GUILTY TN - SLP, 14, found alive, Madisonville, Monroe County, 13 Jan 2019 #6 *ARRESTS*

[gitana1]

No SA charges? Leave those to the state? Perplexed why nothing for transporting SP across state lines? That I thought was a slam dunk. Were these presented to the Grand Jury and they declined to charge or were the issues not presented to the Grand Jury?

Lying to FBI was a given.

MO

If sexual assault was not part of a federal charge then they can't charge him with it federally.

See my earlier post about transporting a child for the purposes of sexually assault or illegal sexual activity. If they can't prove that's why he transported her then they won't charge him.

Deciding to sexually assault her and doing so once in WI would be a state charge.

 

[Ragnarok]

Or possibly, just possibly, the evidence that there was recent sexual activity that could not have been with the father, as quoted by the prosecutor, is not quite so certain. I truly wonder if she opened her mouth too soon, jumped the gun, in an effort to at least prosecute him in the eyes of the public.

Not saying he didn’t do it, but it sure makes me wonder. I don’t like the way this case has been handled at all.

Was thinking along those lines also JE. Good if BR didn't abuse SP. It doesn't seem like SP was under any kind of restraint by BR. Would hope SP would have run again if BR was abusing her. Hopeful.

 

[Rosiebones]

If sexual assault was not part of a federal charge then they can't charge him with it federally.

See my earlier post about transporting a child for the purposes of sexually assault or illegal sexual activity. If they can't prove that's why he transported her then they won't charge him.

Deciding to sexually assault her and doing so once in WI would be a state charge.

I am a little confused. In your first line above did you mean what you wrote or did you mean "they can't charge him with it on the state level"? If the former, can you explain more?

 

[The Night Watchman]

No SA charges? Leave those to the state? Perplexed why nothing for transporting SP across state lines? That I thought was a slam dunk. Were these presented to the Grand Jury and they declined to charge or were the issues not presented to the Grand Jury?

Lying to FBI was a given.

MO

Confusing yes, a bad thing- maybe not.

The video and and lying to the FBI are prosecutable facts.

But this case just got a little more interesting because it gives a sliver of hope for how SLP was treated by BR.

 

[ilovechili]

RJP molested his minor stepdaughter. I am not an attorney nor am I on the jury. But something tells me there is proof. On video no less per the CC. So guess what? Unless our country has really went to he** with defendant's or criminal's rights beyond belief, then he should be dead to rights...

No one to my knowledge has asked if this is admissible. I mean come on it put Randall J Pruitt in a very compromising, somewhat naked position with his alleged adopted minor daughter. Was there a warrant to record or an I told you stepdaddy I am going to record you? No. I want to say to all offenders, or those thinking about it, it is legal now in some states to video or voice record without telling you and ADMISSIBLE. WI has had it for many years, you do not need the other person to know it. If you are one person in the recording, it is admissible in court, voice or video. I cannot say if that has changed in the past several years but apparently not. I do not care what happens to WI guy, I could care less, do not know him or his intent, but I am not sure he did not give her some very good advice with regard to recording daddy. Hence ONE entire charge against stepdaddy. ONE.

 

[gitana1]

What are your thoughts on any more charges for BR? This can't be all of it, right? IMO he was as bad as, and could have been worse than, RP. He could have kept her in that basement lair if not for digital evidence. For God knows how long....

ETA: Thank you for taking time to answer our questions.
Thanks to all who provide so much input. IMO y'all rock

I don't know! I guess we have to wait and see. Sometimes I've noticed that the state won't prosecute if the Feds have charged. Maybe they think it's a waste of resources.

 

[Rosiebones]

@gitana1 Is it correct to say that he has been charged with one count of SA to hold him and to set bail conditions? Is it possible that the charges that will be presented to the grand jury could be more expansive than that one charge? Will it be public information as to his charges only after the May arraignment date?
We are cross talking both cases, this question is about RP.

 

[Scrapper18]

If sexual assault was not part of a federal charge then they can't charge him with it federally.

See my earlier post about transporting a child for the purposes of sexually assault or illegal sexual activity. If they can't prove that's why he transported her then they won't charge him.

Deciding to sexually assault her and doing so once in WI would be a state charge.

I don't know! I guess we have to wait and see. Sometimes I've noticed that the state won't prosecute if the Feds have charged. Maybe they think it's a waste of resources.

Finally caught up and these answered most my questions. So, as far as SA by BR, we wait to see if the state of WI files charges? What is the statute of limitations to get these charges filed? I wonder if the state is waiting to see how things turn out federal before making a decision.

 

[Yellow Rose]

Wow this RP stuff has really made me angry! Are you serious? The recording can not come into evidence against him??????? What?????

 

[oviedo]

MADISON, Wis. (WMTV)--- Federal court entered a not guilty plea on behalf of a Madison man charged in connection with a missing Tennessee girl found here in Madison.

BR appeared in federal court on Thursday morning for his arraignment where he stood mute.

A federal grand jury charged BR with two counts. Those counts are production of child and false statement. One count of child brings a 15 to 30 year sentence. One count of making a false statement to investigators has a maximum sentence of five years.

BR allegedly picked up the teenage girl in Tennessee after they met online.

According to court documents, the teenage girl told BR about the sexual assault that happened at home. BR then convinced her to send him video proof.

BR has been in federal custody since Feb. 4 in the Dane County Jail.

His trial date has been set for July 15.
Man charged in Missing Tennessee girl heads to trial
ETA: Initials and also posted to the Media thread

 

[Rosiebones]

Wow this RP stuff has really made me angry! Are you serious? The recording can not come into evidence against him??????? What?????

I think we all are mixing the two cases. This morning in Wisconsin the grand jury returned an indictment against BDR that charged lying to the FBI ( lying about her being in his basement the first time they came to his house) and making child (the rape video). They aren't charging him with transportation across state lines for sexual purposes. It has be explained that the intent in that charge may have been hard to prove.

RP, her step father, remains in jail with one count of SA against him. This will go to the grand jury and whatever they return as an indictment will be brought to his arraignment on May 13th.

 

[gitana1]

I am a little confused. In your first line above did you mean what you wrote or did you mean "they can't charge him with it on the state level"? If the former, can you explain more?

Yes. Sorry about that. It wasn't that clear. BR has been charged with a federal crime by the feds. Unless his sexual assault of her is part of a federal crime, the Feds can't charge him with it.

The Feds and the state are separate jurisdictions. The Feds cover crimes that involve interstate commerce, like bank robbery, dissemination of child via email or mail, interstate transport or humans for sex or trade, etc., and also crimes that occur on federal lands or airways/waterways.

RP was charged by the state because his rape crimes do not fall under federal jurisdiction. BR was charged with a federal crime because it involved "wire". Transporting child electronically, in essence.

The Feds won't charge BR with sexual assault unless he assaulted her on federal lands or waterways or airways or unless the sexual assault can be anchored to another federal crime. Like transporting a child across state lines for the purposes of sexual assault.

The state can certainly charge him with sexual assault but in my experience if a perp is being charged federally and stands a great chance of conviction, with a substantial sentence, the state sometimes declines to prosecute for the state crimes.

 

[gitana1]

I think we all are mixing the two cases. This morning in Wisconsin the grand jury returned an indictment against BDR that charged lying to the FBI ( lying about her being in his basement the first time they came to his house) and making child (the rape video). They aren't charging him with transportation across state lines for sexual purposes. It has be explained that the intent in that charge may have been hard to prove.

RP, her step father, remains in jail with one count of SA against him. This will go to the grand jury and whatever they return as an indictment will be brought to his arraignment on May 13th.

Exactly.

 

[Rosiebones]

Yes. Sorry about that. It wasn't that clear. BR has been charged with a federal crime by the feds. Unless his sexual assault of her is part of a federal crime, the Feds can't charge him with it.

The Feds and the state are separate jurisdictions. The Feds cover crimes that involve interstate commerce, like bank robbery, dissemination of child via email or mail, interstate transport or humans for sex or trade, etc., and also crimes that occur on federal lands or airways/waterways.

RP was charged by the state because his rape crimes do not fall under federal jurisdiction. BR was charged with a federal crime because it involved "wire". Transporting child electronically, in essence.

The Feds won't charge BR with sexual assault unless he assaulted her on federal lands or waterways or airways or unless the sexual assault can be anchored to another federal crime. Like transporting a child across state lines for the purposes of sexual assault.

The state can certainly charge him with sexual assault but in my experience if a perp is being charged federally and stands a great chance of conviction, with a substantial sentence, the state sometimes declines to prosecute for the state crimes.

Thank you, that is clear to me now. I think all of us want every applicable law brought to bear on both RP and BDR and you made clear in this case what wasn't applicable.

 

[BUF]

I think this is the first time I've seen this...scared...

She was found there weeks later, scared but "doing fine," according to Monroe County Sheriff Tommy Jones.


https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news...-disappearance-monroe-county-teen/2939810002/

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1 Is it correct to say that he has been charged with one count of SA to hold him and to set bail conditions? Is it possible that the charges that will be presented to the grand jury could be more expansive than that one charge? Will it be public information as to his charges only after the May arraignment date?
We are cross talking both cases, this question is about RP.

Yes. I think all of that is quite possible. But I'm not sure they need to rack up the rape charges. Sentences for multiple counts would probably run concurrently so maybe they wouldn't see the point? Especially when they have such iron clad evidence. (Video).

 

[gitana1]

Finally caught up and these answered most my questions. So, as far as SA by BR, we wait to see if the state of WI files charges? What is the statute of limitations to get these charges filed? I wonder if the state is waiting to see how things turn out federal before making a decision.

In WI the charge would likely be second degree sexual assault of a child which is a Class C felony.
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.02

He would face UP TO 40 years, it looks like:
Wisconsin Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences

They have until SP reaches the age of 45 to charge him, it appears:
https://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and...sources/2009-Statutes/09WisconsinStatutes.pdf

But the federal charge of 18 USC 2251 carries a minimum of 15 and a max of 30.

So the state may not see the point of charging him. Because he doesn't have a record so there is no way he would be sentenced to anywhere close to 40 years via the state statute, in my opinion.

 

[gitana1]

I think this is the first time I've seen this...scared...

She was found there weeks later, scared but "doing fine," according to Monroe County Sheriff Tommy Jones.


Wisconsin man charged in disappearance of Monroe County teen

Aww. Poor thing. I wonder how she's doing.

 

[Doghairrules]

I'm like, wow, that's it?! Sitting on hands until you more experienced folks can decipher this report. Wow.

Wondering now why they aren’t pursuing the SA charges. If they misrepresented the evidence on that, I’m gonna be livid.

 

[kshultz06082]

Or possibly, just possibly, the evidence that there was recent sexual activity that could not have been with the father, as quoted by the prosecutor, is not quite so certain. I truly wonder if she opened her mouth too soon, jumped the gun, in an effort to at least prosecute him in the eyes of the public.

Not saying he didn’t do it, but it sure makes me wonder. I don’t like the way this case has been handled at all.

Happen to have a link? I missed where the prosecutor made that statement.

And personally, I think BR is getting light charges cuz he did in fact save her, did NOT SA her and only wanted that video to protect himself. It proves WHY he helped a young girl. A man would not be given the same benefit of the doubt a woman would. I doubt he even really wanted it sent to him but that's also the only way to make sure RP can't access it and delete it.

I realize my opinion may not be popular, but until I see proof that BR did anything but demand evidence to show LE when he undoubtedly eventually gets arrested, I'm on his side. I truly don't believe he harmed SP.