Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #22

Starr58 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Medea said:

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.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS/106817325/0/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.

Click to expand...

Medea said:

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.

Click to expand...

lisalei321 said:

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?:furious:

Click to expand...

marly56 said:

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''

Click to expand...

Medea said:

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...

Click to expand...

Catfish said:

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/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/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

Click to expand...

LI_Mom said:

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?

Click to expand...

LI_Mom said:

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?

Click to expand...

Medea said:

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.....

Click to expand...

marly56 said:

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...

Click to expand...

Catfish said:

Hi Marly,

When I discussed this case with my wife, this was her theory also. She also pointed out that leaving the plastic "sandwich" bag may have been done to show the semen evidence was planted also, since the bag probably contained traces of Juv2's semen.

However, when I read the Federal Affidavit for Uncle Michael, I learned on Page 2, Pargraph 5 that on June 26th, Jacques notified Vermont State Police he had located a sneaker.

If someone else planted this evidence close to Uncle Michael's to implicate him, I think he wouldn't have notified police that he found it.

I believe he planted the shoes, underwear, handkerchief, and the plastic bag himself. But why, and especially why leave the plastic bag?

-Catfish

Click to expand...

Catfish said:

Hi Marly,

When I discussed this case with my wife, this was her theory also. She also pointed out that leaving the plastic "sandwich" bag may have been done to show the semen evidence was planted also, since the bag probably contained traces of Juv2's semen.

However, when I read the Federal Affidavit for Uncle Michael, I learned on Page 2, Pargraph 5 that on June 26th, Jacques notified Vermont State Police he had located a sneaker.

If someone else planted this evidence close to Uncle Michael's to implicate him, I think he wouldn't have notified police that he found it.

I believe he planted the shoes, underwear, handkerchief, and the plastic bag himself. But why, and especially why leave the plastic bag?

-Catfish

Click to expand...

jnodrog said:

Just so you all know the planted evidence was not that close to MJs home, it is actually almost 9 miles from the Floating Bridge swimming area in Brookfield to MJs home. But it is 9 miles in the total opposite direction of the burial area. Allen

Click to expand...