University Park Police Discuss Coleman
Late this afternoon, I spoke with University Park police Capt. Leon Holman. He wanted to answer a few questions that have been raised in the comments on Merritt’s two posts regarding Robert Dowe Coleman.
1. Why wasn’t Coleman registered as a sex offender with the UPPD?
“He didn’t have to,” Holman said. In September 2009, he said, a new state law went into effect that required any sex offenders with convictions since 1970 to retroactively register with local authorities. After 30 minutes of Googling, I’ve been unable to find documentation of such a change. But I’ll keep looking.
“We tried to get Coleman to register back in 2006, and we found out he didn’t have to,” Holman said. By the time the law changed in 2009, “he had fallen off the radar. We didn’t even know he was still around until the video incident.”
When the mother from the video incident alerted the police, the UPPD called Coleman, who came down to City Hall with his attorney and registered, Holman said.
“He has to come in every year for the rest of his life before his birthday and register,” Holman said. “If he moves away, then he has to register in whatever city he moves to.”
2. Why didn’t the UPPD arrest Coleman after the video incident?
Coleman’s actions in the video incident were not criminal. “It might have been creepy, but he did not break the law,” Holman said.
3. Why is Coleman allowed to live in University Park?
Holman said Coleman has lived here since the ’70s, and is therefore grandfathered in; the UPPD’s hands are tied. “If he came here as a brand-new resident, we could try to prevent him from moving in,” Holman said.
22 comments to "University Park Police Discuss Coleman"
He’s lived in the same house for decades. Here’s a bright idea, walk up and knock on his door.
How can no one at UPPD have thought about him since the law changed over a year ago? There are only two other sex offenders in UP and they are both registered. Three sex offenders in the whole city and they forgot about the most dangerous one?
Amen. Something doesn’t smell right here, and we deserve some answers.
Convicted 1980
Convicted 1983
Alleged crime committed 1996, bail set at $10,0000 finally brought to trial in 2006 and strung along until dismissed 10/18/2010
(Coleman’s lawyer – Former Dallas DA Bill Hill 1999-2007 & the case was dismissed by the current DA)
Then about days/weeks after no longer on trial he videotapes kids playing and presents the footage to mother only after being noticed
Captain Holman – what steps is a parent suppose to make; restraining orders?!? This is not someone going about daily life but taking actions to feed his perversion.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120410dnmetoffendervideo.419b2b8.html
Maybe they can turn up the heat on the UPPD and get Coleman out of the neighborhood.
Sounds worse than I thought. He lured boys from the library and from the swimming pool back to his creepy house for sexual assaults.
This predator needs to go!
The retroactive sex offender registration law went into effect a decade ago – not in 2009. Shame on DPD (actually UPPD) and the DAs office for not catching this failure to register in 2006 when yet another sex assault case was pending. Instead of just “telling” him to register over this most recent incident, why aren’t you prosecuting him for Failure to Register? Then you can put him back on probation, impose child safety restrictions (1,000 feet rules included) and court order him into sex offender treatment for additional supervision, accountability and treatment. SOME action is better than nothing.
http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/graddean/phds/phds9596.htm
Capt. Holman himself said the offender failed to register in September 2009. Something here is not right. I’m betting someone dropped the ball and is now trying to cover their butt. Sweeping it under the rug with “it’s been taken care of now so everything is fine”. Again, why is he not even being slapped on the wrist for failure to register??
http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2010/June/Bill_McNutt_Was_Busted_on_the_Hilltop.aspx?p=1
The difference being this gentleman paid undue attention to students who were past the age of their majority.
“Holman said Coleman has lived here since the ’70s, and is therefore grandfathered in; the UPPD’s hands are tied. “If he came here as a brand-new resident, we could try to prevent him from moving in,” Holman said.”
You can prevent a sex offender from moving into a neighborhood? What does “try to prevent him from moving in” mean? Where are they supposed to live? Just curious as to the rules for where sex offenders can and cannot live. Very interesting, that. I would assume that whenever a child predator is sentenced, his punishment and parole guidelines would be set, ie: must stay 1000 yards from schools, parks, etc. where children are known to be, cannot live in a home with a child, etc. and back in the 80′s they didn’t set such guidelines? Or are there set standards NOW for those things, hence the “grandfathered” comment.
I think it’s very positive that our community is getting a lesson in child predators, and the laws that constrict – or don’t constrict them. This discussion is very valuable. Thanks Merritt!
I also thought that this post from the DMN article adds to the story, and to the questions surrounding UPPD’s involvement:
“This is my neighbors child and I want to report that the Chief quoted several inaccuracies. The boy is 9 years old, not 12. Robert Coleman came to their door – he did not talk with the parents at all about the child being a great sax player. The door was opened by a child, the child screamed very loudly upon seeing him, the kids were already terrified of him, and when the child’s Dad came to the door, Robert Coleman left the DVD and ran. I am curious where Captain Holmes got the inaccurate info. He should report correctly. This has victimized two families on our block severely. This man is a monster. My heart goes out to these families and all the families that he has harmed. I am sure there are MANY more victims out there that have been afraid to come forward. Perhaps this recent press might give them the courage. This is shameful!”
12:30 PM on December 3, 2010
What about Section 21.15 of the TX Penal Code -Improper Photography or Visual Recording?
A violation is a sex crime and State Jail Felony. It’s too hard to prove intent I guess.
Leave a Reply