Southpinellas: The odd case of a naked nanny

What the hell is going on in Florida?

This story is yet another case of sexual predators preying on little kids. This one has an interesting twist: the public is divided about holding the perp accountable.

Slicker began babysitting at age 12...taught Bible classes, helped with Sunday school and worked in the nursery at First United Methodist Church. [The] church awarded [Slicker] a college scholarship and [Slicker] graduated from Florida Southern College with a degree in pre-K education.

[Slicker] hoped to become a child psychologist.

[Slicker] was fast-forwarding through a James Bond movie, Die Another Day, when a sex scene appeared. The 4-year-old [child] in [Slicker's] care demanded [Slicker get naked]. Slicker complied, and let [the child] touch [Slicker's body].

Slicker's parents refused to believe it was anything but a mistake.

"I don't know that there is a better person," said her father, Michael Slicker, a 25-year resident of the Old Northeast. "We know that [Slicker] is not a sex offender. [Slicker] has never approached any child with any sexual or malicious intent, any time, anywhere."

The parents of the 4-year-old didn't buy Slicker's exhaustion explanation.

"[Slicker] worked for us for nine out of 12 weeks," the mother said [who is a gynecologist]. "[Slicker] had three weeks of paid vacation...was not making any life-changing decisions. I mean, [Slicker's] playing with kids. I'm out delivering 15 babies a month and seeing 100 patients a week. [Slicker is] a college graduate. This is what [Slicker's] degree was in. [Slicker's] so exhausted [that Slicker] strips down naked? It's a joke."

At this point I want to add a couple of other details while breaking the monotony of the Block Quote. The jury was actually basing the verdict on if Slicker "enticed" the child. Does that really matter? Either the predator "enticed" the child or the predator exploited the child. Either way it is totally wrong.

They sentenced Slicker with second degree lewd and lascivious exhibition. Had Slicker been a 22-year old male and the child a 4-year old girl I do not think there would have been any question that the charges would have been more than just "exhibition".

Oh, did I forget to mention that Slicker is a woman? Go ahead, admit it. You are thinking of the whole story in a new light now. You may be fighting it, but internally you are going, "Oh, it's not so bad; I mean, it is just as bad; But it is a girl fondling a boy, it's not that bad; I mean, it is just as bad as a man fondling a girl."

There is a difference in how women are treated in this scenario. All of those thoughts you had while reading the story are exactly right. The predator is a monster, should get sent away for a long time and when released should file as the worst type of sexual predator. In a properly working society that angst should apply equally, man or woman.

But it is not. Women predators are getting away much easier putting little boys at greater risk.

As Slicker's sentencing loomed on Feb. 25, Circuit Judge Brandt Downey III received more than 100 letters.

Former St. Petersburg Mayor Robert L. Ulrich, who attends the same church, wrote that Slicker's "reputation for reliability and integrity has been sterling." Retired Methodist Bishop James Lloyd Knox called her a "sweet but very naive, disorganized young woman" who he believes "when she says hers was not a sexual act."

Many of the letter writers pleaded with Downey to give Slicker probation rather than prison.

Wh-wh-WHAT?

SHE IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR.

Anyway, I had to get that off my chest...and spread the word about a child molester. Oh wait, one more thing. Aside from blaming her actions on "stress" and "being overworked", her situation is so analogous to Michael Jackson. "It was not sexual", described as "bubbly disposition and a natural ability with children" and wanting to spend her life with kids (she "hoped to become a child psychologist").