Jenn Wyatt demands jury trial

Jennifer Wyatt-Paplham entered a Not Guilty plea in court last Wednesday to Woodstock felony charges filed in March in the Beth Bentley missing person case.

And she is asking for (demanding) a jury trial. Well, we know how long it takes to get a jury trial around here...

Her next court date, for Status, is June 27. Often, cases drag for 1-2 years before the actual date for a jury trial arrives. Why judges put up with continuation after continuance is beyond my comprehension. Why not set a trial date for, say, September and tell the lawyers to be ready and that, ready or not, the trial will take place? Instead of status hearing after status hearing after status hearing, wouldn't it be wonderful if Judge Condon just set a Trial Date at the June 27th court date?

After a few mis-steps, guess what? Trials would start happening while someone still remembered the facts and that cases were pending. Someone besides the lawyers, I mean.

Thursday morning's article in the Northwest Herald read, "Police (that's the Woodstock Police) alleged that Wyatt was lying when she said she did not have contact with Bentley two days later, although they will not say when the two last had contact."

Since Wyatt has demanded a jury trial, then let's have a trial. No deals. No last-minute plea to a lesser charge. Put on the case. Bring out the evidence. Let's hear what's going on this case, which is now a few days short of two years old. She wants a trial? Give her a trial.

I haven't read the Complaint recently, but from the newspaper's description of the charge a few questions quickly arise.

1. What, exactly, is the lie -
a. she did have contact with Bentley two days later (on May 25, 2010)? or
b. that Wyatt said on May 25 that she hadn't had contact with Beth on some other date? or
c. that she said at some time later than she had not had contact with Bentley on May 25, 2010?

2. Are the charges specific enough to stick?

The claim for two years has been that Beth Bentley vanished from near the Centralia (Ill.) Amtrak station on Sunday, May 23, 2010, about 6:00PM. Supposedly, no one has heard from or seen Beth since.

Wyatt apparently told the Woodstock Police that she did not have contact with Beth on May 25, two days later. Or did she tell them two days later that she hadn't had contact with Beth (since when?)?

Will the prosecutors be good enough not to confuse the jury?

Some people continue to make a big deal out of there being no record that Beth ever boarded the northbound train for Chicago. So what? Just because somebody gets dropped off near a train station doesn't mean that they intended to take the train.

But did Wyatt tell police, say on May 25, 2010, that Beth did intend to take the train? Or was she vague enough, even then, that police and others jumped to the conclusion that Beth had taken the train?


This was a red herring right from the beginning. How many people went on the wild goose chase to the Chicago Amtrak station to put up fliers? Who really thinks now that Beth would arrive in downtown Chicago on a Sunday night, dressed as described, and hoof it over to Ogilvie Station? Wyatt called me on June 10 and told me that Beth never intended to take a train and that she never intended to spend the whole week-end in Mount Vernon with Wyatt and the Ridge brothers.

Why would Beth leave the rental car in Jenn's possession, knowing (or perhaps not knowing) that Jenn did not have a valid driver's license?

What did Beth plan to do that week-end? There is no doubt in my mind that Wyatt knew, and knows, what Beth's plans were for the week-end.

Were they even in Mount Vernon? Maybe only three people know, for sure. 1. Jenn Wyatt. 2. Ryan Ridge. 3. Nathan Ridge.

The count now? Beth Bentley has been missing for 102 weeks.