07-31-2015, 01:14 AM #1
Websleuths Post of the Day!!! We Did It. Parole DENIED!!PAROLE DENIED FOR THE WEBSLEUTHS POST OF THE DAYI'll let LisaB tell you what happened:
We went to Hagerstown today. Lauren had a very good statement ready about how this has affected her. I took a different approach with mine, focusing on HIM instead of Lauren. I cited specific, easily verifiable instances of him telling huge lies, to me, to judges, and even to the previous parole board. I saw them check the file twice, and they saw I wasn't making it up.
I admitted he had fooled me again and again, and urged them not to be fooled by his promises to comply with parole requirements, and not re-offend. He's gotten by most of his life by lying, and he soon showed them he hasn't changed.
The female board member mentioned that they "had gotten all of the correspondence. And I mean ALL of the correspondence" in reference to the letter writing campaign. Thanks for writing. It helped.
He came in and was basically very belligerent, argumentative and was demonstrating why his attorneys kept him from testifying at his trial. I made notes of eight more HUGE and verifiable lies, as well as discrepancies in the things he said, compared to the last parole hearing!
They ended the hearing early, after he couldn't make it through the second of three phases of the hearing. As a result, they denied his parole.Last edited by LisaB; Today at 05:15 PM.
Way to go everyone.
From LisaB's post I love this: The female board member mentioned that they "had gotten all of the correspondence. And I mean ALL of the correspondence" in reference to the letter writing campaign.
LISAB WINS THE POST OF THE DAY!!!!!!
07-31-2015, 01:18 AM #2
I was really surprised and pleased with how quickly my communication was responded to.
This is what a community of concerned individuals can accomplish!
07-31-2015, 08:43 AM #3
Hooray !!!!!!!!!!!!!! How long until he's eligible again ?
So happy for Lisa and daughter. What a relief !
07-31-2015, 10:28 AM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Great news!!!! Thank you, everyone who sent in an email! So relieved for you LisaB!
Wonderful what a difference we can all make, when we ban together! Love it!
07-31-2015, 03:03 PM #5
Here is the long version:
We went to Hagerstown on Thursday, July 30, 2015 for Donald Scott Brunstetter’s parole hearing.
We were ushered into the hearing room, where we met an older white male and a middle-aged black woman, who would be hearing his case.
They explained that there would be three phases to the hearing. In the first, he would be asked to discuss the crime itself. In the second, they would address his “adjustment” to prison, and in the third, they would go over a “Home Plan” in the event they should decide to release him.
My daughter, Lauren, had a very good statement ready about how this has affected her. After hearing it, the Parole Board members urged her to seek counseling. We explained the difficulty of finding a specialized counselor who will deal with the issue of the molestation without also criticizing other areas of her life. While they may be right in their desire to address issues like her work history, relationship history, and sexual proclivities, as they no doubt stem indirectly from his abuse, it’s not something she wants to get into right now, and I suspect effective counseling with regard to the molestation might cayuse her to recognize the need for adjustments in other areas of her life.
I took a different approach with my statement, focusing on HIM instead of Lauren. I cited specific, easily verifiable instances of him telling huge lies, to me, to judges, and even to the previous parole board.
I had a 4 page statement (typed) and knew I did not have time to read it all, so I cherry picked the lies he had told me that were the most egregious, and spent the remainder of my time relating instances in which he had lied in court on several cases, and to the parole board the last time they heard his case. I saw them check the file in front of them several times, and they were able to see that what I said was true.
I admitted he had fooled me again and again, and urged them not to be fooled by his promises to comply with parole requirements, and not re-offend. He's gotten by most of his life by lying, and he soon showed them he hasn't changed.
He was outside the room, but could hear what was said over an intercom. As such, he did hear several things that were pretty incriminating, and that I expected him to refute when his turn came.
I turned my letter over, without reading some of the less relevant (and more long-winded) sections, specifically related to lies he had told me before we met in person, while we were dating, and during our marriage. He never heard those additional allegations, but the parole commissioners read over it before he was ushered in.
He started off by asking where the officers were that had held his previous parole hearing. Not that it was really his business, but he was told one had been promoted and another was elsewhere that day. He seemed upset that he would not be speaking to the same two men, perhaps thinking he’d spent the last 3 years figuring out what they wanted to hear, and being prepared to face them again. The new Parole Board consisted of an older white male and a middle-aged black woman.
They explained the three phases to the hearing to him, and asked if he understood. He stated that he did. They then asked him to tell them about the crime itself. He told them he was unprepared to do that, as the prior hearing officers had asked specific questions for him to answer, and he was not expected to “ad-lib” anything. They told him that they were not the previous parole board, and that TODAY, this was the way the hearing would be conducted. He tried telling them that he liked the other way better, and that they ought to follow the same format. I am sure they LOVED having a convict telling them how to run their hearing. Not.
He was very belligerent and argumentative, so they asked if he preferred to waive the hearing. He said he did not, and proceeded to demonstrate why his attorneys kept him from testifying at his trial. He can’t seem to figure out when saying nothing is the best thing for him. I made notes of eight more HUGE and verifiable lies, as well as discrepancies in the things he said, compared to the last parole hearing! I’ll get into that a little later.
He agreed to discuss the crime. He seems to run hot and cold on the issues. In the original interviews, he denied having done what he was accused of doing. He pled “Not Guilty” at trial. His lawyers attempted to decimate Lauren on the stand for over two hours, while he never took the stand in his own defense. His character witnesses, who had not heard the details of the case, were speaking to the judge based on his assertions to them that he was innocent. His mother went so far as to wonder aloud why Lauren and I would lie about something like this, when we had always seemed so nice. Lauren mentioned this during her statement, and said it hurt to have his mother, who we had always liked and respected, mall us “liars” in court.
Six months later, he sent a hand-written confession letter to the judge, admitting guilt, and dropping his appeal. I don’t know whether the character witnesses, including his mother know he eventually confessed, but he asked his attorneys to ensure that we received a copy.
In any case, he started off by saying that NOBODY in his family had ever suggested we lied, and that his mother, of all people, would never have done so. This is easily disproven by the transcript of the sentencing hearing, which I obtained an audio copy of as soon as the trial ended.
He mentioned that he had initially tried to retain an attorney he had “always” used in the past (admitting a history of criminal behavior, indirectly) only to find his call transferred automatically to someone else, since his regular lawyer had become a judge. He said that from the moment they began discussing the case, his attorney was sure that he was being falsely accused and that I obviously had a personal vendetta, had created this story, and then coached Lauren to repeat it. It was almost as if he was trying to go back to the original trial and claim he was innocent of the charges, based on this remark he claimed was made by his lawyer, in spite of having been found guilty, confessing in his own handwriting, and elaborating on his admission of guilt during the last parole hearing.
What this lawyer thought or said 8 years ago is not only irrelevant to his application for parole, but has been proven untrue several times over.
Next he claimed that he was told Lauren was an impatient at Sheppard Pratt Hospital when the charges were presented to him, and that he was not to attempt to contact her. While the “no contact” provision is true, she has NEVER been inpatient at ANY mental institution, nor has she ever been treated at Sheppard Pratt at all. Again, this should be relatively easy to prove, based upon her attendance records at Queen Anne’s County High School, showing she attended regularly.
He said he felt that the trial had been very one-sided. He expressed his displeasure at the fact that his lawyer did not allow him to testify, but since he was factually guilty, I am not sure what he feels would have been gained by his testimony. I got the impression he was trying to convince the parole board that, had he testified, he would have been acquitted. Again, this was not the time to bring up perceived procedural errors in the original trial.
He acknowledged that his attorneys put Lauren through a 2-hour ordeal on the stand, forcing her to relive the assaults (which, at the time, he claimed were fabricated), and that this, combined with their refusal to allow him to testify had prejudiced the judge against him. He also felt that a comment made by his attorney to the State’s Attorney referring to her as “Nifong” the disbarred former Prosecutor from the Duke university rape case, which ultimately proved to be based upon false allegations. I recall no such remark, but might have to review the transcript to be sure. He felt that this too affected his ability to get a fair trial. He reminded the parole board that, in his comments prior to sentencing, he had told the judge that he disagreed with his verdict.
He claims that he was then given “a life sentence,” given that he was 45 years old at the time and was sentenced to 45 years. He then acknowledged that the sentence was reduced “to 30 years” when in fact, it was reduced to 15 years, with parole eligibility after 4 years and, realistically, a 10 year sentence, as the State credits him one extra day for every two served. He could have been out of prison at 48, and will not be incarcerated beyond his 55th birthday if he his maximum possible time allowed by the sentence imposed. It is Lauren who is suffering a life sentence.
At this point, the Parole Commission steered him back to the issue of the crime. He began by telling the board that he has dated at least 40 women in his life, and only 10% or so had children at all, therefore my assertion that he sought me out intentionally to gain access to Lauren was absurd. I had mentioned that I had spoken with several women he had been involved with and had also been privy (as his wife) to his Social Security statements, which showed a clear pattern of him holding jobs only when he was between relationships, and that I felt his secondary motive in seeking me out was that I had a good job and would be able to support him financially, since he stopped working within about 6 weeks of our meeting, and it was only 6 weeks later that we were married, and he was eligible to be included on my health plan.
Although (or perhaps because) I did not read aloud the portion of my statement regarding his false claim of having fallen from a ladder in late June, and the fact that from that day forward he had a limitless supply of oxycodone and a seemingly legitimate excuse not to return to work, and that, from that day forward, he never contributed to our household expenses, he stated that I had been so insecure and jealous of the possibility of him seeing other women that I MADE him quit working and stay home shortly after we met.
He stated that within weeks of meeting, I begged him to let us move in with him, as I had to vacate the home I co-owned with Lauren’s father that was up for sale, but that he insisted I rent an apartment. In truth, we had already signed the apartment lease prior to meeting him, and were only waiting until the end of the school year to move. He claimed I had to pay a penalty for breaking my lease after just 6 months. Again, this is untrue, as we only had a 6 month lease, and the majority of our belongings remained there until November, almost 2 months after our marriage. This should be verifiable.
He claimed that, in August, while we were on a trip to “West Virginia, I said I thought we should get married, took the car “into town” and returned with a marriage license. He said I got him and his friend, who had accompanied us, to get in the car, where we drove back to town and I looked high and low before locating a minister to conduct the ceremony. In the first place, we took his car on that trip, and I would not have dreamed of taking it “into town” on my own. In fact, I did not know how to GET from Hedgesville to Martinsburg, AND it is not possible for one party to obtain a marriage license. Both have to apply, and his signature appears on the license! Finally, the marriage ceremony was conducted on August 14, a date he specifically chose because it was 6 months either direction from Valentine’s Day.
He had two housemates when we met, and had assured me they would move out after our marriage, but they did not. I assumed payment of the entire rental cost of the home, and he continued to collect rent from the housemates which he kept for himself. He told the parole board that one of the factors he felt had led him to molest Lauren was that there was “a lot of nudity in the home” which was “instigated by Lauren’s mother”. This is not only completely untrue, but with two unrelated male adults living in our home, modesty was a priority, and there was NO nudity in public areas of the home. Occasionally he or Lauren would walk around in swimsuits, and more rarely in underwear. Although she was only 8, “underwear” meant t-shirts and underpants that covered at least as much as a swimming suit.
Asked how it happened that he began to molest Lauren, he said it was after they’d gone swimming in the apartment complex pool and returned to the apartment I had rented. He said she was naked but he was not, and that they were “wrestling”. He claims that for some reason he can’t explain, he ended up with his mouth on her genitals. He claims that he “inadvertently” gave her an orgasm, and that he thinks THAT is what caused her psychological problems, not the act itself. While I do not disagree that it complicated the issue, I don’t believe she would have been unaffected had that not happened. He completely neglected to mention that he “somehow” ended up naked as well, and had her sit astride him and rub back and forth until he had an orgasm. When asked if he had thought there was anything inappropriate in this behavior, he admitted that he knew it was wrong. Nevertheless, it continued for two full years.
The charges against him were divided by the time period in which they had occurred. Ironically, the one period of time that they were unable to convict him of, due to Lauren’s vagueness of memory concerning dates, was the time during which we were living in that apartment. Yesterday, he not only admitted to having molested her during that period of time, but also that it happened at least 3 times at that location.
He went on to detail the other incidents, and summed up by saying there had been 13 occasions on which this had happened, not the hundreds Lauren had claimed. This is in conflict with what he told the previous parole board, when he admitted to it happening “only” 25-30 times. They made it clear to him that ONCE was unacceptable. I assume he cut the number in half in the hope of it being more palatable to the parole board. The officers hearing his case this time asked him to explain why it continued beyond the first “accidental” time. He had no explanation. He also NEVER disclosed that he had her doing things to him as well, and achieved orgasm each time he assaulted her.
He complained that there is no counseling available in prison, so he joined NA. He says he is an alcoholic, and was going to join AA, but was referred to NA, since they deal with other kinds of addictions as well. He said he had anticipated finding help there for his “sex addiction”. He insisted that, although he was (is) an alcoholic, he had never ever had a drug problem. The parole board had copies of all sorts of documents in front of them, including the arrest report from 1989, when he sold cocaine to an undercover police officer and spent a year behind bars for it, then violated his probation by being caught with drugs shortly after his release.
He stated that he hopes to get mental health care upon his release (although he admits to being on medications for bipolar and anxiety disorders) to try to understand why he acted as he did. He said he hasn’t even got access to books to help him understand what made him do it. I know for a fact that books may be ordered from Amazon for inmates, provided they are shipped directly from Amazon. Further, how can he be so sure he won’t do it again, if he doesn’t even know why he did it the first time?
They asked him about his adjustment. He said he didn’t have any. They reworded the question to ask how he was adapting to prison life. He told them he had been confused because, in prison, an “adjustment” refers to time added to or subtracted from his sentence, and that he had not had any of those.
Once he understood the question, he told them that he has a greater appreciation for his life now. He indicated that, although he had been in segregated custody for his own protection for several years, he had since asked to be put in General Population, so he would have more human interaction and be able to get outside. He said he truly appreciates the time he spends in the yard, where he can remove his shoes and feel grass under his feet. He said that, every fall he can smell when the nearby farmer starts burning wood in his woodstove, that since he stopped smoking, he can now smell the difference when the farmer switches from burning oak to poplar.
He literally began to cry as he related seeing the news story about the young boy who recently had a double-hand transplant, and how this poor child, who had a bleak future, will now have hands he can use to do things he couldn’t before. What about the little girl who had a whole, healthy mind and body, who has been sentenced to a bleak and empty future due to his actions? Where is his sympathy for her?
The gentleman from the panel asked why he did not immediately seek help when he felt urges toward my daughter. He reminded Donnie that there was mental health counseling available through my health plan and that he could have seen someone, and learned mechanisms for coping with his desires when they were not appropriate. He asked why Donnie seemed to be blaming everyone but himself for the continued molestation.
Donnie said “I keep referring to her as the victim. What more do you want?” He then attempted to address Lauren directly, apologizing for the way his lawyers treated her on the stand, the invasive and inappropriate questions they asked, and for the anguish she still feels as a result of what he had thought was enjoyable for both of them. He was asked to address his comments to the panel, NOT to Lauren, at which point, he turned his eyes toward them, but continued to address Lauren as “you”. They stopped him again and told him that if he could not cooperate, they could just end the hearing. He was getting argumentative, belligerent, and frustrated, and clearly they were too.
They asked a man who was apparently some sort of counselor if he had anything to add. Donnie said that, because the man sees him only once or twice a year, he doesn’t really KNOW Donnie the way the guards, correctional officers, etc. do. The male parole commissioner asked him why none of those individuals had written letters on his behalf. I assume this was a rhetorical question, as he did not answer it.
They never even moved on to stage three, which is to say the “Home Plan in case of parole. They asked him to leave the room, and brought him back in within a minute to tell him he clearly had no genuine remorse for his crimes, and his parole was being denied.
They dismissed him and invited us back in. At that point, we clarified all the things he had mis-stated during his time with them, and they were already very aware of the majority of them, having read over the case file in advance. Lauren made sure they knew that he had been naked during each occurrence, and had induced her to perform actions resulting in his orgasm.
The members of the parole board stressed the importance of her getting counseling before he gets out, and to help her move on with her life.
July 30, 2015
We are here because of Mr. Brunstetter's choice to seek out the mother of a young girl, via an internet datng site, for the dual purposes of obtaining financial support and gaining access to the child, who was 8 years old, for his sexual pleasure. I am sure that you are aware of the effect this has had on my daughter, as his victim, and me, as the mother who was oblivious to the fact that this kind of evil was being perpetrated against my child, so I'd like to turn your attention briefly to an issue that was not presented at his trial, but which I feel is relevant to the decision before you today.
When I met Mr. Brunstetter online, we corresponded for several months prior to meeting in person. His dating profile contained a number of untrue assertions about his life up to that time, which he reiterated prior to our first meeting, specifically with regard to having been married previously, and the existence of a son of that marriage, to whom his parental rights had been terminated long before. In addition he had a son who was conceived under significantly different circumstances than those he initially claimed.
Mr. Brunstetter asserted that he had attended a prestigious prep school in Virginia as a teen. In truth, he had been charged with several crimes as a juvenile, and was subsequently enrolled in, and expelled from, not one, but two out-of-state disciplinary academies, prior to being hospitalized at Sheppard Pratt Health System, in Baltimore County for approximately 18 months. It was at this mental institution that he completed his high school course requirements.
Between the time we met "face to face" in May, 2000, and the time we married in August of the same year, he also lied to me about his financial situation. He had admitted to about $5,000 in credit card debt. My own debt was similar, and did not seem excessive. He claimed that he owned the home he was living in, as well as a cabin on a 19 acre parcel of land in West Virginia. Ultimately I learned that he did not own any property in either state.
He told me that he was a partner in a real estate investment firm, Annapolis Land and Property, which has since come under fire for unscrupulous business practices. In truth, Donnie helped a long-time personal friend paint and make repairs at rental properties owned by the friend. He also collected rent, filed court papers, and served papers to evict tenants who failed to pay their rent. The house Donnie lived in was one such rental property, and he was credited $8 per hour he worked toward his monthly rent. After we divorced, Donnie's friend, and the actual owner of the company, John "Loren" Williams, was convicted of coercing several under-age boys into sexual relationships, for which he is currently serving a 53 year sentence.
There were several vehicles parked outside Mr. Brunstetter's home when we met, and he indicated that he owned 4 of them:
- a red Blazer that was untagged. I later learned has recently been purchased by one of his friends, and was parked in his yard awaiting inspection so it could be tagged,
- a white "work" truck that was actually owned by Mr. Williams, which he retrieved,
- a Ford Bronco he had purchased with money borrowed from (but never repaid to) Mr. Williams, and
- a Ford Taurus, which he had agreed to purchase from his mother, but failed to pay for after ownership had been transferred to him.
In June, 2000, shortly after we met, he told me he had fallen off a ladder. This deception got him a bottomless bottle of oxycodone and an unimpeachable excuse for not working/bringing in any money from that day forward. I was unaware at that time of his long-running battle with prescription drugs, cocaine, and alcohol.
Because he was no longer working, he offered to provide child care for his 7 year old son and my 8 year old daughter, an arrangement that worked well at first. His son soon lost interest in nature walks and swimming in the creek, however, and returned to the home of his mother. Lauren expressed a desire to continue to spend time with Donnie that summer, instead of attending a day camp offered by the Board of Recreation and Parks, in which she was enrolled. After discussing it with Lauren's father, I saw no reason not to allow it, as Donnie seemed genuine in his interest in becoming a father figure to her, and she needed that in her life.
During our courtship, he initially told me he was not seeing other women. When caught in the deception, he insisted he had not had a physical relationship with any of them, another claim that he ultimately admitted was untrue. By July he had eliminated any other women from his life and was pressuring me to get married. He seemed sincere in his desire to settle down, live a quiet life, and grow old together. We were married in August. I enrolled him in my health plan and transferred the Ford Bronco to me, whereby I had to include it on my insurance policy and pay the additional premium.
Literally within weeks of the wedding, his demeanor changed. He had rented out rooms to several of his friends prior to meeting me, but assured me they would move elsewhere when we married. They didn't. I paid the rent for the entire house, and I was supporting our small family financially, while he used the rent money he collected to purchase liquor, cigarettes, and other non-essentials. I soon learned that his drinking had cost him his driving privileges at least once, and that his moods were very erratic when he was drinking and taking pain medication.
He was intoxicated most of the time, and spent much of his time lying on the sofa watching TV and smoking cigarettes while I was at work. He rarely even pretended to tolerate me, although he still seemed to have a good relationship with Lauren, making sure she was up on time to shower and brush her teeth, and fixing her breakfast before school, encouraging healthy eating, supervising homework time, and volunteering to chaperone school field trips. He always played the part of the doting stepfather and devoted husband when in the presence of others.
I soon questioned the number of bills and collection letters that arrived addressed to Jean S. Brunstetter, and the fact that his checking account was in the same name. He assured me that he had power of attorney for his mother's accounts, as she was suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease, and that he was trying to help her get her finances in order and up-to-date.
After we married, when I attempted to add his name to my existing checking account, I learned that he was unable to open a bank account in his name due to a prior bank fraud, and could not be added to mine. After meeting his mother, it was very clear that she did not have Alzheimer's, and, in fact, she was an active woman, and a very nice person, who was well-respected among her community and professional peers.
He was forced to admit that his mother had allowed him to open a bank account in her name because he could not open his own, and had permitted him to put his utility bills in her name, as his credit was poor, and because he had several outstanding collections against him. He admitted that the overdue bills were his.
In the early months of our marriage, we were often visited by law enforcement officers attempting to serve a "body attachment". I did not know at the time what that was, and Donnie always ensured he was the one to open the door when they knocked, telling them "Donald isn't home at the moment", and asking if they would like to leave their card. He told me that they were actually attempting to collect money owed by his late father who shared a first and last name, a debt he said had been discharged via bankruptcy in the 1980s. I didn't understand why he didn't just TELL them that, and he said he did it because he enjoyed wasting their time.
Given his dire financial situation, he soon opted to file personal bankruptcy, and among the discharged debts of nearly $60,000 were the amounts owed to his mother and his friend/former-employer, and now-landlord for the loans they gave him to purchase the vehicles he had bragged about having paid cash for. I was assured by his attorney that his filing would have no impact upon my credit or on me, which I believed, until the $1,700 tax refund I had expected when we filed jointly was seized to pay back taxes he owed for a year in which he had not filed a federal tax return years prior.
Over the course of our marriage, he disclosed that he had been arrested numerous times, and had an affection for prescription drugs and crack/cocaine the latter having resulted in an arrest and a year in jail on a drug distribution charge. He also admitted to having filed false and vindictive assault complaints and collection cases for "unpaid rent" against former friends and ex-girlfriends to get even with them for slights against him, and to intercepting security deposits he was to have returned to Mr. Williams' tenants upon their vacating rental properties. Throughout the course of our marriage he often lied about poor service and supposed "defects" in everything from restaurant meals to purchased items to get discounts and/or refunds.
Just after our first meeting, he had been arrested for "obstructing and hindering justice" as a passenger in a car being driven by one of his friends, during a traffic stop. When the time came for his trial, on November 8, 2000, he lied in court, telling the judge he was newly married (which was true) and that he had just learned we were expecting a child together (which we were NOT, as my tubes had been tied in 1991, and he knew it). He also told the judge he was working as a leasing agent, in hopes of avoiding incarceration, but when he filed an SSI/SSDI claim for disability a year later, claimed he had not been employed in over two years.
He always had an explanation for why his stories didn't match up from one telling to the next, and I foolishly believed him. I had never been acquainted with anyone who lied with such ease, and had, until then, assumed that most people were honest and worthy of trust. After two years together, having caught him deceiving me time and again, I realized the marriage was unsustainable, moved out, and filed for a divorce. Years passed before I learned what he had done to Lauren.
Upon her disclosure, I immediately reported the abuse to the appropriate authorities. Lauren and I were interviewed by an Anne Arundel County detective and Rashida Simms, representing Child Protective Services. Within a few weeks, CPS had issued a finding of Child Sexual Abuse. Donnie consulted an attorney and disputed the decision. The CPS finding launched a criminal investigation with the Anne Arundel County Police Department.
The investigator assigned to the case, Detective Long, went to Donnie's place of employment to interview him several times, but was told each time that "Donnie is off today". When he returned after I suggested he take along a photograph I had provided of Donnie, he realized that he had been TALKING to Donnie all along, who was lying about not being there. He was questioned, arrested, charged by Anne Arundel County, and released.
The case was soon referred up to a Maryland State Court. He continued to deny the charges against him, retained the services of an attorney, who delayed the trial several times through various means, and entered a plea of "Not Guilty," refusing proffered plea deals to help Lauren avoid the trauma of reliving the abuse in court.
His attorneys probed my daughter's online social media accounts, gathering information which was used to make her look bad in court. She was 16 by then, and the things she posted were "emo" song lyrics, off-color jokes, and creepy pictures. The experience of traveling back and forth to the court for hearings that were delayed, and then the actual time on the stand reliving an unpleasant memory took a toll on her, and she was fortunate to have a good counselor.
Mr. Brunstetter was ultimately found guilty of the majority of the charges, and then called in three "character witnesses" at his sentencing hearing who had never attended any portion of the trial, and therefore had heard no testimony at all regarding the abuse. One was a woman neither Lauren nor I had never met, one a man who lied and claimed he was his father (a prominent businessman) because he has the same name (but is a Junior), and the third, his mother, who swore her son was a "good man" and that she could not understand why we would lie about this when she had always thought we were so nice.
The judge sentenced him based on the laws in place at the time the crimes were committed, although subsequent legislation had reclassified Child Sexual Abuse as a "violent crime" with mandatory minimum sentences, no portion suspended, and no opportunity for early release. Because of the way his sentence was structured, Donnie was sentenced to 15 years - 10 once a day was credited for each two served. Mr. Brunstetter appealed the conviction, but 6 months later wrote to the judge to admit he had LIED, and that he was factually guilty. Despite this, he became eligible for parole just 4 years after his conviction.
At his last parole hearing, when asked where he planned to live if released, he said he could not stay with his mom as she had Alzheimer's. I actually believed it myself until I saw photos on her retirement community's website of her enjoying trips, and noticed that she also served on several boards and committees. I suddenly remembered he told ME that his mother had Alzheimer's when we first met, and that it had been untrue. I sent a letter inquiring about her health, and got a call from an intermediate party who reassured me that she is doing well. No Alzheimer's.
Donnie also stated during that hearing that the reason he had not enrolled in any academic programs for higher education while incarcerated was that "they" were not able to locate a copy of his high school diploma. I suspect this is somehow related to the fact that he completed his high school education at the Forbush School at Sheppard Pratt in Baltimore County, in spite of his diploma fraudulently reflecting his having graduated from Chesapeake High School in Anne Arundel County. The problem may have stemmed from conflicting information as to where he actually graduated delaying requests for the elusive diploma. This misinformation could only have come from him.
Donald Brunstetter is an accomplished liar. He has a long history of deception and fraud. Regardless of what he may say about feeling remorse for the acts that he is incarcerated for, despite agreeing to abide by the terms of his parole, and promising he will not re-offend if parole is granted, he is NOT to be trusted. He fooled me. Don't let him fool you too.
Lisa K. Banks
He neither disputed not confirmed having misrepresented his financial situation, educational background, criminal history, mental health issues or background when we met
He continues to insist his mother has Alzheimer’s. He insists the facility where she lives would never have given me any information about her health.
He did not address the accusations that he had regularly denied his identity to law enforcement officers when they came to speak with him, both during our marriage and during the investigation.
He did not address accusations made in my statement concerning his perjury in the “obstructing and hindering” case, nor the discrepancies between information provided to that judge about his employment status, which differed significantly from what he told SSI/SSDI less than a year later.
He did not mention the allegations of filing false police reports and collections cases against those who had crossed him, or of intercepting security deposits he was supposed to return to tenants during the time he worked for Mr. Williams.
He insulted the intelligence of the Parole Board, was belligerent and uncooperative, and seems clueless as to the reasons he was denied parole.
He will be released in early 2018. I just hope Lauren and I can get enough counseling by then to have the emotional tools to deal with running into him unexpectedly after his release.WE DID IT! Convicted pedophile Donald Scott Brunstetter (details in the CAPER - Citizens Against Pedophile's Early Release Forum http://www.websleuths.com/forums/for...ht-on-Children) will remain behind bars for the duration of his sentence. Thanks to WS members, and Tricia's True Crime Radio listeners, at least 100 letters were received by the Parole Board prior to his July 30th, 2015 Parole Hearing, opposing his release, and they listened.
Visit http://noparole4pedophile.weebly.com/ for background on the case.
My posts are strictly MY opinion under circumstances when many points of view need to be considered. I apologize in advance to anyone whose potential involvement is contemplated in error, or who may be offended because I do not see eye to eye with them on all matters related to this case. I hope our differences can be set aside as we unite in the search for this victim or the perpetrator of this crime. Your opinions and insights are just as valuable as mine.
08-01-2015, 01:43 AM #6
Nominate a post for the Websleuths Post of the Day this weekend by clicking HERE
By fhc in forum Past Trial Discussion ThreadsReplies: 13Last Post: 03-26-2016, 01:53 PM
By Vegas Bride in forum Serial KillersReplies: 2Last Post: 08-14-2012, 01:00 PM
By UdbCrzy2 in forum Past Trial Discussion ThreadsReplies: 1Last Post: 10-29-2011, 11:47 PM