Hero in Seminole County

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work done by Seminole County Sheriff's Sgt. Mark Conway for his role in the Macchione case, about which I last blogged. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that his actions and astute police work prevented Macchione's victim from a kidnapping, torturous sexual assault, and probable death.

On the evening of 9/19/09, Sgt. Conway was working an off-duty detail at one of UCF's student housing complexes.  He noticed the defendant, dressed in black, carrying a black backpack, and riding a bicycle aimlessly through the complex.  He stopped the suspect for questioning. After ascertaining that he was not a resident, nor visiting anyone in particular, Sgt. Conway arrested the defendant for loitering/prowling. 

He subsequently searched the backpack. In addition to the condoms, pornographic materials and other sexual paraphernalia, he found a video camera.

Upon reviewing the videos, Sgt. Conway became alarmed at their content. He described them as "chilling." They depicted the defendant in various locations addressing a young lady who was not present in the video. In one recording, Conway testified that the defendant said:

"What I like about you is that you're smart, you're prepared for a tragedy, and if something were to ever go horribly wrong, which could happen, you have a settled enough brain to deal with it.

"If you listen to me, you'd shed your Outback clothes for good. [the victim worked at an Outback Restaurant]

Suspecting that he was stalking a young lady, Sgt. Conway set out to identify and warn her of the situation.

He managed to identify and locate the victim, who must have been both relieved that law enforcement had taken notice and terrified that Macchione was still attempting to locate her.  He was surprised to learn that the extent of the relationship between the parties was merely one of a brief acquaintance.

Once he located her, she advised him of the YouTube videos that had been posted. She had been trying to bring a case against him (having received an injunction against him two months earlier), but had thus far been unsuccessful.

He testified that he believed that the video described in my last post, wherein Macchione "shot" the viewer and then himself with an imaginary gun, was depicting an event that could really occur.

Sgt. Conway contacted the Seminole State's Attorney Office to view the videos and potentially have the $300 bond for the loitering arrest increased. On 10/1/09, the defendant's bond was increased to $500 and modified to include GPS monitoring, and no contact with the victim.  Judge Mark Herr also prohibited him from UCF's campus and the victim's place of employment. Macchione subsequently pled guilty to the loitering charge and received a "time served" sentence of 41 days in jail. At this point, GPS monitoring and any restrictions put upon him by the Seminole Court were over.

As the case progressed, Sgt. Conway aided Orange County's prosecution by downloading the YouTube videos for their use and attended every hearing without requiring a subpoena.

Stalking Awareness Month

As one who has spoken with many victims attempting to deal with the terror that a stalker inflicts upon them, and law enforcement's all-too-frequent inability (perhaps unwillingness?) to investigate and build these difficult cases for prosecution, Sgt Conway's actions were extraordinary.

Although public awareness is greater than it once was and stalking laws have improved, most victims are often told "there's nothing we can do" when they call for help.

Kudos to Sgt. Conway. Words are inadequate to express our appreciation for the work you did in this case.

More: Fox-35 Report

Judge Michael Murphy: "If I was the victim, I would not be happy"

"If I was the victim, I would not be happy," said Judge Michael Murphy as he pronounced the sentence at the conclusion of Patrick Macchione's 3+ hour sentencing hearing yesterday.

Macchione pled in December, 2011 to the following charges:

• (1) count of written threats to kill or do bodily harm; 
• (1) count of aggravated stalking after injunction; and
• (17) counts of violation of injunction.

Background

Macchione's victim's nightmare began in the spring of 2009 when she accepted a facebook "friend" request from the defendant after having briefly met him at UCF.  When the tone of his messages became increasingly sexual, she "unfriended" him. He then began his relentless pursuit of her with hundreds of emails and phone calls - directly and indirectly.

She asked him to stop, but the harassment continued.  Law enforcement told her they could not do anything because they didn't know where he was.

The victim filed for an injunction for protection in June, 2009 and was granted one for 10 years the following month.

Shortly after the imposition of the injunction, the defendant posted numerous YouTube videos of an angry, threatening, sometimes sexual, nature and sent the links to her friends (whose contact info he presumably collected while he and the victim were facebook friends), asking them to watch them.  Those friends, in turn, contacted her to advise her of their existence.

The videos that were played in court would leave anyone terrified for their safety. In them he is obviously delusional and mentally ill. He insults and degrades her, insists that he will make her happy, and repeatedly demands that she meet with him and look him in the eye. They progress to tell her it's up to her to meet with him in order to save her own life.

The victim testified about one video which was produced outside the restaurant where she worked. While he was filming that video, he saw her car drive by and he ran after her. No doubt, a terrifying thing to watch.

The last video, which he sent directly to the victim, had no words. Simply gestures of him pointing at the camera (i.e., the victim), pulling the trigger of an imaginary gun twice at the viewer, putting the same "gun" to his head and pulling the trigger again.

Assistant State's Attorney Michelle Latham then read a dozen or more profanity-laced and sexually explicit YouTube messages into the record. These detailed his intent to follow her home, imprison, sexually assault and torture the victim and his desire to make her his. Additional threats of self-mutilation and suicide were made.

Note: these videos and messages have been removed from youtube.

As if that weren't enough, he used Twitter to further terrorize her (@kaypee). Twitter messages are still online (warning: graphic language).


History of Prosecution
In March, 2010 Macchione's case went to trial before Judge Bob LeBlanc but was declared a mistrial after the defendant became extremely agitated and somewhat disruptive during the victim's testimony. The Sheriff's deputies and the public defenders who represented him at the time were concerned that he might harm himself with writing utensils that were on their table. The defendant attempted to plead to the bench during the middle of his trial. He was then committed to DCF to undergo mental health treatment.

After competency had been restored, he pled guilty to all charges before Judge Murphy in December, 2011.

Sentencing Hearing
Dr. Jeffrey Danziger testified that the defendant was psychotic when he was admitted to the hospital. Macchione was diagnosed with schizophrenia and medications were prescribed that restored his competency last year. His mother testified that prior to his having been sent to the hospital, she felt that her son had been lost to her. She detailed numerous pre-diagnosis behaviors that Dr. Jeffrey Danziger described as precursors of schizophrenia.

His mother told the Court that there was a history of mental illness, drug use, retreat from society, eruptions of anger that escalated (dating back to age 7 when he chased an older brother through the house with a kitchen knife), and verbal abuse.  Her son also suffered from a serious auto accident at age 17 wherein spinal injuries paralyzed him for several months. For a short while, he did well as a student at USF, but after transferring to UF he dropped out of school, gave away his belongings and became homeless. She testified that after he received the proper medications at the hospital, she began to see a dramatic improvement in his condition and she had hope for the first time in many years. She told the judge that it has been comforting to know that he's safe in jail and offered a heartfelt apology to the victim and her family for the hell that they've endured.

Macchione's attorney, Michael DiCembre, did an effective job of showing the judge that, in the words of Dr. Danziger "this was mental illness, not evil doing." He also provided witnesses to testify to post-incarceration treatment programs that would be suitable for his client.

The State provided documentation to the judge that DOC is equally capable of providing the treatment that the defendant so desperately needed.


The Sentence
The State's original plea offer in this case was 5 years DOC + 10 years probation (this was prior to adding the most egregious charge while he was hospitalized - Written Threats to Kill, which carries a 15 year sentence). The maximum possible sentence for the charges to which he pled would have exceeded 35 years if all counts ran consecutively to one another.

The defendant, at time of sentencing, had already spent over 2 years in custody.

The judge, having found that the mitigating factor of mental illness allowed a downward departure from the sentencing scoresheet's recommended sentence, ordered:

• 48 months DOC with credit for the 2 years 78 days time served
• followed by (1) year of Community Control Level 2 (the most restrictive type that includes GPS monitoring)
• followed by (2) years of Community Control Level 1
• followed by (13) years of County Probation
• no contact with the victim
• comply with the injunction
• no use of computer with internet except under supervision while in DOC, allowing him to communicate only with his family

In addition to the standard conditions of Community Control and Probation, the defendant was ordered to:

• a residential treatment program as long as medically required or until further order of the court
• comply with medical/drug regimen prescribed
• random drug testing to assure compliance

When the judge asked Ms. Latham if there were any other conditions of release that ought to be included, knowing that she wanted more DOC time, she pointedly asked him to state the reason for the downward departure (of about 2 months). She pressed further and asked, "you find under the totality of the circumstances that you should do so?" 

He replied yes.

Judge Murphy noted that under the circumstances the sentence is appropriate for the duration of the time that the offenses occurred. That it was a first offense - albeit a serious one. He then admitted that "If I was the victim, I would certainly not be happy." 

He stated that the defendant satisfied the legal requirements for this sentence and that without the mental illness factor, Macchione would have likely been sentenced to 15 years or more in DOC for this case. He noted that even though many people in prison have psychological issues, that's not where they all belong, and that the defendant had responded to treatment in a positive manner.

Judge Murphy further noted that once he is released, he will be on the most restrictive level of Community Control. The judge commented that if Macchione is going to violate the terms of his release, it would most likely be during that first year when he's on GPS. The State could then prosecute him for Violation of Community Control and he would have the 15 year DOC sentence hanging over his head. He said:

"There is no possible way that the victim will be in harm's way during that period of time because they [Community Control] will let her know. Once she knows where he'll be residing she can make sure to make all efforts that she's nowhere around.  Or if she decides to be in the same general vicinity she'll be sure to be in constant contact with Community Control.  If there's any action by Macchione she will contact Community Control. 

"There's no way she's really at risk during that time.

No possible way that the victim will be in harm's way? No way she's really at risk during that time?

Two observations:

1. The victim must assume the burden of monitoring her perpetrator's actions, thus having to continue looking over her shoulder - probably for the rest of her life.
2. In spite of the extra precautions of GPS monitoring and the very restrictive conditions placed upon the defendant, nobody can guarantee this woman's safety. She could relocate and perhaps be physically safe from him. But what about the psychological reign of cyber-terror that she endured for several months? He very well could find her on the internet - living in the same zip code, living across the country or around the world.

I just hope that Mr. Macchione complies with every restriction that is placed upon him.

And I pray that Judge Murphy won't have to eat his words.

See report on CF News 13 for more
See report on WFTV-9 here

__________

There's a hero in this story too. He undoubtedly saved this woman's life.

I'll write more about him in my next posting.

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.

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.

Mis-Match.com

Online dating sites can be a great way to meet people. But caution must be taken when you decide to go this route.  Eleven years ago, I met the man against whom I have an injunction online. And 7 years ago I met my wonderful husband in cyberspace. So I tell anyone who is considering this avenue to meet people to take precautions to be safe. More about that later....

I had occasion to monitor a Dating Violence injunction hearing on Wednesday in Judge Theotis Bronson's courtroom that emphasizes the need for caution in using these sites. I also found it difficult to suppress my laughter at the end of the hearing because the Respondent tied a noose around his own neck and even his attorney couldn't rescue him.

The parties met on match.com in early September and went on four dates over the course of the month. Both individuals are well-educated and professional. The Respondant became angry that the Petitioner was not yet willing to have an exclusive relationship with him and he texted her 18 times in just a few hours once he knew she was going on a date with someone else. She described his behavior as erratic, fanatical and obsessive. After receiving the texts, she told him the relationship was over. She "unfriended" him in cyberspace later that night.

The morning after her date with someone else, he called her and asked if she had spoken with her best friend and her ex-husband yet. She had not. Within a few minutes her friend, who is a teacher at a local high school, contacted her because the Respondent had sent a defamatory email to the principal and the admistration of her school (addresses which he gleaned from the school's website). The email anonymously claimed that she (the friend) regularly smoked pot, which would be grounds for dismissal from her job. The judge, who is very low key and not given to emotional displays in the courtroom, was obviously appalled. After the friend testified, the judge questioned the Respondent extensively, who admitted to sending the email, about his motives for doing so. Ultimately, the Respondent said he regretted sending it.

I sensed that the judge was ready to sign the paperwork after the first email, but the Petitioner had mentioned at the beginning of the hearing that her ex-husband had received an email too. After establishing that her divorce had been fairly lengthy and the issue of child custody had been contentious, the judge asked to see that email. I was on the edge of my seat as I watched the judge's expression change to a look of incredulity. I wished I could see what he was looking at. I didn't have to wait for long.

The Respondent alleged in the email that the Petitioner had been having sexual relations with black men. Judge Bronson, an African-American, asked him what would be wrong with that? I could almost see the beads of perspiration break out on the Respondent's forehead as he fumbled for an answer. The attorney tried to salvage the situation as best he could, but when your ship is sinking quickly, a small bucket won't help much.

In his closing argument, the Respondent's attorney admitted his client had behaved foolishly and despicably by anonymously emailing unfounded and slanderous accusations designed to cause problems for the Petitioner and her best friend. He tried to convince the judge that an injunction was not needed because the Respondent has not contacted the Petitioner since the day of the emails (neglecting to mention that she had received a temporary injunction the following day).

Ultimately, the judge granted a one year injunction against the Respondent. I only wish he'd included an impulse control class.

Here are some tips for online dating that you might not have seen before:

• Most websites have a section about being safe - read what they say!
• Don't give out a home phone number (which can easily identify your address with a reverse lookup website). Communicate by cell phone or email until you feel comfortable meeting with the person.
• Protect information about your employment location - this includes the name of your company, a work phone number, etc.
• Use an email address on a free provider like yahoo or gmail that doesn't indicate your complete name. I didn't tell my now-husband my last name until after we met face-to-face and I learned that he had security clearances to go into nuclear sites (Uncle Sam saved me the step of doing a background check on him!)
• Find out where your prospective date has lived so you can check those jurisdictions' Clerk of Court websites to see if they've been involved in any legal action (this can be tricky if you're checking out a woman who has had more than one last name in her lifetime). Make sure you have their full legal name and check variations. If you know their date of birth, that helps, especially when they have a fairly common name.
• When you finally decide to meet someone, pick a place that offers valet parking. This helps that often awkward end-of-evening moment when having someone you don't really know walk you to your car can make you feel uncomfortable. A side benefit is that the valet attendants will usually get the lady's car first, thus giving her a slight head start out of the parking lot. It's worth paying the tip to do this.
• If possible, make a note of the type of car your date drives so you can determine whether or not you're being followed.

Paranoid? A bit perhaps. But once you've been stalked, you need to be. Someone who is willing to wait for you to feel comfortable disclosing personal information is someone who is probably worth your attention. Someone who pressures you before you're ready is not.

Convicted Stalker Manages to Wiggle Out of Serving Jail Sentence

At least for the moment.

I spent most of the day yesterday in Judge Kenneth Barlow's courtroom yesterday for State v. Gabriel Rhenals (2009MM231E).  Mr. Rhenals, age 23, was arrested April 30, 2009 for stalking his UCF professor after Judge Theotis Bronson had granted an injunction to her earlier that month.

The victim testified that Mr. Rhenals had been disruptive in class, behaved aggressively, followed her, hovered outside her classroom and office, slammed her door when he became enraged, said he was obsessed with her, and admitted to stalking her. He told her he was jealous when she spoke with anyone other than him.  He was ultimately removed from her class and UCF.

When he was served with the temporary injunction, a UCF police detective interviewed the defendant. He told the detective that, in his mind, he thought there was a sexual relationship with the victim.  The defendant admitted he knew it was inappropriate and said he felt she paid more attention to him than other students. He apparently did not feel it was inappropriate to violate the injunction and send the victim three emails, however.

As a result of Mr. Rhenals' behavior, the victim chose to quit her job and move out of state because she feared for her safety. It was a job she loved and worked hard to earn. In this day and age of jobs that are tough to find, I think that alone speaks volumes about the level of terror this woman was subjected to at the hands of her perpetrator. She has yet to find a comparable position in academia.

The defendant chose to testify in his own behalf, admitted his obsession, and was quickly convicted. The judge sentenced him to serve 30 days in jail, 1 year probation, 75 hours of community service, undergo psychiatric evaluation and counseling to address obsessive compulsive behaviors, and to have no contact with the victim.

Not a bad sentence for a first offense.

This morning there was an emergency hearing by defense counsel Alicia Peyton.  The victim and her family were not present. The defendant's parents were. Mr. Rhenals appealed his sentence, although the motion did not enumerate the grounds for appeal.  Judge Barlow granted bond in the amount of $5,000 with conditions of release that include a psychiatric evaluation with his current psychiatrist in Miami (who must present the Court with a report within 10 days), have no contact with the victim or anyone at UCF involved in the case, and return to Dade County where his parents live.

CourtWatch is concerned that Mr. Rhenals has managed to avoid being held accountable, at least at the present time. He goes home with mom & dad and goes back to the psychiatrist he's already seeing. It will likely be several months before this matter is resolved. By then, I wouldn't be surprised if he figures out some way to avoid doing his jail sentence.

As a parent, I understand the desire to take care of and help your child in any way you possibly can. We don't want to see our children suffer. But sometimes we get in the way of allowing "the world" to teach them lessons they need to know. I have no doubt that Mr. Rhenals' parents love him dearly. But helping him avoid accountability is not going to help him in the long run. He is 23 years old and needs to learn that "no" means no. "No contact" means no contact. Stalking someone is not acceptable behavior.

Appeals can take a long time to go through the process.  At times this case moved as slowly as molassas because the attorneys and judge were picking through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb in order to make absolutely certain all the bases were covered. In order to give Mr. Rhenals his due process, his motion for bond was granted (the judge even noted that his sentence would be served by the time the appeal was resolved) even though the motion did not clearly indicate what the grounds were. What about the victim's right to see her perpetrator held accountable?

Oh, I forgot. The law doesn't seem to give victims that right.

For more information about stalking and to see how much you know about it, check out this quiz.