Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #22

New Posts

becca said:
its obstruction not aiding and abetting... different crime... why I don't know ... but the CP charges will carry some heavy prison time.
Click to expand...

Right, thanks....it is obstruction now.

I was just wondering if LE might have found he played a bigger part in the Brooke case than they made public.

Yes, the CP will get him some heavy time... but nothing like MJ is facing.
 
LI_Mom said:
Right, thanks....it is obstruction now.

I was just wondering if LE might have found he played a bigger part in the Brooke case than they made public.

Yes, the CP will get him some heavy time... but nothing like MJ is facing.
Click to expand...
I would guess 10-15 if not more... MJ is looking at the DP for his role in the kidnapping.
There has to be a reason that RG is charged in different states for the same thing... they really want this guy behind the eight ball..... so LE must think he knows more than he's said... its a bargaining thing.
 
becca said:
I would guess 10-15 if not more... MJ is looking at the DP for his role in the kidnapping.
There has to be a reason that RG is charged in different states for the same thing... they really want this guy behind the eight ball..... so LE must think he knows more than he's said... its a bargaining thing.
Click to expand...

ITA, becca.

With so many calling for all the parents to be thrown in jail or worse....

I really just wanted to try to remind people to be more realistic about the few pieces of FACT we know & what will probably happen with all the people involved in this complicated case.


RG has a problem in more than one state, since he had/used computers in Texas AND Ala & who knows where else? Hopefully they can give him consecutive sentences for his CP charges.

And isn't he facing some assault charge or something down in Texas? Not at all involved in the Brooke case.
 
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:
 
texas48 said:
You are so right marly...People are more than willing to pick up a video cam and depending on amount of money offered will give buyers anything they want. Money can get people to do alot of things.
Click to expand...

And I think it's pretty obvious that there would be a market for such a thing.

Someone posted that one scary article about the upper-class British perv; he and his online friends were apparently into just this kind of fantasy. They cannot be the only ones out there, and I'm sure plenty of them have money.

It is believable to me that, twenty years ago, snuff films were only an urban legend and a horror story. But in the Internet age, with the networking possibilities we have now and the relative ease of making a video and uploading it, it's only logical that there is material of this kind being made, bought, and sold.

For some reason, the government keeps pretty quiet on this topic. Look at the secrecy surrounding even this case. Perhaps it's just too horrifying.
 
LI_Mom said:
ITA, becca.

With so many calling for all the parents to be thrown in jail or worse....

I really just wanted to try to remind people to be more realistic about the few pieces of FACT we know & what will probably happen with all the people involved in this complicated case.


RG has a problem in more than one state, since he had/used computers in Texas AND Ala & who knows where else? Hopefully they can give him consecutive sentences for his CP charges.

And isn't he facing some assault charge or something down in Texas? Not at all involved in the Brooke case.
Click to expand...
I agree we need to be careful of the FACTS . We don't have that many and what we do have is sparse. Meaning I think they are half the truth and not all of it.
In otherwords there is alot we don't know about that is going on here. Things that will come out at trial but not before.
 
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...


You're right, Lisa and it's maddening ... what *were* they thinking!?
 
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...

I have had that same thought as it was what - Only two years ago that he was released from probation? What was the punishment he received for that violation instead of being reincarcerted for the remainder of his sentence?! I highly doubt that any of the children within reach of this monster made it out without a story to tell.

IF there is any law suit - Brook's dad might have a chance fown this avenue. There were cases here in Florida where the victim's family sued the State and the Department of Corrections:)rolleyes:) for the early releases of inmates that went on to commit further crimes on a date that they should have been behind bars. :behindbar
 
RiverRat said:
I have had that same thought as it was what - Only two years ago that he was released from probation? What was the punishment he received for that violation instead of being reincarcerted for the remainder of his sentence?! I highly doubt that any of the children within reach of this monster made it out without a story to tell.

IF there is any law suit - Brook's dad might have a chance fown this avenue. There were cases here in Florida where the victim's family sued the State and the Department of Corrections:)rolleyes:) for the early releases of inmates that went on to commit further crimes on a date that they should have been behind bars. :behindbar
Click to expand...

ITA, RR. That is exactly what I posted early on in this case, that I imagined the probability of a family lawsuit, with total justification, IMO.
 
I'm curious about the search for the safe/hard drive. Did LE/Feds find it in the landfill? Are they done searching the landfill? Has anyone heard any updates about this? TIA.
 
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...


Thats why sexual predators migrate to Vermont. The DOC in Vermont and the Judicial System is a JOKE!!
 
becca said:
I agree we need to be careful of the FACTS . We don't have that many and what we do have is sparse. Meaning I think they are half the truth and not all of it.
In otherwords there is alot we don't know about that is going on here. Things that will come out at trial but not before.[/QUOTE]

If there is one.....could just plead guilty to a lessor charge and the secrets in this family would remain hidden ....until the next offense
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
I can't find anything new about the search. Almost as if the media forgot about it. :waitasec: Is it possible if something did turn up in the landfill that they would keep it completely under wraps? I'm thinking that may be the case as to not "tip" anyone off, meaning there may actually be more people involved. I just find it odd I couldn't find anything stating they are still currently searching or not... Regardless of something being found. :confused:
 
lightinthedark said:
I can't find anything new about the search. Almost as if the media forgot about it. :waitasec: Is it possible if something did turn up in the landfill that they would keep it completely under wraps? I'm thinking that may be the case as to not "tip" anyone off, meaning there may actually be more people involved. I just find it odd I couldn't find anything stating they are still currently searching or not... Regardless of something being found. :confused:
Click to expand...

You might want to try writing to one of the reporters in Texas that covered that part of this crime. They may have the info or be willing to find out for you. It can't hurt to contact them.
 
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...
Or probabtion...IMO.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 128 more.
Total: 2,931 (members: 129, guests: 2,802)

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,802
Total visitors
2,931
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,886
Messages
17,960,372
Members
228,624
Latest member
julandken
Back
Top