Jonathan Green of Pennsylvania pleads guilty to sex crimes involving 12-year-old South Hadley boy

Masslive.com
Jonathan Green of Pennsylvania pleads guilty to sex crimes involving 12-year-old South Hadley boy
By Patrick Johnson, Republican staff
December 29, 2009
SPRINGFIELD – A 27-year-old man from Reading, Penn. faces at least 15 years in prison after pleading guilty Tuesday in U.S. District Court of attempting to seduce a 12-year-old South Hadley boy that he met over the Internet. Jonathan D. Green agreed to plead guilty to two charges, sexual exploitation of a child and travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, which each stem from the same incident over the summer of 2007.Prosecutors charged that Green sent a 12-year-old boy a video of himself engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He persuaded the boy to make a tape performing the same actions from Green’s tape and to send it back to Green. Shortly after receiving the tape, Green traveled to South Hadley on Aug. 22, 2007 with the intent of having sex with the boy. They met at the boy’s South Hadley home and spent several hours outside together without his parent’s knowledge. A suspicious neighbor called police before Green could engage in sex with the boy, officials said. Judge Michael A. Ponsor has scheduled a sentencing hearing for March 25. He faces a sentence of 15 to 60 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. The case was investigated by South Hadley police, and FBI, and was prosecuted by assistant U.S. Attorney Alex J. Grant of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Springfield.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/jonathan_green_of_pennsylvania.html
_________________________________________________



Reading man pleads guilty in federal child sex case
Reading Eagle
12/31/2009

A 27-year-old Reading man already serving a state prison sentence for sexually assaulting a 9-year-old city boy has pleaded guilty to federal charges that he went to Massachusetts while free on bail in the Reading case to have sex with another boy.Jonathan D. Green of the 400 block of Rehr Street pleaded guilty Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Mass., to charges of sexual exploitation of children and traveling with the intent to engage in explicit sexual conduct.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor deferred sentencing pending a hearing in the spring.Prosecutors said Green met the 13-year-old South Hadley boy on the Internet in June 2007 and persuaded him to send a sexually explicit photo of himself.Prosecutors gave the following account: While Green was awaiting further Berks County Court action in August 2007, he went to South Hadley and waited outside the boy's house for two hours. He did not meet the boy.It was unclear how authorities learned about his communication with the boy.Authorities seized his computers.A Massachusetts federal grand jury indicted Green in March 2008.In August 2008, Berks Judge Paul M. Yatron sentenced Green to five to 10 years in state prison after Green pleaded guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child and endangering the welfare of a child.In that case, the boy's mother contacted police after learning Green sexually assaulted the boy in Green's truck and at the Pagoda between May 1 and July 12, 2006.

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=182276

Scully plea avoids sex offender label

Beverly Citizen
December 30, 2009

http://www.wickedlocal.com/beverly/homepage/x664198573/Year-in-Review-The-Top-12-stories-of-2009
Scully plea avoids sex-offender label
The former director of the Beverly Public Library pleaded guilty in January to two counts of possessing child pornography, averting a requirement that he be required to register as a sex offender.
In exchange for the plea agreement Tom Scully was put on probation for a year and has been monitored by GPS.
Scully also agreed to not have unsupervised contact with children under 16, not possess pornography and consented to random searches of his computer.
The plea agreement also calls for Scully to continue to undergo counseling.
A charge of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 had previously been dismissed.
Scully, 60, was arrested by Beverly police in April 2005 after the foster father of a boy whom Scully met in the library came to police reporting an “unusual relationship.” The foster father said the boy had been looking at a “questionable Web site” at the library when Scully noticed him and Scully offered the boy a “safe place” to view the Web sites in his Walnut Avenue home. Scully gave the boy several homosexual pornographic DVDs and let him use it in a spare bedroom, but he wasn’t in the room with the boy, according to the plea agreement.
Scully, who had been the library director for 19 years and was also the city’s director of community services, was arrested shortly after the accusations.

Sex offender held on bail

http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x1437798453/Sex-offender-held-on-bail


Sex offender held on bail
By Melanie Graham/Daily News staff
Milford Daily News
Posted Dec 30, 2009

HOPEDALE —
A Douglas man and Level 3 registered sex offender was arrested Tuesday night on a warrant listing three counts of aggravated felonious assault. John Moosey, 22, of 14 Depot St., Apt. 2, was arrested at 8:20 p.m. as a result of a motor vehicle stop on Mendon Street. He is being held on $1 million cash bail.The juvenile unit of the Manchester, N.H., Police Department’s investigative division issued the warrant, police said. The charges stem from an alleged incident 7 years ago involving the sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. Hopedale police said the arresting officer received notice of the extraditable warrant at 7:45 p.m. Tuesday evening and shortly after, recognized Moosey driving.According to the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry, Moosey was charged in 2007 with indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 years of age.The registry also shows Moosey works in Hopedale.Moosey is scheduled to be in Milford District Court tomorrow morning.
Following his Massachusetts court appearance, Manchester police said Moosey will likely be extradited back to New Hampshire and, if found guilty, could face a 10 to 20-year sentence.

http://sorb.chs.state.ma.us/ResultDetail.asp?btn170963=Detail
Link to Mr. Moosey's SORB flyer

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cfid=1&db=MA-ORSLIP&findtype=Y&fn=_top&lquery=to(allsct+allsctrs+allsctoj+allapp+allapprs+%26+criminal)&rlt=CLID_FQRLT53560254092912&rp=/Search/default.wl&rs=ICLP2.0&serialnum=2020880646&sp=MassOF-1001&sv=Split&vr=1.0

December 29, 2009
SJC Slip Opinion
COMMONWEALTH vs. Jonathan RODRIGUEZ.
No. 07-P-1847.
May 14, 2009. - December 29, 2009.Rape. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Corroborative evidence. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury.Consent. Intoxication.INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 7, 2004.After transmittal of the youthful offender documents to the Middlesex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department, the cases were tried before Jay D. Blitzman, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on May 12, 2008, was heard by him.Jennifer H. O'Brien for the defendant.Susanne R. Bines, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.Present: Berry, Mills, & Wolohojian, JJ.MILLS, J.The defendant was convicted as a youthful offender of rape of a child by force (penis in genital opening), G.L. c. 265, § 22A, and rape of a child (penis in mouth), G.L. c. 265, § 23. The charges arose out of an evening of drinking alcohol, culminating in sexual activity among five boys and two girls. The defendant appeals from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as to both charges andthat the jury instructions on intoxication and capacity to consent were flawed. We affirm.Background. We recite the facts in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth under the familiar standard of Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676- 677 (1979). On the evening of July 15, 2002, the victim, her friend Mary (a pseudonym), and five boys including the defendant and Mike (also a pseudonym) went to a local elementary school playground to "hang out" and drink alcohol. Earlier that day, the girls, both thirteen years old, had met up with the defendant (then age fourteen) and the other boys at a nearby park, and then went to Mike's house to watch television and listen to music. The boys invited the girls to hang out and drink alcohol that evening, and the girls agreed.The girls left Mike's house at 6:00 P.M. for about one hour in order to "check in" with their parents. Knowing their parents would not allow them to go out with the boys, they lied and said they were going to the movies and spending the night at Mary's house. When they returned to Mike's house, one of the boys had a backpack with liquor in it, and the group walked from Mike's house to the elementary school. The girls were "apprehensive about everything happening" so they made a plan to watch out for each other. When they arrived at the school, Mike made mixed drinks for everyone in red plastic cups.After consuming one mixed drink and several "shots," and playing several "chugging" games, the victim felt dizzy and nauseous and was having difficulty walking. She leaned against a cement wall, talked to Mike while he touched her face, and then spoke with the defendant while he rubbed her back and touched her face. She lost consciousness at some point after this.When the victim regained consciousness, there was "a penis in [her] face." She then lost consciousness again, and when she regained it the second time, she believed "that someone was performing oral sex on [her]," that is, she had the "[f]eeling of his [ [FN1]]mouth in [her] private area ... [her] vagina." The victim lost consciousness a third time and when she woke up there was a person on top of her. She recognized the voice of this person as belonging to Mike, and she felt pain in her "private area" while he was lying on top of her.The next thing the victim recalled is leaving the elementary school. She was having difficulty walking so two of the boys helped her up a hill. The boys walked with the girls until they were near Mary's house, and then the girls helped each other to the door of the house. Inside, Mary went straight upstairs while the victim had a short conversation with Mary's mother before going upstairs. A few minutes later, Mary's sister, followed by her mother andher brother-in-law, came into Mary's room to ask what had happened. Toward the end of a conversation with Mary's mother, the victim said, "I think we were raped."The victim's parents and the police were called, and both girls were transported to the hospital. Hospital staff obtained vaginal swabs and urine and blood samples from the victim; testing revealed sperm cells from Mike on the exterior portion of her vagina. No deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the defendant was found on the victim.A detective was dispatched to investigate a "possible sexual assault." When he tried to talk to the victim she was "incoherent" and "disheveled." The same detective later interviewed the defendant, and the audio tape recording of this interview was admitted and played for the jury at trial. [FN2] On the recording, the defendant admitted that he knew the victim was drunk, that he placed his penis "on" the victim's mouth, and that he placed his penis inside the victim's vagina. He made statements to the effect that the victim consented to these actions. According to the defendant, he did not use a condom or ejaculate, and he did not put his mouth or tongue on the victim's vagina. He also stated that after he had sexual intercourse with the victim, Mike had sexual intercourse with her.A grand jury indicted the defendant as a youthful offender on three counts of rape of a child with force. At the jury trial, at which the defendant did not testify, the defense strategy was essentially to challenge, through cross-examination of the Commonwealth's witnesses and argument, the elements of penetration and force, there being no serious contention that the defendant was not present or did not engage in sexual acts with the victim. [FN3] The jury convicted him on the first indictment, rape of a child by force, "to wit: [the defendant's] penis in [the] child's genital opening." On the second indictment for rape of a child by force ("to wit: [the defendant's] penis in [the] child's mouth"), the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of rape of a child. The jury found the defendant not guilty on the third indictment, on which he was tried as a joint venturer in the victim's forcible rape by Mike.Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of evidence of oral rape. We reject the defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient on the element of penetration as to the crime of rape of a child (by penis in mouth). "The crime of 'unnatural sexual intercourse' with a child includes oral sex." Commonwealth v. Fowler, 431 Mass. 30, 33 (2000), citing Commonwealth v. Gallant, 373 Mass. 577, 583 n. 5, 584 (1977). While "there [must] be some degree of penetration,"Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217, 224 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1216 (2006), it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Fowler, supra. Penetration may be inferred where the defendant forces the victim to "lick" his penis, and the court has cited approvingly to other jurisdictions in which penetration was inferred from the victim kissing the defendant's penis. See Commonwealth v. King, supra at 223 n. 6, citing, e.g.,Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 408 (Miss.1997) ("[P]roof of skin to skin contact between a person's mouth, lips, or tongue and the genitalia of a person's body, whether by kissing, licking, or sucking, is sufficient proof of 'sexual penetration' "). See also Commonwealth v. Mosby, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 17 (1980) (sufficient evidence of penetration where adult victim testified that defendant "put his mouth to--to my vagina" and that he "put his mouth down below").Here, the victim testified, "I remember coming back into consciousness and there's a penis in my face." The defendant also admitted, in the tape-recorded interview played for the jury, that he placed his penis "on [the victim's] mouth." The defendant added that at that point, he was lying down on his back and the victim was in front of him, between his legs. The jury were permitted to infer penetration from all the evidence. See Commonwealth v. King, supra.There was no error in denying the motion for a required finding of not guilty.2. Sufficiency of corroborative evidence of vaginal rape. The defendant also argues that the judge should have granted his motion for a required finding of not guilty on count one (rape of a child by force by penis in genital opening), contending that there was no evidence to sustain a conviction other than the defendant's uncorroborated confession. We disagree. There was sufficient evidence from which to infer that illegal sexual conduct took place between the defendant and the victim which corroborates the defendant's confession.When a motion for a required finding of not guilty is based on a claim of an insufficiently corroborated confession, a less demanding standard may apply than that of Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 676-677. See Commonwealth v. Villalta-Duarte, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 821, 825 (2002). The main purpose of the rule requiring corroboration of extrajudicial confessions is to "guard against conviction for imaginary crimes." Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. 453, 458 (1984). Thus, when it comes to evaluating the sufficiency of corroborating evidence, the standard we apply requires "merely that 'there be some evidence, besides the confession, that the criminal act was committed by someone, that is that the crime was real and not imaginary.' " Commonwealth v. Villalta-Duarte, supra, quoting from Commonwealth v. Landenburg, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 23, 25 (1996).Unlike Latimore, this standard does not require corroboration of each element of a crime, but does at a minimum require evidence that the crime was committed by someone. Commonwealth v. Villalta-Duarte, supra. "The corroboration required ... may be quite minimal." Id. at 825-826, quoting fromCommonwealth v. Sineiro, 432 Mass. 735, 745 n. 11 (2000). The corroborative proof need not show that it was the defendant who actually committed the crime. Commonwealth v. Forde, supra.For example, in Villalta-Duarte, the defendant confessed to sexually abusing the victim, a pre-verbal toddler, on two occasions while she was under the care of the defendant's wife, a day-care provider. 55 Mass.App.Ct. at 823-824. "[T]he evidence showed that, at the same time that the defendant was present at his apartment during the day, the preverbal victim began to cry hysterically when brought to the apartment, developed an intractable diaper rash, and had scratches on her face." Id. at 826. When the victim was taken to a different day-care provider, these symptoms were initially repeated, but disappeared after a few weeks. Ibid. The court considered the special evidentiary problems involved in child sex abuse cases and the history and development of the corroboration rule in Massachusetts, concluding that the evidence was "sufficient to support an inference that something traumatic occurred in the apartment where the defendant lived," and therefore met the corroboration standard. Ibid. In the case at bar, we first observe that we deal with evidentiary problems of a related type, stemming from the victim's intoxication and her difficulty in recalling specifically what happened. However, unlike in Villalta-Duarte, where we considered whether the actions of the pre-verbal toddler supported an inference that the crimes occurred, here we have actual testimony from the victim that supports an inference that the crime occurred.The defendant's taped confession and the victim's trial testimony gave similar accounts of the incidents of sexual conduct. Both described a series of three incidents. The order in which the events were recounted was the same in both the victim's testimony and the defendant's taped interview. The descriptions of the three incidents were also substantially similar. Specifically, both described the first incident as involving the defendant's penis and the victim's mouth. The victim testified that she "remember[ed] coming back into consciousness and there's a penis in my face." The defendant admitted, in his tape-recorded interview, that he "placed [his] penis on [the victim's] mouth." Consequently, the jury found the defendant committed oral rape, and we have upheld that conviction. The third incident, according to both the victim and the defendant, was sexual intercourse between the victim and a third party, Mike.As to the second incident, both the victim and the defendant described it as involving vaginal penetration. The defendant admitted putting his penis inside the victim's vagina. The victim testified that "[t]he next thing I remember is just I'm waking up and my believing that someone was performing oral sex on me." Asked to clarify, she stated she had had the "[f]eeling of his mouth in my private area ... [m]y vagina." The difference between the defendant's and victim's descriptions of the second incident is, for corroboration purposes in this case, inconsequential. [FN4] Corroboration of a confession requires onlysome evidence that the crime was committed by someone and was not imaginary. See Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. at 458; Commonwealth v. Villalta-Duarte, 55 Mass.App.Ct. at 826. Here the statements of the victim taken together support an inference that there was a second incident and it involved vaginal penetration. Compare ibid. (sufficiently corroborative evidence "support[ed] an inference that something traumatic occurred in the [defendant's] apartment"). Contrast Commonwealth v. Costello, 411 Mass. 371, 375 (1991) (alleged victim testified that sexual acts did not occur, and his prior inconsistent statements were not admitted for their substance; thus, absent other evidence, defendant's two uncorroborated confessions could not bebasis for conviction).We conclude that the totality of the evidence aside from the defendant's confession, in light of the history and purpose of the corroboration rule in Massachusetts, was sufficient to support an inference that illegal sexual conduct did take place between the defendant and the victim and that the crime confessed to was not imaginary.3. Jury instructions. It is true that the judge, in part, utilized some language recently disapproved in Commonwealth v. Blache, 450 Mass. 583, 592 (2008) (phrase "wholly insensible" used to describe level of intoxication required for incapacity "sounds archaic and confusing"), and Commonwealth v. Urban, 450 Mass. 608, 613 (2008) ("by listing intoxication and drunkenness alongside sleep, stupefaction, unconsciousness, and helplessness as potential bases for a finding of incapacity, the judge created the risk that jurors would equate these conditions, at least as they bear on the question of consent"), quoting from Commonwealth v. Urban, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 301, 306 (2006). However, after considering the judge's lengthy instructions in their entirety, seeCommonwealth v. Glacken, 451 Mass. 163, 168-169 (2008), we conclude that he conveyed effectively the jury's task of determining whether "because of the consumption of ... alcohol[,] ... the complainant was so impaired as to be incapable of consenting to intercourse." Commonwealth v. Blache, supra at 591-592. The judge made clear that "the jury must find not just that [the complainant] was intoxicated, but that her degree of intoxication was such that it rendered her incapable of consenting to intercourse," Commonwealth v. Urban, 450 Mass. at 613; and he communicated to the jury "that intoxication must be extreme before it can render a complainant incapable of consenting," Commonwealth v. Blache, supra at 592 n. 14.Finally, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that the judge's correction of a slip of the tongue improperly prohibited the jury from weighing the defendant's level of intoxication in their deliberations. The judge specifically tied his correction to the instruction during which he misspoke, which concerned only the victim's level of intoxication.Judgments affirmed.Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
FN1. The victim did not testify as to whom the word "his" referred.
FN2. No issue is raised in this appeal as to the admissibility of the
defendant's recorded statements or as to the jury instructions regarding their use.
FN3. The defendant called one witness, his mother, who testified that the police utilized promises of nonprosecution, and threats to bring charges, in order to induce the defendant's tape-recorded statements.
FN4. The defendant has not argued that this difference should lead us to reverse due to prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Geane, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 149, 151-152 (2001). The defendant was convicted by the petit jury of the crime specified by the grand jury, and the issue here is simply whether the evidence of that crime before the former was legally sufficient in light of the corroboration requirement.END OF DOCUMENT

Body of missing Maryland girl is found near Delaware - The Boston Globe

Body of missing Maryland girl is found near Delaware - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

Sex Offender kidnapping girl Salisbury, Md.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122401284.html?hpid=topnews


Sex offender charged with kidnapping girl in Salisbury, Md.

Thomas James Leggs, left, has been charged with kidnapping and burglary in the disappearance of Sarah Haley Foxwell, 11.

By Maria GlodWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 25, 2009

A registered sex offender has been charged with kidnapping an 11-year-old Salisbury, Md., girl who went missing from her bedroom Tuesday night, authorities said. She had not been found as of Thursday evening.
Sarah Haley Foxwell went to her room about 9:30 wearing fuzzy red pajama bottoms with Christmas trees on them and a pink John Deere T-shirt, Wicomico County sheriff's officials said. She was gone in the morning when her brother went to check on her. Sarah and the brother and a sister live with an aunt, who has other children.
Thomas J. Leggs, 30, a registered sex offender, has been charged with kidnapping and burglary and was in custody, authorities said. Officials said that he is Sarah's aunt's ex-boyfriend and that their relationship ended about a month ago.
Wicomico Sheriff Michael A. Lewis, who was leading a massive search Thursday night, said he was hopeful that Sarah would be found alive.
"We have faith. We want to bring this little girl home to her family," Lewis said. "Please ask people to pray for Sarah and her family."
Lewis said interviews with the children in the house, as well as other evidence, convinced investigators that Leggs abducted Sarah. Lewis said that Leggs, who works as a laborer in a wood and counter business, was refusing to cooperate.
Leggs, who authorities said lives in Salisbury in an outbuilding on property his parents own, is registered as a sex offender in Maryland and Delaware.
According to Maryland's sex offender registry, Leggs has a conviction for a third-degree sex offense. Wicomico officials said the victim in that crime was a young girl.
According to a Delaware Web site, Leggs is a "high-risk" offender who was convicted in 2001 of raping a teenager.
Hundreds of searchers fanned out Thursday over several miles of fields and dense woods, looking for any sign of Sarah. Officials said the search area included ponds and frozen fields in addition to residential areas. Police from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were assisting in the search.
Authorities were asking for information from anyone who might have seen Leggs's vehicle, a 2003 champagne-colored Dodge Ram pickup, between 11 p.m. Tuesday and 11 a.m. Wednesday. Officials ask that anyone with information about Sarah's disappearance call the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office at 410-548-4891.
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report

Littleton Police Announce Indictment

Winchester Star
12-23-2009
LITTLETON -
http://www.wickedlocal.com/winchester/news/x1462336670/Littleton-Police-Announce-Indictment

Littleton Police Announce Indictment

The Littleton Police have been notified by the Office of Middlesex County District Attorney Gerry Leone that an Indictment was returned against Daniel O’Brien of Richmond Virginia.

The Indictment stemmed from O’Brien’s arrest, by the Littleton Police Department, on Nov. 20, when O’Brien traveled from his home in Virginia to Littleton with plans to meet a 12 year old Littleton Middle School Student and assist her in running away with him back to Virginia. Littleton Detectives testified before the Middlesex County Grand Jury concerning the facts of the case and presented evidence.

O’Brien’s plan was discovered when the girl’s mother and the mother’s boyfriend performed some preliminary investigation in response to irregular behavior the 12 year old was exhibiting.

Once the Littleton Police were given that information they were able to track the suspect through email accounts, MySpace, and law enforcement technology tools.
In addition Littleton Detectives Matt Pinard and Jeff Patterson were able to track O’Brien’s moves through bus tickets that he had purchased, one of which had the young girl’s first name on it along with O’Brien’s last name and had a destination of Virginia.

O’Brien was positively identified on a train that was travelling from Boston to Littleton by Littleton Police Lt. Matthew King, who had boarded the train prior to it reaching its Littleton Destination. Once in Littleton O’Brien was taken into custody by the Littleton Police Department with the assistance of FBI Agents from a local office.

The Indictment returned against Daniel O’Brien was for the charges of: Attempt to Commit A Crime – To Wit Kidnapping, Enticement of a Child, and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. O’Brien is currently being held on bail pending trial.