How many more stalking victims must die?

This weekend's murder of Loni Amber Turner at the hands of her suicidal ex-boyfriend, Erin Ross, highlights a couple of very serious concerns that CourtWatch has with the justice system.

We've previously featured our concerns about judges who set hearings without providing temporary injunctions while the parties await their day in court (which are scheduled 2 weeks after the petition is filed). See our blog about the Alissa Blanton murder earlier this year. So I won't rehash that issue.

The second concern we have is that many judges and law enforcement personnel just don't "get" how lethal stalking behavior can be. Alissa Blanton had not been in a romatic relationship with her stalker. Perhaps the judge felt she wasn't really at risk of violence. Perhaps he just didn't want to read the 70+ pages of her petition. As we now know, her stalker/murderer, Roger Troy, was extremely lethal. But her death should have been a wake up call to every judge in this State to review what the Florida Statutes say about stalking.

From what has been reported in the media, it would appear as though Ms. Turner was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend. As reported in the Sentinel,

Loni Amber Turner was afraid. An ex-boyfriend she'd met online wouldn't leave her alone. He sent her text messages. He watched her apartment. He showed up at the trade school where she was a student. "I am really afraid to come out of the apartment, …" she wrote in a domestic violence petition last week.

Even though the judge set a hearing for September 3rd, her request for a temporary injunction was denied, mostly likely because she did not state that there had been any acts or overt threats of violence. Or perhaps it was because she had tried to remain friendly with Mr. Ross after the relationship was officially over.

If stalkers aren't stopped, their behavior can escalate and become violent. Ms. Turner's effort to stop her tormentor was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Circuit Judge William A. Parsons said that Turner had failed to prove she was in danger. By issuing a summons, without a temporary injunction at the same time, the judge put her at a higher risk for victimization.

What Judge Parsons tragically did not seem to understand is that Mr. Ross' behavior was indeed dangerous, even though he did not physically assault Ms Turner.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of fatalities occur when the relationship is in the process of ending or has recently ended. By putting Mr. Ross on notice that his victim wanted him to stay away from her, and by not issuing a court order telling him to stay away, Judge Parsons' Order Setting Hearing (OSH) may have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back in this situation.

OK, I know, I said I wouldn't rehash the OSH issue. I just couldn't stop myself.

The US Department of Justice Stalking Victimization Study (Jan 2009) estimated that 3.4 million persons were victims of stalking during a 12 month period. Stalking is a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. Individually, the acts that were measured are not criminal in nature. But when done repeatedly and collectively, they may cause the victim to fear for his or her safety. The behaviors measured in the study are:

• making unwanted phone calls
• sending unsolicited or unwanted letters or emails
• following or spying on the victim
• showing up at places without a legitimate reason
• waiting at places for the victim
• leaving unwanted items, presents or flowers
• posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth

From the following chart, it looks like the criminal justice system has a lot to do in order to be perceived as helpful to victims of stalking:

The number of cases where criminal charges were not filed is disgraceful:

Stalking is a potentially lethal crime. It's time for EVERY member of law enforcement (cops, prosecutors and judges) to treat it seriously.

To everyone in law enforcement: If Alissa Blanton's death didn't wake you up, Loni Amber Turner's death certainly should.

Stalking Resources available online.

Injunction Denied to Victim of Stalking - Stalker/Arsonist Granted Bond

With all the media attention focused on Judge Moxley's denial of an injunction request by Alissa Blanton and her subsequent murder earlier this month, I monitored a criminal case in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today that is equally frightening.

On December 1, 2009 19-yr old Tameka Hibbler requested an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against her ex-boyfriend, Tommy Lee Knight. Her petition noted five different instances of stalking behavior during the previous 4 days:

11/27/09: At her place of work, Mr. Knight was there from 7:00-9:45pm, crying and making a scene. He refused to leave after she asked him to leave her alone.

11/28/09: At the home she shares with her mother and 16-yr old brother, Mr. Knight repeatedly knocked and yelled  at the front door from 11:45pm until 2:00am.  When the Petitioner opened the door, he grabbed her by the arm and insisted she listen to him. He left after her mother threatened to call the police. Ms. Hibbler indicated that for the prior two days he had been repeatedly called her personal, as well as employer's, phone.

11/29/09: Mr. Knight followed her to her church and refused to leave her alone. She asked him to sit in another location, but he refused.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight waited at her place of employment for her to appear. Petitioner's co-workers advised her that he was there from 10:30am until 1:00pm.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight followed Petitioner to her friend's apartment and watched them from the bushes at the apartment complex. Her friend called the police to report Mr. Knight's behavior because they were concerned he might harm one or both of them.

On 12/1/09, Judge Theotis Bronson denied Ms. Hibbler's petition, stating "the allegations are not sufficient for a domestic violence injunction." They certainly seem sufficient to CourtWatch. Actual physical assault is not the sole thing that can be considered when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.

Click here for the Statute definition of stalking and tell me if you don't think the above allegations support a temporary injunction and a hearing.

It should be noted that Mr. Knight lived in the Petitioner's home with her mother and brother after his parents kicked him out of their home. Mr. Knight is 22-years old.

 

Mr. Knight was in Judge Lubet's courtroom today for a Bond Hearing.

The charges?

Arson 1st Degree of Dwelling/Building w/People Present (a felony) & Stalking (a misdemeanor).

Mr. Knight allegedly doused the doors and windows of the victims' home with gasoline and ignited a blaze at approximately 4:00am on December 2, 2009 - the day after Ms. Hibbler's injunction was denied.

Earlier that evening, some neighbors alerted the family to the defendant's presence in the neighborhood. His bike was seen nearby. The main breaker to their home had been turned off. According to the mother's testimony, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said there was nothing they could do unless someone witnessed a criminal act. This was not the first time they heard that from law enforcement.

Thankfully, Ms. Hibbler's younger brother was unable to sleep as a result of the events earlier in the day, heard and saw the defendant through the front door peephole with a gas can, and got the family out of the house safely when he realized it was on fire.

All three family members testified today that they are terrified that Mr. Knight will return to "finish the job" if he gets out of jail. The defendant's family and friends are allegedly pressuring the victim to drop the charges against him.

Judge Lubet commented that he was surprised that the State Attorney's Office had not filed 3 counts of Attempted Murder charges against Mr. Knight. Assistant State Attorney Shannon Corack indicated that it was being reviewed for possible upgrade. Had that been done, Judge Lubet indicated he probably would not have granted a bond at the hearing today. However, because Arson and Stalking are both bondable offenses, he was obligated to set a bond and conditions of release that accomplish two things:

1. Ensure the saftey of the community, particularly the victims.
2. Ensure the defendant's presence in court.

Considering the fact that Mr. Knight scores 46 months as a minimum in the Department of Corrections, with a maximum of 30 years, it is entirely possible that he would be tempted to flee. He has demonstrated by two earlier Violation of Probation charges that he has a problem with complying with court orders.

Ultimately a bond in the amount of $26,000 was set with the following conditions of release:

• Ankle monitor
• Home confinement - may only leave home go to work, school, meet with his attorney, or seek medical attention
• No contact with any of the victims - either directly or indirectly
• Stay 1000 feet away from the victims' home
• Possess no weapons or firearms
• Possess no flammable liquids

At this time, the family is in a confidential location. But my gut tells me they are far from safe, even with the conditions placed upon the defendant if he does manage to make bond.

"Order Setting Hearing" (OSH) Endangers Lives

by Carol Wick, CEO of Harbor House

Monday's murder-suicide was tragic on so many levels. One that truly strikes home is that Alissa Blanton was not granted an emergency injunction when she requested it. Instead of denying the injunction, the judge issued an “Order Setting Hearing.” This is a process where a judge, who does not feel that there is enough information to give an injunction, sets a hearing date for both parties to appear, plead their cases and then decides whether or not an injunction should be granted.


What is the concern?

In these cases, an already terrified victim is left legally unprotected for 14 days while their alleged perpetrator, be it a stalker or batterer, is given not only notification about their action to end the relationship, but has14 days to continue the behavior that caused the victim to seek the injunction in the first place. The most dangerous period for a victim is when they attempt to end the relationship. An injunction is frequently the perpetrator's first notice that such a decision has been reached.

Harbor House survivors have reported coming home (if they live together the abuser would still be allowed to live in the home during the 14 days) and being beaten because the OSH had been served. This is extremely dangerous and, as we saw on Monday, often deadly practice that need not ever happen.


What could be done differently?

Harbor House has repeatedly requested that judges either grant or deny injunctions but to never choose OSH because of the vulnerability of the victim. When an injunction is denied, the batterer is unaware of the action and the victim can then amend and resubmit their petition. The practice of OSH became such a serious concern in Orange County that Harbor House began tracking the outcomes of cases based on how high the victim’s score was on the danger assessment (which tells us how likely they are to be killed). Ideally, we would like to see those scoring low on the assessment (although that is not a guarantee of safety) as the ones denied and those scoring high as the ones granted.

For various reasons, judges often have no choice but to dismiss because a form is filled out incorrectly or not completely or there really is no legal basis for the injunction. Removing those situations, we would like to see about an 85-95% granted rate on highly dangerous cases. Due to the specialized domestic court here in Orange County, our judges are some of the best in the state at identifying what is really serious and what may not be. There is still room for improvement. Below is our latest report on how cases are doing here in Orange County. You be the judge.

As you can see in the table (left), sixty-three petitioners who were assessed by Harbor House as having a high likelihood of being killed or severely injured had their injunctions denied. Twenty-nine had an Order Setting Hearing where the batterer was notified of their action and they were left without protection. It is important to be aware of this practice, the danger in which it puts the victim, and that it is easily preventable.


WFTV has a copy of the petition for injunction available here.

Stalking - it's not harmless

Yesterday's murder-suicide of Alissa Blanton at the hands of her stalker at the AT&T Call Center in Orlando is a grim reminder of how deadly someone's obsession can become.

It's also a wake-up call to employers about how necessary it is for them to have protocols in place for employees who are being victimized in this manner.

It is crucial that victims notify their neighbors, employers, childrens' schools, and any other places they frequent (their place of worship, their gym, etc) of their situation. If more people know about the perpetrator - recognize him/her and their vehicle - and are willing to call law enforcement, the chances are better that the criminal justice system will be able to intervene.

Stalking victims usually know their perpetrator.  Whether they were ever romantically involved with their victim or not should not minimize the perpetrator's behavior in how we treat the case.

Stalking is not harmless.

For more information about stalking, visit the National Stalking Awareness Month website.   

To view WKMG's coverage of the story, click here.

For other stalking cases we've blogged about, click here.