Featured Advertisers
Wed, Dec. 02  -   -  Mobile  -  RSS
  

Make a post about this story on FredTalk. Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.

-

Visit the Photo Place

View the Stafford County community page

MAN RECEIVES 86 YEARS IN INTERNET SEX CASE

Jury recommends 86 years for Internet predator

Date published: 7/15/2008

BY KEITH EPPS

George T. Houde Jr. wasn't planning to come to Virginia when he was arrested last year.

Now it appears that he may never leave.

A Stafford County jury last week recommended that Houde, 58, serve 86 years in prison for trying to solicit a teenage girl over the Internet.

Area court sources could not recall a longer sentence in a child molestation case in which no child was actually touched.

According to the evidence presented during Houde's two-day trial, Houde was living in Lorain, Ohio in May 2007 when he began having Internet chats with Stafford Detective Darryl Wells.

Wells was pretending to be a 14-year-old Stafford girl and sent pictures to Houde of a girl Wells was claiming to be.

Wells estimated that he had about 20 chats with Houde over a three- to four-month period. In many of those, Houde let the "girl" watch him masturbate via the Internet.

The jury witnessed some of those sessions, complete with audio.

Houde was convicted of multiple charges, including distributing child pornography, attempting to take indecent liberties with a child and using electronic means to solicit a child.

Houde, who had no prior criminal record, testified that he believed he was chatting with a grown woman. He claimed that he knew Wells wasn't a child by some of the things that he said.

Houde said he was recuperating from cancer surgery and used the Internet to pass the time.

He will be formally sentenced on Oct. 27. A judge could reduce his sentence at that time.

Keith Epps: 540/374-5404
Email: kepps@freelancestar.com



Follow us on
twitter
fredericksburg.com Facebook page


Read more stories about Stafford
Date published: 7/15/2008


Most recent reader comments:

Viewing 5 out of 13 comments. (Sorted in reverse order, with most recent post at the top.)

Display comments on this page. | Sort:

PLEASE READ: These reader comments are not moderated. Each user is solely responsible for any message (s)he posts here. The Free Lance-Star does not endorse the views expressed within these comments. All users who post to this Web site must agree to the terms of the FredTalk User Agreement. We rely on our readers to police themselves, and report any content that violates our User Agreement. In accordance with our User Agreement, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Any reader can report inappropriate content by clicking the "Report this post to admins" link at the bottom of each comment. You need not be registered to report a post.

Long sentence - good (posted by Opiniontoshare , July 16, 2008 11:27 am)   
I agree with 2centsworth and Rcn_C. We shouldn't be complaining if this guy gets several decades in jail - we should be grateful that he won't be free to repeat what he has done, or do far worse, to our kids. Our legal system needs to get tough on all types of criminals, and put some fear into them.

So His defense was that he knew (posted by Ron_C , July 15, 2008 9:47 pm)   
He wasn't "chatting" with a 14 year old girl? The article says that he was sent pictures of a 14 year old that the officer was claiming to be. So if he thought he was chatting with an adult claiming to be 14, why would he continue? The jury read the chat sessions and watched the video and audio from them. If he thought he was being "punked" and played along he did so at his own peril.

Not quite 2 cents (posted by dicerotops , July 15, 2008 4:52 pm)   
Thoughtfortheday's got it right. Stafford comes on way way too hard that you're never sure who is really guilty and who isn't caught in their web. The prosecutors need to be put in line, but it won't happen. If this guy really was guilty, I agree he needs a stiff sentence. However, I'm not convinced that he was sure he was talking to a child. Stafford has made up its own rules: Constitution doesn't exist here and you have to prove your innocence beyond all doubt. Rasonable doubt? HA! Not in Stafford!

This reminds me of when I had jury duty in Federal Court in Alexandria. (posted by kenderr , July 15, 2008 3:20 pm)   
We had a case where a guy tried to smuggle a joint to a friend of his doing time at Lorton. He was obviously guilty, but when we deliberated I just couldn't resist telling my fellow jurors that the Government literally made a Federal case out of it. I told them this was like killing an ant with a sledgehammer.

I wonder (posted by 2centsworth , July 15, 2008 3:11 pm)   
I wonder if you people would be so appalled if it were your "14 year old" daughter this guy was pleasuring himself to. Yes, Murder should carry a stiffer sentence. I hope that Yong Hui Zhang's killers receive the death penalty. Stafford County is sending a message - loud and clear. These perverted acts against our children will simply not be tolerated. If there was no evidence to support the case he wouldn't have received that kind of sentence. Bravo Stafford Co and Det Wells - keep up the good work.

What do you think?
Enter your FredTalk username and password to post a comment on this story. If you are registered on FredTalk or another part of this site, use that login here. Otherwise, you can just REGISTER here... .

Username: Password:

Post title:


Please keep it brief: (512-character limit)
Please make sure CAPS LOCK is off. Posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted.)


By checking this box, you agree to the terms of the FredTalk User agreement.