I wonder if this guy was Bob McDonnell's thesis adviser?
Stephen McPherson, a former Assistant Dean of the Regent University Law School (the place that brought you fine Christian lawyers like Monica Goodling and many other Bush administration stalwarts) and his wife, Melina McPherson, pled guilty today to molesting three sisters for whom they served as house parents at a Christian shelter. McPherson molested two of the sisters repeatedly, reciting biblical verses to the girls to justify his actions, while his wife did the same with the third sister.
McPherson is already serving a 16-year sentence for forcible sodomy and "object penetration" on the same two sisters, charges to which he pled guilty in January 2009, stemming from the time after he and his wife adopted the three girls. In a more than a little scary turn of events, a plea agreement was reached whereby Melina McPherson will serve only 40 days in prison because the victim did not want to separate her from her two young sons. The judge has not yet indicated whether he will accept this plea deal.
At what point does the track record of such people turn these institutions into universal targets of derision beyond our unholy circle?
In a more than a little scary turn of events, a plea agreement was reached whereby Melina McPherson will serve only 40 days in prison because the victim did not want to separate her from her two young sons. The judge has not yet indicated whether he will accept this plea deal.
He shouldn't. Who knows if she might not feel the urge to molest them later on? There are lots of parents out there who are ready and willing to adopt kids like this and give them better homes than Melina McPherson can provide.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 02, 2009 at 04:55 PM
McPherson molested two of the sisters repeatedly, reciting biblical verses to the girls to justify his actions, while his wife did the same with the third sister.
I'd really like to know what verses they used. Because there are no verses in the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or any other holy texts that justify sexually assaulting children.
And I also cannot believe that such a plea deal was reached. Are they really unconcerned about what Melina might do to her sons? Do they actually think that being her biological children will protect them from her?
And why wasn't the husband offered such a sweet deal?
Posted by: Stephen | September 02, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Because the wife was just being his helpmeet, taking an interest in her husband's hobbies.
I think the fact that hubby was already serving 16 years gives you the sense that his crimes were deemed pretty damned serious even before this recent plea. I am not sure what the facts with the wife were -- however, it did not strike me as a forgone conclusion that the judge will accept the plea.
I suspect there is a bit of a double standard at work as well.
You would know the text possiblities better than I, but I assume would be a combination of something reinforcing his authority and some sort of perversion of the message of love and devotion. Pretty evil shit I would say.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 02, 2009 at 05:10 PM
I read the title of the post and was going to give a tongue-in-cheek response. But the content of the post and the link left me with no stomach to make a joke.
Posted by: Eric Wilde | September 02, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Oh my, oh dear, oh for the love of all that is supposed to be holy...
This is horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.
They'd better not wind up being able to plead this out. In the name of all that is supposed to be holy.
(Me, I like the old-school Sicilian way of dealing with a person who, ah, interfered with your child. Suffice it to say he or she would be, er, efficiently disappeared and there would be no family members remaining to be concerned for his or her whereabouts, either.)
Posted by: litbrit | September 02, 2009 at 07:03 PM
I wonder if this guy was Bob McDonnell's thesis adviser?
The Internet connections between them appear to be truly few, and if that is an accurate assessment, I have to conclude the likely answer is "No".
He has his biggest concentration of campaign offices in the Norfolk/VA Beach area, and the next largest concentration of offices in NoVa.
In southwest VA (where, frankly, he's likely to draw his biggest support)?
Nada.......
Posted by: oddjob | September 02, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Let's be honest: you know that it should be "Whom would Jesus fondle."
Posted by: Bill | September 03, 2009 at 01:20 AM
oddjob,
Regent and the Pat Robertson empire are located in the Virginia Beach/Tidewater area. It is the Jerry Falwell empire and Liberty University that are located in southwestern Virginia. As a frequent visitor to both places I am all too familiar with this.
Bill,
You are so right -- but sometimes grammar must be sacrificed for authenticity.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 03, 2009 at 08:52 AM
Bill and Sir Charles,
Howmever you want to write it grammatically, the two most common choices to answer that question are of course Mary Magdalene or John "the Beloved" (hurr hurr hurr).
Maybe both. God really can't be defined by just one gender, you know.
Posted by: Stephen | September 03, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Jesus was a shemale? Who the fuck knew?
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 03, 2009 at 12:57 PM