have to prove that the files were intentionally downloaded and that they were not erased sometime before the statute of limitation. Thus, even if they thought they had child porn images it may not have been prosecutable. They may also have been concerned about whether they search warrant would hold up in court or they may intend to have the federal authourities prosecute. We still don't know all of the story.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.

Exactly. My point on an earlier thread is that a court must deem it to be child pornography to be violative of federal law. This is one reason Prosecutor Mackie likely took the easy way out by entering into the plea agreement. The best thing that happened is that he wil not be seeing patients anytime soon.

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.

&quot;Child explotiation material&quot; is child porn as far as I know. Grasping at straws here it seems.

RJA

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

Not going to comment on (window peeping) but I always was in the exam room with my kid, grand-kids and great grand-kids when it was necessary to take them to any doctor. When I would go to my OBGYN, a nurse was always present in the room. You might trust your doctor fully but at the same time (be there). Most PC's don't mind when a sister or husband go into the exam room with you. It is protection for you and the doctor. No other comment, this will all come out in the wash.

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:30 p.m.

I posted a link before which in effect says that children of a certain age can actually see a doctor without their parents being informed of it. It was on a previous article on this subject.

javajolt1

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.

Yuck...... Enough already.

Ron Granger

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

&quot;I do wonder where all the people who defended him are now?&quot; The ones who said &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot;? The ones who wanted to hope for the best, and were willing to wait until the trial before passing judgement? The ones who resisted the angry mob mentality? Those people. Something should be done about them!

easy123

Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.

Yes, this people, should also be arrested, fingerprint, and &quot;charged&quot;. We might as well tar and feather them while we are at it. I wonder what we should do with the OJ, Edwards, and Clinton, and Cain defenders while we are at it. Let track them all down and challenge their defense - LOL. I know, I know, some folks still defend them. just being sarcastic!

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.

Well Ann Arbor Mom, glad you waited for facts, but meanwhile there were kids still at risk. Remember, he didn't even notify his office of his arrest! DAYS later when media wanted a comment, they were notified. So sorry, I err on the side of the CHILDREN he was in contact with!

ann arbor mom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.

Simply because we waited for more information does not require that we give any of you an apology. The last time I checked we live in a country where we are entitled to our own opinions, thoughts and comments. I think pedophiles should all be exterminated but I am not going to believe that someone did something just because one person says so. We simply waited for the facts, no eating crow here, I had a nice panini for lunch!!!

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.

I'm still here. I wanted all the facts. Now that we know what he was up to with the kiddie porn it makes sense why the charges were pursued but until then it was a very gray legal matter as it was portrayed in the media. For all of you haters out there who like to convict first ask questions later, don't let me catch you a bottle of hand lotion in public or I'll assume you are up to no good.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.

Their silence speaks for itself.

NonTownie

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.

They're eating lunch now...crow and humble pie.

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:50 p.m.

Amen!

Sandy Castle

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.

In response to the people questionning why it appears to be okay for the mother to look through the windows of the doctor's home, but not for the doctor to look through the windows of her home. In order to prove the charge the doctor pled to, there has to be intent to surveill. Surveillance means to "secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed." Just glancing next door and seeing something, when there was no intent to &quot;spy and invade the privacy&quot; is probably the difference between what the doctor did and what the victim's mother did. That would be my guess, anyway.

Matt Cooper

Sat, Jan 28, 2012 : 2:43 a.m.

Sorry Sandy, but when the mother openly and in court records admitted to 'surveiling' Dr. Weinblatt '8 or 9 times' over a period of several years, that goes well beyond any accidental &quot;glancing next door and seeing something&quot;. Secondly, your thoughs about the video recording, in my opinion, are quite off the mark. It does not relieve one of criminal responsibility to break the law in order to catch someone else breaking the law. I don't see any justification in her acts at all for peeping through Weinblatts windows and recording him inside his own home doing whatever it was he wanted to do, but especially when he was not, at that moment, looking out his window in her direction, but rather was looking at his computer (according to the mother, which she also admitted she could not see what it was he was looking at on his computer).

N. Todd

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.

In all fairness, I must admit that I was one that questioned the mother's actions when I first read the story. I did realize that I didn't have all the information and, as a result, chose not to pass any judgement via comments at that time. As you stated, that clearly didn't stop many others. I agree that without the video, it's possible that the case never moves forward and Dr. Weinblatt's 'skeletons' remain in the closet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to use this as defense for the doctor; more like a 'two wrongs don't make a right' type of thing. Except this time - they kind of did in a way.

Sandy Castle

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

Well, I think the incident with the iPad was likely to prove to the police that there was something going on, perhaps believing that nobody would rely on just the victims, and the mother's word. And frankly, as evidenced by all the commenters on this website when the news first broke, I think she was smart to do what she did.

N. Todd

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8 p.m.

I think you bring up a good point as it relates to the &quot;eight or nine&quot; times that the mother witnessed the doctor... you know. Once she got the iPad out to record him, I think I would classify that as surveillance (or counter-surveillance, at least) although I really don't know how the law views it. I wonder if the recording was at the request of the lawyer (is that known yet)?

newsboy

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Guilty or not, I think the underlying legal issue was "what is the privacy of one's own home?" My kids used to see this guy when he would sub for our pediatrician. On the few occasions we had with him, he was rude, rushed and unsympathetic. I am sorry for all those harmed by this despicable crime. It is my sincere hope that one bad apple will not reflect badly on this excellent pediatric clinic.

drut_ferguson

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.

In a short time span, Ann Arbor has become the peeping and indecent exposure capitol of the Midwest. What in the world is going on around here?

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.

That's right . There was the UM resident with the child pr0n as well. Hmmmm....Something is in the water perhaps.

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.

Don't forget medical professionals with Child Porn on their computers, home, office or a combination!

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.

Are you referring to the dude last week who was &quot;tapping on the glass&quot; and had the three bottles of hand lotion? Maybe its the warm winter? Maybe its our midwestern propensity for leaving our windows open?

almightydanish

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

My daughter's pediatrician wasn't available once when she was sick, so she saw Dr. Weinblatt. I'm now completely sickened and disgusted. We were in the room with him for the visit, so everything was on the straight and narrow. The only thing i can't control is what he was thinking on the inside. And of course since this is annarbor.com, I preface this with the word &quot;allegedly.&quot;

almightydanish

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.

Oh, I used &quot;allegedly&quot; because of the whole &quot;what he was thinking on the inside part.&quot; Only he could truly say what he was thinking,, so I used allegedly just to be safe.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.

&quot;allegedly.&quot; Isn't needed anymore he plead no contest.

treetowncartel

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.

I was a person who was hesitant to rush to judgment because the proven facts, even the alleged facts, were very limited when this story first broke. With a pending federal action it makes perfect sense why he didn't any sworn testimony on the record and plead out before the preliminary exam. I still think the law is a bit murky. It seems as though it is not applied equally to all individuals. I have to imagine IHA has retained a PR person by now and put their carrier on notice, they have to be in full dmage control mode by now.

Beth

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.

This is all just so sad, for everyone involved. Dr. Weinblatt was our beloved pediatrician for years, and we'll keep our memories of him as an outstanding and caring doctor who was never anything other than professional with my children. We now see a different doctor at CHA, and it's just not the same. But I wouldn't want my kids to see him as a doctor now, even if his license hadn't been revoked. We always expected we'd lose him to retirement before my kids were grown, and it's so unfortunate that he had to choose to engage in these reprehensible behaviors.

Michigan Man

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.

A thorough and immediate investigation of his entire medical career - in both the private practice and hospital settings needs to be commenced ASAP, if it has not already been activated. All efforts need to directed toward patient protection and identification of previous patients who may have been abused, received substandard physician care and inadequate medical care. It is also disturbing (at least to me) that this man was in pediatrics - a primary care discipline - where he could and no doubt did have thousands of instances where he may have been unsupervised and was providing medical care to children and adolescents, who, due to power issues, were unable to possibly defend themselves against inappropriate and criminal conduct. Finally, the silence of the Washtenaw County Medical Society and other such healthcare leaders/groups in Ann Arbor/Washtenaw County is also disturbing in that it demonstrates an alarming paucity of commitment to high ethical and patient care standards.

Michigan Man

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.

eCoaster = Thank you for your kind words. I have a healthcare background = 40+ years in clinical and administrative roles = I have no personal animus toward this man at all - in fact, when I lived in Ann Arbor my two sons (now grown and adult, young me) I believe were IHA patients = I am, however, a staunch defender of patient protection and all things healthcare need to be biased toward the patient and high patient care standards - especially those who are often in subordinate positions of power and strength in our current healthcare system - the young, poor, medical complicated, etc. Really nothing more than that.

eCoaster

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.

Thank you for stating this shared concern so well!

Bob

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.

I'm with Ron &amp; Dark - why is it OK for this lad y to be looking in his window?

N. Todd

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

@cinnabar - I'm fairly certain that if you reread my comment, it will make more sense to you. As it stands right now, based on your response to my comment, I am inclined to believe that you agree with the following statement: Nude adult standing in front of unobstructed window = not okay (deserving of &quot;indecent charges&quot;, as you put it). Nude child standing in front of unobstructed window = okay. I happen to disagree with that statement. Young or old, shut the blinds for an expectation of privacy.

N. Todd

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 11:08 p.m.

@DwightSchrute - Although your point C may, A and B have absolutely no correlation with the doctor's exhibitionism (or lack thereof). A - I have lied before. Presumably, you have as well. That doesn't mean I want to be seen by neighbors while... anything. B - A hundred or so photos probably shouldn't be referred to as &quot;all the porn on his computer&quot;. Content issues aside, I would imagine there are more nude photos in a single adult magazine. Once again, that number doesn't reflect any exhibitionist tendencies. C - Without rereading the article, I believe he was witnessed in his kitchen while he was viewing the neighbor from a bathroom window. We don't know what he felt his level of privacy was at that time. Using emotion or rhetoric to substantiate your point, as opposed to logic and critical thinking, will usually yield poor results.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.

Todd the difference is a 12 y/o vs a adult. If I had seen the kid next door getting dressed by accident I would look away and bring that up to the childs parent the next time I seen them. Again Todd we have a young child VS a mature adult, I find it disturbing you dont get this.

DwightSchrute

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:17 p.m.

Bob, I don't think it's a stretch at all to wonder if the guy WANTED to be seen, given what we now know about him. a) he's a liar, b)all the porn found on his computer, c) he HAD to know it was easy for someone in their house to see him doing that if he had such easy viewing access to their house.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:21 p.m.

Maybe she didn't know (or couldn't be positive) that he was looking at child pornography while pleasuring himself. In other words, how was she supposed to know that what he appeared to be doing was illegal?

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.

Consider: If a person happens to notice someone doing something apparently illegal inside their home - it's actually a responsibility to confirm or disprove the suspicion. The privacy rights vanish when someone commits a crime. Most people would have reacted quicker to report this but that's all we can say.

N. Todd

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

@cinnabar - You stated that &quot;if I'm walking around in my house naked I have a duty to close the blinds or I could face indecent charges&quot;. I agree with your comment. But it seems like it really should work both ways. Isn't that exactly what happened when the doctor looked into his neighbor's window? Once again, not defending what he did after he saw this, but it really does seem like a double standard. That being said, I hope Dr. Wienblatt's punishment fits his crime, and I hope he gets whatever help he appears to need.

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.

Eleven (11) feet is the distance across an average room. Not very far. Would you say that people who live in houses this close to each other should not look out their windows?

genetracy

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.

The good doctor was the only one masterbating.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.

I'm guessing it has to do with her not hiding and staring into his home. My neighbor will see me in my home and wave to me, as I do with them. Its when you hide and continue to look that the problem arrises. It also works the other way, if I'm walking around in my house naked I have a duty to close the blinds or I could face indecent charges. To me right and wrong on these issues are very clear, but thats because I KNOW right from wrong.

Dave66

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.

None of this would be happening if he knew how to encrypt his computer. There are literally dozens of free data encryption software packages available.

Are you serious?

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:22 p.m.

Don't know what will happen to this case but here is something from CNN yesterday about this issue. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/tech/web/judge-defendant-decrypt-laptop/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6" rel='nofollow'>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/tech/web/judge-defendant-decrypt-laptop/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6</a>

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.

Wow shocking comment. I'm so glad he didnt know how to encrypt a computer for the sake of all our children. I assume you don't have children.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.

Hiding it does not excuse it.

Lee Higgins

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.

At this point, no charges have been filed related to anything that was allegedly found on the computers. We continue to review documents in the case, but the police report says &quot;there were 69 image files identified as Child Sexually Abusive Material in this case.&quot; Ten of those files were &quot;alerted from the Homeland Security ICE Child Exploitation files 2008. This list contains the digital signatures of files that are known to be child exploitation material to the Federal Government as of 2008.&quot;

DwightSchrute

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 4:03 a.m.

Lee, that said, if the FBI weren't going to investigate further for possible charges, wouldn't they come out and tell you that in regard to him? The fact they declined to answer that question can't be a comforting feeling for him.

eCoaster

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.

Lee - I appreciate the efforts you have made to verify facts and write a more solid article compared to earlier ones. However, I still do not agree with the nothing headline. It is irrelevant and just gives this convicted felon a voice in the matter.

eCoaster

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.

Why lead with a weak headline that avoids the issue? The news story here is that images of suspected child pornography were found by police on the computer of pediatrician Howard Weinblatt, a convicted sex offender who now may be facing federal charges. As shocking, offensive, sad, etc as this evidence is for our community - and especially for families whose children were his patients - it needs to be put front and center. The Freep had no trouble writing a headline addressing this fact.

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.

Nailed it. BOOM goes the dynamite.

evenyoubrutus

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.

Dr. Weinblatt was the pediatrician for my siblings and me for our entire childhood. This is disturbing, sad, frustrating, everything you can think of. I just don't even know how to react. I was in denial for most of this. Now I'm just depressed about it. It really makes you wonder about everyone you've ever trusted.

Wondering

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

Yes.

EMU Prof

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.

Well, you're certainly not alone. You have perfectly summed up how many of us feel, I suspect.

Jim Brooks

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

I don't think pleading no contest leads to registration as a sex offender. But I have a bit of a problem with the neighbor who claims she has seen him masturbating over the years and never told him to close his shades? Geeze. Who's looking at whom?

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:02 p.m.

I agree 100% about the mother's questionable conduct. There will, however, be registration due to the plea-based conviction.

Dark Dichotomy

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

So obviously the guys a total creep but I find this statement rather odd,&quot;The girl's mother had seen him &quot;eight or nine&quot; times over the years, sitting at his kitchen counter or dining room table, masturbating while looking at a laptop computer, the affidavit says.&quot; So why is it okay for this woman to watch this guy masturbating in his home 8 or 9 times? Why doesn't he have a right to privacy in his own home? Seems like quite a double standard to me.

DwightSchrute

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:57 a.m.

grimmk, I advise you to go watch video footage at the Free Press Web site, then report back about the right to privacy for the girl, whose window presumably was open. If the view out her window is what is in that footage, then one could reasonably assume her right to privacy. Because Weinblatt is seen purposely peering through a 1-inch or so slit behind the bottom of his blinds and the top of the frosted window that covers the bottom half - he's clearly peeping, and though it is only 25 seconds long, it IS disturbing to see (police left out the masturbating footage from that clip).

grimmk

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 3:42 a.m.

The right to privacy only extends to covered windows and then someone peeks in. Then your privacy is breached and you can go sue someone. But if you are waltzing around naked with the windows wide open in view of the public, then yes, people can sue you. Got a problem with that? Get a house in the middle of nowhere. Deer don't care about your derriere.

DwightSchrute

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:28 p.m.

and I can easily understand the woman's efforts to capture the guy if she felt he a potential existed of him being a pedophile or a predator who needed to be stopped. The story does mention that she contacted an attorney early on. I imagine most likely to see what needed to be done to have a case against someone peering at her daughter and masturbating seemingly in the open with his laptop at a table. Had she reported him right away with no video/visual evidence, it's her word against his word, maybe a judge orders both to shade/drape their opposing windows, and the doctor gets to continue doing what he's doing - illegally, by the way, at least on computer, as it turns out. Who knows? Without her building a case, who's to say we're not reading about a former patient of his actually being molested by him a couple of years down the road? I know I'd have killer guilt on me if, say, I saw what appeared to be a creep always hanging out near the bus stop but I never said anything, only to find out the guy's been busted for kidnapping one of the kids coming off the bus.

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9 p.m.

I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered about how these two neighbors regularly may have peered into each others homes over a period of years. Why did this mother continue to have the child treat with the doctor if she suspected him of indecent conduct? Why did she allow her minor daughter to change clothes knowing he was watching? I have no beef with a 12-year old girl and her apparent carelessness in a window - but why did the mother not intervene sooner?

DwightSchrute

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.

To this, I'd ask how much privacy does he really have if he's been seen 8-9x through his open window masturbating such that she can see without 'trying' to see? Given the new information readers now know, I don't think it's a stretch, at all, to wonder if Weisenblatt wanted to be seen masturbating.

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.

Privacy is negated in specific ways, including when someone &quot;just notices&quot; a crime being committed in a private residence. Same would apply the other way: if the defendant here had &quot;just noticed&quot; the daughter undressing, he would have a defense. Total evidence in this case shows criminal intent, so the mother's surveillance was legitimized by the other evidence. The mother HAD TO establish her claim before filing a complaint.

EMU Prof

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.

Oh dear God.....I think I'm going to be sick

YpsiVeteran

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.

EMU Prof, I hope you're not sorry you stuck up for someone who was a friend. False accusations are levied against people everyday; until the facts come out, it's loyal and human to support those we trust and believe we know. There's no shame in standing by someone. The worst thing about this is it will make people who knew this man reluctant to give someone else, who may actually be deserving, the benefit of the doubt in the future.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.

@drut_ferguson Of course not. I would urge any parent to be very careful not to leave their children alone with any doctor. However, statistically, most pedophiles are men just like most rapists are men so choosing a female doctor makes sense.

Hunybee3

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.

23 yrs I took 5 kids to him. 2 girls, one all the way to 17. I'm sick. One child was victim of abuse, and his office handled it poorly and to say the lease i was angry then, now I know why it was handled poorly.

EMU Prof

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:50 p.m.

LisaM yup, I stuck up for him. Yeah you're right about technology but it also helped bring him down--the iPad video, the stuff on his computers, etc.

drut_ferguson

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.

So, only men can be pedophiles? When did that happen?

lisam

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.

Yep EMU Prof....If I am correct...you, as well as I, were in support of Dr. W. I am sick as well. I am not trying to find excuses for him, no way, no how. However, I do believe (and I know I am going to get BLASTED) for saying this...but modern technology has helped...and hurt this society...i.e., internet. Anything and everything is &quot;out there.&quot; What anyone can access anymore...which used to be in magazines....is now at one's fingertips. This is a sad day for me. I truly liked the guy. Twenty-nine years ago, when I chose him as my child's pediatrician, I was told by resident in training at the U-M, that he was &quot;the best&quot;, and so I felt confident I made a good choice. However, as someone posted &quot;they walk among us.&quot; I do pray for his wife and children that they have the strength to get through this.

EMU Prof

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

From now on, only female pediatricians for my kids. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is.

aawolve

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.

Thanks for the explanation clarifying the situation... Detroit Free Press.

sHa

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.

I am waiting to see if any commentors here still feel like arguing in support of the Dr.?

OnTheRight

Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.

Roadman: if one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's own home, then on what right are window peeping laws based? It is illegal to peep in a window...even one without any drapes/blinds. Obviously there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom from peeping while inside your own home. Common sense might lead you to draw the blinds, but failure to do so doesn't mean that peeping becomes lawful behavior. If that wasn't the case, what good would peeping laws do...it is pretty pointless to peep at the silhouette of an unclothed person standing behind a window blind. The point is to stop peepers from looking through windows...and logically that includes windows that you can actually see through (the kind with no blinds)!

Roadman

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.

I am critical of the AAPD and Brian Mackie. There was no legal basis for the peeping charges as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy by the alleged victim in any unshaded window. The charges should not have been brought until there was an examination of the materials seized from the computer pursuant to the search warrant . If Prosecutor Mackie had waited and confirmed that child pornography banned by state law was downloaded on the computer by Weinblatt, he would have a stronger case and a better shot at a prison term for the defendant. The public still does not know what exactly was found on the computer and whether state or federal law has been violated due to such alleged materials. At this point there has been no allegation that Dr. Weinblatt sexually abused any patient in his practice. I am no fan of Dr. Weinblatt's alleged conduct, but it is unclear what he is guilty of criminally - and that is the relevant inquiry.

eCoaster

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.

See Ron Granger's comment above...

NonTownie

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.

I hope not! I'm sure there are still a stubborn few, who will still blame the police...and Brian Mackie!

myopinion

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

I feel so sick over this having taken my children to him over the years and having an appt with him as little as a few days before all this news broke. And to think all the people defending him and bashing the mother for not handling it all right. Shameful. We all should be thanking the mother who is a true HERO for going against someone who was looked at in such a high regard in the community and all the backlash she had to take since when in fact she brought a pedophile out of the closet who worked with children everyday and little did we know what sick things he was doing in his own home. DISGUSTING!

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.

Not surprised, but I do wonder where all the people who defended him are now? Lots of people here said we were all hysterical for being cautious, others blamed the Mother, who wanted to be very certain of what she was seeing before filing a complaint so as not to ruin this mans life should she be wrong. Yes folks they walk among us, seem as normal as the next person, but they are apparently more broken than any of us could imagine.

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.

Well EyeHeart the ENTIRE wording was/is being cut off when during the copy &amp; paste session seems to be how you read it as well: &quot;People who are innocent will understand this, people who are pedophiles will act all indignant about the (process of) protecting the child or children.&quot; Meaning ordinary people will understand the NEED to 1st OFF protect the child or children.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:14 p.m.

(sigh) let's try this again and see if it gets by the censors THIS time. @ruralmom: I believe the following is a question, since it has a question mark at the end of it: &quot;Not surprised, but I do wonder where all the people who defended him are now?&quot; Please let me know if I am wrong in this regard, and if I am, I would like to offer my wholehearted apology. If this is indeed a question, and it is not too inconvenient for you, could you take some time out of your day and tell us what you meant by the following phrase: &quot; I didn't HAVE a question, so theres the first problem!&quot; Again, if you didn't mean that you didn't have a question, I am sorry for bringing it up. Regarding the second part of your post: &quot;People who are innocent will understand this, people who are pedophiles&quot; If it is not too inconvenient for you, please explain this in more detail, as upon the first reading, it appears that you mean to say that if you don't understand that, you are a pedophile. I'm sure that is not what you meant to say, so please clear the air for all of the fine people reading this. Thank you, and all my best to you and your family, as well as our larger community and the fine moderation staff at aa.com.

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.

You have said it perfectly. Thank you.

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.

EyeHeart, I didn't HAVE a question, so theres the first problem! I will ALWAYS choose to protect innocent children from the BEGINNING of such an issue. People who are innocent will understand this, people who are pedophiles will act all indignant about protecting the child or children.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:34 p.m.

First of all, RuralMom, please look up about, jeeze, three posts and read what it says. Second, the fact that his man has pleaded to some euphemistic lawyer-ese for guilty on one count and appears to be headed for more trouble on more counts in no way changes my opinion on "that action that must not be named", which could have somewhat mitigated the whole thing, especially since it appears this was a longer term issue than was first presented. Hope that answers your questions.

RuralMom

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.

Ron Granger, I was NOT one who jumped on the guilty bandwagon or the defensive to the point of not really wanting to look to see if any of it was true based on his community standing. What I did say was in the interim, CHILDREN should be protected. Their protection is FAR FAR above finger pointing, defending, and being BLIND to the fact that a doctor could do such a thing! Kids first, everyone else second, period.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.

Ron there was no angry mob, only people with common sense and concern. I didn't see one comment calling for a lynch mob. I did see many comments saying he was a good man and some who said they would still bring their kids to him. DSS might want to talk to those parents about there parenting skills.

Ron Granger

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.

&quot;Not surprised, but I do wonder where all the people who defended him are now?&quot; You mean the ones who said &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot;? The ones who wanted to hope for the best and were willing to wait until the trial before passing judgement? The ones who resisted the angry mob mentality? Those people. Something should be done about them!

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.

In A2 if it feels good do it. I'm thinking they need a little God in their lives

Ron Granger

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.

&quot;The girl's mother had seen him &quot;eight or nine&quot; times over the years, sitting at his kitchen counter or dining room table, masturbating while looking at a laptop computer, the affidavit says.&quot; Really? Watched him through the window? For years?

YpsiVeteran

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.

MorningGirl, I'd say the answer to that question is because not everyone who masturbates is a pedophile. I think it safe to assume that at least 95 percent of the adult population has engaged in that activity at some point in their lives (although I don't know many who do it in full view of an unshaded window, but that's another conversation) and a reasonable person would not automatically assume that images of little kids are involved. The mother seems to be a reasonable, non-hysterical person who inadvertently witnessed private behavior and didn't think anything more of it. In hindsight it all seems pretty obvious and cut-and-dried, but in the context of their relationship as neighbors and long-time patients, she wouldn't have any reason to assume the worst. I do think it's strange that she saw him masturbating multiple times. I don't know many people who repeatedly engage in that behavior in clear view of neighbors who live that close-by.

shutthefrtdoor

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.

Morninggirl...that question begs to be answered.

N. Todd

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.

I will start by saying that I am absolutely NOT sticking up for the doctor but I do think this is a very valid question. @smokeblwr - I have been thinking the same thing but wasn't sure how to word things without placing guilt. It seems very hypocritical to break the law in order to catch someone breaking the law. Can he file a claim against the mother? It seems like there's some pretty decent video evidence his counsel could subpoena.

MorningGirl

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.

I'm not sticking up for the doc, but I wonder why the mother continued to take her daughter to his office.

cinnabar7071

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.

Ron are you really sticking up for this guy still? Only in A2.

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.

HEY! I never thought of that. You aren't allowed to look at somebody in their own house in a state of undress.

justcurious

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.

Apparently Annarbor.com has done their own investigation into the subsequent information on this case and chose to publish what they learned. They aren't required to use the Free Press information in their story, though one wonders why they differ.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.

Ouch. If this is true, I have no sympathy for the guy any longer. Sick to think a pediatrician is accused of child porn.

ypsicat

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.

I'm going to take a shower now. BRB.

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4 p.m.

I imagine he will need to move away from the house since he's a registered sex offender, right? Who is going to want to buy that house without powerwashing it first? On the inside I mean.

NonTownie

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.

Please read the FREEP article, posted last night ~ 9:30 PM: &quot;108 images -- some of child pornography and some appearing to show teenagers, links to pornographic websites featuring teenagers and receipts and passwords for pay-porn sites -- including one named Teen Dreams, according to the police report.&quot; <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab</a>

shutthefrtdoor

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.

Oh boy...the dirt comes out in the wash. Very sad...

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.

According to the Free Press child porn WAS found on his computer. Lots of it.

thecompound

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.

Wish I could read it but my browsers shut down every time I go to the Free Press website. Not sure why...

smokeblwr

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.

In case you don't believe me <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab</a>|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE