Page 5 of 39 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 575
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,910
    I was thinking about Brooke today. It will be a month that she went missing in 4 days.


  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin County, Vermont
    Posts
    372

    Vermont POlice Seek Missing Sex Offenders

    http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8710454

    Chittenden County, Vermont - July 21, 2008

    Chittenden County authorities are looking for 21 convicted sex offenders.

    Police say the annual check of the county's 307 registered sex offenders revealed that 26 have moved without notifying the registry as required by law. Five have already been found and arrested. Police are getting warrants to go after the others.


  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Starr58 View Post
    http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=8710454

    Chittenden County, Vermont - July 21, 2008

    Chittenden County authorities are looking for 21 convicted sex offenders.

    Police say the annual check of the county's 307 registered sex offenders revealed that 26 have moved without notifying the registry as required by law. Five have already been found and arrested. Police are getting warrants to go after the others.
    Thanks for the link Starr58.
    All IMO.


  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Medea View Post
    I'm just wondering what caused the new probation officer to have such a different view than the one from 1996.

    http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....25/0/FRONTPAGE


    "Mr. Jacques and I have often discussed his history in detail, not just in relation to his current offense .... These discussions revealed the following. He has committed multiple offenses, including: sexually assaulting a 13-year-old female, which led to conviction for L&L - lewd and lascivious - (amended from sexual assault), for which he received a deferred sentence; He had coerced sexual activities with (the aforementioned victim) when she was eight years of age. These activities included fondling, oral sex and sexual intercourse and took place over a period of years. (The victim) eventually was impregnated by him and an abortion was performed. Mr. Jacques was charged with L&L which [sic] later dismissed; An incident at a party he was attending, during which he disrobed and raped an unconscious woman. There were no charges or investigation of this matter; And the current offense, during which he hand-cuffed an unconscious woman...He forced the victim to participate in a variety of sexual activities over several hours. He took her to an area in a wood and forced her to her knees while he stood behind her with a knife to her throat, telling her he was going to execute her ... I have spoken with the victim in this case, and she remains convinced that Mr. Jacques' true intent was to execute her and that she was in fact, spared for unknown reasons. It should be noted that during the period that Mr. Jacques held the victim captive, he related to her that he had previously committed a similar offense in Arizona with a 12-year-old child, that he killed her by cutting her throat. While Mr. Jacques had spent time in Arizona, no evidence of his claim was found.

    "Mr. Jacques has engaged in risky, manipulative and deceitful behavior since his release. He has caused an employer to believe that he had been convicted of 'date rape,' which was a simple 'misunderstanding' - referring to the 1993 case...He has reportedly taken an intoxicated female stranger to his grandfather's house, to "drop off his dog," which replicates certain aspects of his most recent offense...He has given other indicators that he continues to engage in various fantasies and misconceptions.
    ---------------------------------------------

    This shows that Jacques admitted to having sex w/his 8 year old relative, and admits to another uncharged rape of an unconscious woman AND there is an incident where he brings an unknown unconscious woman to his parent's home.....

    Based on what the probation officer says, it seems like Jacques likes his victims incapacitated, so I wonder if people who suspected he may have given Brooke some kind of drug might be right...

    This just doesn't sound like someone who is a candidate for rehabilitation.
    i suspect this also and if ar was truthful in her statement then i believe [imo] where ar states that they went back to mj's place she [ar] and brooke stayed on couch and watched tv . maybe brooke was given a drug and mj was waiting for the drug to take effect before the ''take down''


  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Medea View Post
    This piece also gives more info. on why the DA went for the plea agreement in the first place..highly intoxicated victim who I think had been at a bar earlier with Jacques and another man..left willingly...then was involved in some type of accident...

    I can see where the prosecutor could have easily feared that a jury would not convict Jacques based on a defense of consensual rough sex with a drunken woman who had a car wreck the same night, it is only her word that he pulled a knife on her.

    Which brings me back to my core belief that the REAL problem with sex offenders is not the lack of tough laws but the problem with convictions...same exact reason that Avila was acquitted of child molestation and the guy who killed Carlie Brucsia was acquitted of attempted kidnapping....juries have a very narrow view of 'rape' and if the case doesn't fit that view then they are most likely going to acquit.

    Plus, the fact that Jacquies priors would not have been admitted...which is an area of the law that needs to be changed.
    i think the only way a jury can get a COMPLETE PROFILE on a perp is to view their priors.


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by lisalei321 View Post
    From the links thread (thanks Liz):

    http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb.../NEWS/10176938

    In 1997, a year after his release, Jacques committed his only parole violation; failing to notify authorities of an address change. Jacques was dating Denise Rice, whom he later married, and had been staying with her and her 3-year-old daughter at least five nights a week, according to court records. One of the conditions of his release was no unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16.

    Why in the name of all that's Holy, wasn't he violated then and there????? What was his PO thinking?
    I guess since the mother was there, this didn't fall under the category of "unsupervised contact?"


  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Globe, Arizona
    Posts
    27

    Why did M.J. bring the search to his own "backyard?"

    I just completed reading all 22 threads on this horrific case. There is one thing that has puzzled me from the beginning of Brooke's disappearance that I didn't see discussed here and I was wondering if anyone has any insight or theory about.

    Brooke was reported missing about 9:00 pm on June 25th. We now know that prior to her disapperance, Uncle Michael Jacques took several steps to make it appear that she had met someone online, took her into a convience store so they would be taped leaving in opposite directions from the store and had A.R. confirm taking Brooke to the store to meet a friend, to visit that friend's relative in the hospital.

    On June 26th, "police believe Brooke Bennett lied about meeting the girlfriend and may have been bound for a meeting with an unknown individual with whom she had communicated through MySpace.com, an online social networking site." http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...NEWS/154350035

    An Amber Alert is issued.

    M.J.'s plan seemed to be working well. There is 1700 miles of highway between Vermont and Texas to be searched. And Texas is a very, very large state to begin searching for Brooke.

    With the police statements and the Amber Alert directing attention west towards Texas, why, on June 26th, did Uncle Michael "find" articles of Brook's clothing just a few miles from his home? I don't understand why he brought the search to his own "backyard" in less than 24 hours after she was reported missing?

    -Catfish


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by marly56 View Post
    i suspect this also and if ar was truthful in her statement then i believe [imo] where ar states that they went back to mj's place she [ar] and brooke stayed on couch and watched tv . maybe brooke was given a drug and mj was waiting for the drug to take effect before the ''take down''
    We have to wonder if he secretly drugged her at breakfast time, even before Denise left for work....

    They sure don't want to take a chance Brooke would start to suspect what they were up to & blow the whistle at Cumberland Farms.

    Taking her in public was a BIG risk at this point.


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Medea View Post
    Based on what the probation officer says, it seems like Jacques likes his victims incapacitated, so I wonder if people who suspected he may have given Brooke some kind of drug might be right...

    Is Jacques small in stature? He looks pretty scrawny in his mugshot.


  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish View Post
    I just completed reading all 22 threads on this horrific case. There is one thing that has puzzled me from the beginning of Brooke's disappearance that I didn't see discussed here and I was wondering if anyone has any insight or theory about.

    Brooke was reported missing about 9:00 pm on June 25th. We now know that prior to her disapperance, Uncle Michael Jacques took several steps to make it appear that she had met someone online, took her into a convience store so they would be taped leaving in opposite directions from the store and had A.R. confirm taking Brooke to the store to meet a friend, to visit that friend's relative in the hospital.

    On June 26th, "police believe Brooke Bennett lied about meeting the girlfriend and may have been bound for a meeting with an unknown individual with whom she had communicated through MySpace.com, an online social networking site." http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...NEWS/154350035

    An Amber Alert is issued.

    M.J.'s plan seemed to be working well. There is 1700 miles of highway between Vermont and Texas to be searched. And Texas is a very, very large state to begin searching for Brooke.

    With the police statements and the Amber Alert directing attention west towards Texas, why, on June 26th, did Uncle Michael "find" articles of Brook's clothing just a few miles from his home? I don't understand why he brought the search to his own "backyard" in less than 24 hours after she was reported missing?

    -Catfish
    You're right.... that really made no sense.

    I wonder if there was any DNA found on this evidence? WHO left it there?

    They're being watched & can't travel further away to plant the evidence OR the person who planted it didn't follow the original plan.... got lazy & dumped it there?


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Globe, Arizona
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by LI_Mom View Post
    You're right.... that really made no sense.

    I wonder if there was any DNA found on this evidence? WHO left it there?

    They're being watched & can't travel further away to plant the evidence OR the person who planted it didn't follow the original plan.... got lazy & dumped it there?
    Hi LIMom,

    Thank's for your reply. I agree, I cannot make any sense of him bringing the search to his "own backyard."

    DNA was found on this evidence. On page 2. paragraph 6 of the Federal Affidavit we learn that preliminary results show that DNA consistent with Brooke's was found on her underwear and on the handkerchief. We also read in that same paragraph that semen found did not belong to Uncle Michael.

    Here's something else I don't understand. Why didn't the perpatrator simply bury the underwear and handkerchief with the body. Then, IF the body was ever discovered, semen stains (from Juv 2) would "prove" Uncle Michael wasn't involved.

    -Catfish


  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,013
    Quote Originally Posted by LI_Mom View Post
    You're right.... that really made no sense.

    I wonder if there was any DNA found on this evidence? WHO left it there?

    They're being watched & can't travel further away to plant the evidence OR the person who planted it didn't follow the original plan.... got lazy & dumped it there?
    Yes I believe the dna evidence was some blood that belongs to Brooke and semen that was supposedly collected from AR's boyfriend.
    The place where the items were found was supposed to be a popular gathering place for kids so pos uncle could have been thinking it would look good for things to be found where police had the dna pointing to an unknown. IMO he wanted them to have that dna evidence, he mistakenly thought that would stop them from looking at him.

    VB


  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    I think key questions are being raised - the actions of MJ are very confusing - seems to have no logic or cunning at all. Almost as if 2 opposing scenarios are happening at the same time.

    vt8881


  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    698
    I had wondered that as well...maybe he panicked once the FBI had the computers and figured they would find out he changed the entires or maybe something internal to the 'plan' went wrong...I have believed Brooke died the day she went missing and probably died that afternoon, but it is possible that he kept her alive for longer than that and she died after a couple of days, at which time he knew he was being watched and so he 'found' the items in order to have time to burry her....

    I agree that based on what we know of Jacques plan...all of his actions can't be understood.....


  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Medea View Post
    I had wondered that as well...maybe he panicked once the FBI had the computers and figured they would find out he changed the entires or maybe something internal to the 'plan' went wrong...I have believed Brooke died the day she went missing and probably died that afternoon, but it is possible that he kept her alive for longer than that and she died after a couple of days, at which time he knew he was being watched and so he 'found' the items in order to have time to burry her....

    I agree that based on what we know of Jacques plan...all of his actions can't be understood.....
    there is a possibility that he gave the items to someone else [involved] to plant and that other person left them close to his property to bring attention to him. in other words to expose him as the killer...maybe the death was an accident.. maybe mj and/or others were abusing brooke[rip] and mj went off the deep end and and...


Page 5 of 39 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #20
    By christine2448 in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 414
    Last Post: 07-14-2008, 01:20 PM
  2. Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #19
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 492
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 02:43 PM
  3. Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #15
    By christine2448 in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 377
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 11:38 PM
  4. Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #13
    By christine2448 in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 511
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 03:53 AM
  5. Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #12
    By w1df10wr in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 491
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 04:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •