Brooke Bennett, 12 years old Randolph VT #19

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, I haven't seen this affidavit. I only knew of one affidavit released of RG.

I've been in contact with many reporters in Vermont and Alabama trying to hunt this affidavit down. Supposedly a couple of reporters in Alabama have the original copy that AP wrote their articles from. The only response I've gotten from several reporters is that if they get a copy of it, they will post it online. It hasn't happened yet.
 
If my math is correct, the FBI assigned a half dozen agents to this case while Brooke was missing. There were also a half dozen Vermont police detectives working the case.

Add to that the state and federal LE agents based in Alabama and Texas (and Arizona?) that were brought into the loop as more information came to light, the additional computer forensics examiners needed for all the computers involved, and I'd venture to say there must be over two dozen investigators working full time on preparing this case for prosecution.

There must be a mountain of evidence they're amassing. The delay in filing murder charges may be in some way related to the child *advertiser censored* ring that was revealed as a result of Brooke's disappearance.
 
I've been in contact with many reporters in Vermont and Alabama trying to hunt this affidavit down. Supposedly a couple of reporters in Alabama have the original copy that AP wrote their articles from. The only response I've gotten from several reporters is that if they get a copy of it, they will post it online. It hasn't happened yet.

Thank you for scoping it out!
 
We need to step back a little on some of the known facts here:
We do not have a COD or TOD if I haven't missed something huge. The assumption that Brookes was lured to her death by her cousin, that her uncle actually did the killing and that she was tortured sexually first is just an assumption at this point....

I don't think it's good sleuthing to ignore the facts we do have though. AR did lure Brooke to her death. Whether AR knew it would lead to Brooke's death or not is another matter. We know MJ planned to sexually torture Brooke. The sex machine is listed in the affidavit for a reason. To think he didn't is a poor assumption.
 
from what ive read ,brooke was an all around wholesome girl ,she laughed alot, made friends easily, innocent girl verses creepo pedophile. if brooke had survived she could have been the one in the family to break the victim cycle.

You are right!
 
It is not a leap to assume that MJ murdered Brooke. The Feds are taking this to a grand jury to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Murder charges will not be brought before then. And it could take 6 month or longer. The Feds will not rush and get this wrong. Heck, they aren't even done investigating! MJ is behind bars for a capital offense that could lead to the death penalty, there is no rush to charge him with murder

Thank you.
 
The sex machine is listed in the affidavit for a reason. To think he didn't is a poor assumption.
The inclusion of the mechanical dildo in the affidavit may have been to demonstrate that MJ is a fetishist.

It's not a torture device, it's a Rube Goldberg-like sex toy.

What would have made it torturous is the size of the 'attachment' that was ordered, but we have no direct connection between the purchase of that device and Brooke.

For all we know, it could have been ordered with the intention of using it on himself, since it would eliminate the need for a partner should he be inclined to indulge in that type of sex.
 
The inclusion of the mechanical dildo in the affidavit may have been to demonstrate that MJ is a fetishist.

It's not a torture device, it's a Rube Goldberg-like sex toy.

What would have made it torturous is the size of the 'attachment' that was ordered, but we have no direct connection between the purchase of that device and Brooke.

For all we know, it could have been ordered with the intention of using it on himself, since it would eliminate the need for a partner should he be inclined to indulge in that type of sex.

There would have been no point in listing the device in the affidavit unless it was intended to be used on Brooke or had been used on her. That device is torture when used on someone who doesn't want it used on them. Especially on a 12 year old who was probably a virgin.
 
There would have been no point in listing the device in the affidavit unless it was intended to be used on Brooke or had been used on her. That device is torture when used on someone who doesn't want it used on them. Especially on a 12 year old who was probably a virgin.
I can't presume to know why LE included that information in the affidavit. I do know there was no connection made in the affidavit as to its use. No one here knows if Brooke was or wasn't a virgin, but as it's a hot-button topic I'm staying away from speculating about that issue because there are such profound differences of opinion here as to whether it's an appropriate topic for dispassionate discussion.

Just trying to look objectively at all the possible angles here based on the scant information we have... no offense intended.
 
Medea,

...let's go find the safe, lol.

Now that's a great idea. I say, If CG called KG at 4:30 am ET (or appx 2:30-3:00 am Antonio time [right?]), what does Mrs. KG say? Is there a Mrs.?

Wouldn't a Mrs. take note of a peculiar KG walking out early in the morning with a safe in his arms?

KG lived with his fiance and her 17 yr old daughter. The apartment house where he dumped the safe is less that 1 mile from his home. One news report said the FBI was searching the landfill because of a tip.....that makes me think it wasn't being searched because of KG's statement but maybe someone removed the safe after it was dumped and finding they couldn't open it, threw it away in some other dumpster.

The FBI first said a search of the dumpster failed to locate the laptop (which was supposedly in the safe). They did not immediately start searching the landfill. If there was still a goodly amount of trash in the dumpster and there was no safe, then it's probable that someone else had the safe and called in the tip after they had disposed of it somewhere else.
 
It is not a leap to assume that MJ murdered Brooke. The Feds are taking this to a grand jury to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Murder charges will not be brought before then. And it could take 6 month or longer. The Feds will not rush and get this wrong. Heck, they aren't even done investigating! MJ is behind bars for a capital offense that could lead to the death penalty, there is no rush to charge him with murder

They have to go before a grand jury in a capital crime... federal procedure is different than most states.
 
They have to go before a grand jury in a capital crime... federal procedure is different than most states.

And in reference to your post 409, is why murder charges have not been filed.
 
No one has mentioned it today so I will. Today is (would have been) Brooke's 13th Birthday! I hope that she knows alot of people are thinking about her and that they would give anything if she was here to celebrate it with them. And I know that she is in a better place and that she is looking down at all of her friends and loved ones and helping them through this terrible horrific time. RIP,.. we love you Brooke Bennett!
 
In reading the emails again, it broke my heart. On one hand we have this 14 yr old girl talking "dirty" and seems so angry, then she says Keep my dad, me and my family safe please.

In my opinion, AR was convinced if she didnt please the Breckenridge group harm would come to her family. For 5 years MJ basically controlled every thought this young girl had by using fear I think. What a horrible thing for her to feel like the safety of her family was all on her shoulders. MJ could of convinced her Brooke was a danger, heck he could of told her that he knew Brooke had told someone about the secret Breckenridge group and the group was blaming her for letting Brooke find out and they were not happy with her, just like he told her that her mom was talking about divorce etc. So she had to fix the "problem" so Breckenridge would be happy with her and her dad, mom, and sister would be safe.

I am sure by now she has been told that the Breckenridge group was all a lie, she may not believe it yet. I pray that she gets the intense counseling she needs, and can begin to heal.
This is what I believe, too. AR participated because she felt that she had no other choice. If she didn't help get Brooke to the house, her family's life would be in danger. Breckenridge ordered that the problem be taken care of. I'm not sure that AR knew that Brooke would be killed. She was focused on protecting her family, which included MJ. He set himself up as a victim, too.

I think that AR used sexual terms, not because Brooke was experienced, but because she thought that's what Breckenridge wanted her to do. That's how they talked to her. AR was brainwashed for five years.

I just would like to know the extent of her involvement. I really think that MJ/Breckenridge wanted AR involved because it would practically guarantee her cooperation. She was involved. She would get into trouble if she told. That's why I think that she is minimizing her role and only admitting some things when she is confronted with evidence to the contrary.

I think, by now, they probably have all of the details of what happened, especially if they have assured her that she will not be prosecuted for it. I can only assume that Brooke discovered something and MJ feared that he would be discovered. That's why he targeted Brooke. If this were not the case, why wouldn't he just pick a stranger?
 
*Snips from article

*Kearney was not the only one who spoke in Jacques' favor that day. Jacques' wife, Denise Jacques, took the stand, and said that he had been a good family man and provided her and their two daughters with a happy, prosperous life.

*Denise Jacques said she was aware of her husband's rape conviction, but when prosecutor Bob DiBartolo pressed her, she said she was unfamiliar with many of the violent details of the rape.

During the hearing, Jacques said he was convicted in 1987 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 13-year-old girl. Details of that conviction, which have not been disclosed by authorities during the Bennett investigation, were not available yesterday.

That offense would be at least the third separate sex offense that Jacques had been charged with, not including the Bennett allegations, according to court documents.

*The testimony from the October 2004 hearing also details a seemingly remarkable rise for Jacques, whose life took off soon after he was released from prison in August 1996.

In 1997, he began dating Denise, a Randolph native whom he knew but was not close to in high school. They married in June 1998 and soon had a child, Courtney, now 9. The couple left Denise's mobile home and bought a fixer-upper in Randolph Center through a government auction. Jacques and his grandfather rebuilt the inside of the home.

Jacques and Denise lived in it briefly, then built a new Colonial home with a garage a couple hundred yards away. Their former home became a rental property.

Meanwhile, Jacques' career blossomed. He testified that he had worked several jobs since his release and won a promotion to a position requiring him to handle $20 million in purchases every year and travel “all over the world” as a primary negotiator. Jacques did not name the company.

Jacques had an annual income exceeding $90,000 at the time of his most recent arrest, according to documents in Orange District Court.

Published 7/12/08 Complete article here
http://www.vnews.com/07122008/4948035.htm
 
An extract from the link posted above:

Chelsea -- Michael Jacques, the Randolph man charged with kidnapping his 12-year-old niece Brooke Bennett before her death, said during a 2004 court hearing that abuse he suffered as a boy led him to sexually assault girls and young women.

“It had been an issue in my life for quite a long time, since I was probably about seven years old, actually,” Jacques, who is now 42, said during an October 2004 hearing in which he requested to be released from probation, according to a transcript obtained by the Valley News yesterday. “I was abused when I was seven until I was ten years old and that's when I, that's when I really started having issues.”

“Having issues, meaning that you started to be the aggressor and started sexually assaulting others?” Judge Amy Davenport asked.

“Yeah, although … I never actually acted on them, but, you know, I mean, things start, I mean, I mean, acted on them when I was seven years old, but in my mind, you know, I would,” Jacques replied.

During the 2004 hearing, Jacques did not say who abused him, nor did he detail the abuse.

Jacques offered the abuse as a reason for committing several sex assaults. “So, some of the things that were identified right in the very beginning was my own anger issues surrounding my own, my own abuse and from that stemmed, you know, my … attitude towards people in general, actually, but particularly towards women. I didn't feel like I was protected by my mother,” Jacques said.
And history repeats.

Interesting comments from his brother at the end.
 
This is a really interesting article, especially reading the entire thing. But even after reading it, where those comments from Denise from the 2004 hearing or some other time?
Also, his younger brother doesn't live too far from here... I wonder how close the two were more recently.

*Snips from article

*Kearney was not the only one who spoke in Jacques' favor that day. Jacques' wife, Denise Jacques, took the stand, and said that he had been a good family man and provided her and their two daughters with a happy, prosperous life.

*Denise Jacques said she was aware of her husband's rape conviction, but when prosecutor Bob DiBartolo pressed her, she said she was unfamiliar with many of the violent details of the rape.

During the hearing, Jacques said he was convicted in 1987 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 13-year-old girl. Details of that conviction, which have not been disclosed by authorities during the Bennett investigation, were not available yesterday.

That offense would be at least the third separate sex offense that Jacques had been charged with, not including the Bennett allegations, according to court documents.

*The testimony from the October 2004 hearing also details a seemingly remarkable rise for Jacques, whose life took off soon after he was released from prison in August 1996.

In 1997, he began dating Denise, a Randolph native whom he knew but was not close to in high school. They married in June 1998 and soon had a child, Courtney, now 9. The couple left Denise's mobile home and bought a fixer-upper in Randolph Center through a government auction. Jacques and his grandfather rebuilt the inside of the home.

Jacques and Denise lived in it briefly, then built a new Colonial home with a garage a couple hundred yards away. Their former home became a rental property.

Meanwhile, Jacques' career blossomed. He testified that he had worked several jobs since his release and won a promotion to a position requiring him to handle $20 million in purchases every year and travel “all over the world” as a primary negotiator. Jacques did not name the company.

Jacques had an annual income exceeding $90,000 at the time of his most recent arrest, according to documents in Orange District Court.

Published 7/12/08 Complete article here
http://www.vnews.com/07122008/4948035.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,787
Total visitors
1,961

Forum statistics

Threads
606,694
Messages
18,208,619
Members
233,936
Latest member
ChillThrills
Back
Top