A large-scale balloon release is being planned in Woodstock for Sunday, May 23, at Emricson Park. This is to remind people that Beth Bentley has been missing since late May, 2010.
When I first heard about a balloon release in Harvard for another person, I questioned this method to publicizing a disappearance (or any other event). Years ago I heard about the impact on wildlife, birds and fish of small, burst balloons and any streamers, ties, threads or strings attached to them. If you are curious about this impact, go to Google and search for "balloons AND birds".
Will each balloon have a message imprinted on it or stuffed inside, to inform any finder that Beth is missing from Woodstock? Or will the balloons have meaning only for the people in the park at the time of the release at 3:00PM?
Some cities have ordinances about balloon releases. Does Woodstock?
Is the purpose of a balloon release to call attention to the fact that she has been missing for a year, or is it to find someone with information to help find Beth Bentley or to find someone connected to any crime that has occurred with connection to her?
Solid, continuing police work and nosy neighbors and acquaintances will solve this disappearance. People wonder why this case is still classified as a Missing Person case and why it has not been re-classified as a Crime.
Beth was supposed to go to Wisconsin with her friend and co-worker, Jennifer Wyatt. Instead, she parked (hid?) her car in Jennifer's garage, rented a car, and presumably drove to Mount Vernon, Illinois. Did ANYONE ever see Beth in Mount Vernon?
The two young men with whom Beth and Jenn reportedly stayed in Mount Vernon have never had a comment publicly attributed to them in a year. One of them was arrested in Woodstock on an alcohol (by a minor) charge and assaulting a cop in September. It was a perfect opportunity to "squeeze" him for information. Did he "lawyer up" real fast with a Bentley friend? At the very least, that lawyer represented him in court with a fast plea to dispose of the case.
Was there a "deal"? Of course, there was a deal. The illegal consumption of alcohol by a minor charge was nolle prossed, even through there had been two previous, similar alcohol-by-minor charges and one previous battery charge.
Why didn't the police and the State's Attorney hold out and plan to go for the longest-possible sentence until the kid coughed up some information? Did the Woodstock Police get consulted before the "deal" was made? Or was the "deal" made between an Assistant State's Attorney and the kid's attorney without the involvement of the Woodstock officer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This whole "missing person" case has been botched from the begining.
But I guess with a states attorney's office that is mia and the sheep just walk about saying this like, oh well whats ya going to do....
Text book case on how not to handle a "missing" person case that in too many cases turn out to be a homicide by a close family member.
Stay tuned it coould get very interesting.....
Amazing how most would have comppleted basic police work at the initial incident.....
Can't say that with the states attorney's office in such disaray that anything would have gone any other way.
But stay tuned, it could get very interesting.....
Bill, don't the police have to have a suspect to charge before the State's Attorney's office gets involved? So far as I know, no suspect or even a person-of-interest has been named.
Post a Comment