Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #16

[MrsMush99]

Unless I am a total idiot, this is what he meant. I thought that AR responded that she didn't want to spend time with Brooke.

I think that's exactly what was meant also. I DID NOT take it to mean that she didn't know if she wanted to spend time with her while she was at her house.

 

[MrsMush99]

My understanding the problem from yesterday evolved from discussing a minor who was not named publicly by the media and in the affidavits. Although I'm always confused by protecting a vic when it's up in the air whether a vic is a vic or a perp. The media has reported that the feds have no plans to charge AR with a crime. Then reported that the feds declined to say whether AR faces any charges. :waitasec:

I guess I'll just keep my mouth shut then until it's more clear what her involvement was, if any.

 

[Adalena935]

I went to read Denise's statement and it's all blacked out. Am I missing something? Not looking in the right place?

Denise's statements to law enforcement is not blacked out on the affidavits. They're paraphrased by Law Enforcement on the affidavits. But not blacked out. All that's blacked out is the names of minor children.

 

[MrsMush99]

I think there are 2 versions of the affidavit. One heavily censored and one, not so much.

Thanks Amster. Is this affidavit on the affidavit thread? Or did I miss out on reading it?

 

[liljim]

my understanding of the sticky is that AR's involvement in the case is open for discussion, but she cannot be named or be attacked for her part (as we openly attack MJ) in consideration of her minor status and of the level of coercion/deception she has been thru and how it obviously effected the role she played in these crimes.

is that about right?

 

[evelyn24]

Let's see how many people we can have walk on eggshells until this forum is down to a select few. Geez...

I also do not think that she has told the truth about her involvement. Does that mean that she is complicit in anything? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if she was had lured more than one person to MJ.

From the affidavits and released emails, it is obvious that AR and MJ were devising lies to get Brooke into the house to set her up for the take down. When you agree to help an adult tie up and take down an unwilling participant, nothing good can result from that. I think that MJ intended to murder Brooke to keep her from talking. He made the mistake of letting his employee go years ago and went to prison for it. I don't think that he intended on making that mistake again.

I agree with this post!!

 

[SuziQ]

Denise's statements to law enforcement is not blacked out on the affidavits. They're paraphrased by Law Enforcement on the affidavits. But not blacked out. All that's blacked out is the names of minor children.

The original poorly redacted statement was pulled by the media quickly. And the second one released does black out Denise's statement. I do believe though, that both versions are on the affidavits thread?

 

[MrsMush99]

The original poorly redacted statement was pulled by the media quickly. And the second one released does black out Denise's statement. I do believe though, that both versions are on the affidavits thread?

Thanks, I thought I read them all, but I'll go back and have another look.

 

[Amster]

Thanks Amster. Is this affidavit on the affidavit thread? Or did I miss out on reading it?

Oh gosh, I think so....I saved the original, less redacted version. so I haven't looked on the affidavit thread. Sorry...

 

[MrsMush99]

Oh gosh, I think so....I saved the original, less redacted version. so I haven't looked on the affidavit thread. Sorry...

Thanks, I'm looking through them now but I don't see it, so I have no idea what Denise had to say.

 

[DianeB]

This is the affidavit with the least amount of redaction:

http://www.websleuths.com/cases/bennett/Brooke Bennett Affidavit Jul 3 emails.pdf

The redactions themselves are pretty skimpy, because cutting and pasting them into a program even as basic as MS Paint is enough to reveal what's under there.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I don't know the chain of command, but is probations part of corrections? Because the PO wrote that Jacques was a "probation success story". Which is weird because the original PO said Jacques was the stuff of nightmares.

I took it to mean that corrections, which I think PO would be a part of, did not want him released and that is what this man is saying their records indicate. That the judge saying that the PO wrote that Jacques was a success story was inaccurate. That in effect he can't figure where that comment came from or who made it, other then the judge. I could be mis-interpreting what he said..but that's the way I read it..that corrections and PO never felt that Jacques should be off probation at that time. He's trying to figure out where that info the judge is referring to came from.

 

[christine2448]

Posted by Administrator


NOW - on the subject of "A.R." Websleuths is dedicated to justice for the victims of crime and the prosecution of criminals. Based on the information available SO FAR it is clear that "A.R." IS a victim of crime and MAY BE a perpetrator as well. She is also, at 14, a minor. SO - until more information comes out, here's the deal:

--She will NOT have her real name revealed here (following the rules for minors above);

--She will NOT be attacked as a criminal perpetrator due to the undisputed circumstances of her sexual abuse at the hands of the real criminals here (following the rules for victims of sexual assault above)

Should circumstances change we'll change the rule, but after reading the above explanation the staff here is sure will agree with this policy.

Some of you may not agree with this conclusion and policy. If so, see below:

--Don't do it because we're telling you not to. Don't PM us and ask us to change our minds. Don't post about how much you disagree. This is how it will be.

 

[DianeB]

I think what may be confusing (it's confusing me, anyway) is at what point speculation about AR's knowledge and involvement becomes an attack.

It's a fine line.

 

[Amster]

my understanding of the sticky is that AR's involvement in the case is open for discussion, but she cannot be named or be attacked for her part (as we openly attack MJ) in consideration of her minor status and of the level of coercion/deception she has been thru and how it obviously effected the role she played in these crimes.

is that about right?

I really don't know...

I'm just going to read along....I'm tired of being corrected for giving my opinion. Until a couple of days ago, there wasn't any problem with giving opinions, speculating, etc. Now, I'm too unsure of what is allowed, what won't offend, etc.

:book:-------me

 

[SuziQ]

I took it to mean that corrections, which I think PO would be a part of, did not want him released and that is what this man is saying their records indicate. That the judge saying that the PO wrote that Jacques was a success story was inaccurate. That in effect he can't figure where that comment came from or who made it, other then the judge. I could be mis-interpreting what he said..but that's the way I read it..that corrections and PO never felt that Jacques should be off probation at that time. He's trying to figure out where that info the judge is referring to came from.

It will be interesting to see the outcome on this.

 

[Medea]

I also think its kind of a fine line...the emails are an admission that AR participated in planning the abduction of Brooke Bennett, her statements as outlined in the affidavidt are a further admission of her participation in the abduction of Brooke.

This to me is a fact of the case. What is a judgement that apparently is premature is what her moral or legal culpability is or should be--since she is a confirmed victim of child rape at the very least---and that speculation on her involvement beyond what is outlined in the affidvadts should not be discussed.

 

[liljim]

considering the things they discussed in the few emails we have seen they obviously consider it a safe medium to discuss anything, so LE must have a LOT more emails that make things clearer, i doubt we will hear about any of that before trial tho, possibly some of it at their next hearing.

 

[cheko1]

Truer words have never been spoken cheko1. Every state has problems or lack of their laws but it is up to us as parents to protect our children in every way. We can not place blame on everyone else for what happened. Us as a society have to speak up. Parents can not just sit back and say they have done all they can do. One cannot say "I cannot keep up with my children 24-7" We as parents have to put our kids first and be involved in their lives even to the point of being over protective. These parents(all of them) knew what they had around them and their children. It was not up to the state of Vermont to say "You kids can not go anywhere around MJ" PARENTS MUST THINK!!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[angelwngs]

Personally, I think what makes this case so difficult to explain in written words in relation to the guidelines for posting discussions of the juvenile players, is that one juvenile has been published as deeply 'involved' in Brooke's case. The thing that excludes her from the standard TOS 'rules of thumb', is that her actions are seen to have been a result of the manipulation and brainwashing of an adult convicted SO.

I might be incorrect, but I think as long as we discuss her publicized involvement in that vein, understanding that she did what she did due to MJ's influence, that those posts are acceptable. I think we can even speculate what possibly happened to include her suggested involvement as long as we do not hold her accountable for her actions. Instead our discussions and speculations must reflect that she did or may have done whatever due to MJ's influence over her.

Christine, do I have a clue what I am talking about here? :crazy: