Police: Woman recorded video of Ann Arbor pediatrician watching her 12-year-old daughter
An Ann Arbor woman recorded a video of her neighbor, pediatrician Howard Weinblatt, peeping on her 12-year-old daughter while he appeared to be masturbating, records show.
Washtenaw County court records also show Weinblatt has been the victim's doctor since she was born.
Weinblatt
Details in the case against the veteran Ann Arbor pediatrician can be found in an audio recording of Weinblatt's Nov. 23 arraignment that was obtained Tuesday by AnnArbor.com through the Freedom of Information Act.
Dr. Weinblatt, 65, who has taken a leave of absence from IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor, where he's worked for years, is charged with four counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two counts of window peeping. State licensing officials have said he can continue to practice while the case is pending. Weinblatt's attorney, Laurence Margolis, has said Weinblatt will vigorously defend himself against the charges.
Asked Tuesday about the video and other allegations, Margolis said, "Dr. Weinblatt is the victim of an illegal custodial arrest in his own home without a warrant based on trumped up charges by an overzealous police officer. He is being prosecuted for crimes he did not commit, and there never was probable cause he committed any offense.
"The doctor’s home was ransacked and his family property was seized by an AAPD police officer who was more concerned with headlines than my client’s civil rights or his liberty interest. We have formally requested that the county prosecutor dismiss all charges and we are hopeful Dr. Weinblatt will soon be completely exonerated."
Weinblatt is accused of watching out his bathroom window on four occasions between Oct. 18 and Oct. 31 while the 12-year-old changed her clothing in her walk-in bedroom closet. According to a criminal complaint, Weinblatt's alleged conduct occurred under circumstances where the girl had a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
The Nov. 23 arraignment
Weinblatt, who was arrested Nov. 22 when Ann Arbor police executed a search warrant at his home, said little during his roughly 10-minute long arraignment the next day at the Washtenaw County Jail, the recording shows. He spoke only to answer a few routine questions from Magistrate Camille Horne, who asked for information such as his name and date of birth.
Ann Arbor police Detective Amy Ellinger who had submitted a written request for a $50,000 bond in the case, told Horne that "both the prosecutor's office and myself have substantial concerns" and believe the bond request is "very reasonable."
Ellinger, who is leading the investigation, said Weinblatt's house on Olivia Avenue is 11 feet from the victim's house. She said that on four occasions, the victim's mother "was in her daughter's upstairs bedroom and observed Mr. Weinblatt observing her daughter who was changing her clothes in a walk-in bedroom closet from his bathroom window which is directly across from their 12-year-old daughter's closet."
"On one of the occasions, she took her iPad and recorded the incident," Ellinger said. "She left the iPad recording, facing outward so she could observe what was happening later. She walked away, and, when she came back and reviewed the video, she observed what in her opinion was Dr. Weinblatt not only looking out the window at her daughter when she was changing her clothes, but also masturbating at the time."
Ellinger said it was a concern that "this has happened so many times" and that Weinblatt is a pediatrician.
"He has also been the victim's pediatrician ever since she's been born and he still continues to have access to children in his profession," Ellinger said.
Ellinger asked Horne to order that Weinblatt have no contact will the victim's family, stay off the family's property and have "no contact with minor children for their potential safety."
Horne asked Ellinger whether any other minors were being "subject to the alleged conduct" by Weinblatt. Ellinger said, "Not at this time. The investigation is still ongoing."
Weinblatt's attorney, Margolis, spoke earlier during the arraignment, arguing that Weinblatt should be released on a promise to appear.
Weinblatt has no criminal record and is a "distinguished and important figure in this community," Margolis said. Margolis said Weinblatt has lived in the Ann Arbor area since the mid 1970s and owns a house with his wife in the Burns Park neighborhood, where they've lived for 17 years. Margolis said Weinblatt isn't a flight risk.
"Apparently, the allegations involve looking through a window at a neighbor..." Margolis said. Margolis said the allegations are being taken "very seriously."
"But Dr. Weinblatt is entitled, obviously, to the presumption of innocence," Margolis said.
Margolis also said that any proposed bond condition prohibiting Weinblatt from having contact with minors is unnecessary. Weinblatt has been "practicing without incident, for going on 40 years, working with minors," Margolis said.
Horne released Weinblatt that day on a promise to appear. She set bond conditions ordering that Weinblatt not contact the victim's family, go to the victim's property or use or possess alcohol or drugs.
She did not grant Ellinger's request to order that Weinblatt have no contact with minors. In releasing Weinblatt on a promise to appear, Horne noted that he has no criminal record, has strong connections to the community and that police were not alleging there were other victims.
Weinblatt is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing Jan. 4.
Hear Detective Amy Ellinger's court testimony about the video.
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
Tony Dearing
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
We understand that people have a strong desire to discuss this story, but it is our responsibility not to allow comments that violate our conversation guidelines. Given the high volume of comments that we've had to removed, we are closing commenting on this story. Comments regarding our moderation practices may be posted here: http://www.annarbor.com/about/annarborcom-conversation-guidelines-comment-moderation/
nyrdreems
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
Where is the audio?
Roadman
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
I have seen many, many cases in court where the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" was interpreted by a judge in the context of a Fourth Amendment search and seizure analysis. No judge would ever hold that a person who had exposed themselves in any window viewable to the public had any "reasonable expectation of privacy" in not being seen by that public. There is case law where police have used high resolution cameras and telescopic lens devices and it has been held to be no Fourth Amendment violation. Even if what has been alleged by the police is absolutely true, I see no crime committed, however disgusting the allegations may be. If, hypothetically, the defendant was proven to be using a telescope and looking upon the minor with a prurient interest, I see no crime committed. The doctor was where he was lawfully entitled to be and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as to what goes on in an open window. Check the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case in Stanley versus Georgia where it was held that a defendant cannot be constitutionally be prosecuted for pornography possessed in his own home. Judge Easthope was a former criminal defense attorney who was politically supported by the criminal defense bar in his 2008 judicial campaign. I have faith he will follow thw the law and dismiss this case.
leezee
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
Odd. Thinks he's doing something. Not 100% sure. Curtains. Blinds.
Red Floyd
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
The most popular comment above states: "I am very concerned about any molestation of a child. But this gentleman is accused of an action which is not expected to have been known to the child at all. I hope that the prosecutors see fit to drop this case, though the damage to the man's reputation and career has already been done." I'm so disgusted that 174 people in my community voted for this comment, which basically argues that it's perfectly alright to masturbate to to a naked child provided the child is unaware. Shame on you all!
HBA
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.
This whole story is trickling out like Chinese water torture with allegations flying left and right. There is so much that is confusing. First, the doctor has surreptitiously crawled into someone's backyard and peered through a window--not once, but 4 times. Then, he was in his own home looking out a window. The girl supposedly was undressing in a "bedroom walk-in closet." Does it have a window? Then the doctor was in his own bathroom looking out. If he were urinating, then perhaps it was misconstrued as masturbation. After the alleged incident occurred the first time, did the Mother confront the doctor? If not, why not? How many times did the alleged incidents occur before one was iPad-taped? Does the Mother hold a grudge against her neighbor/child's pediatrician? I repeat again, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Why don't people wait until ALL the facts are in and legal judgment made before jumping to conclusions. If the doctor were to be found innocent, what a travesty these stories have been.
Ron Granger
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
How did the girl and Mom know that she had been watched on FOUR occasions? There are a lot of important details that we would hope would come out in a trial. But often those details are supressed by the judge.
15crown00
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
a tangled web indeed.everybody gets hurt in the end.
15crown00
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
what a tangled web there is here.no matter how it's decided everybody gets hurt.
nyrdreems
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
What a story. First it was reported that he was seen by neighbors looking into someone's window. Made me think he was creeping around someone else's yard. Now it is reported that he was indeed in his own home looking out. What is this about Ann Arbor homes with no window coverings? He can be filmed in his bathroom from next door? A walk-in dressing room for a young girl is open to the neighbors? I try to imagine what I would do if I thought my neighbor was watching my young daughter from his window...pull the blinds...march over to my neighbors house and have a talk with him...record my neighbor...so many obtions...One thing is for sure, there would not be a second time. Why are there so many comments removed? Are we only to think that this man should be crucified with no discussion...no proof? Annarbor.com who are you? If you continue to limit what can be discussed on this site, the good people of Ann Arbor will find other places to discuss the headlines of the day. Be careful, you cannot afford to dismiss your loyal readers.
superhappyfunbrett
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
"One thing is for sure, there would not be a second time." EXACTLY.
superhappyfunbrett
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
Personally, I was raised to close windows/doors when I changed. I always assumed it was less to not offend others and more to protect myself. The world is full of creeps. Even people that we may think are "normal" may have serious issues. We can/should all take precautions to safeguard ourselves accordingly. Concerning this case specifically, I suppose a lot depends upon what is actually on said video. If it's not, uh, "obvious" what is happening, then I could see this case, as some have pointed out, taking a turn for the odd. This story just feels very incomplete at this point. Too many bizarre little details that don't make things black and white. My hope is that the law will be able to pull together truth and facts and come to a fair conclusion. No matter what, this is just sad. Someone is certainly a victim here...
paul wiener
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
This article is being reported without the slightest regard for the victim's privacy, as well as for the presumption of the perp's innocence. If there's any misunderstanding here, it's almost impossible to wipe away charges of sexual misconduct once they're made. I'm very surprised that the A2 community helps perpetrate such sensationalism.
Jim
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.
I agree. At this point, they've basically identified the victim and her family. All these deletions and the entity most guilty of harming the family is AnnArbor.com itself! I think this story was written because of its salacious content (and NOT as a community warning/service) but the circumstances of the event(s) have ballooned out of control. Shame on you, AnnArbor.com!
Red Floyd
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
There have been an overwhelming number of comments supporting Weinblatt's freedom to stand in the privacy of his bathroom and masturbate while looking at the image of a naked child through his window pane. If you feel he has this right, then do you also feel he has the right to stand in the privacy of his computer room and masturbate while looking at the image of a naked child through his computer screen? Because the second action, in and of itself, is illegal. I'm all for having the freedom to do whatever I want in my own house, and I agree this case is rather tricky, but I'm also having a difficult time drawing a difference between the two actions I described.
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. Why would you bring up child pornography, if there is no mention of it in the article?
Alison Abbott
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
Justcurious, you keep repeating, "why did he not pull the blinds?" You're assuming he has blinds in his bathroom window, we don't..but then we could only be accused of peeping our chickens, goats and the pony. There are just too many holes in this whole story, so much that doesn't make sense, so many assumptions. Is it possible the doctor was scratching his tummy and absentmindedly admiring the roses? Who's to tell with the information provided so far? And as others have said, video taping someone through the window into their own bathroom...how is that ok? It may turn out the doctor is indeed a pedophile, and if so, we all know where he belongs, but so much is unclear/dodgy about this story I have strong doubts that that is the case.
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Alison, I kept repeating that statement because since this story began people have been saying that about the 12 year old girl. We don't have curtains on our bedroom windows or bathroom window either. We have those small ranch sliders at the top of the wall and no nearby neighbors. We are not the judge and jury in this case and so are not privy to all of the details. We only know what is reported here, and the reporters only know what they have been able to glean by filing Freedom of Information requests.
aawolve
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
It seems odd to me that the mother was somehow supposedly aware of what was going on, and yet continued to expose her daughter to it. This whole thing reeks, I look forward to learning more.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
Try imagining how you would deal with this situation yourself. Without evidence, you would face having to file a complaint which would be fought and probably turned against you (in the form of a law suit for damaging a doctor's career). If it were me, I would have first contacted AAPD detectives and ask them how to proceed. But "who knows" when a parent thinks their child is being violated in such a manner?
superhappyfunbrett
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
This is a key point in my mind also.
TrappedinMI
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
I can't believe how many people think the doctor's alleged behavior is okay or normal. Goodness! If this was your daughter or your family would you not do the same? Smart mom!
dotdash
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
My previous post was deleted; let me try to be more careful. Whether she is a smart mom or not rests on whether the impact on her daughter is more or less positive because of her actions. I don't have an answer, obviously, because who knows what will happen, but that is the lens through which "smart mom" should be judged.
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
What behavior? A man is in his own house, and he uses the bathroom. Which part of it do you consider abnormal?
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.
Smart? Actually: she was doing her duty as parent / guardian. I still agree: if a trial vindicates her charge and her evidence: she would then deserve praise.
Ron Granger
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
I wonder if there will be a civil case that seeks an "undisclosed sum". Has it been filed yet?
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.
Depending on who would file such a case, the answer is still "no" because it would have to be in response to a trial - which hasn't taken place yet.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.
Not surprising that there's a huge controversy erupting on this forum. Not because of the details of the case, which has yet to go to trial: but not surprising because the "pro" and "con" factions are obviously incensed over what amounts to insufficient information. One has to wonder about the number of deleted comments: because people are obviously familiar with the rules and are obviously breaking them with their posts because they want the forum closed - NOT out of any misunderstanding. All we have at this point is: a trickle of details which, apparently, will become part of the trial - if and when it occurs. AnnArbor.com cannot be accused of anything but providing these details of what is clearly a "headline case" in this town. In the past, when I've had disagreements with AA.com staff over my posts, we addressed each other directly through emails and the matters were settled. I suggest that those who are violating the rules of posting do the same and not muddy this forum with their accusations. SETTLE IT off-forum, please. This is entirely reasonable: a few times when I erred, it was suggested that I just post a re-phrased version of my original post - that worked to everyone's satisfaction and benefit. Questions - that's what we see too little of in this online controversy. Too many assertions (of guilt or innocence) is what we've seen too many of so far. Most of all: what's happening is there are too many who fail to test their own conclusions before setting them forth. It's standard operating procedure, folks. Right now: all we have are the statements of the accused's attorney and the markedly different statements from police and prosecutors. We can take some assurance from this: usually the results of a trial prove who was telling the truth.
Joel A. Levitt
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3 p.m.
If Weinblatt is innocent and if I was he, I would insist on a public trial and file a complaint that my privacy was violated. Unfortunately it is the twelve year old who is most likely to suffer.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.
Why is there a difference in the reporting style in these 2 articles? <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/suspect-located-interviewed-in-reported-rape-at-u-m-residence-hall/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/suspect-located-interviewed-in-reported-rape-at-u-m-residence-hall/</a> and this one <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/police-woman-recorded-video-of-ann-arbor-pediatrician-peeping-on-her-12-year-old-daughter/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/police-woman-recorded-video-of-ann-arbor-pediatrician-peeping-on-her-12-year-old-daughter/</a> At first I thought the difference was due to information that could lead to identifying the victim. But... this article states, "Weinblatt's house on Olivia Avenue is 11 feet from the victim's house" That detail, I believe, could lead to one identifying the victim and should not be in this article. Why the inconsistency in reporting style?
Tesla
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Most of the homes on that street are close together and it's not that difficult in this day and age to find out who the complainants slash "victim" is via other means.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
Did I miss something in the earlier reports of this? I had the feeling from those AA.com articles that this was a traditional Peeping Tom report, with the guy standing outside this girl's window peering in on her. Now I see that it was a man looking out the window from his own home. Question: did the earlier reports include the two window scenario, or not? If not, the what was this...just a hanging expedition?
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
Isn't it true that often a sexual predator will masterbate in front of others in order to gratify themselves. People do it in drive-thrus, on the street, in parks and probably in front of their own windows.
Jon Wax
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
wait a minute... im confused? ok so the doc is kinda creepy for doing what he's doing. But... isn't it illegal for the woman to use a recording device to invade the doc's privacy in her attempt to record him? I hate to say this, but when it all spins out, i think she might be the one catching a charge, no matter how weirdo the doc is. I mean, if the child wasn't involved, would the lady be allowed to use the ipad to record his activity in his own home? especially if the guy was in the middle of some "sex" behaviour, whether alone or with someone else, isnt that grounds for all kinds of lawsuits the lady could be catching in the not too distant future? i dunno man, this is gonna spin into a weird case i think and the outcome is gonna be a curveball. Peace
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
How big is the bathroom window? Most are just big enough to let in the light, for obvious reasons. Unless this bathroom window is somehow different (which I doubt), how is it possible to determine what is the occupant doing? How do you arrive from the neighbor being in bathroom (very possible) to him "masterbating openly" (sic)? And why do you WANT to arrive to this conjecture?
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
Would you consider it ok for your neighbor to masterbate openly iwhile standing in his uncovered bathroom window which faced yours or your child's?
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
People are going out of their way to defend the alleged actions of this man. If this was their own daughter I think they would not be so eager to dismiss the charges.
simply amazed
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.
If it were my daughter and I saw this happening 4 times...oh wait. It wouldn't have happened 4 times if it were my daughter.
slug
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
If it was my own daughter, I would have closed her window immediately.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
If this were my own daughter her window would be covered when she got undressed.
GeeWhiz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
The charges are based on MCL 750.539j which states: (1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most people are not defending the doctor but trying to ascertain what is "a reasonable expectation of privacy". My daughter, for instance, has blinds on her bathroom window for privacy. Would I be upset if somebody "peeped" through her window if she accidentally left the blinds down? Absolutely. I would also take corrective actions to ensure that it never occurred again!
GeeWhiz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
If the alleged victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their closet, doesn't the doctor also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bathroom? Why would one "peeping" be a crime while the other "peeping" with a recording device not a crime?
GeeWhiz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
TruBlu76 - "there's no no privacy protection for the person committing a crime". Granted, but in this case, looking out your window is not a crime! The issue of whether a crime has been committed or not has to be adjudicated that is why crime victims are asked to report alleged crimes to police and not resort to self-help by engaging in potentially illegal activity.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
The simple answer to your question is "No." But the details are that _IF_ it's shown that the mother had any other than legitimate reason to believe she was seeing the doctor commit the crime he's charged with: the case would be thrown out and she might face charges. See, there's no privacy protection for the person committing a crime. The preeminence of discovery, I believe, outweighs any supposed protection of criminal acts.
jrigglem
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
It is, it's video voyeurism and I'm pretty sure recording someone without their knowledge is also a crime.
jrigglem
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
If we're not allowed to question anything or bring up previous cases, why is commenting even open on this article? There was nothing wrong with my previous comment and to withhold it because AnnArbor.com doesn't agree with the content is completely ridiculous and biased. I stated nothing about the victim in a negative way.
Janet Clark
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
This whole case is right out of a Kafka novel. We have an accuser and we have the accused. We have the Rule of Law and the rules of evidence and the fundamental premise that a party is "innocent until proven guilty". All of this is being chucked out of the window that everyone is looking through... Does one not have an "expectation of privacy" from being videotaped while in their own bathroom? Who is the victim here? It is impossible for that video to contemporaneously prove that the Dr was doing anything while "watching" a girl undressing, because the recording is only one way. This whole mess stinks....and will ultimately get thrown out. I agree with that woman last week commenting that this fact pattern is going to lay the groundwork for one massive civil lawsuit.
thinker
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
This whole thing is very disturbing: I am not a lawyer, but why is the evidence in a video taken of a neighbor doing whatever he wants in the privacy of his bathroom not considered window peeping? And how can one presume that is what he was doing? Was there a video of his brain, his intent? Somehow something is very off, here.....
Janet Clark
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Yes, excellent point. And how could this "evidence" be then used to obtain a search warrant to confiscate this man's property. This case never gets to trial. It will be dismissed. The accuser will be completely eviserated on cross examination for their actions and intent...
a2girl
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2 p.m.
I am not an attorney, nor have I played one on TV, but I see so many holes in this charge that I will be surprised if this goes to trial. I am not convinced that the mother's video proves that the doctor was observing her daughter while he was allegedly masturbating. I also question why it seems that the girl had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" but the same does not apply to the doctor. As uncomfortable as this story makes me, I can't help but think that it doesn't sound like the doctor committed a crime. Of course, none of this matters because his life as he knew it is over.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
Anyone who appears to be committing a crime is vulnerable to "violation of privacy" (see 4th Amendment) because "privacy" in such cases means it is being used to avoid detection. Simple when you consider: murder, arson, rape - and even counterfeiting and lesser crimes are prosecuted whether or not they're committed in the defendant's home or other "private place." The defense might argue that, in this case, the child's mother was trying to damage the doctor. She will almost certainly face cross examination and the defense will do all possible to discredit her claims (he already is - by his public statements).
trespass
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
Do you know where his toilet is in his bathroom? When he stands to urinate, does he look out the window? So much more information is needed before we can assess how likely the charges are to be true.
Soothslayer
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
"was in her daughter's upstairs bedroom and observed Mr. Weinblatt " Just who is violating who's privacy here? Counterclaims for invasion of Dr. Weinblatt's privacy are in order along with the video recording charges. She admitted it in court!
thinker
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
This whole loss of free speech, blame the accused, etc, makes me very happy we canceled our subscription to the paper Ann Arbor.com. Maybe I should stop reading and commenting on the internet version too!
thinker
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
Where is our right of free speech? And if someone videos someone in there bathroom, presumably partially naked, is that not prosecutable?
Woman in Ypsilanti
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
Isn't it illegal to peep through someone's window and to record them masturbating?
thinker
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
Why would anyone let this go on, supposedly 4 times? Is his bathroom window large enough that thts could be seen, and his intentions discerned? I look out my bathroom window frequently, and cannot see anyone in the next house, or what they are doing. I they could see me and video me, is that not an infringement on my privacy, in my own bathroom? This will probably be deleted. One can only presume that the press - anywhere in this country- is dedicated to destroying people's reputations, before trial. Remember presumption of innocence?
Brad
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
"An Ann Arbor woman recorded a video of her neighbor, pediatrician Howard Weinblatt, peeping on her 12-year-old daughter while he appeared to be masturbating, records show" Question: what is missing from the first sentence of this "article"? The word ALLEGED. He is ALLEGED to have been peeping while he appeared to be engaged in some self-help. That's what the process is about -- finding out if allegations are fact. So maybe you should worry a little less about the comments and a little more about the reporting.
ArthGuinness
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
Brad and USRepublic, you are having problems with reading comprehension. See the words "records show"? That sentence is a FACT. Records *do* show that "an Ann Arbor woman recorded ...". There are no missing words in the sentence. Not to mention that the phrase "appeared to be" casts some doubt, which is similar in concept to an allegation. Finally, I don't see how your failed reading comprehension has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or anything else.
USRepublic
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
Barb, Actually... Booth owns both Ann Arbor.com and Mlive.com Let's hold Booth Accountable!
seldon
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
@USRepublic: This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. I'm not even sure where you're making that connection.
Barb
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
Um, this is not an MLive site.
USRepublic
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
Brad....I agree The problem is that MLive.com is a failing venture with a business model proven to have failed elsewhere. They (MLive.com) can only afford to retain cub reporters who have been indoctrinated by their liberal post secondary eduction in the belief that it is more important to espouse their liberal convictions rather than provide the readers with journalistic integrity.
grye
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
He's guilty, he's innocent, he's guilty. We get a little information, then a little more information, then more information. The pendulum swings with each new release. So quick to judge because he appeared to be masterbating. Could he have been exercising with a shaker weight?
ArthGuinness
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
Finally, a commenter here coming to the realization that we don't have all the facts yet. Thank you.
mi2cents
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.
Jen Eyer Just saw your comment. Was wondering why so many posts were removed, more than usual. "Please not that comments blaming the family will not be approved" Ahhhhh but it is okay to blast the accused.....the innocent until proven quilty. Appears to be a one sided story. Thanks again AnnArbor.com for the free speech.
alarictoo
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Hit it right on the head, mi2cents!
eCoaster
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Even if Weinblatt is found "innocent" because he was viewing from his own home or the girl next door did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy or the search warrant was not executed properly, it does not change the fact (alleged) that he was surveilling a child for his own sexual gratification.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
By law, a criminal cannot "hide behind" the Fourth Amendment. There's never been a case in which a defendant was found innocent because he committed a crime in his own home. So rest easy, what you're worrying about has never happened.
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
The only fact that will not change is that allegations have been made against him. Everything else is hearsay and conjectures.
Jim Osborn
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
This is a very difficult article to comment on. AnnArbor.com states, "Please not that comments blaming the family will not be approved", yet it is family members who are front and center to the story. This is why so many comments have been removed. This leaves only their neighbor, the doctor, and his actions that can be brought into question, and not anyone elses. Leaving only very biased comments. I do find the audio provided where the police officer gives second hand evidence that someone (can't say per AA.com guidelines) says that the doctor performed a certain act. Why didn't the police officer watch the video and offer her opinion?
Billy
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
Welcome to annarbor.com...there is no other "news" site that censors comments as badly. They also write HORRIBLY point of view all the time...
Suzeh
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
blaming means you've already passed judgment & this is a case involving a minor-very inappropriate to blame. perhaps that is why they are being so strict? Personally I think it would have been a better protection for the family-the girl in particular- if the story had not aired at this early time.
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
They removed my comment which definitely was not blaming the victim or her family.
A2Kim
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
I will agree that he is a fine doctor, and so are *all* of the docs at Child Health Associates. Do I begin to know anything about any of their personal lives, no, and neither do most of the people commenting on AA.com. As a parent, I admit that he is a fine doctor, but I am not so naive that I can so easily dismiss the enormity of these allegations. Also as a parent of teenage girls, I feel so terribly sorry for the 12-year old and her family. They have been brave in coming forward with these allegations, probably knowing what type of speculation would occur before the facts are made public.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
Actually, we do know why the mother of the allegedly surveilled child shot the video of that particular man: she was doing her duty as a vigilant parent. And remember: taking videos or photos of people who are apparently committing in a crime is not unethical or illegal. In this case, a video could be particularly telling since it records actions which could be conclusive to a jury. The number and magnitude of crimes committed under the assumption that the perps are "protected behind privacy laws" is uncountable. The Fourth Amendment does not protect criminals - it only establishes the rules of discovery of evidence.
A2Kim
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
@Janet: The allegations are too disturbing to ignore. We don't know why the Mom videotaped the doc, true. I did not say that videotaping him was brave. The family is brave for not ignoring what was going on, and contacting the A2PD. I guess it would have been much more simple for them to sell the home, move somewhere else, enroll her in another school, and ignore everything. I don't live in the Burns Park neighborhood, but I'm sure this family is being treated like lepers by all who know exactly who they are. The doctor is well-known in the community, and has been well-supported by the armchair quarterbacks at AA.com, in the four prior articles. Very few are willing to show compassion for the other family; perhaps some have, but their comments have been deleted.
Janet Clark
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
How is videotaping a guy in his bathroom "brave" in your view...?
Jen Eyer
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.
Because of the high volume of comments that violate our conversation guidelines, this story has been put on pre-moderation. Please not that comments blaming the family will not be approved.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
Ms Eyer...What is A2.com's position regarding prior restraint? I thought for sure that any journalist in Ann Arbor would be totally and adamantly opposed to it. So what is the defense for prior restraint here? I don't recall ever in my life (I have never been in prison) had someone tell me that my comments are being reviewed prior to publication. This is, well, astounding.
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
Hilarious. So the conjecture about "sexual predator masterbating in front of others in order to gratify" himself stays, and a suggestion to put the same shoe on the other foot gets removed. If you are concerned about fairness, remove both.
Janet Clark
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.
Jen, the same "blame" factor then needs to apply to the dr. There is an accuser and the accused. The actions of one cannot be questioned without questioning the other side. The complaint was signed by the family, not the police. Also, it is wrong to repeatedly call the child, "the victim". She is an "alleged victim". She only becomes a victim when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. We are not there yet.
Michigan Man
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
Please allow the people to speak! We are adults. We do not want A2.com to become the self appointed amateur keeper of community conversation. We are not violating any laws with our comments = this is free speech. If the folks are off offended they have free will to not surf and read the associated comments.
alarictoo
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
Suze - It is not tht everyone is "so offensive". It seems that somehow questioning the parents' response to the situation (vis a vis - recording instead of putting up blinds) somehow abrogates annarbor.com's arbitrary rule about "blaming the victim". Although, I would say that some comments here make a good argument questioning which party is the actual victim.
trespass
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
I did not blame the family. I commented on how flimsy the evidence is. Why was that removed? There are lots of comments that assume the evidence against the doctor is true. Why are those comments not removed. The moderation of these comments seem to be biased against the doctor.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
my kids used to toss their clothes on floor, why was that removed? Given the arbitrary nature of your censorship I would prefer you just delete all my posts.
Suzeh
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
Thank you! Wow, I can't believe all the removed comments! What kind of community do we live in that people are so offensive about this subject?!
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.
I did not blame the family. I presented a plausible scenario of why he may have been observed 4 times.
Silly Sally
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
"appeared to be masturbating" How would anyone actually know? All they have is a video of some guy looking out of his window. I didn't know that this was illegal. Only in Ann Arbor, I suppose. This is yellow journalism from the 1900s. Where is the old Ann Arbor News when we need it?
liekkio
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
@ justcurious: indeed, we do not know what is on that video. And you do? Enlighten us.
silodog
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
If she is watching him - much less recording him - in the privacy of his own house, is she the "peeping tom"?? slippery slope...
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
You don't know what is on the video.
Diane
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
What a shame all the way around.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
One thing for sure, in the world we live in Cecile B. Demille's are everywhere.
Halima
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.
I don't understand the complaint here. The man is accused of looking out of his window into a window which was not covered by shades or blinds? How is this a crime? Further, suppose that he was in fact actually masturbating in his home. If his genitals were not visible from the outside of the home, is he not allowed to masturbate as he wishes? I am not judging the actions of the person surveilled, if there was in fact any surveillance, but it just doesn't seem fair that someone should be prosecuted and have his name and reputation ruined over charges that he stood in his own home. If he were alleged to have used binoculars, taken photographs, or tampered with the window coverings at the complainant's home so that he could see, I would understand that there should be some prosecution. I am very concerned about any molestation of a child. But this gentleman is accused of an action which is not expected to have been known to the child at all. I hope that the prosecutors see fit to drop this case, though the damage to the man's reputation and career has already been done. Forevermore, if potential patients Google him, they will find this news article. What a shame.
OnTheRight
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
If you were the parent of a 12 year old girl and needed a pediatrician for her....would you feel comfortable having her treated/examined by a man who masturbates while watching girls of the same age undress? Just because he does something in the privacy of his own home (even if it "is not expected to have been known to the child at all") it can still be illegal. Being in your own home isn't a free pass to engage in illegal activity. Is it really "a shame" that parents of prospective patients can Google a physician and discover that he has been charged with masturbating while peering through the window at an undressing 12 year old? You might not care if your own physician behaves like that but you should be looking out for your kid and think twice before putting him/her in contact with someone charged with having those tendencies. If he is acquitted of the charges, that will show up on Google too....so parents can weigh all of the information and make an informed decision for their children.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
I sort of see it as not dissimilar to masturbating to child pornography on your computer. Do you find child pornography acceptable? Perhaps if said pornography was taken/produced without the childs awareness? Hence no actual "victim"? Is that how you would see it?
alan
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
It may be unacceptable but the APA does classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation because because the attraction is involuntary and does not wane with time. Roughly 5% of the population are classified as pedophiles. They overwhelmingly wish they didn't have such urges. Yet it's still treated as nothing more than a crime although the success rate with treatment is very high.
ThaKillaBee
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
Then thank God you are not in law enforcement. "Icky feelings" -- icky as they may truly be -- should never trump the law.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:17 p.m.
a grown man finding anything sexually stimulating about a 12 year old is totally unacceptable in my world. And that trumps "the privacy of my own home" card.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.
"Details in the case against the veteran Ann Arbor pediatrician can be found in an audio recording of Weinblatt's Nov. 23 arraignment that was obtained Tuesday by AnnArbor.com through the Freedom of Information Act." Was the arraignment open to the public? If not, why? If it was, why wasn't a reporter there covering the story so a FOIA wasn't needed after the fact? This is just what critics were afraid of when the Ann Arbor News was closed and replaced by AnnArbor.com--lower quality journalism and delays in getting local news. The readers are owed an explanation.
justcurious
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
and if it was not open to the public, would that have been because he is a well known local pediatrician?
Paula Gardner
Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.
Dozens of warrants are filed daily, so we don't attend every arraignment. This was an unusual charge so we wanted to read the file to weigh a story - but given the typical 3-day delay on getting a file (and the Thanksgiving holiday that closed the courts for 2 days) there was a delay of a few days. It's also a circumstance when police did not release details of the investigation outside of the court testimony.