Report by Paula Antolini, August 26, 2019, 5:59PM EDT
David MacDowell, 34, was arraigned today in Danbury Superior Court for a charge of Manslaughter 1st degree, for an incident that occurred on August 24, 2019 at the Colonial Acres condominiums on Plumtrees Road, where the victim, whose name is not being released pending next of kin, later died.
Bail was set by Judge Ronald Kowalski at $1 million, saying MacDowell was “a significant danger to the community” reports the News Times, even though the defense asked for a reduction, and under a condition that there be no contact with the family if bond is made.
A motion was granted by Judge Kowolski, to the state, for redaction of ‘confidential” information about the victim, to keep the victim’s identity in all documents CONFIDENTIAL and ordered the arraignment affidavits and search warrants SEALED.
The Bethel Police are still in the process of investigating this case and last said they would possibly release further information after the victim’s family is notified.
We checked with the Bethel Police tonight and no further information was put forth to the public at this time.
The incident happened in the early morning hours of August 24th. A young woman had been stabbed several times and was bleeding badly when Bethel Police arrived.
Paramedics were called and the victim was taken to Danbury Hospital, but she later succumbed to her wounds.
MacDowell arrived at the Bethel Police station shortly after the incident, spoke with the dispatcher, and was arrested soon after.
UPDATE August 26, 2019, 8:32PM EDT:
The Bethel Advocate spoke to Detective Sergeant George Bryce of the Bethel Police Department tonight, and he said they are prevented from revealing the name of the victim or other details in this case, according to Connecticut State Statute 54-86E, “Confidentiality of identifying information pertaining to victims of certain crimes. Availability of information to accused. Protective order information to be entered in registry” pertaining to cases of sexual assault, or of an attempt thereof, or domestic or family violence.
The exact statute reads:
“The name and address of the victim of a sexual assault under section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-70b, 53a-70c, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b or 53a-73a, voyeurism under section 53a-189a, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of morals under section 53-21, or of an attempt thereof, or family violence, as defined in section 46b-38a and such other identifying information pertaining to such victim as determined by the court, shall be confidential and shall be disclosed only upon order of the Superior Court, except that (1) such information shall be available to the accused in the same manner and time as such information is available to persons accused of other criminal offenses, and (2) if a protective order is issued in a prosecution under any of said sections, the name and address of the victim, in addition to the information contained in and concerning the issuance of such order, shall be entered in the registry of protective orders pursuant to section 51-5c.”
However, despite the court records being sealed about the female victim, it is the family’s (or victim’s if they survive) prerogative to release confidential information about the case to the public if they so choose, Bryce said.
However, the question becomes, did the family give permission to post private information online regarding the victim’s name? Or did well-meaning people just post info. online themselves, regarding a fundraiser for the funeral? Or did the family post it themselves? It appears that some online forums have been passing around information that has not been confirmed by authorities.