Eric Bodenweiser indicted for 113 counts of Child Rape and Sex Abuse

Eric Bodenweiser has been indicted by a Sussex County Grand Jury for 113 counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child. According to the Cape Gazette:
Bodenweiser, 53, faces 39 charges of first-degree rape and 74 charges of unlawful sexual contact in the second degree. According to a press release from the Attorney General’s Office, Bodenweiser turned himself in to Delaware State Police at the Sussex County Courthouse, was arraigned in Superior Court and was committed to the Sussex Correctional Institution in default of $250,000 secured bail. The Attorney General’s Office’s press release says the investigation that led to the charges was initiated by Delaware State Police several weeks ago after police received information that Bodenweiser had sexually abused a child. As a result of the investigation, prosecutors sought the indictment, which charges Bodenweiser with the sexual abuse of a juvenile victim between October 1987 and August 1990.
The Sussex GOP will file suit to have Brian Pettyjohn on the ballot in November. Of course, The Sussex DOE so far has not seen fit to have Brian Pettyjohn put on the General Election Ballot. The Administrative Director of the Sussex DOE is a Democrat who lives in the 19th Senatorial District. I want to thank Pandora from Delaware Liberal for this heads up. One can’t argue that this is not newsworthy. So how many of you Bodie defenders will stand behind him now?

204 thoughts on “Eric Bodenweiser indicted for 113 counts of Child Rape and Sex Abuse”

  1. Mynym: Not to mention that his beliefs about all ancient people groups are probably based on mythologies of progress instead of consistent historical evidence.

    Speaking about mythology, you followed this up by confessing your belief in “giants” that had to be exterminated.

    Mynym: There’s probably a reason that the giants and their gods and everything incorporated under them had to be utterly destroyed

    Replace ‘giants’ with ‘Jews’, and you have a nice Hitler quote. Of course, Bible-believers have never had any problem with the genocides described in their Bible…

    Mynym: yet no one seems to like the preservation of the Jewish people through it all.

    Wait, I’m confused, is this an excuse for genocide, or for stoning rape victims?

    Mynym: if Jews adhered to a sexual ethic in which their own sexual desires ruled and defined them (think gay progress?) then the Jews would not have survived.

    The ancient Israelites had pretty much laws on sexuality comparable to a Sharia state. You endorse that?

    Mynym: Do you think that is because it is Jewish?

    Because what is Jewish?

  2. So the concern was: WHO IS GOING TO SUPPORT HER FINANCIALLY?

    Interesting… regardless, I doubt that women found much love and care among the Canaanites or the pagans of their day. They’d probably be more likely to have their husband killed so that they could be stolen by some Nimrod.

    It’s all brutal to the modern mind, on all sides. Yet one has to wonder, if they had lived in the past would they have been like their proverbial cave men too? Or if a modern man that is supposedly full of love and caring for women would actually stand up for them or seek to protect them (David vs. Goliath, etc.) if they had lived in the past? And if that is true then why do so many modern gay or “think progress” effeminate men seem to degrade women in whatever media they control, produce and handle?

    In any event, what are the rates of rape among Snoop Dog type Obama Inc. supporters and his herd vs. this Kennedy fellow? Is it about stopping rape because modern pagans and “think progress” are so full of love for women or is it about their profits or establishing and maintaining political power? What’s next, Snoop Dog lecturing on the importance of valuing women and not raping them? Maybe all that need be said is that Kennedy falls outside of the political scheme supported by “think progress,” so he’s a target and Snoop Dog, Jay Z and Obama Inc. in general are not. And that is the extent of it.

    If so, then there is no need to try to imagine what ancient Jewish nomads were thinking or why they did what they did. Yet I’d imagine that they generally did what they did due to disputes among the gods about which was God, etc. It’s either that or the greatest symbolic and historical hoax and conspiracy written by Jews to have ever existed. Trying to imagine the hoax view about a group of wandering nomads claiming to be guided by God against other gods is a bit like imagining that the moon landings were hoaxed. Instead of all the deception involved and ancient people going to their graves while scribes conspire to keep their symbolism and histories consistent over centuries and all that would be necessary to imagine, it’s probably simpler to simply imagine that the gods/UFOs/angels of light illuminating different angles and so on are more active sometimes than others.

    When things get a bit more apocalyptic then people will probably look to the heavens again, even if it is to the wrong gods.

  3. Jon Moseley: Morbo, you obviously have never read the Bible

    You’ve obviously never read any book other than the Bible, or you’d realize that the world is not 6000 years old, that rapists aren’t just “over-eager and harmless”, that ‘speaking in tongues’ and faith healing is bunk – same as the Bible.

    Jon Moseley: MORBO LIES AGAIN

    Excuse me, who is the liar here? You denied being a rape apologist, yet in your latest post, you described some rapists as just “over-eager and harmless”. What the hell? Perhaps you should faith heal your mental problems.

    Jon Moseley: Once again, it is her PARENT’s choice.

    You failed to provide a citation from the Bible. What I have quoted states categorically that virgins who are raped should be married to their rapists. Besides, it’s not as if this actually justifies it. But perhaps that’s just what you view as moral: parents having the right to marry victims of rape to their rapists. What ‘morals’ you have, Bible-believer.

    Jon Moseley: Nowhere in the Bible is there any hint of any idea of a woman being anyone’s property.

    No? I guess I just misread that rapists of virgins have to pay her father a lump sum.

    Jon Moseley: So the concern was: WHO IS GOING TO SUPPORT HER FINANCIALLY?

    Why, a rapist, of course. And as a bonus, he gets to rape her for the rest of her life. I think we know where you get your ‘morals’ from, that some rapists are just ‘over-eager and harmless’.

    Jon Moseley: EVERY crime had to be PROVEN by 2 or more witnesses, each of whom had to be blameless themselves.

    Exactly. And Islam requires four witnesses.

    Jon Moseley: So it would be impossible for a woman to be put to death simply because she is shown to not be a virgin upon marriage.

    Now you’re denying the plain wording of the Bible. Deuteronomy 22:20-21: “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

    Nothing about witnesses, you just made that up. If adultery required witnesses, no one would ever be convicted of it, genius.

    Jon Moseley: Why do you think that Jesus told the crowd ready to stone the adultress “Let you who among is without sin cast the first stone?”

    Never happened, added by later scribes in the 4th-5th century.

    Jon Moseley: NO, the law specifically excused a girl who was too young to consent to commit adultery.

    Citation needed. Also, obviously, it wouldn’t come to light that it had occurred when she was 8. It could just as well have happened when she was 14. Then again, maybe child molesters are just “over-eager and harmless”.

    Jon Moseley: There was never any excuse for rape.

    No? You just said that some rapists are just “over-eager and harmless”. Perhaps such views are normal among Bible-believers, but not among normal, moral, decent human beings.

    Jon Moseley: But war is hell. Do you think it would be better if everyone was killed?

    Nice justification for “over-eager and harmless” rape. How about not killing their families? Did the possibility of not slaughtering men, women and small children come to your mind, Bible-thumper?

    Jon Moseley: Deuteronomy 17:

    That’s about “serv[ing] other gods”, Perhaps you should read your Bible, instead of only thumping it. This deals with marriage: Deuteronomy 22:20-21: “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

    Over-eager and harmless rapists. I didn’t think that even a Bible-believer could sink so low. It is very obvious that you have no morals whatsoever.

  4. Mynym: I doubt that women found much love and care among the Canaanites or the pagans of their day. They’d probably be more likely to have their husband killed so that they could be stolen by some Nimrod.

    Anyhing to justify your genocidal Bible. Canaanite women “probably” wanted to have their entire families butchered, their baby boys murdered, to be taken and raped by another tribe of desert barbarians.

    Mynym: And if that is true then why do so many modern gay or “think progress” effeminate men seem to degrade women in whatever media they control, produce and handle?

    Care to comment on your fellow Bible-believer Jon Moseley’s comment that some rapists are “over-eager but harmless”?

    Mynym: It’s either that or the greatest symbolic and historical hoax and conspiracy written by Jews to have ever existed.

    Here’s a hint: it’s not a very good deception – which is why only faith healers like Jon Moseley believe in it.

Comments are closed.