Brooke Bennett, 12 yrs. old Randolph, VT #10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liz

I am not a chemist and this is not my 1st rodeo
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
25,446
Reaction score
5
This is one tough case to follow, poor Brooke my heart breaks for her. Regarding Monday's hearing, is this judge one who has given light sentences to sex offenders in the past? Is he the one Bill O'Rielly investigated?

No, it's not Cashman. Cashman was forced into retirement (thanks largely to Bill O'Reilly).

However, this lady judge was Cashman's boss; and she could have fired him or forced him to step down and did not. So probably not a whole lot better.
 

SeriouslySearching

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
35,527
Reaction score
186
Yes, its against the law, but I still don't think that most viewers of child *advertiser censored* are abusing actual children, that is why for so long the child *advertiser censored* sentences were really light, and finally the laws were changed in recognition of the fact that w/out the 'market' these children wouldn't be abused on film.

However, I still don't believe it is the "same" as actually, physically abusing a child and I don't think most people who view child *advertiser censored* abuse children, the stats just don't back that up.
How would you propose they go about getting those stats? Men who view child *advertiser censored* are the same men who molest them. I do not think that they "passively" watch child *advertiser censored* and never make a move to actually touch a child. I don't believe the carp that NAMBLA or the LGL's of the world want us to believe.
The laws were so light, imo, because some of the men in power to create such laws are some that also participate behind closed doors. Outrage finally won. This is the very reason the laws are so very stict now when it comes to child *advertiser censored*.

Are you taking up for child *advertiser censored* viewers here? I guess I don't understand where you are coming from.
 

Moe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
180
Thank you Liz, perhaps the Cashman episode has taught her a thing or two though.
 

SeriouslySearching

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
35,527
Reaction score
186
Thankyou, I completely forgot that today is Saturday! I have all my days mixed up. I didn't sleep well last night as this has been weighing on my mind.Was there anything reported about Juv2 being interviewed?
Nothing has been reported that I know of, but we know they have extensively questioned him as his DNA was found on her things and he was placed at the scene after the abduction to pick up AR.
 

philamena

Former Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
7,765
Reaction score
34
I know I'm pages behind, but something just struck me as odd...IF Brooke was running away TO Texas, wouldn't it have looked better for RG to stay in Tx just incase she tried to call or get to him for help? He messed up by not calling LE right when he found out and they would have told him to stay put by a phone.

becca, good morning!
Nevermind. I see that was already addressed. ;)
 

SuziQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
38,254
Reaction score
41,264
Thankyou, I completely forgot that today is Saturday! I have all my days mixed up. I didn't sleep well last night as this has been weighing on my mind.Was there anything reported about Juv2 being interviewed?

You and me both! I haven't heard anything about Juv2 other than what's in the affidavits.
 

SeriouslySearching

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
35,527
Reaction score
186
Not if you ask Bill Clinton. lol

Please, I'm by no means trying to imply that RG is an innocent bystander!
(Please forgive me for not putting the word "SEX" after oral!)
I must admit the name did pop into my head when I was posting that. :rolleyes:
 

SuziQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
38,254
Reaction score
41,264
Thank you Liz, perhaps the Cashman episode has taught her a thing or two though.

Unfortunately it didn't, Judge Davenport (Cashman's former boss) is the one who gave MJ low bail and "work curfew".
 

Medea

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
How would you propose they go about getting those stats? Men who view child *advertiser censored* are the same men who molest them. I do not think that they "passively" watch child *advertiser censored* and never make a move to actually touch a child. I don't believe the carp that NAMBLA or the LGL's of the world want us to believe.
The laws were so light, imo, because some of the men in power to create such laws are some that also participate behind closed doors. Outrage finally won. This is the very reason the laws are so very stict now when it comes to child *advertiser censored*.

Are you taking up for child *advertiser censored* viewers here? I guess I don't understand where you are coming from.

All I am saying is that I don't believe it is the same thing and I don't believe that all or even most who view child *advertiser censored* are also victimizing children themselves. I believe most of them are living vicariously through the *advertiser censored* images. It is a huge jump that isn't backed up by any evidence to say that all/most people who possess child *advertiser censored* also are abusing victims in their own lives.

Where are Westerfield's other victims? Where is the boy scout leader's victims? There aren't any. When some guy is sent to prison for 30 years for possessing child pornogrpahy, where are his real life victims, who he abused personally? It is one thing for a victim not to come forward on his/her own...but when the person has been proven to be a pervert, arrested w/child *advertiser censored* there is no reason why a victim would not come forward to authorities. So, to me, if you get arrested for child *advertiser censored* and no victims come forward that means you, yourself, did not abuse any children in real life.

People who possess child *advertiser censored* should go to prison. But, to my mind, it is not the same as harming a child yourself, up close and personal.

*advertiser censored* on the whole is destructive because most people without *advertiser censored* images of any kind would NEVER in their wildest dreams imagine the things they see..so it increases the chance for devient behavior, it increases the liklihood of deviant behavior but viewing does not automatically equate with doing.
 

MCDRAW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
9,034
They watch it because they're perverts, and yes, they are still taking part in the victimization of a child.

But, which is worse? Viewing the abuse that someone else has actually committed or committing it yourself? I would say that as bad as viewing/buying child *advertiser censored* is, it is not as bad as abusing a child yourself.

So, to me, Gagnon, while a pervert who deserves to go to prison is still not as bad as Jacques, who willfully has destroyed the life and mind of a little child every day for five years. To me, the evil that it takes to abuse and twist the mind of a child is simply not comparable to some guy watching it on his laptop.


I will never believe that child *advertiser censored* is ok to watch. In Criminal Justice, they teach you that there are steps that rapist take. It may start out as prank calls, then goes to peeping toms, then move on to rapist. I firmly believe that everyone that watches child *advertiser censored* is a molester in the making.
 

MCDRAW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
9,034
All I am saying is that I don't believe it is the same thing and I don't believe that all or even most who view child *advertiser censored* are also victimizing children themselves. I believe most of them are living vicariously through the *advertiser censored* images. It is a huge jump that isn't backed up by any evidence to say that all/most people who possess child *advertiser censored* also are abusing victims in their own lives.

Where are Westerfield's other victims? Where is the boy scout leader's victims? There aren't any. When some guy is sent to prison for 30 years for possessing child pornogrpahy, where are his real life victims, who he abused personally? It is one thing for a victim not to come forward on his/her own...but when the person has been proven to be a pervert, arrested w/child *advertiser censored* there is no reason why a victim would not come forward to authorities. So, to me, if you get arrested for child *advertiser censored* and no victims come forward that means you, yourself, did not abuse any children in real life.

People who possess child *advertiser censored* should go to prison. But, to my mind, it is not the same as harming a child yourself, up close and personal.

*advertiser censored* on the whole is destructive because most people without *advertiser censored* images of any kind would NEVER in their wildest dreams imagine the things they see..so it increases the chance for devient behavior, it increases the liklihood of deviant behavior but viewing does not automatically equate with doing.


Victims don't come forward because they would have to testify, the reason most rape victims don't come forward.
 

Moe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
180
I will never believe that child *advertiser censored* is ok to watch. In Criminal Justice, they teach you that there are steps that rapist take. It may start out as prank calls, then goes to peeping toms, then move on to rapist. I firmly believe that everyone that watches child *advertiser censored* is a molester in the making.
We don't have sick minds like these folks who get their jollies from watching children being persecuted right before their eyes.
 

SeriouslySearching

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
35,527
Reaction score
186
There are millions of children who do not tell about sexual abuse by someone in authority over them, someone in their family, or other scenarios. Am I surprised that no one came forward in those cases?! No. Do I honestly believe those men had real life victims? Absolutely I do!!
 

Beyond Belief

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
14,496
Reaction score
60
Its supply and demand. If there was no demand (sicko viewers), then kids wouldn't be abused to meet the demand.
 

Liz

I am not a chemist and this is not my 1st rodeo
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
25,446
Reaction score
5
By changing her myspace to make it look like she ranaway it became a ruse ... her trip wasn't planned for that Wed.

I guess it's all in one's perception.

I didn't perceive it to be a ruse about her running away to TX, but rather of one to meet up with a boy.

It's not been confirmed, or even suggested, that the info Brooke had on her page about going to TX was ever altered.

The altering done was with regards to her meeting a boyfriend. And thus the (ruse of the) sperm planted.
 

Medea

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
I will never believe that child *advertiser censored* is ok to watch. In Criminal Justice, they teach you that there are steps that rapist take. It may start out as prank calls, then goes to peeping toms, then move on to rapist. I firmly believe that everyone that watches child *advertiser censored* is a molester in the making.


I'm not saying its okay to watch. Good grief.

I am saying that not everyone who watches child *advertiser censored* also abuses children in real life.

I absolutely believe that child *advertiser censored* increases the chance that the viewer WILL act on his impulses. What I don't believe is that all or most who watch it are acting on those impulses.

What I will also throw out there is that it is EASY to convict the guy who has 10,000 images of child *advertiser censored* on his computer. That guy is going to jail for 20+ years every time. The father/step father/boyfriend who rapes the children in the house goes unnoticed and unpunished.

How many times are no charges brought because there isn't any physical evidence? How many times to juries refuse to convict on the word of the victim? Do you really believe that a jury would have convicted Jacques back in the 80's? He's having sex w/his 15 year old relative at 18? The only evidence is her word? His lawyer would have said "the relationship was consensual and started last year...once she got pregnant she made up the rape lie to stay out of trouble...and he would have been acquitted. This is the real problem with sex crimes. Victims are not believed unless they are on tape.
 

Medea

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Victims don't come forward because they would have to testify, the reason most rape victims don't come forward.


It's not the same thing. Once the perp has been convicted of possessing child *advertiser censored* any victim would automatically be believed.

Rape victims and child molestation victims don't come forward because no one believes them. That's the real problem. Without irrefutable evidence like child *advertiser censored* on the computer, juries don't believe victims.
 

SeriouslySearching

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
35,527
Reaction score
186
Yes, BB. That is why it is a multi-billion dollar business. Supply and Demand for pervs.
 

Medea

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
I guess it's all in one's perception.

I didn't perceive it to be a ruse about her running away to TX, but rather of one to meet up with a boy.

It's not been confirmed, or even suggested, that the info Brooke had on her page about going to TX was ever altered.

The altering done was with regards to her meeting a boyfriend. And thus the (ruse of the) sperm planted.



I thought the FBI said that entire email abouit going to Texas with the boyfriend was fabricated by Jacques. Brooke never wrote that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top