Toledo Talk

Matthew 'Vincente' Gonzalez

Any current, or former customers should be concerned.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2013/01/03/Maumee-salon-owner-jailed-on-charges-of-filming-girl-17.html

created by TJRubicon on Jan 03, 2013 at 08:26:23 pm     Legal     Comments: 13

source      versions


Comments ... #

I used to patronize his place. I simply could not stand the man. He was an enormous braggart. Usually when you visit a hairdresser you have a conversation. The hairdresser expresses an interest in the client. Not with this guy. He talked non stop about himself, and how great he was at just about anything you could think of, from the time you sat down in the chair until you left. I went three times. The haircut was just ok and certainly not worth the aggravation of having to listen to him.

But, I never saw any hint of the behaviour for which he was arrested. I never tanned either. Thank God.

posted by holland on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:03:51 pm     #  

According to police reports, a 17-year-old client noticed a cell phone in a vent while using the tanning bed on Sept. 28. After looking at the phone, she recognized the telephone number as being the salon owner’s and a text on the phone was addressed to Mr. Gonzalez, authorities said.

Worst peeping tom ever.

posted by Ace_Face on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:16:23 pm     #   1 person liked this

The Blade reported that he could get twelve years for the peeping. They should tack on a couple of extra years for his hubris.

posted by holland on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:24:54 pm     #  

Someone indicated on the Blade website that Gonzalez has a brother named Tony who is serving time for raping a 5 year old family member.

I'm not sure how to verify whether that is true or not? With the age of the victim, would some of that information be kept sealed?

The commentor made it sound like the brother is currently incarcerated for the crime.

If that's true, it certainly points to a disturbing pattern of behavior in the family.

posted by mom2 on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:28:03 pm     #  

Dove out a second floor window? Incredible.

From the article: The phone was not recovered, but authorities said the victim saw herself in a video in a state of undress.

No phone, no hard evidence. I don't know how this one will shake out.

posted by madjack on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:34:01 pm     #  

madjack, I agree it may turn into a he said/she said case unless the phone turns up as proof.

However, tossing the phone and diving out a second floor window certainly don't seem like the actions of an innocent man.

Would that be admissible in court though?

posted by mom2 on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:36:45 pm     #  

Damn...looks like the story about his brother must be true. This is horrifying:

A Harding Township man who is HIV positive was sentenced yesterday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court to 48 years in prison for raping a 5-year-old girl.

Judge Charles Doneghy said the sexual assaults that 48-year-old Antonio Gonzalez inflicted were among the most "gruesome and horrible" he has seen during his years on the bench.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2006/01/04/HIV-positive-rapist-gets-48-year-prison-sentence.html

posted by mom2 on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:51 pm     #  

According to the article that I linked above:

(Antonio) Gonzalez fled upstairs, jumped out a window, and ran to a nearby home at 415 Degenfelder, where a neighbor gave him a pair of shorts. However, he was confronted by several people. They assaulted him and left him in the road.

Apparently jumping out a window to flee trouble runs in the family.

Donald Cameron, an attorney for Gonzalez, told Judge Doneghy that his client revealed to a psychiatrist about 10 years ago that he was sexually abused as a child.

Apparently jumping out windows isn't the only thing that runs in that family. Yikes.

posted by mom2 on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:48:50 pm     #  

Terrible. Absolutely terrible.

posted by holland on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:49:11 pm     #  

Matt was forced to settle out of court with a group (3 or 4) of former female employees over sexual harassment and imposition/touching. This was approximately 2006.

posted by TJRubicon on Jan 03, 2013 at 11:53:29 pm     #  

mom2 posted at 10:36:45 PM on Jan 03, 2013:

madjack, I agree it may turn into a he said/she said case unless the phone turns up as proof.

However, tossing the phone and diving out a second floor window certainly don't seem like the actions of an innocent man.

Would that be admissible in court though?

At first I was going to say it wouldn't be admissible unless he testified. But, if they charge him with resisting arrest or fleeing police, they would have to bring in the second-story dive.

But I'm not sure how they could get the fact that he thru out the phone in. Rules of evidence were not my strong point in law school.

I wonder how bad the one-week delay in talking to him will damage the case. When did the police get the phone? Right after the teen called or did they wait a week, get the phone, and talk to him altogether? Where was the phone for that week? Is there chain of custody issues? And while the blade announces the Incident as a Maumee case, the salon is in Toledo which clearly explains the week delay, IMO.

posted by MrsArcher on Jan 04, 2013 at 09:36:41 am     #  

I dont think they ever found the phone. From the Blade article January 2nd.

"The phone was not recovered, but authorities said the victim saw herself in a video in a state of undress."

posted by holland on Jan 04, 2013 at 01:46:42 pm     #  

Mrs /mom2:

If the suspect/defendant was informed that the police believed the phone was used in a crime and the detective testified that the phone on the desk was similar to the one the girl described, arguably they could enter it into evidence relative to the tampering or obstruction charges. The difficulty would be convincing the judge that the "missing" phone was the same phone used in the alleged taping. At the trial level, I would assume it gets in. I'm not so sure at the Sixth District.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Jan 04, 2013 at 02:03:33 pm     #