.

Former Twp. Official Innocent on Lewdness Charge, Judge Finds

Scott Kintzing, the former West Deptford Planning Board chairman, was accused of lewdness in connection with an October 2012 incident at Oakview Elementary School.

A municipal court judge on Wednesday found former West Deptford Planning Board Chairman Scott Kintzing not guilty of lewdness.

The verdict ended an embarrassing chapter in the well-known community member's life. 

Kintzing was accused of exposing his buttocks to a female custodian outside Oakview Elementary School on the night of  October 23, 2012, as he changed out of his gym clothes following a men's basketball league game inside the school's gymnasium. The incident was captured by a school security camera. 

Following a two-hour, non-jury trial, Maurice River Township Municipal Court Judge John A. Casarow Jr. found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kintzing's actions were intended to be lewd. 

"I do not think embarrassing acts by themselves are sufficient to constitute lewdness," Casarow said in rendering his verdict. 

The case was transferred to the rural Cumberland County town from West Deptford to avoid any potential conflict. 

If convicted of lewdness, Kintzing faced a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. 

Kintzing said after the trial that he hoped to apologize to the custodian, Amy Mitchell, for the incident. Mitchell testified during the trial that she had been schocked to see a man undressing behind the school when she went outside after she saw a car's headlights at the back of the building. 

"It's not a crime to change your clothes," said Kintzing's attorney, Jeffrey Puff of Woodbury. "This woman may be offended, but that's not in the statute."

Kintzing testified that he was changing behind the school after playing basketball because he was in a hurry to get to a charity function at Adelphia Restaurant in Deptford. He said he didn't expect anyone to see him in the dark, secluded spot behind the school. 

Kintzing said he wasn't completely naked when confronted by Mitchell, and that he was wearing either underwear or an athletic supporter. 

Video footage of the incident, which Casarow viewed during the trial, does not clearly show whether Kintzing was naked. 

After the incident, Mitchell did not immediately call police. Instead, the next day, she reported it to her union representative, who notified a superior. 

Municipal Prosecutor Edward Duffy said Mitchell "is not a villain" for coming foward. "She is an individual who was working, doing her job, when this occurred."

Kintzing said after the trial he was glad to be vindicated. 

"It's just not fair you have to go through all the aggravation when you know you didn't do anything wrong."

Kintzing, 60, is a banker who held executive positions at The Bank (now Fulton Bank) in Woobury and Mount Laurel-based Cornerstone Bank. He also is a member of the Rowan University Foundation Board of Directors.

Kintzing served on West Deptford's planning board for more than three decades until Mayor Raymond Chintall declined to recommend his reappointment in January. Chintall said at the time his decision wasn't related to the charge against Kintzing. 

On Wednesday, more than 50 of Kintzing's family members and friends packed the courtroom gallery, and several testified as character witnesses on his behalf. 

Among them were former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Ron Jaworski—who now operates the golf course at RiverWinds—and former West Deptford Mayor David Shields.

Jaworski said from the witness stand that he's known Kintzing for nearly 30 years, and "it's almost mind boggling that I have to sit here and testify to his character."

When the judge delivered his verdict, Kintzing's family and friends burst into applause. 

ChuckWagon April 12, 2013 at 01:38 PM
Diane, a lot of these so called "favors over the years" by past administrations is the reason why there is so much bitterness out here. A lot of people have been directly and indirectly hurt because of these "favors." Maybe that's why people use anonymous names when they vent their frustrations. As this site so often proves, there are a lot of vindictive people in this town.
ChuckWagon April 12, 2013 at 02:19 PM
Matt, most of us know this whole "lewdness" thing is politically motivated, even though it was a stupid thing to do. But, if you don't think Jaworski's involvement with Riverwinds and the Democratic Party is relevant to this story and the verdict (which I believe is just) then you obviously have no clue as to what is going on with this story or around town. You pretty much admit that you're not that familiar with the case but you're trying to bully commenters who are closer and much more informed to the ENTIRE situation. You then go on to contradict yourself with your comments. First, you criticize Tom Stanton for bringing Jaworski into the conversation but then you defend yourself for keeping Jaworski in the discussion. Huh? Look Matt, if you don't think it's relevant that a very high-profile, wealthy, person who received a most generous deal from WD/Riverwinds, ended up being a character witness for a small-town, privileged politician, then you need to do much more homework on the political climate in West Deptford before you anoint yourself as the "final word" on WD Patch. Your antagonistic replies are unnecessary and in some case, unwarranted. If you want to be that way resign your post and join the club (or start YOUR own blog!). This site is for all of the people of WD, not for the people who only agree with Matt Skoufalos.
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 02:27 PM
No, "Chuckwagon" go back and re-read. I said that it's ridiculous to say that the most interesting part of the story is whether Jaworski owns or owns and operates the RiverWinds golf club. That's my point. Not whether he belongs in the discussion—if he appears as a character witness, it matters to the case; whether the choice of words by the author as to whether he "operates" or owns the golf course outright is an irrelevant detail to the proceedings of the trial is my point. And guess what? I am the final word as to what appears in the comments section on this site for the foreseeable future. So you should remember that.
Jason Allen April 12, 2013 at 02:56 PM
Part 1: Please let me start by saying I'm not a resident of WD and have no relationship w/ the defendant or the township or anyone involved in his case, thus I have "no dog in this race." Predicated solely on what I have read here, it strikes me as profoundly odd that a man of the trumpeted pedigree of Scott K. would have demonstrated such an extreme lack of poor judgement as outlined in his hearing, that we are supposed to reasonably digest such a man of his position and celebrity-espoused dignity would prefer a quick change in the open air after an arduous game of basketball to be acceptable, rather than getting a shower before donning his suit for the Adelphia event. Or even just a quick wash at the sink in the boy's lavatory, which he surely would have know was open and accessible from his years of playing ball at this location. I'm a person of reason and common sense - things have to make sense to me - and things in this case just does't make sense.
Jason Allen April 12, 2013 at 02:57 PM
Part 2: I've read here that politics and political connections may have been a key motivator in this case, and I'll further this postulation by agreeing, as well as suggesting that Scott K. was deftly handled by a political system that includes manipulation of the prosecution from inception of booking, which included a not-uncommon practice of overcharging for his alleged actions. Overcharging could have been deliberately employed, knowing that the judge would never convict on the stated charge, thus a guaranteed innocent verdict was in hand for the defendant, making the entire event nothing but a dog and pony show. Justice? Never. Not for the residents of WD, not for Scott K., and not for humanity. This was just politics as usual for those who are players; the rest of us shall continue to dwell under the thumb of those we elect, regardless of party affiliation. We, the general electorate and law-abiding citizenry, are but human detritus on the bottom of the vast cesspool from which the well-connected sustain themselves in the manner of primitive, uni-celled sea creatures that feed and excrete from the same simple hole.
Patrick Jones April 12, 2013 at 05:06 PM
The bottom line is a crime was not committed. Lewdness, by definition, is a crude, obscene sexual act. An example would be waving your genitals at school children. Is what the defendant did an embarrassing act? Yes. A crime? No. Its almost laughable to think otherwise. The defendant was getting changed in the dark next to his car after a basketball game. The police shouldn't have charged him, the proscecutor shouldnt have persued it, the judge is the only one in the judicial system that made the correct decision.
Robyn Steward April 12, 2013 at 06:05 PM
I agree, Patrick Jones. I wouldn't necessarily call it lewdness, however, he was indeed wrong and could have made a better choice. Honestly, I'm glad it's over with so now we can really start focusing on the things that matter most in our town. Like getting our town out of debt.
Patrick Jones April 12, 2013 at 06:48 PM
Not to get too far off base, but I don't think that this trial was distracting the township officials from being financially wise. And you do understand that every town, state and our country have debt. All of our neighboring towns have debt. We may have more than some but most towns would gladly trade their problems with ours. We need to focus on what makes WD a great place to live. The only thing the current administration has done well is convincing its residents that the town is broke.
Jason Allen April 12, 2013 at 07:12 PM
There are crimes he could have and, perhaps, should have been correctly charged for, but lewdness was not one and was incorrect. And that was my point - overcharging may have been deliberate. This charge would appease the unwitting for his act, in addition to giving the guise of legitimacy to most upon adjudication. A more appropriate and different charge that could well have brought a verdict against the defendant wasn't prosecuted. Could this be because the fix was in from the beginning? The puppet masters were calling the shots. Their boy had to go through the system because the act was witnessed and a complaint made, but no good puppeteer let's their own take a fall. Right, Bernie?
Robyn Steward April 12, 2013 at 07:23 PM
I also would like to note, Matt, that you should really consider taking a trans-partisan approach on here. I for one will not be a refuge from criticism or unfair accusations and I will state it again, please explain to me how you can publicly note to "leave the suspicious nonsense out of it, and don't attack people personally, and things will go great." AND then I see an attack on Denny Forte's name and nothing is being said? What does Denny Forte have to do with this article? Did you not question Tom Stanton for mentioning Ron Jaworski when in fact his name was mentioned in the article? Furthermore, I feel that you try to intimidate and drown out people who are informed and engaged on this forum by stating " I am the final word as to what appears in the comments section on this site for the foreseeable future. So you should remember that." To me, that sounds like a bully approach and indeed violates the terms of use...I suppose it's okay if you do it, Matt? Patrick Jones, not sure how your response relates to the current topic. I never said there was a distraction. However, I'm more focused on helping our town. I could careless what problems other towns have...The current administration has done more good for our town than you think. If not for our current administration we would still be fighting Sunoco....
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 08:06 PM
Robyn, I pulled down the stuff about Denny Forte. Fair's fair; I don't want unsubstantiated stuff about anyone on this site. You can feel that I'm intimidating and drowning out, and that's fine. To some extent I am. The political climate in this town is ugly, and this site does not have to contribute to that. My job is to curate this site and report the news in town. I am also trying to get our readers to understand that we want to cultivate a (slightly) healthier environment on these pages. I took a shot at Mr. Stanton because I believed that he was shoehorning in a political comment about the golf course that is off-topic to this story; you can see clearly above that Mr. Stanton noted the story wasn't interesting to him before launching into something else. That's fine for him to have that opinion; it doesn't need to be attached to this story. We publish letters the editor. We publish blog entries. This is a news site. It does not need to be a bulletin board for lampooning one another. Frankly, I don't really care if you all get along. But you should be asking yourselves "Even if I disagree with my neighbors, what is being served by taking potshots at them on the Internet?" You still have to share a zip code. Your kids still go to the same schools. You'll still see each other in the supermarket. Consider those consequences a little more and ease off the gas before you start blasting people online, regardless of how entitled you feel you are to your outrage.
topsyturvy April 12, 2013 at 08:28 PM
Matt, has Patch made any effort whatsoever to substantiate or even look into the issue of whether Denny was in fact involved? If so, what have you found? If not, why not?
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 08:41 PM
I don't believe we have explored any of those things in our reporting to date, which, again, is why it's not fair to let accusations stand in the comments.
topsyturvy April 12, 2013 at 08:51 PM
Does this mean Patch has not even reviewed the police report?
Kristi Simpkins April 12, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Matt, As for the lies & false statements, I can not help that some people have done that to him. That has nothing to do w/ me. This is about him & him only. As for me this man was still very wrong. That is just my opinion. Just because he was also found innocent does not mean that he is still not guilty. People should not be defending his actions. Defend people & their actions when they are right. However never defend people when they are wrong. Plus some people here have told the truth. There is nothing w/ that. Again people should not be threatened to be thrown off a public site just because of their honesty. At least some people here are being honest & not lying about this. That is what should be happening. More people need to be honest. This is a public forum. Where people should be able to voice their voice. Even if some do not like that or agree with that. People are not going to always agree or like what others say. That is going to happen on a public forum such as this. To me if people know the facts surrounding this case & some people do, then they should be allowed to voice those facts. People should know the truth & not keep hearing false statements & lies. Also you're correct. No one should be saying anything about his wife &/or his family. They are & have nothing to do with him & what he did. He created this mess. All himself. What bothers me most here, is how he was not held accountable for his actions. Because anyone else besides him would have been.
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 09:46 PM
Kristi, I don't have a problem with disagreement or saying unpopular things. And I certainly don't dispute anyone's entitlement to a personal opinion. But I think there are better and different ways to express them on this site than what has become the norm, and I'm going to hope that people continue to try to find the best ways to do that.
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 09:47 PM
I don't know the nature of the reporting that has been done on this story previously, and it would be unfair of me to comment on it since I didn't do it myself.
Kristi Simpkins April 12, 2013 at 09:59 PM
Diane, The WDPD did nothing. Except do their job. Even if some people do not like how that was done. The only person who did something wrong was him. Let's be honest. The police department got a call about someone being naked on school property. What did you really expect the police to do? To just ignore the call & not investigate the situation further? The WDPD did what any other police department would have done. TBH this is not about the WDPD or anything else. This is about Scott & his poor choices.
Kristi Simpkins April 12, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Matt, For some people that may be the norm. However not everyone says & does those things here. I know many people including myself, who are honest but most people of us say things correctly & not personally attack people. Just because some people have expressed themselves not in the correct manner does mean not that everyone else has. Not everyone who posts here should be thrown under a bus. The people who attack & go after people are wrong. I agree with you.
Matt Skoufalos (Editor) April 12, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Hey listen, I'm no saint either, as clearly evidenced. But I cannot be any more clear than this: we as a group need to do a better job. If you find your comment rejected, think about rephrasing and post it again. That's all.
Skitch April 13, 2013 at 03:24 AM
I have no affiliation with WD, Woodbury, the PD, the Kintzing family or even Gloucester County, it's residents or the like. I wouldn't know this person Kintzing if I fell or tripped over him. I can only say that i was a bit ticked off when reading this story and thinking in this day in age when our gov't is in hock up to their eyeballs that my hard earned tax dollars were going towards prosecuting this drivel instead of the real criminals. Not saying that what was done was right or wrong by any means because i don't know the entire story. But i gather that this person is a public figure and you all just had to drag him deeper thru the mud in an attempt to make the situation appear worse than what it really was. I am sure that if this was your son, husband, brother, uncle, father etc who had gotten caught changing his clothes at the back of the school in a dark parking lot when he thought no one was around we wouldn't be reading it on patch, in the newspaper or prosecuting it in the courts. They would have probably been told to get dressed immediately and get moving. Appears that someone had an agenda here at the expense of us hard working tax payers.
Diane Villecco April 13, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Chuckwagon, that is the good thing about living in America. If you don't like the party in office you vote them out. If you don't think that parties in power don't stay loyal to their own party, then why was Guy Killeen, who did an outstanding job as a judge in West Deptford for years and years, replaced? Do you think the new people in party aren't making decisions about contracts based on political affiliation rather than who is the best firm for this job? The very thing so many of you are whining about regarding past administrations is the same thing your party is doing now. That is how it works in America. Sometimes it seems unfair...until the table is turned and republican friends of administrations reap the benefit. Chuck Wagon, if you feel you or some of your friends have been so oppressed by former administrations, why are you unwilling to sign your own name? This is not North Korea where if you speak out, you, your children and their children will be put in work camps and put to death. It is West Deptford.
topsyturvy April 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM
I, for one, think that the involvement of the Chairman of the WD GOP in this is news. If you want to substantiate what's being said about him, review the police report. In there it clearly states that Denny Forte was involved. It's not made up, it's not a rumor, it's a fact that can be easily substantiated. What happened here is clear. This incident happened on October 23rd. Denny lives directly next to the custodian, got wind of the incident and went out of his way to make it news prior to the election.
theresa barnett April 14, 2013 at 02:42 AM
w get away withow. Wow is NJ toxic ? Washingingtons probably saying "Yes go ahead and hang your self Gloucester County." Some people say 'If I could do the rich mans crimes and get away with it we could do away with prison and save alot of money ,but, than we'd have the people whos credit blew their heads up complain they don't have a job left. As far as I'M CONCERNED THE ECONOMY CRASHED PEOPLE AND I'm hoping we the people remember what reflection shows back from the mirror. Mr.Kinstzing none of us are perfect , hope you grown from this ,as well some of us doing the same .
theresa barnett April 14, 2013 at 03:19 AM
please excuse the short senstence that wasn't fully earased, above my free speach.
Kristi Simpkins April 14, 2013 at 04:27 AM
He was charged for this because he was doing something that he should not have been doing. Politics or not he still made a very terrible choice to undress @ his car. What he thought does not matter. He still should have known better. He apparently was not thinking too clearly. There were other people @ the school besides him. To me this is not about who he is or who he knows. This is about a man who did not use his common sense that night. He had choices to make. Sadly for him he made the wrong one. That lies on him. He should have to pay in some way for his actions & be held accountable for what he did. If this was any other man that person would have been accountable for what he did. Therefore he should be held accountable as well. It does not matter who he is or who he may know. This is about what he did & him being wrong.
Walter Frockmorton April 14, 2013 at 02:44 PM
Sorry Kristi, the way this thing is playing out, if he was any other person there wouldn't have been any charges. Mr. Mayor, you need to clean up your party before people start painting you all with a broad brush (very much like the other party).
Kristi Simpkins April 14, 2013 at 06:58 PM
Susan, I agree with you totally. It is not so much that he was being "lewd". That may have been a bit extreme. However he was still in the wrong. He & most people do not believe he was doing anything wrong @ the time. That is to me the biggest problem w/ this story. He probably still believes he was innocent & did not do anything wrong. To me that is why he did what he did. However just because he & others believe he was not wrong does not mean a thing. He was wrong. Hopefully he & others realize that one day.
Stacie Anderson April 14, 2013 at 10:16 PM
There's so much CRAP on here you could buy SCOTT'S fertilizer and spread it all over South Jersey. If this was the average Joe the case would have been in West Deptford Court and without a doubt a fine would have been imposed or community service. There is no doubt that the verdict was politically connected and so was this entire case. So you imbicilic people on here and complain about tax dollars being spent look in the crime section of your local newspaper and see how many are arrested and taken to jail. there is your tax dollar at work. The guy did wrong he got acquitted now it's time to move on with bashing and rhetorically talking trash about some one else.
Kristi Simpkins April 15, 2013 at 01:32 AM
Walter, IF that were the case & other people were found not guilty then that too would be just as wrong. People not just including him, should not be able to do what he did & just get away doing what he did. His actions that day were wrong & very inappropriate. Public nudity & being arrogant is not right. Nor should it be acceptable or justified in any way. He was not alone & acted as if he was. He was also on school property. Where there were other people. Thankfully those people were not children. Also they were cameras all around him. Which just happened to catch him in the naked. He & anyone else who does that sort of thing should then be held accountable for those actions. He should have known better to do what he did. He & many others however will never truly understand this or will even acknowledge what he did was wrong. That is the saddest part of this entire situation.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »