Victimless Crime Files: Misty Smith Gets 11-Year-Olds High So She Can Rape Them

Misty Smith Likes pot, coke and raping Children - in that order

The above inbred stoner is 34-year-old Misty Smith from  St. Albans, Vermont. To say she likes to party is an understatement. She likes to drink, smoke pot, pop pills and snort coke and that’s on a Tuesday evening. But that’s not all.

For months neighbors of smith noticed that a lot boys around 11-years-old were hanging around her house. One neighbor named Lawanda Howard had a son who used to go play with the other boys hanging around Smith’s house, but something about Smith made her uneasy and she forbid her child from being around the woman she described as odd and childlike.

But she continued seeing boys hang around Smith’s home.

Things came to a head about a week ago when one of the boys known to hang around Smith never came home. Police were called and they visited Smith several times to ask her if she had seen the child. Each time she said no, but on the last visit officers heard a noise coming from inside the house and found that Smith had at least two boys hidden in her house. The boys said she wouldn’t let them leave.

And she had done much worse. From the Burlington Free Press:

Smith was arrested Tuesday night. St. Albans police reported Thursday that the arrest culminated the search for a missing 11-year-old. The boy’s parents and police repeatedly had stopped by Smith’s house to look for the boy, but Smith had insisted he was not there, police said Thursday. It was only when police heard noise from an upstairs bedroom that Smith was questioned, and the boy was found, police said.

Friday, however, authorities said two boys had been found in Smith’s house Tuesday night. Police said they found the boys, talked to them and figured out what was going on. One of the two 11-year-olds said he had been going to Smith’s house since the beginning of the school year, St. Albans Police Sgt. Howard McGuire wrote in an affidavit.

Starting around the beginning of October, Smith began giving the boy marijuana and started giving him pills in late October that made the youth “hyper,” McGuire wrote. The boy said two other youths his age also consumed drugs Smith provided, investigators said.

The other boy told investigators that Smith provided him with cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, McGuire wrote.

In a separate affidavit, Detective Trooper William Sweeny of the Northwest Unit For Special Investigations outlined the sexual assault allegations against Smith. The unit Sweeny belongs to investigates sex crimes in northwestern Vermont.

Sweeny said one of the 11-year-olds told him Smith “basically kidnapped” him Tuesday. Sweeny said Smith told investigators the boys initiated the sexual contact with her, but admitted she touched one of the boys inappropriately on more than one occasion.

See the progression? Smith starts out giving the kids pot (some reports say they started with alcohol) then moved on to giving them pills and coke. She got them high so they would keep coming back and then started assaulting them. At a certain point, when she assumed the kids was hooked I’m betting, she basically stole the kid and was planning on doing gods know what to him.

No doubt she was going to pimp him out or kill him. I say this based on two facts about this vile case that have come out. The first is that Smith is married and her husband was home at the time of every assault, but the ever diligent Vermont cops believe his story about having no idea what was going on. Because the boys haven’t told of the man being involved yet I would bet my bottom dollar that she was grooming them for her man, something that we crime bloggers have seen is happening with increasingly regularity.

The second is that Smith’s idea of sex seems to be fairly violent assaults, which perhaps started out as playful rough housing but led to one disturbing indecent in which she slapped the butt of one victim and then ripped off his pants to continue the spanking. This little nugget is buried in the middle of this video report:

But if only drugs were legal things could have been different in this case, right guys? Then it wouldn’t have been difficult or illegal for her to get the pot, coke and pills she was using to lure the children into her house for a little child rape. I’m not seeing how that would be better but I’m sure some legalization proponent will show up to tell me.

Smith is trying to claim the boys came onto her, and her lawyer is saying she’s not competent. The judge set her bail for a cool million so she is the most unlucky sex offender in Vermont – she got the one judge there that thinks raping children is wrong.

Comments

19 Responses to “Victimless Crime Files: Misty Smith Gets 11-Year-Olds High So She Can Rape Them”

  1. Ajax the Great on November 16th, 2010 12:49 pm

    Yet another straw man.

  2. DodiaFae on November 16th, 2010 2:14 pm

    OMGs… hideous! Is it me, or are the perverts just getting uglier and uglier?

    Ajax, how exactly is this a “straw man”? The skank plied the boys with drugs and sexually assaulted them, a tactic used by perverts for ages. Even Polanski resorted to that tactic.

  3. Rob Taylor on November 16th, 2010 3:33 pm

    Ajax is mad because I’m not telling him what he wants to hear. He has no idea what straw man means but he does like to get people high, so this story probably offended him.

  4. Farley on November 16th, 2010 3:55 pm

    lol@Rob

    I, too, wondered if Ajax knew what a strawman was. I kept wondering if he was seeing something I wasn’t. Nope. He’s just incompetent.

  5. Rob Taylor on November 16th, 2010 4:00 pm

    He reflexively takes the pro-drug side in any argument. He has not yet matured to the point where he could say he believes in legalization but recognizes that drugs do cause problems – like when they’re used to make children compliant for molestation.

  6. DodiaFae on November 16th, 2010 4:51 pm

    Ah… so he’s a moron. Just as I suspected when I wanted to respond to another post on here only to find that he’d completely derailed that discussion. xp

  7. Ajax the Great on November 16th, 2010 4:59 pm

    “But if only drugs were legal things could have been different in this case, right guys? Then it wouldn’t have been difficult or illegal for her to get the pot, coke and pills she was using to lure the children into her house for a little child rape.”

    This is what I was referring to as the straw man. And yes, I do know what a straw man is–using a caricature of or the weakest possible version of the opponent’s argument, refuting it, and pretending all of the opponent’s arguments are refuted. I am college educated, you know.

    “He has no idea what straw man means but he does like to get people high, so this story probably offended him.”

    And I don’t appreciate what you are insinuating. Of course rape is wrong, especially when done to the most vulnerable members of society.

    “He reflexively takes the pro-drug side in any argument. He has not yet matured to the point where he could say he believes in legalization but recognizes that drugs do cause problems – like when they’re used to make children compliant for molestation.”

    Pro-drug and pro-legaliation are two very different things, Rob. Of course you can be both, but you can also be one and not the other.Have you matured enough in your 39 years to tell the difference yet? Besides, you can make the exact same argument about booze–should we bring back Prohibition?

  8. Rob Taylor on November 16th, 2010 5:46 pm

    How is it a straw man. The use of drugs played a important part in the victimization of these children and if they were legal that wouldn’t change. I’m challenging the claim that crime would decrease if drugs were legal. They wouldn’t. Arrests for possession would end, but most drug related crime is not possession.

    So you’re out of college and have all day to troll a blog. Interesting. And of course in no way related to drug use.

  9. Ajax the Great on November 16th, 2010 6:09 pm

    FYI I am in grad school working on my Ph.D. We do use computers nowadays, you know. And you probably notice that I do not “troll” your blog very often, as I actually have a life of my own. I notice you have quite a bit of time on your hands, or else you wouldn’t be responding so quickly even at odd hours.

    A straw man is using a caricature of (or the weakest possible version of) the opponent’s argument, refuting it, and pretending all of the opponent’s arguments are refuted. That’s exactly what you were using in this article, in this case the arguments for legalization of cannabis and various other substances.

    But I guess truth is not your forte.

  10. Rob Taylor on November 16th, 2010 6:18 pm

    You’re working on your doctorate while in Grad school? That’s awesome that they let you skip over getting your Masters and starting the work for a Doctorate in Graduate school.

    It is odd that I’m up late while running my own business. You caught me. Most people who freelance and run their own sites only work 9-5, of course.

    And no, this isnt a straw man. The drugs are integral to the story and if they were legal this wouldn’t change. That’s my point. How can you pretend to be too dense to see that?

  11. Ajax the Great on November 16th, 2010 6:24 pm

    “You’re working on your doctorate while in Grad school? That’s awesome that they let you skip over getting your Masters and starting the work for a Doctorate in Graduate school.”

    That’s how most chemistry departments work, and other hard sciences as well.

    “And no, this isnt a straw man. The drugs are integral to the story and if they were legal this wouldn’t change.”

    If it wouldn’t change either way, what would be so terrible about legalization then? But most “drug-related crime” (systemic and economic compulsive) WOULD plummet, so the net effect would be positive.

  12. Rob Taylor on November 16th, 2010 6:31 pm

    The legalization would be “terrible” because it would make it easier for her to do this. It also would mean police lose the option of busitng people they know are up to no good who are getting high. It would also stop authorities from moving kids out of dangerous households in some cases, my mother is a social worker and sometimes when there is abuse (but no injuries) drugs being found can help get a kid out of a home before they die.

    But aside from that…

    Why aren’t you for decriminalization rather than legalization? Legalization puts the state in the position of pusher and thus they can build an army of people completely depended on them. Opiate of the masses indeed.

    Also another straw man of yours – I have never said I’m for or against legalization, in fact I have said (to you) several times I don’t care. What I’m against is dishonest about the personal and societal costs of drug use.

    And why would addicts stop running out of money and stealing if drugs were legal?

  13. Ajax the Great on November 16th, 2010 7:52 pm

    “The legalization would be “terrible” because it would make it easier for her to do this. It also would mean police lose the option of busitng people they know are up to no good who are getting high.”

    You can make the same argument about alcohol, which she also used in her dirty deeds, so should we bring back Prohibition? No, because it does far more harm than good. And sickos like her would not be deterred by that in any case. You yourself said it would not change.

    “It would also stop authorities from moving kids out of dangerous households in some cases, my mother is a social worker and sometimes when there is abuse (but no injuries) drugs being found can help get a kid out of a home before they die.”

    Keep telling yourself that, Rob. That is what Child Protective Service workers tell themselves so they can sleep at night. It’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, keep forcibly taking kids away from their parents because the authorities found a little weed, or the parents were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. And place the kids with foster parents that may beat, rape, or even kill them. And why stop there? If parents drink, smoke cigarettes, fornicate, have unconventional religious practices (like you Rob), have low incomes, or belong to the “wrong” ethnoracial groups, take the kids away post haste! All based on “statistics” of course. You really wanna go down that slippery slope? If that’s not fascism, I don’t know what is.

    Besides child abuse, neglect (which often goes along with abuse) is already illegal and will remain so even if various drugs are legalized. There are other signs of neglect, which is defined rather broadly nowadays, and need not include evidence of injury. No need to profile based on one’s choice of intoxicant.

    “Why aren’t you for decriminalization rather than legalization? Legalization puts the state in the position of pusher and thus they can build an army of people completely depended on them.”

    Full legalization is the only way to destroy (or at least reduce to negligible levels) the black market and violent cartels it engenders. And no, it does not make the state a pusher, anymore than legalization of alcohol makes the state a brewery.

    “And why would addicts stop running out of money and stealing if drugs were legal?”

    They would not necessarily stop entirely, but the over-inflated prices would be a thing of the past, even if the substances were heavily taxed by the state. (Though cannabis would probably not drop as much because it is already the cheapest way to get high) Like nicotine or alcohol addicts, most would be able to make all the money they need panhandling or collecting forfeited bottle deposits from trash.

  14. birdsnest on November 16th, 2010 8:08 pm

    Who would step within inches of this woman. She is the ugly thing i have seen on the face of this earth.

  15. loup Garou on November 17th, 2010 12:51 pm

    hate to say it, but if she were hot…. this wouldn’t even be news……

  16. morti on July 20th, 2011 1:52 pm

    I actually knew her from our “VNA family days.” She was really shady then. She could not tell the truth if it bit her in the behind. She was always telling us that her husband was abusive (verbally, mentally and physically). She said she would never leave because he would find her and “love” her again. Alot of people rolled their eyes because she never exhibited the “bruising” she claimed to have. It was almost “munchy.” The last time I saw her, she had a little boy. That was almost 8 years ago. Justice needs to be served, swift and harsh. These poor kids she has traumatized–They will need alot of our support and help. No thanks to her.

  17. Ernie Poop on August 16th, 2011 5:53 pm

    I am from St. Albans, and I can tell you with confidence that the local police are one retarded bunch. I know that if that skank had her long history of molestation and sexual deviance uncovered, she’s be in jail for the rest of her life.

  18. dace on November 28th, 2012 12:16 pm

    “the one judge there that thinks raping children is wrong” – what the hell’s up with that?

    What have you got against Vermont judges anyway?

    or are you just an idiot?

  19. Rob Taylor on November 28th, 2012 3:58 pm

    Yes you caught me I’m a bigot against Vermont Judges, not commenting on a long history of being soft on child rapists.

Leave a Reply