The Southborough Police Department announced today that Daniel Goichman, a registered sex offender who lived on East Main Street, was arrested yesterday for possession of child pornography. Here is the full press release with more information:
On September 30, 2012 at approximately 1430 hours, Massachusetts State Troopers assigned to the Attorney General’s Office, along with assistance from the Southborough Police Department, placed Southborough resident Daniel Goichman under arrest outside of his home. Goichman, who is a registered Sex Offender residing on East Main Street in Southborough, was charged with three (3) counts of possession of child pornography.
The arrest stemmed from an ongoing investigation involving the Massachusetts State Police and the Southborough Police Department. During the investigation, a search warrant had been granted for his residence and was executed on Sept. 27, 2012. A forensic analysis of Goichman’s computer was conducted on-scene, and at the Attorney General Computer Lab. The analysis revealed files of child pornography on Mr. Goichman’s computer.
On September 30, 2012 at approximately 1215 hours, Goichman entered the Southborough Police Station and stated that he wished to change his address on the Sex Offender registration, to that of a location in Mexico City, Mexico. He stated that he was leaving for Mexico later that evening. Southborough Police notified State Police of this revelation, and troopers from the Attorney General’s Office along with members of the Southborough Police department, were dispatched to his residence. Goichman was placed under arrest, and was brought to State Police Millbury barracks for booking. He was held without bail pending his appearance in Westborough District Court on Monday morning, October 1, 2012.
Isn’t there a law that restricts Registered Sex Offenders from living near child care/day care centers (plus schools and such)?
Yes, there is. The bylaw, which was approved by Town Meeting in 2008, says in part, “A registered sex offender is prohibited from establishing a permanent residence or temporary residence within 1,000 feet of any school, day-care center, park, other recreational facility, or elderly housing facility.”
You can read the relevant section of the town code here: http://ecode360.com/12222666#12222666.
An exact address was not included in the press release, so it’s unclear at this point whether the suspect was within the buffer or not.
The house this man lived in is four houses away from the preschool on East Main Street. This seems to be within the buffer zone. How was that allowed to happen?
Having worked for the town for so many years, it was easy for me to figure the address for this fellow. I’m sure he was within “the zone” of a certain private pre-school. My question is this: who has the actual authority to kick someone like this out of his home if he is in fact within the zone? Is it our police department, the probation department?
His address is [redacted]. Town bylaw clearly states he is prohibited from establishing a permanent residence within 1,000 feet (more than 3 football fields) of a school or preschool. Am I the only who thinks it would have been nice of our town police force (who clearly knew this guy was living here) to enforce this and maybe even let those of us with young kids in the neighborhood know about his presence so we could protect ourselves? I think some pretty strong criticism is in order here.
[Ed. note: The My Southborough comment policy prohibits posting personal information, including home addresses, about other residents. This case is not a typical one since the suspect is a registered sex offender, but I’m going to wait until the SPD releases the address before posting it on the blog. Those of you who really want to know can likely find it online, as others have, with a bit of easy Googling.]
I have had children enrolled at the preschool on East Main for the past 6 years so this news is quite disturbing. Thank goodness the directors and staff have always made security a priority. I am so disappointed in the system and left wondering how something like this could happen.
i would like to know the answer to that question as well John. The certain private pre-school is where most of the children in this town attend. The laws do absolutely zero good if they are not enforced.
John,
Good point. I wonder if he was living at the address before 2008. In any event it is easy to keep someone from moving into an address while a law is already in the books, but as you stated how and who removes them after the law is on the books. We all think our homes are our castles once one lives in a home, who forces them to leave, especially if they have lived there prior to the 2008 law. Is he grandfathered in. Was he there before the preschool? Can the preschool open knowing he was already there? All that being said, I think if he is convicted on this charge it may make all these questions a mute point. But like John, I am curious.
He was not there in 2008. He has only been there a couple years. Clearly the authorities knew he was there. I am wondering though, How long does it take for a sex offender show up on the registry so that when we check it we will see it? I had heard from the police log of a sex offender registering who resided on Oak Hill Road. I checked the registry to see where since my children walk from the bus stop home each day. I didn’t find anyone, and this man was not listed either. I am wondering why. Also if the authorities knew where he was and that he was within the buffer zone, why was nothing done? Both state police and local police were aware of him but it sounds like he was under the jurisdiction of the state police since they were the ones who arrested him. I too am curious.
According the the information I received from the the police department, Goichman was convicted on 5/28/2002 for “indecent assault and battery on a person aged 14 or older.”
Thanks to the SPD for their hard work and diligence.
There are apps and websites that shows where registered offenders live I believe. Can someone post a link here where we can find where such offenders are living in our town? What about bus stops? Seems like those should be protected areas too.
There is a link on the Southborough Police website
I just visited the following site: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/sorb/
It appears that only Level 3 offenders are listed by name. There is a count of Level 2 offenders in the area. I went to the police department and requested the registry for Southborough. It lists Level 2 and Level 3 offenders, their home and work addresses, their convictions and has (grainy) photographs. I had to sign a log and show them my driver’s license.
I have 2 children that graduated from that wonderful little school. If a registered offender moves into town, I would like to think our police department is notified and aware. If so, how was he allowed to live so close to the school? I hope we get an explanation.
I for one am not happy at all with our police department here. They owe the community some answers.
Check out his activity on the petition site change.org: http://www.change.org/members/1013975 I assume it’s this person, and not someone posting as him.
His comment regarding the first petition listed is pretty insensitive: “my life has already been destroyed by the sex offender laws passed after 1994 for a few dead kids” (a few dead kids????)
When you get to the bottom of the list, click the “More Activity” button, and keep scrolling down. He made this comment under a petition from about eight months ago about ending Sex Offender Registry and Laws: “the registry has destroyed my life. i had sex one time with a 15 yr old girl i met on adult chat site. its time to fight.”
Kudos to the Southborough and State Police.
Folks, this case has raised some serious questions for all of us in the community. I’m working on getting time with Police Chief Moran to talk with her about the sex offender bylaw and how it applied in this case. Stay tuned.
-Susan
Public registration makes folks feel safer but does little to actually make them safer this is well known to most in law enforcement and those involved in prosecution.
Good afternoon,
After being alerted to this situation through this indispensable medium, I began asking some of the same questions that have been posited on this site. As one of your elected leaders in Town, I am able to provide the following information.
Consistent with state law, this individual registered as a Level 2 Offender and notified our police department of his address within the thirty days required by statute. Under our Town by-law, this individual should have been prohibited from living within 1000 feet of any school, day-care center, park, recreational facility, or elderly housing facility. He was not and no excuse has any efficacy.
The information was taken from the individual manually by the police department. It was not entered into any database because the department does not have that technology. The manual information should have been evaluated with a map of our Town to determine if any of the safety zones were impacted. It was not.
We have immediately commenced a review of the internal policies of the police department. The Chief of Police has confirmed that all other registered sex offenders in Town are in compliance with the Town’s by-law. I have requested that the Chief of Police provide the Board of Selectmen with a process moving forward to guarantee to the Board and to the residents that such a thing will not happen in the future. I have also called for a complete report on the police department’s outdated technology and the costs associated with bringing that technology into compliance with contemporary police operations.
I can think of no higher priority than the protection of our Town’s children. While mistakes may happen, they should rarely be tolerated. This is especially the case when the resultant cost of such mistakes could be borne by our most prized possessions. Failure to enforce our Town’s sex offender by-law should be a “never event,” because it should be a preventable mistake that should never happen, such as operating on a wrong body part or giving an infant to the wrong person. And while it would be easy to adorn ourselves in Teflon suits and simply point the finger at the police department, I would caution against that simplistic viewpoint. The police department can only operate with the tools they are given, and we are all working together to make sure this type of thing never happens again.
I can guarantee the residents of Town that the Board of Selectmen will not let this issue rest until we are completely satisfied that such an event can never happen again. Your rage is our rage and the Board of Selectmen are committed to keeping everyone updated and I welcome the public’s input at every juncture.
John Rooney
The SPD drops the ball again.
Does Southborough have a bylaw addressing where sex offenders can live relative to a bus stop?
Thanks very much.
Chapter 118 Section 6 Enforcement.
http://ecode360.com/12222720
A: “The Southborough Police Department shall be charged and empowered with the enforcement of this chapter.”
B: “A written list describing the prohibited areas defined in this bylaw inclusive of school bus stops, as well as a map depicting the residency restriction areas and a map depicting the safety zones exclusive of school bus stops, shall be created by the Town and maintained by the Southborough Department of Public Works. As to school bus stops, the list, and not the map depicting the safety zones, shall govern. The Town shall review both the list and the maps no less than annually for changes. The list, the maps and a copy of this bylaw will be available to the public at the Southborough Police Department and Southborough Clerk’s office, and on the Town of Southborough website.”