RSSMichael Jacques, Uncle of Missing Brooke Bennett Arrested for Sexually Assaulting a Minor
COINCIDENCE?
The case of missing 12 year old Brooke Bennett just got a little for strange, 
bizarre and complicated. 42 year old Michael Jacques, the uncle of Brooke Bennett, who left her off at a convenience store in Randolph, VT has been arrested in a separate case of sexual assault against a minor. Police are claiming that the sexual assault charge does not involve his niece, Brooke Bennett.
Investigators in Vermont charged the uncle of a missing 12-year-old girl Sunday with sexually assaulting a minor — but they said the charge does not involve his niece.
Police said their investigation into the disappearance of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett uncovered evidence that her uncle had sexually assaulted someone else. They charged Michael Jacques, 42, with aggravated sexual assault against a minor, which carries a sentence of 10 years to life in prison. (CNN)
However, there have been so many missing person cases where a “presumed” suspect in the crime is initially arrested for an unrelated crime. According to all accounts, Brooke’s uncle did drop her off in the town of Randolph. The fact that Brooke Bennett’s uncle is arrested for sexually assaulting a different minor as the case of missing Brooke Bennett is being investigated is certainly eye opening. Could it be more than a mere coincidence?
Michael Stephen Jacques
According to the AP, Michael Jacques is listed on Vermont sex offender registry. He was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping in 1993. Maybe Vermont may want to change the law that sex offenders are supervised for life!
Sexual Offense Conviction(s) Date of Conviction
AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT 07-12-1993
KIDNAPPING 07-12-1993Conviction For Aggravated Sexual Assault: No longer supervised for sexual crime
Uncle of missing girl arrested on unrelated sex charge
They say Michael Jacques of Randolph, Vermont, was one of the last people to see Brooke Bennett before she vanished. He dropped the girl off at a convenience store Wednesday. They were seen together on a surveillance video before parting ways.
Jacques has been charged with aggravated sexual assault against a minor and will appear in court Monday. The alleged victim wasn’t Bennett.
UPDATE I: Search for Missing Brooke Bennett Turns to Uncle’s (Michael Jacques) Property
The investigation of the disappearance of a 12-year-old girl zeroed in on her uncle Monday, with police searching his home while he was being arraigned on sex charges in an unrelated case, authorities said.
Michael Jacques, a registered sex offender who was one of the last people seen with Brooke Bennett before she vanished, pleaded not guilty to a charge of aggravated sexual assault and was held in lieu of $250,000 bail.
Col. James Baker, the head of the Vermont State Police, called Jacques a “person of interest” in Brooke’s case at a Monday press briefing.
The other girl, a relative of Jacques’, says he assaulted her over a five-year period, beginning when she was 9 years old and ending a few weeks ago, Orange County State’s Attorney Will Porter said.
Posted June 30, 2008 by Scared Monkeys Bizarre, Brooke Bennett, Child Welfare, Crime, Missing Persons, Sex Offender, WTF | 40 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
40 Responses to “Michael Jacques, Uncle of Missing Brooke Bennett Arrested for Sexually Assaulting a Minor”
Leave a Reply
[...] UPDATE VII: Michael Jacques, Uncle of Missing Brooke Bennett Arrested for Sexually Assaulting a Minor [...]
What did I already say in the previous article SM posted on this???? I said LOOK AT THE UNCLE who managed to find “articles belonging to the girl” 10 miles where she was last seen!!
Geez, imagine him being charged with sexual assault of a minor…you don’t say!!??
Sadly, this was my FIRST thought as soon as I heard a relative found the articles rather than police. Simply too convenient. Why do these perpetrators think they can outsmart police by staying “close to the investigation” in order to keep tabs? Those are exactly who the police look at.
There was a case here in Radford, Virginia where a young girl of 17 went missing. About 2 weeks later, a retired police officer found her bullet riddled body along a train track while walking his dog. Turns out the mother of the girl had a BOYFRIEND who had been staying at the home. He was even handing out missing flyers…although he was the one to assault and kill her in the end.
Anther case I remember is when I lived in a trailer park as a young mother. A child in a subdivision across the road went missing. Taken from her bed, no kidding. Next morning police had tracking dogs and a crowd of people helping look in the woods. Where do you think the tracking dogs headed??? Directly to one of the men searching!!!! THey searched his trailer (in our park) and found the girl ALIVE and tied up with duct tape in his bedroom closet. She did live, but all the paper said was she needed “sugery to correct damage”. How sad.
This young lady is no longer alive. If she is, I’ll eat my words and be amazed.
By the way, wasn’t Joran the last person to be seen with Natalee? Hmmmm….
No doubt the uncle could have EASILY driven back, knowing the girl was supposed to be meeting someone…do we know whether or not that “someone” was the uncle? I mean, did he pretend to be someone else and chat with her on myspace under an alias? That way, he’d have known where to meet her or which direction she’d be walking. That way, he could “pretend” to find her where she shouldn’t be, say he was taking her home, that that’s the way I see it possibly panning out.
I still think we should either put child rapists to death, or simply put them on a island together and let them feed on each other.
There are very few cases when it comes to missing people where the police do not arrest the eventual suspect on an earlier unrelated charge.
We learned a valuable lesson in the case of Megam Meier, sometimes the very person that a person is talking to on line is right down the street.
The uncle may not be involved, who knows … one thing is for certain it is fishy.
What is also disturbing in the case of missing Brooke Bennett is that some how her parents thought it ok for a registered sex offender to give her rides to town.
What are people thinking?
I have had this nagging feeling about the uncle. I hope my feelings are wrong.
Last person seen with her–we know the drill by now. It just doesn’t look good.
They are still centering on her myspace account. Her uncle has been compliant with his treatment and is no longer supervised.
Why did he have the girl overnight? Who would leave a child with a sex-offender? I don’t know the family’s situation but he is the mother’s sister’s husband, how well does anyone know a person that far removed? Is this a second offence after the 1993 conviction for sexual assault and kidnapping? Are they keeping him in jail as a way to watch him while they get evidence or more evidence against him in his niece’s disappearance?
I have too many questions and not enough answers. Hopefully the press conference this afternoon will give more answers than new questions.
I am praying for Brooke and her family. I hope she is found soon in good health.
Sex offenders do not change their stripes.
They are like cockroaches … for every time they are caught, there are 100′s of instances that they are not.
SM, please clarify if you can. This uncle is already a convicted sex offender…but is this recent jailing over another (new) charge in addition to the old one?
Read in a Burlington newspaper this morning that locals are wondering if the girl was trying to run away because a “family member was molesting her”? They too seem to have been looking to the uncle since the beginning. He must have a lovely reputation.
I still wonder if the uncle was pretending to be someone else and chatting with her….helping her “run away” because he knew he was about to get squealed on (as he should be). More convenient for him to get rid of the possibility of further charges.
Agree with SM 100%…this type does not change. If they do, it’s one in a million.
__________
SM: The story is stating that the arrest is supposedly for an assault on another minor.
Brenda (#2) … Your story brings to mind the infuriating case of Jessica Lunsford in Florida and the animal that took her from her bedroom, kept her for three days and buried her alive.
My understanding is, the animal has not yet been treated as rabid animals are usually treated. Why not? Oh, yes, it gets the protection of the legal system. Let’s pass over the question of what protection that system gave Jessica Lunsford.
About Brooke Bennett … apparently it’s confirmed that the uncle dropped her off at the store. (Randolph is in the middle of Vermont, not on the main tourism routes.) So if he is involved, is it possible that she was running away, perhaps thinking that was the only way she could escape this abuse … if indeed the uncle did go after her?
In a small place like Randolph, it would seem hard for a local girl not to be noticed. Was she trying to hitch a ride from the store?
Don’t know.
I read this and I thought that this doesn’t make any sense.
How would they be investigating her disappearance, and uncover the fact that he sexually assaulted “some other minor”? Unless they uncovered the fact that he assaulted her, another family member or one of her friends, how would this even come up?
The only way I could see it being some other random child that he assaulted was if the parent of that child came forward after hearing about Brooke’s disappearance. Otherwise, it makes no sense!!
Did the 1993 charge involve a child or an adult? If it involved a child, wouldn’t he be ordered to stay away from children? I don’t know how Vermont sex offender laws work. But I thought that if you’re a registered sex offender (especially if your crime involved a child), you are required to stay away from children. And, that requirement doesn’t end once your supervision ends. So, how was he allowed to be around his niece?
Why in the world would someone leave a child at a gas station to meet someone else, especially when you don’t know who that person is meeting?
Perhaps the police are saying that they’re going with the online theory in order to throw people off track, and to give themselves time to gather evidence.
My initial suspicion is that they are holding this guy because they think that he might break and give some information.
Another possible explanation: the state just wants to be seen doing something. If this guy is indeed responsible, and has a prior conviction for assaulting a minor and for kidnapping, then the you-know-what will hit the fan if, yet again, the state government has been caught napping.
Here’s an article about another judicial judgment that got much of Vermont (I was living there at the time) up in flames … and rightly so. The article is from January 2006.
Vermont asks judge to rethink sex offender’s 60-day sentence
BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — When Judge Edward Cashman sentenced a man to a 60-day prison sentence for sexually abusing a child, he said he wanted to make sure he got treatment that was unavailable to the criminal from inside a jail cell.
Ever since, he’s been vilified by television commentators, bloggers and others who say he was too soft.
Thursday, the case is scheduled to return to court, where the state hopes to convince Cashman to reconsider the sentence.
The state prosecutor, Robert Simpson, said in court papers that the 60-day jail time was insufficient to constitute punishment.
“This court’s sentence must consider and include punishment for the defendant’s action in repeatedly sexually assaulting this child,” said Simpson.
The firestorm began when Cashman sentenced Mark Huelett, 34, who pleaded guilty to charges that he had sexual contact with a girl during a four-year period beginning when she was 6.
During the sentencing, Cashman said the best way to ensure public safety was to get Hulett out of prison so he could receive sex offender treatment. Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn’t likely to reoffend, he wouldn’t be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he reached the end of his jail term.
After the sentencing, Gov. James Douglas called for the judge to resign and several lawmakers suggested he be impeached. On Fox News, Bill O’Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: “You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA.”
Mark Kaplan, Hulett’s lawyer, argued that the sentence, which included a long period of probation and parole, is in line with other sentences given out by Vermont courts. Cashman needs to ignore the public outcry, he said.
“The sentence in this case may not be popular, but the court cannot be swayed by the media or the mob,” he wrote in court papers.
Simpson said he didn’t know if Cashman plans to rule from the bench or wait and file a written decision at a later date. In a Jan. 12 memorandum, Cashman appeared unswayed, writing: “To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong.”
Last week, he indicated the public outcry has been difficult.
“It is difficult to endure, in silence, the type of criticism leveled to date,” he wrote in another memo.
Richard, Being they lived in a remote area I too am reminded of another instance…those 2 little girls gunned down in the middle of no where for no reason! No one saw it happen. If the uncle is the culprit, he’s familiar with the area and would be able to ellude being seen pretty easily.
The fact he found artcles belonging to her is just to telling. How did he know to look there? Probably placed them in the spot himself in a pathetic attempt to throw off the police.
This article, out this morning, has a pertinent fact: this girl was seen in a local coin laundry, 45 minutes after her uncle dropped her off at a local convenience store.
Was this an agreed-upon rendezvous? No idea….
It also points out that she was with a cousin of hers, as well as with the uncle.
Uncle of a missing Vermont girl arrested
Associated Press
Mon Jun 30, 12:39 AM ET
MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont State Police said Sunday the uncle of a missing 12-year-old girl — one of the last people to see her before she vanished — has been arrested on unrelated sex charges.
Michael Jacques, 42, of Randolph, who dropped off Brooke Bennett at a convenience store Wednesday and was seen leaving it in a different direction on a surveillance camera video, was charged with aggravated sexual assault against a minor. The alleged victim wasn’t Bennett, who remained missing Sunday, despite an intensive search by state police, the FBI and other agencies.
Jacques, who is married to Bennett’s mother’s sister, is listed on Vermont sex offender registry. He was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping in 1993.
The arrest came as the result of information uncovered by investigators assigned to the disappearance.
Jacques was being held at the Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield, pending an arraignment Monday. If convicted, he could get 10 years to life in prison.
Police said Jacques and a cousin of Brooke’s dropped the girl at Cumberland Farms in Randolph about 9 a.m. Wednesday. On the video, which was released Friday, Jacques and Brooke are seen in the store, where Jacques makes a purchase with Brooke at his side. They walk out together, then part ways. She was seen about 45 minutes later inside a coin laundry, police said.
Her grandmother reported Bennett missing 12 hours later, and on Thursday an Amber Alert — the first in Vermont history — was issued for Brooke.
Police have said they believe Brooke may have been headed to meet someone with whom she had been communicating online. On Friday, Vermont State Police director Col. James Baker said the investigation centered on contacts Brooke made on the MySpace.com social networking site.
No suspects have been named in her disappearance.
the uncle went back after dropping her off and
probably said “hey come with me while i go get you some money from the ATM machine”
or something like that and that is all it took
PIGS
)(*&*(^&^&%#@%(&#^&$%#^$%@#^%@%#%^@(&
Thx Richard. Your post of the article leads my little brain thinking up a couple other scenarios.
First, now we have another person with this girl at the point of drop off. Girl or boy cousin? Do you know? If female, maybe we have the person who was finally willing to talk about being sexually abused once in the presence of law enforcement as they definately would be interviewing the cousin.
Second, could Brooke have been aware her uncle was molesting a cousin and he used this elaborate set up as a muse in order to “shut her up”?
This is going to unravel pretty quickly I hope. Not looking good at this point.
“The video shows the uncle parted ways from the 12-year-old girl. But that doesn’t mean, because of the cameras, he is free & clear. He could have used the cameras/ video to clear himself, and had her walk away from the store to meet him, away from the cameras. Thus clearing him of being with her. He still could have committed the crime. Bottom line? Her uncle was the online friend.”
Charles, my inclination as well. Now and then a case really pulls at me. Natalee’s is one, the 2 girls recently shot on their own country road is another, Laci Peterson’s murder, and now this. Something is just so NOT right here. As with Laci, Natalee, and so many others…their faces are OUT THERE on the news and no way would everyone in the USA be unable to spot her if she were out and about. No sightings. Just SO not good!!!
brenda
I remember you saying that and me responding to you… big possibility..the uncle knows more!!
Hi Miss Kate! Yes…I remember now.
If the cops had tracking dogs at the location he found the articles of whatever belonging to the girl, dogs will either pick up both scents or only one. Handlers will be able to tell. Wonder if they’ve confiscated his vehicle yet…or if it has GPS tracking. We can only hope.
I wish I could have been an investigator, but wasn’t meant to be in my life. I’d have to be a cop on the streets first, and trust me, I don’t belong there. I’d be in jail cuz I doubt I could contain emotions in a case of a child abuser, drunk drive who kills an innocent, etc. Don’t know how more cops don’t loose it…really!
That new article leaves me with a bunch of questions
Where are the parents? Are they even in the picture? Why did the uncle who is a sex offender have her in the first place? Why was it the grandmother that reported her missing? Why did it take the grandmother 12 hours to report her missing? If there really was a cousin along for the ride, why haven’t we heard about that little detail until now? Can anyone place this cousin in the vehicle that day? Why did only the uncle and Brooke go into the store? Why not the cousin?
Surely someone would have known something was up if the girl didn’t call or return after a few hours if. Why wait 12 hours to call police?
Nothing about this seems right.
Oops, I meant to say that surely someone would have known something was up if the girl didn’t call or return after a few hours.
Fox News is reporting that the uncle has been named a person of interest and they’re searching his home.
Missing Girl’s Uncle Named ‘Person of Interest’ in Her Disappearance
Monday, June 30, 2008
CHELSEA, Vt. — A probe into the disappearance of a 12-year-old girl zeroed in on her uncle Monday, with police calling him a “person of interest” and searching his home while he was being arraigned on sex charges in an unrelated case.
Michael Jacques, 42, of Randolph, a registered sex offender who was one of the last people to see Brooke Bennett before she vanished, pleaded not guilty to aggravated sexual assault and was being held on $250,000 bail.
The alleged victim, a relative of Jacques’, was a girl who says Jacques assaulted her over a five-year period, beginning when she was 9 years old and ending a few weeks ago, Orange County State’s Attorney Will Porter said.
In an affidavit released afterward, Vermont State Police Detective Sgt. William Jenkins said the girl told police that when she was 9 or 10, she was told — in a telephone call and in a note left under her pillow — that she had been selected for enrollment in a “program for sex” and that Jacques was to be her trainer.
The alleged victim, identified only as “A.R.” in court papers, said she was told two other girls were in the program, too.
“The first who does it lives and the second gets her throat cut,” she told police, according to the affidavit.
At Jacques’ home in Randolph, meanwhile, Vermont State Police called in state police units from Connecticut and Massachusetts and used a helicopter and dogs to search Jacques’ home and an adjoining property. Troopers swarmed around Jacques’ home — a large two-story house — beginning around 4 a.m. Monday.
Police haven’t named him as a suspect in Bennett’s disappearance, and seemed last week to be ruling him out. They wouldn’t answer questions Monday, pending a 4 p.m. briefing.
Jacques, who is married to the sister of Bennett’s mother, dropped Bennett off at a Cumberland Farms convenience store in Randolph on Wednesday after she told family members she was going to meet a friend and visit a relative of the friend’s in the hospital.
Police believe that was a lie, and that Bennett may have bound for a meeting with an unknown individual she had been communicating with through MySpace.com, the social networking site. On Friday, Vermont State Police director James Baker said the MySpace communications were the main focus of the probe.
Surveillance video from the store showed Bennett and Jacques leave the store and go in separate directions.
Bennett, who just finished seventh grade at Randolph Union High School, has not been seen since. She is the subject of Vermont’s first-ever Amber Alert, which was issued Friday.
In court Monday, a pallid Jacques — handcuffed and shackled at the waist — entered a not guilty plea through public defender L. Brooke Dingledine, who persuaded Judge Theresa DiMauro to grant bail over the objections of Porter.
Jacques has 1993 convictions for kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault and there is “a threat of prejudicial violence to this particular juvenile complainant,” said Porter, in arguing for no bail. “Her personal safety was threatened.”
He also noted the serious nature of the crime, which could lead to a life prison term, and said Jacques had violated his probation.
“There’s no condition or series of conditions that could guarantee the safety of the juvenile complainant in this case,” said Porter.
Dingledine said Jacques has a full-time job as an operations manager for a company in West Lebanon, N.H., owns his home and a rental property next door, has strong family ties and a family that depends on his income.
DiMauro said she was considering barring Jacques from leaving the county, but Dingledine — who called the corroborating evidence on the sex charge “very sparse” — said he needed to get to work. So the judge ordered a 24-hour curfew — except for work — if he makes bail.
Relatives of Bennett watched from the gallery as Jacques made his appearance.
HI BRENDA
LET ME GET THIS RIGHT!! THE GIRLS MOTHER IN THIS CASE HAS A SISTER… THIS SISTER’S HUSBAND IS THE UNCLE THAT DROPPED HER OFF?
DID THIS GIRLS FAMILY KNOW HE WAS A SEX OFFENDER AND IF SO WHY DIDNT THEY PREVENT THIS…
WANNA HERE SOMETHING SICKER THAN THAT…
I KNEW A LADY THAT WAS MARRIED TO A MAN THEY HAD 4 GIRLS TWO WERE 12 AND 13.. THEY GOT PREGNANT BY THEIR REAL FATHER.. THE MOTHER WAS CALLING THE KIDS HER GRANDCHILDREN… SHE WAS WAY OFF IN LALAND.. EVENTUALY HE WENT TO PRISON.. THE TWO GIRLS HAD BABIES BY THEIR DAD… THEY KEPT THE KIDS… HE GOT OUT AND THE WIFE TOOK HIM BACK IN.. THE GIRLS NO LONGER LIVED AT HOME BY THE TIME HE GOT OUT OF PRISON… TO THIS DAY HE BEATS AND BERATES HIS WIFE… EVEN AFTER SHE STOOD BY HIS SEICK SELF SHE I WOULD SAY IS AS SICK AS HIM…. THEY RUINED THOSE GIRLS LIFE… ONE GIRLS VISSITS HER PARENTS WITH HER DADS KID THE OTHER GIRL WONT GO AROUND EM….
SORRY BOUT THE TYPE-O’S
BUT IT IS A TRUE STORY…
HIS WIFE IS NOT ALL THERE…
THE PRISON SYSTEM HAS NO IDEA HE LIVES AT HOME … HE HAS BEEN REPORTED AT TIMES I HEARD BUT NOTHING DONE….HE IS UNDER MEGANS LAW AS A PREDATOR
Believe me, Vermont has not kept tabs on this guy or on the other scumbags in its offender program.
Perhaps it does the best it can … but its best is by no means adequate to the task.
That CNN article looks pretty much like the AP article I was about to post.
I wonder if this will go before Judge Cashman, who gave some other piece of garbage (see the article I put up above) a six-month sentence so that he could get treatment. Hey, that’s the real issue here … what can society do for the offender?
The VICTIM? Ah, heck, lots of kids around.
Re-read this from the article above. If what she says is true, then could there be a link between this guy’s sudden abandonment of her and Brooke’s disappearance? And would anyone hesitate for a moment to think that the death sentence was justified if the uncle (and/or anyone else) is convicted of involvement in Brooke’s disappearance?
The alleged victim, a relative of Jacques’, was a girl who says Jacques assaulted her over a five-year period, beginning when she was 9 years old and ending a few weeks ago, Orange County State’s Attorney Will Porter said.
In an affidavit released afterward, Vermont State Police Detective Sgt. William Jenkins said the girl told police that when she was 9 or 10, she was told — in a telephone call and in a note left under her pillow — that she had been selected for enrollment in a “program for sex” and that Jacques was to be her trainer.
The alleged victim, identified only as “A.R.” in court papers, said she was told two other girls were in the program, too.
“The first who does it lives and the second gets her throat cut,” she told police, according to the affidavit.
This video below says the uncle was the one to find her clothes and that the uncle is a part of a online sexual gang/club called the Brekinbrook something.
They show the uncle in court and boy does he look nervous…..
http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/Uncle-of-missing-Vermont-girl-a-person-of-interest/1214864329.html
This story will get even worse before we hear it all. Already old news…property being searched now. OK, here’s where the “worse” starts. The liberal judge at his bond hearing did NOT deny bond as she should have. The DIShonorable judge is allowing this guy (if he can make it) to post bond so he can work. Ok, I get it he has a family…but now, based on the story I just read by Miss Kate…I am all the more confused as to WHY is his wife letting him BACK INTO THE HOUSE??!! Especially if they have children?
Ok, so our preditor has a “family that depends on him”? Really?! Brooke is a part of his family, she dependend on him and we see how that went.
(Oh… and SMish…gotta know if the uncle was sweating as bad as Paulus Van der Sloot when being questioned about HIS little killer, JOran?)
Here’s an article from the Burlington Free Press today (July 1, 2008). It gives more play than most prior articles have done to the notion of a “sex organization” that preyed on young girls.
Couldn’t happen in Aruba, of course ….
CHELSEA — An uncle and a mysterious organization that allegedly preys sexually on young girls have become the prime focus of the investigation into a Braintree girl missing since last week, Vermont State Police said Monday.
The surprise developments in the case of Brooke Bennett were disclosed by police Monday afternoon after the uncle, Michael S. Jacques, 42, of Randolph Center, was charged in Vermont District Court in Chelsea with the aggravated sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl related to the missing girl.
Jacques, a registered sex offender, pleaded not guilty and was held on $250,000 bail while police searched his home for clues into Brooke’s disappearance. He remained jailed Monday night at Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield.
Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police, said the alleged victim in the Jacques sexual assault told police Jacques was part of “Breckenridge,” the name for an alleged group of men who secretly coerce young girls to engage in sex acts with them.
Baker said the police are now investigating whether there may be other child sexual predators and potentially other young victims of sex crimes connected with the case.
“We are actively pursuing any other people who may be associated with this so-called organization,” Baker told reporters during an afternoon news conference staged at Whitcomb Junior/Senior High School in Bethel. “We are pursuing other avenues besides Michael Jacques.”
Baker also appealed to other girls to come forward who “may have had contact” with Jacques — pronounced “Jakes” — who he described as a “person of interest” in the investigation into Brooke’s disappearance.
The 12-year-old girl went missing after she was dropped off at a Randolph convenience store by Jacques. Police said they were told she was planning to meet a friend at the store and travel with her to a Lebanon, N.H., hospital to visit a friend. Police believe that was a lie.
Surveillance video from the store showed Brooke and Jacques — who is married to the sister of Brooke’s mother — leave the store and go in separate directions.
Monday, Baker said, “As a result of information developed late Saturday and early Sunday, the focus of our investigation shifted drastically.” He said it was during the weekend that the computer forensics probe “eliminated the whole world out there and narrowed our focus.”
Brooke, who just finished seventh grade at Randolph Union High School, has not been seen since. She is the subject of Vermont’s first Amber Alert, issued Friday.
Police, assisted by the FBI and an array of police from Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have scoured the area around Randolph since Thursday.
Divers also searched Sunset Lake after clothing items belonging to Brooke were found nearby. Baker confirmed that Jacques was the person who reported finding the clothing items.
Baker said investigators continue to believe that Internet social network sites like MySpace may have played a role in Brooke’s disappearance. He declined to say whether Jacques was tied to the use of the Internet sites by Brooke.
Baker said Jacques was arrested by police Sunday afternoon at his home without incident.
Monday, wearing a blue shirt and blue jeans, Jacques was led in shackles to his arraignment at the Chelsea courthouse.
Judge Theresa DiMauro set bail for Jacques, overruling a request from Orange County State’s Attorney Will Porter to have Jacques held without bail given the seriousness of the claims in the affidavit.
DiMauro said she would consider having Jacques held without bail at a later date but voiced concern that the allegations against Jacques in the affidavit had not yet been sufficiently substantiated by other witnesses.
Police have confirmed that Jacques is on the state’s sex offender registry. In 1993, he was convicted of kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault.
Jacques did not speak during the court appearance and showed little emotion, occasionally looking over to a group of family members who attending the proceeding.
“It’s a hard thing this family’s been through,” said Storm Woodard, 54 of Sharon, who said Brooke is his grand niece. He said he was not surprised by Jacques’ arrest, but was worried what it will mean for his family.
“This is not doing a good thing for my family,” he shouted to reporters as he departed the courthouse.
According to the police affidavit in the Jacques case, he had engaged in various sex acts with the alleged victim beginning when she was 9 years old and continuing for five years. The most recent incident occurred earlier in June.
The victim said her first contact with the “Breckenridge” program involved a phone call and a note under her pillow that informed her that she had been chosen to participate in the “program for sex.” Jacques was designated to be her “trainer,” the affidavit said.
Police said she told them she was one of three girls who were enrolled in the program. She also said she had met three men from the program, one of whom was Jacques.
Baker said police spent much of Monday searching the Jacques home in Randolph. He declined to say whether Brooke was one of the girls involved in the Breckenridge program.
“It’s too early in the process to comment on that,” he said.
Two things from the article I posted jump out.
One is this comment by the Vermont State Police:
Monday, Baker said, “As a result of information developed late Saturday and early Sunday, the focus of our investigation shifted drastically.”
Shifted FROM what, TO what? It’s not certain at this point, but it seems that the computer probe was central. And that MySpace plays a key role.
(Remember that just after Joran vdScum was arrested, Pvd Scum took his son’s Web site off the Internet? This potential destruction of evidence was done by a judge wannabe? The media seem to have forgotten about this, but I haven’t.)
Next, the imbecile who said “This isn’t good for the family” seems at the very least to be out of it. And maybe … well, remember the case of Fred and Rosemary West, a husband-and-wife team of serial murderers in the UK who also abused their own kids and murdered some of them.
There are reports that Fred West involved his own brother in molesting his own children. Look up the case if you have a strong stomach.
Is this ‘Breckenridge’ group, if it’s not just some fiction, involving other members of the family? Is there a connection between this Jacques’ apparent sudden loss of interest in the girl whom he had been molesting for years and the disappearance of Brooke?
Did something happen to her because she was getting to be of an age where she might realize what was happening, and perhaps happening to her?
Looks like this is getting bigger, anyway.
And also … this article talks about an organized group of older adults (not necessarily just older men) engaging in group action against young girls. So far, it’s nothing but allegations. But if it proves to be true …
Is there a parallel in what happened to Natalee Holloway in May 2005?
“It’s a hard thing this family’s been through,” said Storm Woodard, 54 of Sharon, who said Brooke is his grand niece. He said he was not surprised by Jacques’ arrest.
Why in the world is he “not surprised”? Does this imply that he knew something about this sex ring, or something more? Why does he seem to be more concerned about the family image than in the fate of Brooke and the idea of statutory rape?
For what it’s worth, which very probably is nothing at all, Sharon is home to a big Mormon shrine (if that’s the word). The founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith, lived in the area at one point. I’m not implying any connection between the presence of Mormons and this tragedy.
Also, the 14-year-old girl who apparently has talked to police is some relation to Brooke. The 14-year-old is the one who is giving the details about “Breckenridge”; the police say it’s not clear whether Brooke was involved in that.
Could it be that she was approached, and decided to get the hell out of there? Or, possibly, she was approached, said she’d talk, and was eliminated? Or sent somewhere else?
God only knows … I hope this other girl, the 14-year-old who police are citing, is under a very strong security guard and is in a safe location.
Richard, I see you and I are having the same line of thought on this.
Fact he is a “family man” in public means nothing. That guy who killed all those people yrs ago and was caught in the last couple of years had a wife/family too. cannot remember his name, but was a mail carrier for a while or something. He would send coded letter to police and messed up sending one later in life and forensics got him. Appears computer forensics will get whoever caused Brooke to disappear.
Actually Richard…one thing i read a bit differently than you on the older uncle who “is not surprised”. This uncle doesn’t appear to me to be “worried” about family image, but to me worried about what the impact of the allegations/truth is going to do to them. Also, the prying media asking questions that they should not be asked regarding sensitive issues.
That said, older uncle probably saw this guy was a pervert, but as with so many pervs…was able to hide just HOW BAD he REALLY was and became successful at it for a long time.
I know of a couple folks that if they made the news doing ANYTHING I would not bat an eye, but I too have nothing concrete on them other than word of mouth and observing the strangest of behavior.
oops…meant to add another person..Brooke’s step-father, has been arrested. And the circle grows.
he walks in many circles…..
Brooke’s step father was arrested?
This part of Richard’s posted article jumps out at me:
Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police, said the alleged victim in the Jacques sexual assault told police Jacques was part of “Breckenridge,” the name for an alleged group of men who secretly coerce young girls to engage in sex acts with them.
What if Brooke was already initiated into this group?What IF her so called uncle had set her up to meet someone and then she disappeared?
Shoot,there may be other family members in this same group.
Just speculating……
[...] this week, the 42 year old uncle of Brooke Bennett, Michael Jacques, was arrested on an unrelated sexual assault against another minor. However, police consider [...]
Brenda, do you mean the BTK killer, who I think was living in Kansas City or thereabouts?
One is not used to thinking of serial killers as being in Kansas. But I guess even Kansas isn’t what it used to be; maybe Dorothy went back to Oz?
Anyway, the new thread here says that a stepfather, or some such relative, living in San Antonio, Texas, has been charged, or arrested (I forget) … and, very ominously, that the federal government has taken over the case.
(Some of these details I’m putting here probably are wrong.)
But if the feds are now in charge, does this imply that interstate transportation of Brooke is known or suspected? (Remember, folks, Vermont is on the Canadian border.)
If so, what does this signify? That she was moved to keep her quiet? That she was in a ring, or was forcibly introduced to or handed over to, a sex ring that has interstate links with pornographic and/or prostitution outlets?
The only bright spot that I can see … and it sure as hell isn’t much of one … is that if this is so, she might still be alive.
I think there is small doubt now that the Uncle is at least partly responsible for poor Brooke’s death, given his implication in another, contemporaneous case of child sexual molestation, his history as a convicted sex offender, his continued involvement with child porn/pedophiliac sites, the fact that he, by his own admission, was the last to be seen with Brooke, followed by his fortuitous discovery of some of her clothing (10 miles from where he said he dropped her off – boy, good eyes, huh?), the testimony of the young witness who claimed he was with Brooke (for sex) at his home AFTER he claimed he dropped her off (and had last seen her), and his involvement (even to alleged posting of false messages on her MySpace page) in the “false lead” about her meeting someone from online. Indeed, it is rumored that something found in his house actually led to the discovery of her body. That all seems terribly conclusive. Then again, I thought OJ was guilty, too…
The only question is who else was involved. It seems that the ex-stepfather was, at least in the cover-up if not in the murder. Do we really believe that “Mom” was ignorant of all this? Seems she has a certain affinity for pedophiles (related to them, married to them), does it extend to cooperation and even participation? This is beyond shameful. Yet the Sup. Court says that executing child rapists is cruel and unusual. Too bad for the Brookes of the world, because the only way to stop predators (as this case would seem to prove) is to end them. I am disgusted to the point of being ill.
KILL THIS PILE OF CRAP. DEAD, DEAD DEAD DEAD.
As a survivor of ten years at the hands of my stepfather, I think all sexual preditors where children are involved need to be publicly executed. The scars they leave last a lifetime.
i agree with corina death penalty is true justice. Islam offers options of death by cruxifiction, normal execution or limbs cut of from opposite sides so as to mark and shame the criminal for life in cases whereby one is convicted. Judge decides which option applies to which criminal depending on facts of case.a 4th Option of exile is also mentioned but this is not as straight forward as sending criminal to a far land where he probably would do it to others as it seems. For more info google punishment for proven rape in islam. Try the islam qa (question n answer) site by shaykh salih munajid. It is because of a weak justice system that treats criminals like victims that we keep hearing of increased rape crimes. Stats say every 3 MINS SOMEONE IS RAPED? HOW MANY PERVERTS WILL DARE TO ATTACK KNOWING RISK OF PUBLIC CRUXIFICTION IF CAUGHT?