By Russell Goldman
Jan. 8, 2009
A
William "Duke" Lewton, 36, and several acquaintances who claim they were recorded by the bear are suing Lewton's ex-wife Dianna Divingnzzo, her father and her former lawyer for allegedly recording conversations without their consent.
Their daughter Ellanna is 5 years old, and the couple has been involved in a custody dispute for four-and-a-half of those years. Lewton first learned of the allegedly bugged bear when a judge reviewed notes between Divingnzzo and a court-appointed therapist, in which the girl's mother said recordings were made.
When the judge learned of the recordings, he informed both parties' lawyers, letting Divingnzzo know the information was inadmissible in court, prompting Lewton to file a civil case.
No criminal charges have been filed against Divingnzzo or her father."[Divingnzzo] somehow found a way to get a bugging device and installed it in my daughter's teddy bear," Lewton told ABCNews.com. "Every time my daughter came to stay with me, I was being recorded. She had been listening for six months.
"Every intimate conversation was being listened to by my ex-spouse. It was invasive and intrusive. I'm living in a state of paranoia," he said.
Lewton said he never saw the listening device or heard the recordings, but according to the complaint, his former father-in-law Sam Divingnzzo, whom Lewton is also suing, converted the conversations on CD and then transcribed them. According to Lewton, the recordings contain hours of conversations recorded from December 2007 to May 2008 with his fiancée, neighbor, friends and relatives, six of whom are named as co-plaintiffs in the complaint.
The lawyer for Dianna Divingnzzo acknowledged the recordings exist but said it remained up to a jury to determine who bugged the bear and whether any crime had been committed.
"I don't know who planted the device, if it was Dianna, or her father or someone else," said Shattuck. "The real question is what was the rationale behind wanting to record those conversations."
"Yes, such recording may violate someone's wish to be private, but sometimes there is an overriding interest to protect a minor child," he said. "The simple fact is that whoever made these recordings had a rationale for doing so. Despite what told the media, there is clear evidence that he wasn't a perfect dad."
In October, a judge ordered the couple to share joint physical custody of the girl.
No comments:
Post a Comment