![[Nameplate]](http://www.bannergraphic.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (2)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleWilliam R. Honey, 31, of Fillmore was slated to be sentenced in Putnam County Circuit Court on July 9, but that date has been pushed back to July 23 at the request of Honey's court-appointed attorney Melinda Jackman-Hanlin.
Honey is charged with one count of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting and a count of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. Under the terms of a plea agreement presented to the court, Honey would plead guilty to the Class D felony, and all the other charges would be dropped. That plea agreement has been taken under advisement by Judge Matthew Headley.
Should Headley accept the plea agreement, Honey could be sentenced to a maximum prison term of three years. If he is convicted on all the charges, he could be sentenced to more than 70 years.
Honey, who was arrested on Feb. 25, 2008, pled not guilty to all charges at his initial hearing and was released from jail after he posted 10 percent of a $20,000 bond plus $20,000 surety.
Court documents said Honey inappropriately touched a child on several occasions between the spring of 2003 and February 2008.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Perhaps information from the defense as well as the prosecution should be considered. If even the smallest amount of effort was invested in an honest investigation, it would become quite evident that the prosecution has admittedly "no evidence."
In addition, it would be revealed that the accuser has left the preteen in the unsupervised care of a convicted child molester. Even then, there has been no investigation by the police, nor has there been a physical examination. Therefore, no one knows with any amount of certainty that a molestation occurred at all.
Remember the Duke rugby players? This case has many similarities. The accused was convicted without a trial. The primary witness is exposed as a fraud by evidence and admission, and a zealous prosecutor is trying to make a name for himself. However, unlike the rugby players, this family lacks sufficient resources to fight back.
This case should have been tossed out a long time ago. For a prosecuting attorney to pursue a case like this is a clearly done so with malice of forethought. For justice to truly prevail, the assistant prosecutor should face disbarrment, and the accuser should be charged according to culpability.
Although the information regarding this case is yet available to the public, it will be. Unfortunately, the true victim in this case will not be known until he and his family are destroyed for the amusement of an assistant prosecutor and a willing accuser.
Well said