Found Alive UT - Madelyn Allen, 19, seen leaving Snow College dorm, Ephraim, 13 Dec 2021

[Spartygirl]

omg I'm speechless. Horrifying.

Thank God for the phone pings, and for LE's doggedness in finding her.
May Maddie survive this terrifying brutal ordeal with all the support possible. May she feel the love from her wonderful family, friends, the college, the community.

I am doing the Happy Dance that she was found alive.

Yikes... I have to agree with everything you posted.
Just horrific that she had to go through this ordeal but so happy she survived it.

Sending love and prayers to her and her family ....
what a Christmas miracle for her to be found !!

 

[Spartygirl]

This is Brent Brown.
Brent Brown: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com
and his facebook
Brent Brown
and instagram
Login • Instagram

Just ...Ewwwwww

 

[kelsie]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>

He appears to match the description of the suspect in the warning posted by the school.

What warning posted by the school? Please elaborate! Must have missed it.

 

[akazia1978]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>


What warning posted by the school? Please elaborate! Must have missed it.

If there was one they send directly to parents and students and I would highly doubt it could be posted here if there was one. I get one or two about school shootings/incidents every few weeks. They do not generally post though.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Brent Brown: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Is that man in the picture really the guy?! I know mugshots haven't been released because of the law posted above, but jeez! She looks like a little child next to him!

 

[EGirl]

<modsnip - quoted post removed>


What warning posted by the school? Please elaborate! Must have missed it.

This is for the whole year. There are several, you'll have to scroll through.

Public Safety Announcements

 

[evilwise]

I feel bad for this girl but I think it's good for this case to be big news because mini versions of this kind of thing happen literally all the time and society could use more explicit refreshers about how consent actually works, by law.

 

[annpats]

Oh, that was difficult reading. He raped her several times. Oh my. I just don't have the words.....

She already was experiencing mental health problems, and this must be catastrophic for her.

I hope she gets psychiatric help asap from the professionals who can help her.

Brent Brown: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

 

[doyoulovemepfg]

Brent Brown: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

That guy looks TERRIFYING per these photos. I hope they circulate these around because there's no doubt that he's r*ped other women.

 

[cnmccarthy]

The details released were unexpected. On the other hand, all these details and more will come out at trial.

This could be an extremely messy trial.

Agreed. That post on Quora is all his defense attorney needs to provide reasonable doubt. Not to mention if it’s true she was on a bdsm chat room (wondering if it was fet?) that gives him even more for his defense. There is such a fine line between consent and non-consent in those role play scenarios, which is why most in the bdsm world would stress that the scene is between two people that know each other very well, that it’s never the first time, and that hard limits are discussed at length beforehand.

She is extremely lucky that she was found. This could’ve turned out SO much worse. Not that it isn’t already horrific. MOO.

 

[doyoulovemepfg]

I just wanted to add my two-cents in here as I, unfortunately, have some pretty extensive experience with men who are this type of predator and also people that hang around in those types of communities. All quoted posts bolded and snipped by me.

If it’s correct that they met on a BDSM chat and were having some sort of master/submissive relationship online, it would make perfect sense that she did some strange things. Like posting odd kidnap requests online and changing her appearance/dress, as reported by her friends. When there’s no physical relationship and it’s all online, it would come down to instructions I guess.

He threatened her using her family, so I think it’s entirely possible that what started off as a youngster exploring sexuality and boundaries, very quickly turned into something much more sinister with different types of coercion involved. She was in well over her head. He’s precisely the sort of monster I was worried about after watching her videos and seeing how vulnerable and innocent she was.

This man absolutely knew that Maddie was not only experiencing a faith crisis, but that she was coming from a religious background that does not allow members to experience their sexuality in ways that she may have desired. I have a feeling that BB probably hung around exmormon type websites and/or specifically sought out women that were coming from that type of background due to his belief that they are more vulnerable and easier to manipulate into doing what he wants them to.

Poor girl. This is not okay. When it's no longer consensual, it's abuse.

When manipulation gets involved to where consent is blurred, it's also abuse.
<modsnip - quoted post removed>

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

 

[cvaldez1975]

uuffff..... not surprised at all

Brent Brown

 

[evilwise]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

"Abuse" has become a pretty blurry term itself. "Consent" on the other hand tends to be well defined and unsurprisingly in the state of Utah the letter of the law is fairly conservative.

Utah Code Section 76-5-406

So I think it's safe to say that this particular guy is screwed. As I read it, even a pleb tier of bdsm like tying up your spouse renders them incapable of consenting. In the state of Utah at least what you may be referring to as "manipulation" probably even renders a person incapable of consenting since the above article includes not just "coercion" (usually meaning threat of violence) but also "extortion" which I found defined elsewhere in the Utah code as a long list of things capped off with the incredibly vague

• Do anything else that wouldn’t significantly benefit the defendant, but would significantly harm anyone else in terms of their safety, health, financial state, business, personal relationships, or reputation

So the moral here will probably be "don't have dirty sex in Utah". For reference, here is a document I came across that lists the legal definition of Consent in all 50 states as of March 2020. It's pretty interesting.

 

[doyoulovemepfg]

"Abuse" has become a pretty blurry term itself. "Consent" on the other hand tends to be well defined and unsurprisingly in the state of Utah the letter of the law is fairly conservative.

Utah Code Section 76-5-406

So I think it's safe to say that this particular guy is screwed. As I read it, even a pleb tier of bdsm like tying up your spouse renders them incapable of consenting. In the state of Utah at least what you may be referring to as "manipulation" probably even renders a person incapable of consenting since the above article includes not just "coercion" (usually meaning that of violence) but also "extortion" which I found defined elsewhere in the Utah code as a long list of things capped off with the incredibly vague

• Do anything else that wouldn’t significantly benefit the defendant, but would significantly harm anyone else in terms of their safety, health, financial state, business, personal relationships, or reputation

So the moral here will probably be "don't have dirty sex in Utah". For reference, here is a document I came across that lists the legal definition of Consent in all 50 states as of March 2020. It's pretty interesting.

BBM. This is not the case. There is safe, legal BDSM and other ways to express lack of consent like verbally with a safe word or physically by fighting back, rolling off the person, etc. Consent, in general is the clear presence of "yes", not the absence of "no". In this particular case, yes I believe BB is screwed, but that is because of the threat of extortion and coercion. When I said "manipulation" I meant grooming, large age gaps brought on by violent individuals seeking that out and general predatory behavior, which I believe all fall under the category of sexual abuse - along with r*pe and other nonconsensual sexual behaviors.

IANAL, but if the moral of "don't have dirty sex in UT" actually comes up and this case turns to precedent on a blanket ban on certain sexual preferences/practices that are not *actually* illegal in nature when engaged in by consenting adults, this could turn into a major political, religious and moral battleground. The state of Utah has to be really, really careful on how they prosecute this case because like it or not, there are safe, healthy and currently legal ways to consent to many kink and fetish sexual practices, and interpreting the law in the way you imply may turn into government overreach instead of actually punishing predators, which is the likely intention here and could possibly punish federally protected groups.

 

[evilwise]

BBM. This is not the case. There is safe, legal BDSM and other ways to express lack of consent like verbally with a safe word or physically by fighting back, rolling off the person, etc. Consent, in general is the clear presence of "yes", not the absence of "no". In this particular case, yes I believe BB is screwed, but that is because of the threat of extortion and coercion. When I said "manipulation" I meant grooming, large age gaps brought on by violent individuals seeking that out and general predatory behavior, which I believe all fall under the category of sexual abuse - along with r*pe and other nonconsensual sexual behaviors.

IANAL, but if the moral of "don't have dirty sex in UT" actually comes up and this case turns to precedent on a blanket ban on certain sexual preferences/practices that are not *actually* illegal in nature when engaged in by consenting adults, this could turn into a major political, religious and moral battleground. The state of Utah has to be really, really careful on how they prosecute this case because like it or not, there are safe, healthy and currently legal ways to consent to many kink and fetish sexual practices, and interpreting the law in the way you imply may turn into government overreach instead of actually punishing predators, which is the likely intention here and could possibly punish federally protected groups.

No. Again please follow my link and you will see that in Utah a person is legally unable to consent if they are "is physically unable to resist" which technically makes any sexual act during bondage nonconsensual. There might be common law precedent to suggest that is not the spirit of the law of it has even ever been brought up. The law can become complex like that which is why it's wise to plan your actions according to its clear letter

Although it is becoming quite socially common to imply otherwise, as far as I know there is no law in any state regarding large age differences between or "grooming" (enticement) of people over 18 years old.

In Utah, in my opinion people who feel victimized should focus on that state's extremely broad definition of "extortion". The one thing that is pretty standard nationally is if the victim has a "mental defect" that renders them incapable of understanding the consequences of sex but when people use that to try to straddle the line between the freedom of being an adult and the protections of being a minor it's not only bad for their personal mental health but creates a difficult legal paradox.

 

[wnk]

IMO, him disposing of her phone is going to be important in establishing that she was not remaining there by choice. If she were a willing participant (as he claims), she still would have wanted her phone back at some point. Permanently disposing of it (rather than just setting it aside, keeping it in her bag, whatever) points to him actually wanting to hide her and cut her off from the rest of the world, not just "role play" at it.

 

[evilwise]

IMO - bringing it back to THIS case - when BB lied to LE about her being there, and had her hide in the coal bin, he showed that he KNEW he was doing wrong (not just embarrassed that he got 'interrupted').

In this case, if it were all consensual once they were aware she was being sought by law enforcement they should have taken a time out and she should have contacted law enforcement and let them know she was fine.

This is an important thing to understand that you can do. You don't have to call your family and subject yourself to that conversation. You don't have to be worried that the police are going to judge you although they may want to send an officer to confirm face to face that you're fine, nobody has a gun to your head etc.

IMO, him disposing of her phone is going to be important in establishing that she was not remaining there by choice. If she were a willing participant (as he claims), she still would have wanted her phone back at some point. Permanently disposing of it (rather than just setting it aside, keeping it in her bag, whatever) points to him actually wanting to hide her and cut her off from the rest of the world, not just "role play" at it.

I would absolutely agree with that but it also may come out that he didn't actually destroy/ditch the phone, she just thinks he did.

 

[Satchie]

BBM. This is not the case. There is safe, legal BDSM and other ways to express lack of consent like verbally with a safe word or physically by fighting back, rolling off the person, etc. Consent, in general is the clear presence of "yes", not the absence of "no". In this particular case, yes I believe BB is screwed, but that is because of the threat of extortion and coercion. When I said "manipulation" I meant grooming, large age gaps brought on by violent individuals seeking that out and general predatory behavior, which I believe all fall under the category of sexual abuse - along with r*pe and other nonconsensual sexual behaviors.

IANAL, but if the moral of "don't have dirty sex in UT" actually comes up and this case turns to precedent on a blanket ban on certain sexual preferences/practices that are not *actually* illegal in nature when engaged in by consenting adults, this could turn into a major political, religious and moral battleground. The state of Utah has to be really, really careful on how they prosecute this case because like it or not, there are safe, healthy and currently legal ways to consent to many kink and fetish sexual practices, and interpreting the law in the way you imply may turn into government overreach instead of actually punishing predators, which is the likely intention here and could possibly punish federally protected groups.

But since the law is complaints- driven, then it puts a legal onus on the dominant to ensure they're not overstepping the boundaries. Just like theft laws don't inhibit people from renting their place out through AirBnB, but if their stuff goes missing, or their place gets trashed, they can press charges.

I don't think it's remotely surprising that a sexual sadist would over-ride a masochist's consent. I mean, that's the whole point, that's what gets them off. And not everyone is completely rational and able to stay within the bounds of play-acting, particularly not the ones you meet on anonymous internet forums.

JMO

 

[iamnotagolem]

ABC4 reported that a search of Allen’s phone showed she used dating apps and her phone “contained conversations of a violent sexual nature.”
Brent Brown: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

So it sounds like it’s not just his words that they had BDSM conversations. Not that I’m saying she was a willing participant the entire time, just that there is apparently some truth to his claims.

 

[cnmccarthy]

"Abuse" has become a pretty blurry term itself. "Consent" on the other hand tends to be well defined and unsurprisingly in the state of Utah the letter of the law is fairly conservative.

Utah Code Section 76-5-406

So I think it's safe to say that this particular guy is screwed. As I read it, even a pleb tier of bdsm like tying up your spouse renders them incapable of consenting. In the state of Utah at least what you may be referring to as "manipulation" probably even renders a person incapable of consenting since the above article includes not just "coercion" (usually meaning threat of violence) but also "extortion" which I found defined elsewhere in the Utah code as a long list of things capped off with the incredibly vague

• Do anything else that wouldn’t significantly benefit the defendant, but would significantly harm anyone else in terms of their safety, health, financial state, business, personal relationships, or reputation

So the moral here will probably be "don't have dirty sex in Utah". For reference, here is a document I came across that lists the legal definition of Consent in all 50 states as of March 2020. It's pretty interesting.

Very good news for the victim!