Found Deceased IL - Benedetta 'Beth' Bentley, 41, Mount Vernon, 23 May 2010 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
What time did JW say she dropped off Beth at the train station? Looking for a last seen time. Also, what city was Beth born in? Can someone confirm her DOB is 2/12/69. TIA.

ETA; I see that the time she was last seen has now changed. Still looking for the other info.
 
Paraphrasing from the discussion area (?'s) on the missing FB for Beth.

(Further discrediting JW's cockamamie story)

Why would JW and RR need TWO vehicles to get back to northern Illinois forcing Beth to take the train? They would not. IF Beth had to get back on Sunday she would have taken the rental car and JW HAD a ride back with her boyfriend.

Time for JW and RR to tell the damn truth! :banghead:
The more lies that come from these two the further they dig themselves into a hole.

I hope LE finds some info to investigate this as foul play soon, if they have not already and just haven't made a public announcement they are now investigating Beths disappearance as foul play.

I HATE saying that, but I see the other options as extremely slim.

JMO
 
My theory: Beth rented car and used Jen not wanting to drive alone as an excuse to go on short holiday. JW and Beth met their boyfriends at said city. Four people were at Frosty Mug.

Forget the whole "train" idea. Never part of plan. Cover lie.

Now either JW dropped off Beth at restaurant where Beth was going to meet someone and then she disappeared with/caused by that person

or

That's a lie and JW, RR, and possibly mysterious "other person" are involved in foul play.

Plausible?

I have read that other person is RR's brother. I do not know if that is fact.




Time for JW and RR to tell the damn truth!
The more lies that come from these two the further they dig themselves into a hole.

I hope LE finds some info to investigate this as foul play soon, if they have not already and just haven't made a public announcement they are now investigating Beths disappearance as foul play.

I HATE saying that, but I see the other options as extremely slim.


I agree Cubby. Doesn't look good.
 
Hmm said:
My theory: Beth rented car and used Jen not wanting to drive alone as an excuse to go on short holiday. JW and Beth met their boyfriends at said city. Four people were at Frosty Mug.

Forget the whole "train" idea. Never part of plan. Cover lie.

Now either JW dropped off Beth at restaurant where Beth was going to meet someone and then she disappeared with/caused by that person

or

That's a lie and JW, RR, and possibly mysterious "other person" are involved in foul play.

Plausible?

I have read that other person is RR's brother. I do not know if that is fact.




Time for JW and RR to tell the damn truth!
The more lies that come from these two the further they dig themselves into a hole.

I hope LE finds some info to investigate this as foul play soon, if they have not already and just haven't made a public announcement they are now investigating Beths disappearance as foul play.

I HATE saying that, but I see the other options as extremely slim.


I agree Cubby. Doesn't look good.
Click to expand...


Whether JW not wanting to drive alone is excuse or not for Beth to get away for the weekend imo, is not relevent to the theory Beth went off for the weekend to meet a 'BF'. If so, there is no reason either JW or RR would not give LE said boyfriends name. Why wouldn't they say, Beth was seeing this guy John (made up name) who met up with us here and this is what we did, this is where we stayed.... giving LE specific details supporting this 'Beth was cheating' theory. It makes zero sense that JW and RR would 1)Continue to cover for this alleged bf while all eyes are on them and 2)would continue to leave Beths husband and most importantly Beths children in distress all over covering a 'secret love'.

IMO, JW and RR would not risk being charged with providing LE false information on an open missing persons investigation. What reasons would they have to NOT tell the truth about an alleged BF if that were true and what logical reason would they have to at least not know this mans first name if they spent days with him? Please don't tell me Beth and the man made up a first name to keep his identity hidden. Too far fetched.

Even if JW and RR did not know this mans last name, they could and would provide LE with a first name, so LE could review Beth's phone records for those persons she has been in contact with with the same first name.

The fact that JW and RR could not even so much as provide LE with a credible first name of an alleged boy friend Beth may have run off with tells me that theory is about as likely as the real Zanny the Nanny showing up....

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.........
 
Snipped from part of my above post to expand upon.

It makes zero sense that JW and RR would 1)Continue to cover for this alleged bf while all eyes are on them and 2)would continue to leave Beths husband and most importantly Beths children in distress all over covering a 'secret love'.

- and, on top of the theory that JW would continue to be 'loyal' to her friend that she would cover for her friend who 'ran off with a secret love' after she openly bashed her missing friend on her FB page while it was public? A loyal friend would not 1)Bash a friend publically on the WWW while lying to LE to cover for the same said friend. That is about as likely as the Cubs exceeding the number of World Series wins the Yankees have in the next half century. Ain't gonna happen!

JMO

 
Let's not forget Beth's cell phone has had no activity since she was reported missing and their has been no activity on her credit cards.

JW and RR are KEY to providing honest answers about what happened that Sunday Beth went missing and with the way these two flap there lips I am 99% certain one of them told something to a friend that would be helpful in this investigation.

Sometimes, even the smallest clue which may seem very irrelevent to the person having it, can be what breaks open a case. I hope JW and RR's friends pay head to any yellow flags they recall regarding Beth and her disappearance and report them to LE. Better to error in caution, report it and let LE decide the relevence in the case.

JMO
 
Cubby said:
I hope LE finds some info to investigate this as foul play soon, if they have not already and just haven't made a public announcement they are now investigating Beths disappearance as foul play.
Click to expand...
Snipped, BBM :waitasec:
Isn't the fact that LE says BB was never on the Amtrak enough to signal something afoul? I've always known these people to hate being told things that are untrue or unproven.
 
Cubby said:
The fact that JW and RR could not even so much as provide LE with a credible first name of an alleged boy friend Beth may have run off with tells me that theory is about as likely as the real Zanny the Nanny showing up....
Click to expand...
Snipped & BBM and I agree with your thinking, Cubby!

Interesting new bit for me, about not having given LE a name. I missed that. Got a link?

TIA
 
grayjay said:
Snipped, BBM :waitasec:
Isn't the fact that LE says BB was never on the Amtrak enough to signal something afoul? I've always known these people to hate being told things that are untrue or unproven.
Click to expand...


Something afoul yes, but not necessarily foul play. I think LE needs some kind of evidence of such and I am not sure they don't have it, or have it but have yet to make that info public.

JMO
 
Knox said:
What time did JW say she dropped off Beth at the train station? Looking for a last seen time. Also, what city was Beth born in? Can someone confirm her DOB is 2/12/69. TIA.

ETA; I see that the time she was last seen has now changed. Still looking for the other info.
Click to expand...



The friend says she was driven to the station around 4:30 p.m. in a 2009 White Nissan Altima.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/DB9C7A6D449BC98C86257738006B7632?OpenDocument

BENEDETTA "BETH" BENTLEY
DOB 02-12-1969 Female White, 5'06" 180 Lbs
Case #: 10-7650
http://www.woodstock-il.com/vertical/Sites/%7B7B45EC48-D164-43E3-ACA3-4CC6ED948AFB%7D/uploads/%7B59338FB1-36FC-4D84-9A22-AD8358190535%7D.PDF

No birthplace on this. I'll keep looking.
 
grayjay said:
Snipped & BBM and I agree with your thinking, Cubby!

Interesting new bit for me, about not having given LE a name. I missed that. Got a link?

TIA
Click to expand...


no link. :blushing: I should have stated that as my opinion rather than fact. LE has previously stated the possibility Beth left of her own accord has not been ruled out. I just think if JW and RR had given LE any credible info regarding the boy friend theory Beth would have been found safe already.

JMO
 
Cubby said:
no link. :blushing: I should have stated that as my opinion rather than fact. LE has previously stated the possibility Beth left of her own accord has not been ruled out. I just think if JW and RR had given LE any credible info regarding the boy friend theory Beth would have been found safe already.

JMO
Click to expand...
I agree, and understand. I was just hoping to put that onto the fact sheet. :D We've been awash in rumors and contradictions since the very beginning.
 
If JW is covering for Beth then it maybe that Beth decided to take off on the husband and not necessarily with a man. I have heard or read the rumor that BB has done that before.

If she took off she is not going to use her cellphone. She could buy one at a wal-mart.

The other alternative is that her "friends" did something to her but I would lay wager the LE would have already arrested them. None of them seem to be criminal masterminds.

The younger friends and all the rest make me wonder if BB wasn't having some sort of internal issue.... mid-life crisis. Maybe she was bored because in the picture where she's dressed in dark colors and sitting, (maybe taken by webcam) she doesn't particularly look happy.
 
NamUs, which can have data entered either by LE or anyone who becomes a member, has a different time for LKA (last known alive) of 15:16 which is 3:16pm on Sunday.

Unfortunately we don't know if it was LE or a regular citizen who entered Beth's data into NamUs. NamUs's verification process (that I know of) is to verify the legitimacy of a case if entered by non LE or non ME.

Here is a direct link to Beth's case report at NamUs

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/case_report_html/7422
 
Curious that NamUs has such a precise time....cell phone or closed-circuit video perhaps? If the former, it conflicts with the time of Scott's last phone conversation with her. Also conflicts with JW's time range of last contact, which I understand is now up to 1.5 hours.
 
The conflicting time information is very frustating. The earlier 15:16 time now widens the various last time seen up to 2.5 hours (conservtively) IIRC.

FWIW, NamUs data can be entered by anyone. I have an account there. I am not LE nor have I ever been, I'm an ordinary online volunteer sleuth... There is no way to know about the precise time unless we know who entered Beth's case. Was it LE or a concerned friend? I don't know that we can determine who entered the data at NamUs and if we could the possiblity of human error exists and that could have been a typo.

NamUs cases are not at all easy to enter. The only time I tried it took me darn near an hour to figure it out, and make sure I had enough data entered to even warrant review by a case manager. For Beths case to appear and have a star rating, it had to be reviewed by a case manager. There are some NFP missing persons sites that routinely utilize NamUs which may have entered the info on Beth's behalf, even if it were not LE or a personal friend. Even those who use it routinely can still make a data entry error.

I almost wonder if it should read 16:16 versus 15:16 for the LKA time.

So few verified facts on this case it is frustrating.
 
Beths missing FB page had some comments on why her cell phone can not be pinged. Very breif statement along the lines of Not an option, can't do it and can't say why, just that it is a 'no can do' situation. I'm curious as to why. The logical explaination is LE does not have enough for a warrant for the records and without enough for a warrant getting those records is essentially a violation of the owners right to privacy.

I wonder why they can not get that info now that Beth has been classified as 'endangered' missing. I will mention again that John Spira - who has been missing from unicorp DuPage county since Feb 2007 has ping maps on his missing persons site run by his sister. LE has not classified John as endangered missing- just missing. What is the difference in these two cases? What is the reason it sounds like the cell phone pings is an absolute no go?

Also makes me wonder if the cell is in Beths's name -or- better said a personal rather than a business account. If it was a 'business' cell phone wouldn't her husband be able to give LE the go ahead to get a warrant for the cell records - being the owner of the business?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 234 more.
Total: 532 (members: 235, guests: 297)

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
297
Total visitors
532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,507
Messages
18,240,432
Members
234,389
Latest member
Roberto859
Back
Top