John S. Fitzgerald (center) with court attorney John McKenna left
At a his arraignment this afternoon in Eastern Hampshire District Court the prosecution asked Judge Patricia Poelher to impose a $5,000 cash bail for John S Fitzgerald on charges of "Open and Gross Lewdness" since it will most likely result in an indictment.
In addition, he has been convicted six times on the same charge since 1987, served a 6 month jail sentence, and only came off probation in 2012.
In addition, he has been convicted six times on the same charge since 1987, served a 6 month jail sentence, and only came off probation in 2012.
His court appointed attorney, John McKenna, requested $500 bail.
In a recitation of the statement of facts the prosecution stated Amherst police arrested Fitzgerald at Puffer's Pond yesterday early afternoon after two young females observed him masturbating and called 911.
When police arrived he freely admitted to them he was a "Level 3 Sex Offender" and that he had gotten drunk at a strip club and as a result ended up at Puffer's Pond masturbating in the bushes.
Judge Poelher took the advice of the public defender and imposed a $500 bail, but she also "impounded" the names and personal information of the two young female witnesses for their protection.
Fitzgerald will appear in Court again on July 24.
Fitzgerald will appear in Court again on July 24.
Why such a low bail? Someone who has been convicted that many times shouldn't have bail set at such a ridiculously low amount. If he can afford to go to a strip club, he can afford a higher bail!
ReplyDeleteThis is why all judges need to be elected. The cops do there jobs and the judges turn them loose the next day. This would not happen if these judges were not appointed by politicians to fulfill campaign donations.
ReplyDeleteI saw the ML article this morning quoting this blog. Kind of hilarious - they just take Larry's tweets as fact. I mean, it was true, of course, but still, they are the laziest journalists!
ReplyDeleteAnd boy, Larry, you were all over this pedo! Can't hide in bushes from THIS intrepid party pooper.
I was out on Pine Street taking photos for yesterday's story when the 911 call came in. I got there before PD and when I saw how crowded it was made the mistake of assuming the caller was misinterpreting things.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent do we legislate morality? I'm often accused of advocating that -- and I ask why people agree with me on criminalizing this immoral act but not others?
ReplyDeleteA century ago (and even today in many parts of the world) the young ladies would have been arrested for public indecency. Bare-breasted women march through Northampton and that's not only considered "acceptable" but part of their right to express themselves.
A century ago, they'd all be "expressing themselves" in jail, and we all know that.
In an objective value-neutral, content-neutral manner, how exactly is this different? How does this harm society -- how are others harmed by his action?
I argue it does -- but I also argue that nearly naked women and penis montages in the UM Student Union do as well. To those of you who criticize me for seeking to "legislate morality" in those situations, please explain how you can logically hold those views while concurrently seeking to legislate morality here?
Public nudity is really not that big a deal depending on the context. The human form is not indecent in and of itself. That point could be argued depending on how well the individual keeps their body..different argument.
ReplyDeleteLeering at (young?) woman on a beach and openly snapping your carrot is a different matter....nothing to do with morality. That behavior would (in the OLD days) get you dragged into the woods by her bigger brothers/husband/ bystander and get him pummeled. This alternative probably suits society a touch better than brutality...
In many parts of the world today, a woman who exposes her body would suffer a similar fate.
ReplyDeleteAnd where you say "leering", I say "prancing" -- don't tell me that these young ladies aren't trying to be sexually provocative in their attire.
Other women notice it even more than guys do..
And every father ought to tell his daughter(s) about this incident. (You too, Larry) -- Father needs to explain that this is why young ladies should dress modestly. This is why you don't wear the sweatpants with the suggestive sayings across your butt, this is why you always wear underwear, this is why you exercise discretion in displaying your body.
ReplyDeleteBecause there ARE creeps & perverts out there. And some of them aren't old enough to have criminal records yet -- it's the 16-21 year olds who are the real threats to young ladies because they don't have a paper trail yet...
So Ed, let me get this straight. YOU are blaming women for getting molested, abused and raped because of how they dress? Instead of us teaching boys and men to behave themselves, it's the woman's fault according to you. For a self proclaimed educated person, you sure make some uneducated statements.
ReplyDeleteDo you park your car, unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition?
ReplyDeleteAuto theft is against the law but why do you you not do this?
Why is it unwise to display a large roll of cash as you walk through a bad neighborhood? Why is it right to be prudent in that regard but not in others?
Why is a woman's purse more precious than her own body? Why do women instinctively protect their purses but not themselves?
And what the hell is wrong with telling young ladies that there are people out there who might hurt them if given a chance... What the hell ever happened to "self empowerment"?
Very occasionally, Ed talks back to pie-in-the-sky political correctness and suddenly finds himself talking common sense.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, very occasionally.
A woman, especially a young one, needs to have some common sense about how to present herself. That's what brutally frank parents are for. A parent who keeps silent is not doing the job. Yes, it's simple self-protection.
Let's try to stay aware of the world as it is, while we try to make it as it should be.
Bet the guy "gets off", seriously. John McKenna is good.
ReplyDelete