Bryn Mawr Resident Registers as Sex Offender with University Park Police Department

Remember this bizarre story a couple of weeks ago about a man filming children on Amherst? This morning Chief Gary Adams provided the following information.

The individual in this case was located and identified.  He is a convicted sex offender but had not been required to register.  However, due to changes in the last Texas Legislative Session, the subject, Robert Coleman, was required to register as a convicted sex offender and did so at the University Park Police Department on Wednesday, November 24th. Mr. Coleman lives in University Park at [xxxx] Bryn Mawr and has for a number of years. As he was a resident before the city established its ordinance on residential requirements of registered sex offenders, he is eligible to continue to reside in our city.

Developing.

54 thoughts on “Bryn Mawr Resident Registers as Sex Offender with University Park Police Department

  • November 30, 2010 at 10:48 am
    Permalink

    Sometimes vigilance and a mother’s intuition bears fruit.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 10:56 am
    Permalink

    Wow…so all the sarcastic comments on the original post about you/the blog seeing “perverts” around every corner & causing massive over-reactions are actually wrong??? Imagine that! Good for you for reporting on this, Merritt and good for Chief Adams for following up and providing this feedback. Us Bubble moms may be overly protective, but sketchy characters sometimes really are the bad guy. Apologies, of course, to the poor man with the rubber glove in the playground, lol.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 11:23 am
    Permalink

    OK, so the real question is, what is going to be done to a convicted (and now registered) sex offender filming young children?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 11:43 am
    Permalink

    Hasn’t this individual lost the right/privilege to film children in public given his conviction? I take it that he is no longer on or was on parole, saying that should be a clear violation.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Permalink

    So I guess you really do need to hide your kids, hide your wife.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    Permalink

    I believe Chief Adams if he says that no crime has been committed, but that is ridiculous. If it is not against the law for a convicted sex offender and film young children without parents permission, then that law needs to be fixed ASAP.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    Permalink

    I just searched the database and he is not showing up yet on the TX database. I was able to find his exact street number by googling his name and Bryn Mawr. I would like to know more information on his crime since he lives a few blocks away from an elementary school. Is there a delay in the database update?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Permalink

    per DCAD he lives at 3715 Bryn Mawr and has since 1986

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    Permalink

    What was his original offense?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 5:48 pm
    Permalink

    Google mapped the house…i think he lives in one of the smaller houses on the corner @ Baltimore.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 6:26 pm
    Permalink

    1986? That’s only 24 years. That would make him a transplant.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    Permalink

    12 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE A WM 101446 F-8399702 FR SEX ABUSE CHIL PGBC
    13 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE A WM 101446 F-8385586 FR SEX ABUSE CHIL DISM
    14 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE A WM 101846 F-8004862 FR IND CHILD RVRD
    15 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE WM 101846 F-0600891 FW SEX A-V CH DISM
    16 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE WM 101846 F-0700453 FW SEX A-V CH DISM
    17 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE A WM 101846 DF8002133 FR SEX ABUSE CH DISM
    18 COLEMAN ROBERT DOWE A WM 101846 F-8002654 FR SEX ABUSE CH DISM

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    Permalink

    I know from DCAD, that this man’s middle initial is “D”. This is what I pulled up that seemed to fit his description of convictions/dates. He lives three blocks down from me. Guess I will be sure our girls don’t walk the dog that direction.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm
    Permalink

    @mk: “Wow…so all the sarcastic comments on the original post about you/the blog seeing “perverts” around every corner & causing massive over-reactions are actually wrong??? Imagine that!”

    Yes, sometimes (well, this particular time) one of those crazy blast emails turns out to be right. But you have to admit that there were no details in the email that suggested we should take it any more seriously than the others. We were told “he returned later and presented her with an edited video that contained some ‘disturbing’ images.” My sarcastic response was, “is he one of those pedophiles that preemptively turns over his edited work product to the parents of his intended victims?” And weirdly enough the answer appears to be yes.

    Can’t we forget this unpleasantness and focus on the issues that unite us? Like getting to the bottom of Dick Davis’s ghostwritten mystery fax? P.S. Merritt, what’s up with that, anyway?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    Permalink

    Are all those DISM for dismissed?? Are all those different kids? WHY was he not on the TX registry list?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    Permalink

    @Neal- Funny you should ask. Here at almost 10:00 pm (that’s how I roll) I’m working on that story. And there is some crazy nonsense going on with it.

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    Permalink

    Yes DISM is ‘dismissed’ and PGBC is ‘Agreed plea of guilty before the court’

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    Permalink

    I believe that the case above that is linked is from June 1983. As much as I would like to think he was a changed man after almost 30 years, why the video tape? Hmmmm…

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you Merritt. I’ve past this house for years during my morning jog and will again tomorrow but it will never be the same. Can anyone describe the specific convictions or post a link?

    Reply
  • November 30, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    Permalink

    His two latest are from 2006 and 2007, the ones that were dismissed. The code is F-06 and F-07, which stands for felony and then the year.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 7:16 am
    Permalink

    Thanks Merritt for keeping us in the loop. We can never be too careful with our children. June 1983 as far as you liking to think he’s a changed man that just doesn’t happen with pedophiles. Never believe pedophiles are safe around children. Research shows that they can’t change how they are wired. Better to be safe than sorry.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Permalink

    Not to get all “we get special treatment” in all this…

    But would a poor, minority guy in East Dallas be able to get away with what appear to be multiple violations or charges over many years, not register as required, and still be a free man?

    Good lawyering? Money? Just seems a bit odd. (which would appear to be the main word in all of this)

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 8:28 am
    Permalink

    @Bill If they were dismissed then he wasn’t convicted on those charges. Should we care about what he’s been accused of or what he’s been convicted of?

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 11:00 am
    Permalink

    District Mom we should be aware and concerned about both. I’m not saying a town mob needs to descend upon him with torches a la a scene from Frankenstein however caution where there has been a reoccurrence of behavior added with the oddity of videotaping, adding captions and delivering it to a parent raises a red flag. IJs

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 11:38 am
    Permalink

    Obviously he has not changed since he is video taping minors. And I find it very hard to believe he was wrongly accused so many times. Our justice system stinks. Lock up Willie Nelson for some weed but let a perv live in the heart of a community filled with kids and parents that think it is the safest place on earth.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Permalink

    It looks like he was convicted on 2 of the charges in the 80’s and did a few months in jail both times. He is a very odd man and has lived there for decades.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    Permalink

    Merritt, I’m curious to know if the Mom who made the recent police report at all aware of this person’s history, before filing the police report.  If not, then three (or four, or more) cheers for mother’s intuition.  If she was aware, then she of course still did the right thing (and cheers, still), but it might be a different and perhaps not as heinous a situation as what we are all imagining here.  In other words, a reasonable parent who already thinks of a person as a “sex offender” might interpret innocent (but perhaps strange) behavior around children as “disturbing” and a threat.  I mean, a guy with this kind of history needs to stop doing this – but – without all the facts, I think there are still some other possible explanations other than “the worst.”

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    Permalink

    Should’ve been “was at all aware of,” not “at all aware of” – sorry for the typo.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm
    Permalink

    @1635 – I don’t know the answer to your question, but what good can come from a convicted sex offender video taping children?? A tiger doesn’t change its stripes.

    I don’t think the following are good ideas either:

    1) Letting a drug addict work at a drug store.
    2) Letting a alcoholic be a bar tender.
    3) Letting an axe murderer borrow your axe.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    @wcm – i don’t disagree. Read my post. I’m still cheering the mom, either way. All I’m saying is that, without knowing all the facts (and we don’t), there is still a range of possibilities about what actually happened. It’s just a good idea, in these kind of situations, to keep that in mind.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm
    Permalink

    @ 1635 ~ What does it matter if she knew or not? I know people on his street who didn’t even know. I’m curious if you have kids? It sounds like you are defending the guy. It would make me very uncomfortable if someone I didn’t know was filming my children “just because.” And I completely believe in mothers intuition — it has served me well a time or two!

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    Permalink

    “the oddity of videotaping, adding captions and delivering it to a parent”

    Did he present himself as some sort of photographer, making candid videos and then selling them to parents?

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 6:59 pm
    Permalink

    @E22: Yes, I am a parent. I’m just trying to understand the “story” that Merritt is telling us. As a parent, I can tell you that I would be 100 times more likely to call the cops on Neighbor Joe, if Joe was “filming” my kids, IF I knew that Joe was a registered sex offender. I would be 100% justified in doing so, and Joe better have a pretty good explanation for the cops. Is that completely fair to Joe? Maybe not, but that’s just too bad – that’s the way it is.
    But that scenario doesn’t say much if anything about my “intuition,” and wouldn’t be particularly “blogworthy.”
    But I am reading Merritt’s entries as suggesting that something else entirely happened. Specifically, it is suggested that a parent, relying almost solely on intuition, called the cops about a guy that she knew nothing about but that she saw doing something that she just felt was creepy. And THEN it turns out that the guy was a sex offender, from wayyy back. That is a far more interesting story, to me, and suggests (even if it does not prove) something far darker about the guy in question.
    So which is it? I’m just curious to know.
    (The fact that in this case the guy may not have been “properly” registered is a different aspect of the story – perhaps blogworthy in and of itself.)

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 7:43 pm
    Permalink

    I really don’t understand these comments! Are some of you really suggesting this makes a better story? This mother had no idea who this man was. They are very, very, good friends of ours & we have been trying to help them since it happened. It makes me sick that someone would suggest “it makes a better story”. That is sick! It was all a feeling the mother had & the children involved even had a code word among themselves to yell out if he ever came back! They also felt something was wrong. How anyone can think this type of behavior should be viewed as “not so bad” is beyond anything I can imagine. Thank God this mother had her “intuition” that lead her to pursue the entire matter with NO KNOWLEDGE of his past! She saved another victim! I am so grateful for her actions & if you knew the entire story you would all realize how brave she was. She is trying to protect her precious children & not make them feel like victims. They need to be able to live as children. They are a great family & they deserve our support. Something should be done with this repeat offender!

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 7:56 pm
    Permalink

    Actually as I re-read Chief Adam’s statement he may be have properly registered after all – I’m not sure if I completely understand the statement on this point.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 8:35 pm
    Permalink

    This guy needs his a$$ kicked. Where’s the anger on this blog? He was strolling down your street videoing your kids and taking the film home with him… I pray I catch you strolling through my neighborhood with a video camera. You will be crapping that camera for a year. There is no rehab for a freak like this. These are our KIDS!

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    Permalink

    One other bit of information is that the DVD had a name on it! However, this name was incorrect! Ask yourself, “how would I respond if these were my children”? I am sure we would all respond the same way! Parents protect their children, that’s what we do!

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 9:46 pm
    Permalink

    Isn’t there a UP city ordinance requiring scarlet letters placed in all registered sex offenders’ front yards? This guy lives precisely between UP Elementary and Hyer. I wish I knew the details of those 06 and 07 felonies.

    Reply
  • December 1, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    Permalink

    What a totally creepy story! Will we ever hear more about what exactly happened here? The details are a little fuzzy on what he filmed, i.e. the “disturbing images” and how he represented the film to the mother. Was he pretending to be some sort of wandering professional photographer or did he just knock on her door and say he had filmed her kids and would she like to see the footage? I do agree with the other commenters that pedophiles are rarely “cured” of their desires; why else would someone with a previous arrest record for sex crimes against a minor take such a risk, even if their criminal history was in the distant past?

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 5:37 am
    Permalink

    @Don’t Understand: “More interesting” doesn’t mean “better” or “good” – at least that’s not how I intended it. The additional facts you add make the situation sound even more “interesting” in the sense I intended the word “interesting” to mean: i.e., more “disturbing” for us all to contemplate; more indicative that this was, in fact, an extraordinary case of a remarkable mom’s remarkable intuition.
    Perhaps by using the words “interesting” and “story” I sounded blithe – I didn’t mean to. This is a “story” but it is also a real situation involving real people.
    I am glad that your friend called the police.

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 7:03 am
    Permalink

    @Dontunderstand:  To put it another way:  I agree with you.  A previous poster had asked “what difference” it made whether the mom knew about this guy’s background.  I think you would agree with me that the fact that your friend had no idea of this person’s background is an important element in helping us understand just how creepy this guy’s behavior must have been, and how intuitive and brave your friend was. That’s why it makes a difference.

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 9:00 am
    Permalink

    I don’t think anybody can be sure that this was the first time he had ever video-taped any kids in this area. This happened to be the first time he was caught doing it. I re-read the Mom’s email and it says that he brought the dvd over to her after she had caught him taping her kids. Is it possible he did that to allay her fears so as not to invite further scrutiny?

    Now that I have elevated the hysteria level a little bit let me lower it a little more. He has lived here for 24 years. He is, obviously, one of the invisible people in UP. Countless numbers of kids have walked or ridden their bikes by his house. A lesser number of kids have probably sold him scout wreaths, band magazine subscriptions and Girl Scout cookies. He is just now getting on the police’s radar screen for this past offense (although the ’06 and ’07 felonies need to be explained). I think I’m willing to take a watchful stance with him and let our intrepid police chief take the lead as to whether he is a threat to the community.

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Permalink

    @James Tucker,

    If he was convicted of burglary, or grand theft auto, then I might agree with your reasoned stance. But sex offender? Pedophile? Nope, not a chance. Reason and forgiveness go out the door when it comes to offenses against children. And the fact that he is filming children is chilling.

    That being said, how does one go about handling this? I don’t know. I guess we can all get outraged and talk tough, but in the end the rights he unfortunately has make this sitaution tough to address. I’m still confused why it is not against the law for a convicted sex offender to film children without their parents consent.

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 11:24 am
    Permalink

    @ James Tucker – Excellent points.

    Not to diminish in ANY way the stress this family is suffering, people need to remember that the majority of these activities aren’t made by a random guy living in your neighborhood (sex offender from 20 years ago or not). Most molestations are by family members/family friends.

    But I think everyone will agree that our thoughts and prayers go out to this family.

    Reply
  • December 2, 2010 at 11:51 am
    Permalink

    After a quick Google search, it looks like he’s a financial economist with a PhD and an MBA from Harvard:

    http://www.numeraire.com/download/LetterWSJeditor2006A.pdf

    A dumb thug is one thing, but an extremely intelligent pedophile is much more dangerous. That explains how he’s been living there for decades with no one knowing. He’s smart enough to get away with it. Same with beating the other charges.

    Hats off to the mom for reporting him. Her kids are lucky to have her as their mom!

    Reply
  • Pingback:Leading Off (12/3/10) | FrontBurner

  • April 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    Permalink

    When are we going to change the UP law so that we can evict known sex offenders? Is this not overdue??

    Reply
  • December 16, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Permalink

    Ummm… You should also realize that you have two more registered sex offenders living on Amherst. If you live in that area, please be extra cautious!

    Reply

Leave a Reply to James Tucker Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *