News

Outcome of molestation case is difficult to believe

Letters to the Editor
Published May 8, 2005

---

Re: The odd case of a naked nanny, May 1.

I realize that this is Florida, but I still cannot believe this story. A 4-year-old boy wants to see a video containing sex and violence. The babysitter suggests that it might be too violent for him, but the father tells her to go ahead and show it, but to fast-forward through the questionable scenes. But the boy gets to see a sex scene, and then demands that the sitter take off her clothes. For whatever reason, she does as he demands. She does not touch the boy, but his hands are all over her, yet she is the one charged with lewd and lascivious molestation. Just who molested whom, here?

The case is handed to Judge Brandt Downey III, who seems not to have considered the fact that normal 4-year-old boys do not ask to watch sexually suggestive videos and then demand that a female take off her clothes, or that the boy had grabbed the sitter's breasts and buttocks on previous occasions, or that if the boy's father had told his son that he could not watch the video, but to watch something more appropriate instead, this sorry affair would never have happened.

The judge ignored pleas from such pillars of society as a former mayor of St. Petersburg and a Methodist bishop, who have known the sitter for years, but listened to the boy's mother and others who do not even know the lady. He then sentenced her to 15 years, which he reduced to one year in jail, two years of house arrest, 10 years probation. She will be a registered sex offender for at least 20 years. Absolutely unbelievable.

And the conversation between the boy and his mother in her car - when he told her that he was glad that the sitter was in jail, and she told him that he had done nothing wrong and he agreed - tells us all we need to know about this family. It's tragic that Sarah Slicker ever got involved with them.

-- R.G. Wheeler, St. Petersburg

Nanny deserves no sympathy

Re: The odd case of a naked nanny, May 1.

A while back I heard someone ask, "Whatever happened to common sense?" That question crossed my mind when I read this story.

If this 23-year-old woman has trouble saying no to a 4-year-old child, and uses excuses like "wasn't thinking" and "horrible moment," that just proves she has not taken responsibility for this crime and is a danger not only to society, but also to herself.

I can't work up one ounce of pity, no matter how long and heart-wrenching your article was.

-- Karen Gordon, St. Petersburg

She was overextended

Re: The odd case of a naked nanny.

This young woman has lead a Christian life and from what I read, she was way overextended. She was working, going to school, attending church and much more. She did not touch the boy and it sounds as though the boy was the one with a poor upbringing. The parents said the boy had grabbed her breasts and buttocks. That is way out of normal.

If the sitter had had any problems with other children, I would agree with the sentence and maybe even a harsher one. But if this is an isolated incident, with all the children she has been around, she should have only received therapy.

I will pray for her and wish her the best. I will also pray for the parents, that they get help in raising their children and that their son will receive therapy for his problem as well.

-- Dennis A. Homol, St. Petersburg

For equality in sentencing

Re: The odd case of a naked nanny.

Justice is indeed blind - at least when it comes to female sexual offenders. I don't wish to see Sarah Slicker - or Debra Lafave, for that matter - spend decades in prison. However, I do wish to see some equality with regard to sentencing. If a man had done what either of these women did, the community would be howling for his blood. All the more so if he got a "slap on the wrist" from a judge. How is it we're not able to see boys as victims, or women as victimizers?

-- Patrick Moody, Brandon

A matter of concern for workers

Re: The minimum wage effect, May 1.

Of course the $1 minimum wage increase to $6.15 is going to affect small business pricing and the labor pool. But that should not justify conglomerates such as the Outback Steakhouse crying about it. Obviously they are already making more profit than they deserve and, most important, are not appreciative of it. For instance, Outback has spent more than $600,000 in trying to block the passage of the minimum wage amendment and now insists that it must raise menu prices by 1.5 to 2 percent. "A blooming mistake!"

As for McDonald's, Ed Shaw (executive vice president of the largest McDonald's franchise in the Tampa Bay area) should be congratulated. He gave his employees the raise on April 4. Some will argue that a nickel raise in McDonald's menu (which does not enjoy the profit margin in alcoholic beverages) is relative to 2 percent in Outback's menu, but it is the concern for the wage worker that should be recognized along with the acceptance of the employer.

I am not regular at McDonald's but I guarantee that I have had my last "blooming onion!"

-- Jack Burlakos, Kenneth City

Secrecy and democracy don't mix

Re: Daddy doesn't always know best, by Julie Hauserman, May 1.

It is ironic that this column appeared on the same day as Robyn Blumner's column, Striking a blow for dissent. The Bush brothers seem to have three common traits: 1) They like to operate behind closed doors, 2) they prefer to have their thumb on everything and everyone, 3) they most certainly dislike anyone questioning or protesting their decisions.

Look closely and one may assume this borders on totalitarianism. Peaceful protesters are herded into areas far from the target of their protests then arrested and hogtied by riot police only to have the charges dropped. Our nation's energy policy is formed behind closed doors by Vice President Dick Cheney with oil company executives in attendance, yet we are told we don't need to know what went on in there. The list goes on and on.

Not since Vietnam and Richard Nixon has our government been so secretive. These two articles should be required reading for every registered voter in Florida and the United States. Secrecy and democracy are not compatible no matter how you slice and dice it.

-- Don Mott, Largo

Putting public safety at risk

Re: Striking a blow for dissent, May 1.

Hurrah for District of Columbia Council member Kathy Patterson's actions endangering public safety. It was a brilliant piece of legislation that will hamstring police methodology. From now on instead of simply arresting out-of-control protesters, police will now have to wait, without riot gear, until someone gets hurt before they can don protective clothing and respond.

In the meantime, the public can cross their collective fingers and hope the situation doesn't explode. Washington, D.C., has played host to every sincere and crackpot protester looking for a stage. The police routinely arrested and removed the more boisterous and out-of-control ones in an attempt to maintain the peace. Sure, sometimes innocent protesters were inadvertently arrested, perhaps even Joseph Mayer. But the courts realized this and never convicted, realizing that the greater public good was served and the protesters had their day in the limelight. Council member Patterson has upset this dance, and people's lives will be affected.

-- Bob Lowe, Clearwater

[Last modified September 16, 2005, 15:58:53]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]