AL - Incest Sodomy Rape multiple victim under age of 16

[AstroKitty]

Sex crime suspect in court
Updated: Thursday, 30 Aug 2012, 10:12 AM CDT

A family friend of missing teenager Brittney Wood... William Brownlee is one of five men arrested for allegedly having a *sexual relationship with an underage Fairhope girl.

Investigators say she (Wendy Wood Holland) knew about the sexual encounters with several young victims and didn’t report it.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/baldwin_county/sex-crime-suspect-in-court

*there they go again with the "relationship" language...

I'm going to try to remain optimistic that even if this "relationship" is considered "statutory rape" and the fact that Wendy Wood Holland knew about the several young victims' "encounters" - that it collectively withstands a better chance of being considered a sex ring and/or possibly in exchange for money, favors, drugs, housing, whatever... or at the very least bribery/extortion...

ANYTHING to make these charges far more serious against everyone will increase the chance of Brittney being found and justice being served for the victims.

Football mom: (because I dont' understand the wording) The part that's bolded mean:

She, (Wendy wood Holland) knew of

Or is it

She and Wendy knew of

I'm just asking because if it's she AND then it would imply someone else. Thanks in advance

 

[AstroKitty]

Lol omg.. nevermind .. I get it now. It means that Wendy knew not she and Wendy. Sorry. brain is friend from work today.

 

[AstroKitty]

Okay, so in summary (this is how I'm understanding it)

Wendy knew and had no issue with the rapes (I reFUSE to call it relationships) as long as those involved were "happy". As sick as that is to write.

This looks to me as though Wendy may have been a ring leader. Reminds me of girls who are pimped out by a girl they met in school etc whom befriended them, took them under the wing. Eventually the innocent girl begins to look up to this "friend", how they dress, the money they seem to have and all the items they cannot have. Eventually this "friend" introduces the innocent one to her boyfriend. She talks about how great this boyfriend is, how he provides for her and gives her things. The innocent girl is overwhelmed with how great this sounds, and thus the grooming has occurred and she will be duped into doing things she never would have considered because she's been groomed and intimidated by the fact she knows right from wrong, thus making her ashamed and shame equals guilt which in turn, turns into lying/hiding and disappearing and depression. Which normally is where drugs come into play (making it easier to go through the motions of doing something a person normally wouldn't want to do) pimps are often accused of providing drugs to subdue the women into "working" but truly it's more giving them drugs so they'll not have room in their mind (it's foggy when high) to think about the recourse.

Hypothetically speaking:

If Wendy used her "buddy buddy" tactics with Brittney

*providing her with a cell phone (paid by Wendy and Donald Sr.)
* Provided her with spending cash
*Provided her with clothing / shelter / food
*Possibly providing her with drugs to sell and or use.

It would seem as though Wendy had been grooming Brittney and many others by being the "cool Aunt". She drove a nice car, she had (I think) a nicer home .. her husband was the "life of the party"... so obviously the kids would feel safe there and if they are coming from broken homes or in poverty - this would look awesome. But then it becomes :

"You know... if you do this for me, I can get you that (name any pricy item) that you wanted..".

I'm really wondering if this is how Wendy played into this and if so, I wouldn't be shocked and it would make A LOT of sense. Hope everyone could follow that analogy. I'm basically applying how I know the sex trade to work by having been in it and watching my friends getting swayed by pimps and their "bottom (female dog name)"

If this is the case, Wendy should serve a 25 to life sentence for each victim she personally brought in and no less than 25 years for each person whom the victims might have been groomed to also bring in or that she knew of and said nothing. She is the ultimate evil, not that the men are any less but Wendy didn't go along with this because of battered wife syndrome (although WATCH her state that, thinking it would work in her favor). Wendy went along with this because she gained something from it.

What that was? We may never know.

My thoughts and heart go out to the victims in this case. I also want to rip the media and whomever is releasing statements that it was "relationships". No. It's NOT a relationship. That is beyond demeaning and disgusting to state it as such. This already sets the stage for people to view it as consensual or "normal" and it was neither. Shame on those that create further self-esteem and self-worth problems for those that will have a lifetime to remember this.

 

[FootballMom]

Brownlee waived his preliminary hearing. The case is now headed to a grand jury.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/baldwin_county/sex-crime-suspect-in-court


Note to Dustin Alton Kent, MWK, Randall Scott Wood and Wendy Wood Holland - this would be a wise time to start telling the truth before the Grand Jury meets again!

 

[buggsmom]

Brownlee waived his preliminary hearing. The case is now headed to a grand jury.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/baldwin_county/sex-crime-suspect-in-court


Note to Dustin Alton Kent, MWK, Randall Scott Wood and Wendy Wood Holland - this would be a wise time to start telling the truth before the Grand Jury meets again!

Dumb question...why would he want to waive his preliminary hearing?

 

[FootballMom]

Dumb question...why would he want to waive his preliminary hearing?

Not sure but here is an article about Sandusky doing the same thing:

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/...-waive-preliminary-hearing-major-capitulation

And a link to criminal procedures:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro15.htm

 

[buggsmom]

Not sure but here is an article about Sandusky doing the same thing:

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/...-waive-preliminary-hearing-major-capitulation

And a link to criminal procedures:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro15.htm

Thanks FbM
I found this too. (simple for my simple brain:waitasec
http://www.ehow.com/info_8648890_happens-waive-preliminary-hearing.html

Prior to the preliminary hearing, you attend an arraignment. During the arraignment, your lawyer will enter your official plea to the courts, whether you plead guilty or not guilty. You have the legal right to waive your preliminary hearing and move the case to trial. The judge may question you beforehand, ensuring that you understand your rights. Waiving your rights does not indicate that you plead guilty to a crime, but does mean you admit that probable cause exists in the case.

 

[AstroKitty]

Brownlee waived his preliminary hearing. The case is now headed to a grand jury.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/baldwin_county/sex-crime-suspect-in-court


Note to Dustin Alton Kent, MWK, Randall Scott Wood and Wendy Wood Holland - this would be a wise time to start telling the truth before the Grand Jury meets again!

If you wave a preliminary hearing, this means it can be for a # of things.

By waving their right to this hearing it means a possibility of a few things:

1. They don't need to hear or want to hear the exact charges being brought against them

* they are already briefed on this prior, the judge is there to make sure that they 100% understand why they are there. *

2. This also means they are not disputing who the judge will be that oversees this case, where the venue of the proceedings will take place as well.

Going to the hearing is when:

3. This is when the bond amount is set

4. This is when the judge asks what your plea is.

5. This is where any requests for more time and things of this nature are ironed out before trial begins.

This is not when the case is debated or details of their innocence are given.


Long story short: A person normally will revoke their need for this type of hearing if they plan to plead guilty.

 

[Dr_TJ_Eckleburg]

They may be using "relationship" as a way of indicating that this abuse was ongoing, and not a random attack. It could also be because the sexual contact was consensual, and not forced. This is the South, and from what I've heard about this family, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the "relationship" was approved of all around. In rural areas of Alabama, it's not unusual for girls to be sexually active in their early teens. When I was in 8th grade, we had two pregnancies among the 12-14 year olds, and kids these days are much more 'sophisticated' than they were in my youth. Sophisticated, but not mature, mind you.

Remember that, according to her daughter's age and her age, it's likely that Brittany was pregnant before she was even out of high school.

:twocents:

 

[Dr_TJ_Eckleburg]

Interesting that one of the last of the accused to be arrested is the first to go to trial. That smells of a plea bargain.

 

[AstroKitty]

Interesting that one of the last of the accused to be arrested is the first to go to trial. That smells of a plea bargain.

Agree agree agree.

Did I mention I agree with you on this?

 

[AstroKitty]

They may be using "relationship" as a way of indicating that this abuse was ongoing, and not a random attack. It could also be because the sexual contact was consensual, and not forced. This is the South, and from what I've heard about this family, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the "relationship" was approved of all around. In rural areas of Alabama, it's not unusual for girls to be sexually active in their early teens. When I was in 8th grade, we had two pregnancies among the 12-14 year olds, and kids these days are much more 'sophisticated' than they were in my youth. Sophisticated, but not mature, mind you.

Remember that, according to her daughter's age and her age, it's likely that Brittany was pregnant before she was even out of high school.

:twocents:

That makes sense, on the part of the victims being "asked" if they would provide a sexual favor for a favor. This means they weren't forced but I do not believe it was consensual if the victims were under the influence, had an addiction in which the favor was almost a "need" because people that go without their drugs for long DO get sick and I can't even begin to make the horror of opiate detox relatable if person(s) hadn't experienced it before. Also, an adult person twice their age can manipulate a person to believe it's "OK" to have sex or sexual favors if no one finds out. Just because it may appear to be the norm doesn't mean it is. I hope that makes sense.

A child (even a teen) does not understand the full consequences for their actions nor are they fully equipped to comprehend or detect manipulation by people who are predators and thus great at it. A sociopath (which is what I think Wendy is) is a manipulator with full grasp of what is right and what is wrong, but they don't adhere to moral code, they only do what benefits them. We are possibly talking about (concerning victims) children, teens who may have not had attentive parents, which leaves them with very little guidance (ie guidelines) on how adults are to behave or interact with them. They also have little to no coping skills & any attention is better than being ignored.


None the less, I think it's unfair for the media to portray anything as relationships just yet. I think if they strayed from that word, people may take more initiative to spread the word via media of Brittney's disappearance or even at this point (I think a lot of us would be happy) bring up the sex crimes because it would bring her name up and then that would lead to people bringing back focus to her.

Also, some of us know the age and whom one of the victims is. I do not believe for a second it was consensual or a relationship of any sort.

 

[FootballMom]

Interesting that one of the last of the accused to be arrested is the first to go to trial. That smells of a plea bargain.

BBM

All the more reason for Dustin Alton Kent, Randall Scott Wood, Wendy Wood Holland and MWK to start talking sooner rather than later since they seem to be primarily concerned with themselves rather than the victims... IMO.

:seeya:

 

[reedus23]

Thanks FbM
I found this too. (simple for my simple brain:waitasec
http://www.ehow.com/info_8648890_happens-waive-preliminary-hearing.html

Prior to the preliminary hearing, you attend an arraignment. During the arraignment, your lawyer will enter your official plea to the courts, whether you plead guilty or not guilty. You have the legal right to waive your preliminary hearing and move the case to trial. The judge may question you beforehand, ensuring that you understand your rights. Waiving your rights does not indicate that you plead guilty to a crime, but does mean you admit that probable cause exists in the case.

Every state's procedures are a little different, so forgive me if I have any of this wrong, but I did some quick digging on Alabama's procedures for felony cases. In every state I have looked at, there is a determination made early on in a case if there is probably cause to continue with the case. In the states I'm familiar with, it can be done EITHER through a preliminary hearing OR a grand jury. In Alabama, apparently they use BOTH to safeguard a defendant's rights. The first step would be a preliminary hearing where both sides can put on evidence before the Judge to determine if there is probably cause that a crime was committed by the defendant (a much lower burden than what is needed at trial). I believe in many instances, because that burden is so low, many defendant's waive their right to that hearing. In Alabama, that's not the end of it. If the defendant waives their preliminary hearing or the Judge finds probably cause exists, the defendant's case is then sent to a grand jury. I'm not certain about Alabama, but typically grand jury proceedings are closed to everyone, including the defense attorney. The grand jury is then tasked with determining if probably cause exists to issue an indictment against the defendant on the charges, again a lower burden of proof than at trial.

I most states I have looked at, they use one or the other, so if this is incorrect, maybe a local can help straighten me out.

 

[reedus23]

If you wave a preliminary hearing, this means it can be for a # of things.

By waving their right to this hearing it means a possibility of a few things:

1. They don't need to hear or want to hear the exact charges being brought against them

* they are already briefed on this prior, the judge is there to make sure that they 100% understand why they are there. *

2. This also means they are not disputing who the judge will be that oversees this case, where the venue of the proceedings will take place as well.

Going to the hearing is when:

3. This is when the bond amount is set

4. This is when the judge asks what your plea is.

5. This is where any requests for more time and things of this nature are ironed out before trial begins.

This is not when the case is debated or details of their innocence are given.


Long story short: A person normally will revoke their need for this type of hearing if they plan to plead guilty.

You could be right about all the above because I'm not familiar with Alabama law, but a preliminary hearing simply is a hearing to determine if there is probably cause that a crime was committed by the defendant. Their guilt or innocence is not debated, you are correct, but evidence could be put on by both sides to determine if there is even enough evidence to warrant the charges in the first place. Waiving your right to a preliminary hearing really just means you are conceding that the DA has sufficient evidence to establish that there was probably cause that you committed the crime charged. Because it's a lower burden, it's pretty common to see waivers.

 

[reedus23]

Bumping for Brittney and all the victims.

 

[reedus23]

Still bumping. As for the rape/incest cases, it really seems like they are moving at a snails pace. What are the thoughts on whether each of these people are tried separately or do you think the DA will try them all together? Have we even heard from the DA? I don't remember many statements from that office if so, or I could just be lumping in their statements with LE in general. It's their case now and DA's usually like to get their faces in front of the camera. I'm surprised they haven't been doing so in this case.

 

[AstroKitty]

Still bumping. As for the rape/incest cases, it really seems like they are moving at a snails pace. What are the thoughts on whether each of these people are tried separately or do you think the DA will try them all together? Have we even heard from the DA? I don't remember many statements from that office if so, or I could just be lumping in their statements with LE in general. It's their case now and DA's usually like to get their faces in front of the camera. I'm surprised they haven't been doing so in this case.

I can't recall any articles with statements from the DA (but I'll look). You are right (I hadn't thought of this aspect) that it's VERY odd we aren't hearing anything from the DA or anyone for that matter. :banghead: I keep trying to convince myself that the reason for this is because they are lining all their ducks in a row but with every 30 days passing it gets a bit harder to believe that.

 

[sadnpod]

Bumping for the victims of RAPE.. in this case.

Justice!!!!

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Glad to see they finally got WWH! As far as them calling it a "relationship", the media sometimes needs to be educated. The correct term is RAPE!!!