Woodstock wife and mother Beth Bentley, 41, has now been missing for 36 weeks.
She was apparently last seen in public on Friday night, May 21, 2010, at the Frosty Mug in Mt. Vernon, Ill. After that, a hodge-podge of stories and rumors place her at a house in Mt. Vernon, on a rental boat on Rend Lake, at an IGA grocery store, near a train station, ordering a pizza. Are all of those just red herrings?
Her girlfriend and traveling companion's stories keep changing. There are no confirmed reports of any statements from the two Ridge brothers and their relationships, if any, with either Beth or her traveling companion, Jennifer Wyatt.
In spite of no reported use of credit or debit cards or cell phone by Beth, the Woodstock Police still classify this case as a missing-person case.
I wonder police are looking back over the past eight months now and wondering whether they should have done something differently right from the start. Did Jennifer Wyatt tell the truth on Monday night, when Beth didn't show up back in Woodstock with her? Has she told the truth since? Has she ever told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about everything that happened that week-end?
The time is past for protecting indiscretions, if any, in Beth's life. It's way past! Because her story has changed so many times, now is the time for Jennifer to take a lie-detector test.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
7 comments:
She's dead Jim!
Who would have thought this could be so easily solved? Just order Jenn Wyatt to submit to a polygraph examination that's inadmissible in this state. I haven't followed what she has and hasn't said but it would seem that you're now accusing her of lying. Is that so? I might be tempted to think twice about what I say publicly about a non-public figure. You obviously lack knowledge of the law with regard to the polygraph... could you also be sticking your foot in your mouth regarding libel?
Ahh, Steve, back to Reading 101, please. Where did I write "order her" to take a polygraph?
What if she, declared as a "best friend" to Beth, frequent traveling companion and possible alibi for other trips, recognized and admitted that she has told conflicting stories and decided, on her own, to clear the record?
Where did I write anything about admissibility in court or even a polygraph administered by police?
What if the polygraph started with the initial planning for the week-end, covered the deception of a Wisconsin destination, reason for car rental, actual plans for the week-end, actual events of the week-end, and who did what to whom, and when?
When I was getting into a perilous or iffy situation, one of my old bosses would say I was “getting out on the skinny branches.” Gus I think you are getting out on the skinny branches. .. you wrote.
"Did Jennifer Wyatt tell the truth on Monday night, when Beth didn't show up back in Woodstock with her? Has she told the truth since? Has she ever told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about everything that happened that week-end?"
Then you suggest it is time for her to take a lie-detector test.
Let’s go back to Civil Law 101. To prove the case against you for defamation of Character or libel, the plaintiff need only prove a preponderance of the evidence. That she has been defamed or her public reputation sullied. Preponderance of the evidence...that’s 51% to for non court types. Now go back and read the words you wrote. They could very easily be construed as accusatory especially when the person of whom you speak is a private person, not a public person. Unless you have a real deep pocket, I believe Wyatt just may have a case against you.
The old nursery rhyme speaks of the skinny braches when it says “Rock a bye baby in the tree top.” I’ll spare the rest, but it may have a new ending if Jennifer Wyatt starts the wind blowing.
When the bough breaks,
The blog spot will fall
And down will come Gussy
Blog Spot and all…….
I think I hear a siren now. Here's comes an ambulance. And who is that, right behind it?
Defamation of Character? Really? And of whom?
The "admissability" of a polygraph aside, what the f*ck's going on with her statements?
As for now, she's "just another victim". But once the facts BECOME known, once Beth's "corpus" has been determined to be "delcti", and other info in this case drops into place, what will Jennifer Wyatt then claim to have been "The Truth"?
What of her various stories?
What of her already noted "obstruction of justice", should many statements be proven false?
If there were EVER a concern on her part for Beth's questionable physical safety both then OR now, there'd be only ONE story, only ONE TRUTH.
Just give us the one true story of what you know, Jennifer. Anything less makes us wonder about you!
Here are some terms just to help everyone out with what is and isn't libel or slanderous and what is or isn't a public figure.
A false statement. Which causes harm. Libel involves making deflamatory statements or a false statement
Attacks on character.
Attacks on the person committing a crime of moral turnptitude.
But if this is someone's opinion it is hard to them to be libel for this suit. A expression of opinion is acceptable. If a person decides to bring suit against someone that they feel have slandered them than they had better be ready for the after affects. It will bring more attention to their situation. It is very very hard to prove. They can also be a limited public figure. Or if they have a poor reputation that had better be pretty good reputation to begin with.
And as far as a JW goes I believe some statements she has made weren't totally truthful in my opinion. And I would also like to see her take a it this way she can prove her innocence and everyone could be satisfied that she is tellng the truth. Being the last person to see your friend puts you in a pretty vunderable situation. And at least she would satisfy what everyone wants to know. It is human nature to want to know the truth. Gus just stated what everyone is thinking. Eight months is a long time for someone to be missing. Being Beth's BF you would think she would do whatever it took so that this case could move on. And be helpful instead of distant and this would be helpful to the family to have some firm answers from her. She tends to talk in circles and allude to Beth's lack of character a lot. This makes people suspect. She has spoken to several people and it is always making herself the victim whenever she speaks of Beth Bentley. She also starts the conversation with this....so her behavior in my opinion is pretty odd. So why not settle this and just ask her attorney to have her take this and get it over so everyone can move on to stranger danger or something else. Give her family some peace so that they know her BF is telling the truth and nothing but the truth. But of course this is just my opinion and I am no longer sure about anything except Beth Bentley is still missing and Gus seems to help keep her in the public eye.....
Post a Comment