Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Atkinson man faces 29 sex assault charges

From the Eagle Tribune;

November 17, 2010
Atkinson man faces 29 sex assault charges

By Jillian Jorgensen jjorgensen@eagletribune.com The Eagle Tribune Wed Nov 17, 2010, 12:16 AM EST

BRENTWOOD — An Atkinson man has been indicted on 29 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault for allegedly abusing two girls — one a blood relative — in the 1980s.

Robert Sturk, 68, of 8 Sawmill Road, was indicted this month by a Rockingham County grand jury. The indictments allege he abused two girls, beginning when both were under the age of 13. The alleged abuse goes back to Jan. 2, 1981, and continued into 1990, all in Atkinson.

The earliest indictments are for crimes alleged to have occurred in January 1981, when the first victim was 8 years old. Sturk repeatedly touched her genitals, including while she was showering, raped her, and made her perform oral sex on him, according to the slew of indictments listing her as the victim. The abuse continued until 1984, according to the documents.

Sturk also is accused of similarly abusing another girl, who the indictments say was a blood relative, beginning in 1986 when she was 9 years old. That abuse included Sturk touching the girl's genitals and penetrating her sexually with an object, and it lasted until August 1990, according to the documents.

Sturk did not return a message left for him yesterday. Prosecutor Karen Springer, with the county attorney's office, said he did not have a lawyer when his case was considered by the grand jury.

The case came to the county attorney's office through the Atkinson police, Springer said.

"It sort of came in the routine way for the police department and, as a result of that, we had contact with the victims," Springer said.

Atkinson police referred all questions about the case to the county attorney's office.

Springer said the statute of limitations in the case allowed prosecutors to charge Sturk for sexual assaults dating back to Jan. 1, 1981. There were so many counts, many alleging conduct over six-month periods, Springer said, because prior to 1994, prosecutors could not charge someone with a crime committed as a pattern over time. Other indictments do allege some of the conduct, such as the rape of Sturk's first victim, occurred sometime in a period that lasted for multiple years, and Springer said that was due to "economy."

"I could probably charge a lot more," she said.

For each of the 29 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, Sturk faces seven and a half to 15 years in prison.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This should not be in the paper or on the blog.

TMI

Anonymous said...

To be informed is to be safe. Why would you not want to be knowledgeable of a sex nut in the area. One can look on the internet for most every town ,city ,and village in the country to see who is on the lists of sexual offenders. For you to say these things shouldn't be published is a disservice to each and every one of us, especially those of us who have children and grandchildren. Where is your common sense? There are two places for your kind of thought on the subject, hell and prison! Wake up and think before you write!

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that our police dept. was involved in uncovering anything in this case. Normally, Consentino can't find his own butt while sitting in a big pile of leaves.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the Atkinson reporter never ceases to amaze me. A guy who has molested god knows how many children, maybe even some related to him is in our midst and we have to pick on Atkinson's finest who most likely were the first ones this was reported to.

Let's pick on Leon's friends on the lake, and the state of education but if there is a pervert in my neighborhood, how about putting his picture on this BLOG and removing Phil's, it's getting old.

Anonymous said...

This guy is one of Mr Bennett's neighbors and probably the same age do you think Bill have went over for a playdate? It wouldn't surprise me

Anonymous said...

why not?

Anonymous said...

Maybe if we had his picture we would

Anonymous said...

please dont refer to Phil Consentino as Atkinson's finest! It demeans the competent officers on the force as well as everyone else in town

Anonymous said...

So we go from an unsubstantiated claim that public officials are taking bribes from the Osborn's to devolving down to selectman Bennett being engaged in pedophile activity. Do you have any idea just how demented some of you people are? Any idea at all?

MAcciard said...

1:51pm

That is disgusting and uncivil! If you can't say something constructive, maybe you should refrain from posting.

Anonymous said...

These comments are unnecessary! I am glad that the police stepped in & did the right thing. We should be aware of what's going on in our neighborhood. It's disgusting to imply that Mr. Bennett is involved etc. Thank goodnesss that the man has been caught & will pay for what he did to those poor girls

Anonymous said...

I always knew there are idiots in our town and this verifies it.

How would anyone want to cover up a story like this so that the public would be unaware of these perverts.

Idiot!

Anonymous said...

1:51 PM

There have been many nasty things said on this blog over the years but yours is most assuredly in the top 10. Congratulations for your entry to the most disgusting posters club.

What Sturk did is one of the most egregious acts one person can do to another. Victims lives can and are ruined by such crimes.

Your associating Sturk's crimes to one of our hardest working elected officials offends and disgusts me.

This has been said many times before but I think this time it really fits. Go slink back under that slimy rock you crawled out from under.

MAcciard said...

ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE

Report on the SAU Budget public hearing.

by Mark Acciard

For those of you who were unaware, and I am guessing that is most of you, the SAU held their budget public hearing tonight.

How this works is that the two school boards; Timberlane and Hampstead, both approve the Superintendent's budget for the SAU, then the SAU has it's own budget public hearing, voting to move the budget forward, the next time you will hear about this budget is when we get to school district deliberative session in February. It will show up in the Timberlane budget as a single line item for 75% of the $1.3 million SAU budget. The other 25% is Hampstead's portion.

As I told Mr. LaSalle and Mr. Stokinger at the meeting tonight, Thank you! They prepared a very tight budget for the SAU for the coming year. $1.3million to service the 13 employees of the SAU. As expected health insurance is up significantly, as a re other benefits. Administrators will receive a 2% raise this year. What I found most disappointing, other than the lack of public participation( I was the only member of the public there until Mr. Artus arrived, then there were two.) was the sad fact that not one member of the school district budget committee felt the need to attend. Granted, I asked all the questions about what was in various line items that they should have been there to ask, but not even the chair felt the need to find out what would be presented to them as a single line item later on. As this was a public hearing, it is the last chance to change or question that budget, and the budget committee obviously felt due diligence was beyond their ken.

When will we ever have a school district budget committee that does not see it's role as "selling the superintendent's budget" but in following state budget law, and preparing the budget?

Anonymous said...

There is too much information about the victim in this article. We do not need to know these details and this is just trash.

An article about the perp is what should be published.