Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
GRAHAM BRINKLorelei Fairall was twice told she failed to supply evidence of violence or imminent danger.
TAMPA - In hindsight, it might seem easy to criticize the court system for failing to protect Lorelei Fairall.
Twice, Fairall asked for domestic violence injunctions against her former boyfriend, Michael Melberg. And twice, the requests were denied.
On Wednesday, Fairall and her new boyfriend were killed in her Carrollwood home. Melberg was the chief suspect when a state trooper in Missouri shot and killed him after a confrontation Thursday evening.
But domestic violence injunctions are not one size fits all. And Fairall's petitions were far from ironclad.
People seeking injunctions for protection from domestic violence cannot simply say someone is bothering them. They must have been a victim of violence or have reasonable cause to think they are in imminent danger of becoming one.
And they need to give details.
"They must back up why they feel threatened," said Nancy Lopez, director of the victims' assistance program at the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office. In her first petition, filed on Dec. 19, 2002, Fairall stated that Melberg left 23 "harassing" voice mail messages. She also said Melberg kicked in the door to her house while she was away, ransacked the master bedroom and wrote messages on the mirror.
The petition, however, did not give any specifics about the content of the voice mail messages or say whether Melberg threatened violence or engaged in a pattern of stalking. She also did not state specifically what was written on the mirror.
It is also unclear from the petition how Fairall knew Melberg was the intruder if she was not at home.
Hillsborough Judge Eric Myers denied the petition the same day, ticking the box that states Fairall failed to allege facts sufficient to support an injunction.
On April 16, 2003, Fairall filed another petition. She abbreviated their first names to Lori and Mike and used no middle initials. That can make it difficult for court officials to determine if previous injunctions were sought.
In the petition, Fairall stated that Melberg had been "harassing and irrational" about money and that he e-mailed her with his plans to approach her 14-year-old son at a hockey arena to collect the money. She also stated that he contacted some of her colleagues with "lies & slanders." She added that she feared for her and her son's safety.
A temporary injunction was granted for 13 days. Hillsborough Judge Raul "Sonny" Palomino then dismissed it, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support an ongoing injunction.
Neither Palomino nor Myers could be reached for comment.