MARION — Hours after her husband was indicted by a grand jury Monday for sexually abusing a baby, a 52-year-old Debbie Florack was charged for failing to turn over a videotape of her husband engaged in sex acts with the infant.
An investigation by the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office revealed she had a video that showed him committing sexual acts with an 8-to 10-month old baby.
http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x1056537277
Last edited by Lizard; March 26th, 2008 at 11:49 AM. Reason: Added pics
7 Member(s) thanked for this post
CHRIST.
You know...I can understand the older dude who goes after the teenage girl. I can almost even stretch to accommodate the thinking of a person who goes after pre-teen individual. But, a baby? I will never even begin to understand the sheer depravity that might cause someone to behave in such a manner.
...and for the wife to conceal such evidence? That speaks to a lack of self-respect/esteem that would have surely made her a victim had she not wound up with a sicko, but because she did, she's no better than him.
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
4 Member(s) thanked for this post
or, y'know, maybe she got off on it, too.
ew.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
That crossed my mind, Imp...But how likely is that? I mean, unless this pair met on some love for chimos website, the odds of two people being THIS sick and hooking up are astronomical, don't you think?
...or do I just have too much faith in the human condition?
"Now that ceaseless exposure has calloused us to the lewd and the vulgar, it is instructive to see what still seems wicked to us. What still slaps the clammy flab of our submissive consciousness hard enough to get our attention?"
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Nothing surprises me anymore. After the Steven Arthur and Jennifer Thurman case, i ceased to be shocked at the sick shit women will perpetrate just for funsies.Originally Posted by Athena
Hopefully you're right, though, and this bitch is just another garden-variety codependent.
Last edited by impqueen; March 26th, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason: typing + cast thing = boo
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
You have waaaayyyy too much faith in the human condition. Like attracts like in this type of symbiotic relationship. She may not have 'got off on it', but the chances of her accepting such a thing as necessary to keep her man, or protect herself, are exceptionally high. There may also have been some pleasure in it for her, however, in that the feelings of extreme relief at finding yourself safe from harm are somewhat similar to the feelings of joy you get when completing a sex act. The same endorphins are released in each case.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
shit like this freaks me out...my little nephew is 6 weeks old. And when I hold him I think in my mind "how could anyone want to hurt this little guy" sure he makes messes and cries but that’s his job!
[Kathy] 6:04 pm: I *AM* drunk chat
lol! I am getting soft. As in, I am done masturbating. - Morbid
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
He has pleaded guilty.
http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x19024398...abusing-infant
LYONS — A Marion man who admitted he sexually abused a baby girl faces 5 to 15 years in state prison.
Richard A. Florack, 55, pleaded guilty before Wayne County Justice Stephen R. Sirkin Friday to first-degree criminal sexual act, first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.
Florack was charged Feb. 26 and indicted by a grand jury March 24 on those charges, said Wayne County District Attorney Rick Healy. The indictment did not include an original charge of possessing a sexual performance of a child, stemming from a videotape that showed Florack engaged in sex acts with the infant.
Just hours after her husband was indicted by a grand jury, Debbie Florack, 52, was arrested for failing to turn over that videotape to police. She was charged with criminal possession of a sexual performance by a child younger than 16 and faces grand jury action, Healy said. Information on the status of her charges was not immediately available.
“A person found the tape and disclosed it to a parent of the child, who then brought it to our attention,” said Wayne County Sheriff's Detective Lt. Bob Hetzke at the time of Richard Florack’s arrest.
The child’s mother estimated her daughter was between 8 and 10 month old at the time the tape was made, Hetzke said, putting the date of the recording sometime in 2002.
Neither Hetzke nor Healy would comment on the nature of the relationship between the Floracks and the child, nor how they had access to her.
Charges are also pending in U.S. District Court in Rochester on a complaint that alleges Richard Florack “knowingly produced child pornography” and “knowingly possessed child pornography.” A clerk of the court said complaints of this nature are usually filed because there are Internet implications and information has crossed state lines.
No further information about the federal complaint was immediately available. However, Healy said if Florack were found guilty at the federal level, it could add as many as 10 years to the 5 to 15 he is facing in county court.
Sentencing for Richard Florack will be in July.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Does anyone else think 5 to 15 is horseshit? This was a BABY. He is clearly of such depraved mind that no vulnerable person is safe around him, and it sure as shit wasn't his first victim; just the first one he got caught on.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
I would like to slap that shit~eating grin off that cunts face and rip his dick off! These people are some sick fucks!
It states that the childs mother estimated the child to be between 8~10 months old when she was shown the tape..my question is..the baby still would of been wearing a diaper and she would of had to change it, right? It seems to me that she should have noticed something not quite right down there.
It could have been other things besides intercourse.
Possibly - but they generally give a hint if it was something else (but not always).
I'm thinking it might be a family member... like maybe a grandkid??? Whoever found the tape had to be in their house for some reason, and knew who the kid was to take the tape to mom. Sounds tight to me...
in no way shape or form should either of these two individuals be allowed back into society, period.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks