UPDATE: Preliminary Hearing for UW-River Falls Professor Continued to Oct. 11
Thomas W. Barnett of Baldwin sat stoically in the St. Croix County courtroom as his accusers—both minors—recounted the alleged events of Aug. 16
UPDATE (5:57 p.m., Oct. 4, 2011): After testimony from just two witnesses in the preliminary hearing against UW-River Falls professor Thomas W. Barnett, St. Croix County Judge Eric Lundell ruled to continue the proceedings on Oct. 11.
The public was barred from the courtroom during an hour-long testimony from the 14-year-old alleged victim in the case.
After hearing 30 minutes of testimony from the victim's former boyfriend—who was nearby at the time of the alleged incident—the judge conferred with prosecutor Frank Collins and defense attorney Timothy O'Brien before ruling for a continuance.
Barnett is facing felony charges of child sexual assault and false imprisonment stemming from an alleged Aug. 16 incident at the Hudson Theatre.
A preliminary hearing is one in which the judge hears testimony from witnesses on both sides of the case and decides if there is enough probable cause to sustain the charges against the defendant.
The continuation is scheduled for 9-11:30 a.m. on Oct. 11 at the St. Croix County Government Center.
----
UPDATE (4:25 p.m., Sept. 19, 2011): On Sept. 8, Barnett changed his defense attorney from Barry Lundeen to Timothy O'Brien. The preliminary hearing has been rescheduled for Oct. 4.
----
ORIGINAL POST (3:38 p.m., Sept. 2, 2011): A UW-River Falls music professor is facing felony charges of child sexual assault and false imprisonment stemming from an alleged Aug. 16 incident at the Hudson Theatre.
According to the criminal complaint, Thomas W. Barnett, then 41, approached a then 13-year-old girl and her 14-year-old boyfriend after watching a movie. The complaint states he identified himself as theatre security and told the boy to wait outside the auditorium while he spoke privately with the girl.
According to the criminal complaint, Barnett said he had video footage of the girl that he intended to post on the news and on the Internet unless she let him touch her.
Then, investigators charge, Barnett prevented the girl from leaving the auditorium and touched her. He then told the girl to stay in the auditorium while he went to erase the video footage, the complaint says.
While the girl was alone with the man in the auditorium, the complaint states, the boy went to the theatre front desk and spoke to the attendant who said the man was not theatre security. When the boy returned to the auditorium, Barnett was gone and the girl reported the incident.
According to Barnett's information page on the UWRF website, he is a professor of music in his 10th year of teaching at the university. He teaches applied trumpet, River Falls Brass, music theory and brass techniques.
If convicted of the sexual assault charge, Barnett could get up to 40 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000. The false imprisonment charge carries a possible sentence of six years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.
Barnett has a preliminary hearing in St. Croix County Circuit Court scheduled for Sept. 21. His attorney is Barry C. Lundeen. The prosecuting attorney is Assistant District Attorney Frank Collins. Judge Eric J. Lundell will preside.
Ann Waterhouse
3:47 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
Set an example Judge Eric Lundell, these people shouldnt even be allowed to walk the streets!
Hudsoner
3:53 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
What an idiot. Wasting his entire carrier just because he could not hold his fingers under control! One never knows where those idiots hide out!
Micheal Foley
3:59 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
Let's not jump to conclusions, folks. We have to remember that he hasn't been convicted. These are just charges.
Hudsoner
5:10 pm on Friday, September 2, 2011
You are correct Micheal. One should keep ones emotions under controll!
Erin
8:31 am on Saturday, September 3, 2011
There are two sides of story. Innocent until proven guilty and the courage it takes for a victim to come forward and tell the story. I hope that the truth of the matter comes out.
Prof Quincy A. Wagstaff
7:22 pm on Saturday, September 3, 2011
I agree. I'll wait for the trail before I judge.
The mob rule by some members or the Hudson community is a bit too old west for me.
d paul
3:12 pm on Saturday, September 3, 2011
If it was my Daughter.... My Dad and I would show him the farm. Alot of accidents happen on a farm...
Prof Quincy A. Wagstaff
6:13 pm on Saturday, September 3, 2011
Typical knee jerk threat of violence reaction from one of Hudson's most vocal businessmen.
Reason # 309 why I won't set foot in your restaurant.
Maybe you should wait for the trail before you "git a rope".
d paul
4:31 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
You don't need to come into Agave. I'll just keep building small businesses till to by accident support something I own. I will make my life's mission to become friends with you Quincy. :)
d paul
4:32 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
I also said IF IT WAS MY DAUGHTER... Not this "guy"
d paul
4:34 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Ive also made it a mission to no longer read faceless, nameless comments, excluding TH3. Reason #1. :P
Thurston Howell III ©
7:22 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
d paul said:" I also said IF IT WAS MY DAUGHTER... Not this "guy"" I can understand that sentiment, but doesn't make it right. Depaul, I'm confused?
Ive also made it a mission to no longer read faceless, nameless comments, excluding TH3. Reason #1. :P" Does this mean you are no longer a fan? :-)
What is special about those wings anyway?
d paul
8:40 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
I give up..
Thurston Howell III ©
8:57 pm on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
dPaul, You give up? The we win! LOL.
Thurston Howell III ©
8:41 pm on Saturday, September 3, 2011
It's good to see we still have Vigilantes in Hudson. I was afraid they were extinct.
Alumni
6:06 pm on Monday, September 5, 2011
My comment was deleted but these people can argue like this and cut each other down? This news source is a joke.
Michael Deason
9:56 am on Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Well professor Quincy, while you're waiting on the "trail", the rest of us will watch the trial. The suspect was ID'd by uwrf students who were working at the theater. And he's on PAID leave, so obviously he hasn't been condemned prior to conviction. In addition, is suspect that said "threat of violence" is more out of frustration with child molesters in general than with this particular man, unless he's convicted.
Michael Deason
7:47 am on Friday, September 9, 2011
Yeah, sorry about that. Autocorrect and irritation gets the better of my phone screen at times.
Prof Quincy A. Wagstaff
10:26 am on Friday, September 9, 2011
LOL Michael. Hey it coulda be worse...
http://damnyouautocorrect.com/5122/15-most-popular-autocorrects-from-january-2011/
kacie morgan
9:15 am on Monday, September 19, 2011
Some articles say that the boy and girl were caught in a sex act in the theatre.
Exactly what sex act did Barnett catch them in and "supposedly" claim to have recorded. Play devils advocate.....Sounds to me like the 13 year olds were affraid Barnett would tell mommy and daddy about what he caught them doing so they came up with a good story to cover themselves! A 13 year old doesn't think about how one lie to help them can ruin anothers career and life.
Micheal Foley
9:27 am on Monday, September 19, 2011
That's exactly why I'm urging folks to wait until the facts come out in a trial. Who knows? Charges could be dropped all together.
Heather
12:12 pm on Saturday, September 24, 2011
I really urge you to read the pdf at the top of the page under his picture. I just doubt they would be going to trial if all they had for evidence was he-said she-said. It seems pretty elaborate to be made up on the spot.
Nicole
6:43 pm on Monday, September 26, 2011
I'm pretty sure a few years back a student from UWRF tried to file an incident report with the school similar to this. The some of the other professors backed up Dr. Barnett, and no action was taken. I personally was a student of his in a few different classes, I stopped going to those classes because he couldn't keep his eyes to him self. In this case I personally don't think the girl was lying.
Cullen
4:27 pm on Thursday, September 29, 2011
"Sounds to me like the 13 year olds were affraid Barnett would tell mommy and daddy about what he caught them doing so they came up with a good story to cover themselves! A 13 year old doesn't think about how one lie to help them can ruin anothers career and life." Kacie Morgan- I encourage you to read reports and stories of victims in sexual assault cases. What you are suggesting happens so unbelievably rarely, and when it has happened, (again- RARELY), it is typically done by a person who has been a victim in the past, or someone with a mental health diagnosis. If the kids were trying to cover up a make out session, then any adult in the theatre should have spoken with management, not posed as security and separated children.
It is so easy to blame the victim in situations like this. I concede that it is important to believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but accusations of bad behavior and lying to possible victims is exactly why situations like this happen. I'm not trying to come down on anybody- but I strongly, strongly encourage you to read about sexual assault victims, and the difficulty they face in stating what has happened to them.
gree66
7:24 am on Sunday, October 9, 2011
I grew up with Tom, know Him very well, These Kids are Liars, and when the Truth comes out, these kids should be prosecuted.
Heather
12:00 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
11:59am on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Do you know the kids, too? I'm sorry, but it just seems to me that this whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit that everyone's been throwing out should apply to the kids who aren't even the ones on trial.
Micheal Foley
12:13 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
We've got a new story with the latest developments from today's preliminary hearing: http://patch.com/A-mL0c
Anna
5:51 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Heather, keep in mind that the burden of proof lies on the kids' shoulders. They are the ones alleging this happened in the first place. If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt then yes, he deserves to be put away for a very long time. Until that happens though, I for one am not going to convict him until we hear the whole story and the proof.
Micheal Foley
1:23 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
We've got a story with more new developments from this case: http://patch.com/A-qPq3. Jury selection begins at 8:15 a.m. on Feb. 28.
Mike
2:33 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Is the jury trial going to be open for the public?
Jeff Roberts
9:10 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Hi Mike, as far as I know the trial will be open to the public. The judge did not say anything about denying access to the public.
Jason Robert
7:52 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
I really like the way that the author of this article found a way to tie taxpayer money and unionism into this story. Based on the same logic, I launch into a sweeping critique of capitalism every time somebody in the private sector commits a crime...