Town Square

Post a New Topic

We just sent the WRONG message to all children in SMC

Original post made by Michael G. Stogner, another community, on Dec 15, 2010

Yesterday I spoke to the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County and asked them to contact DDA Steve Wagstaffe to find out what the happened in the Michael C. Bellemur case. This is a criminal case that involved a 23 year old man meeting a 12 year old girl at a bus stop, hooking up and having sex several times over the next few weeks. He was charged with 7 felonies which could have equaled 20 years in State Prison. Between Wagstaffe and Hon. Judge Susan Etezadi it turned into 6 months in our County jail with credit for time served of 56 days so he will serve about 2 months in jail. There is one other bonus Mr. Bellemur received, that is he DOES NOT have to Register as a Sex Offender.

I want to know WHY?

One of our newspapers wrote: "The Burlingame man who had consensual sex multiple times with a 12-year-old-girl.." and "On their first date..." and the pair proceeded to engage in sexual activity."

WAKE UP San Mateo County...A 12 year old CHILD does not have CONSENSUAL sex with anyone.

In another recent case DDA Steve Wagstaffe charged the president of the Belmont Chamber of Commerce with 17 counts of Child Molestation, After almost 1 year in jail because he could not afford bail he was found Not Guilty on ALL Charges. Besides knowing he was innocent even accepting a MISDEMEANOR plea deal would have required him to Register as a Sex Offender according to his attorney Mr. Chase.

So how did 7 felonies go to 1 and no registering as S.O.

That is my question, and what kind of message did we just send all the children in San Mateo County.

Comments (2)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2010 at 9:48 am

I completely agree with Mr. Stogner's concern/question. While I understand (don't necessarily like it) the issues/reasons for plea bargaining in our legal system, the only "bargaining" in a child molestation case should be limited to affecting the sentence/penalty (# of charges, etc.) the perp gets. The requirement to register as a sex offender should be non-negotiable, period.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2010 at 10:14 am

Video of Board of Supervisor communication on 12/14/2010
Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Flirtation
By Chandrama Anderson | 4 comments | 1,562 views

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,204 views

Standardized Test Prep: When to Start and Whom to Hire?
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 940 views

Finger Food and a Blood Lite?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 779 views

Where the Sidewalk Ends
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 408 views