Beth Bentley - 161 weeks gone

Beth Bentley vanished 161 weeks ago, probably on Sunday, May 23, 2010.

The Woodstock (Ill.) Police Department (WPD) claims to be the lead investigatory police department in this case, which it classified first as a missing-person case and subsequently escalated slightly, when it named Bentley as an Endangered Missing Person.

WPD never explained the "endangered" classification. "Endangered" is commonly used in cases where there is a known physical or mental health issue, a need for prescribed medication(s), threats of harm, etc.

WPD never updated the flier on its website to remove questionable details or the dissolution of the Woodstock Area Crime Stoppers organization that had offered one-half of the $2,000 reward.

The local (Woodstock) Crime Stoppers group was involuntarily dissolved on June 14, 2013, for failure to file its last Annual Report or pay the miniscule filing fee ($10.00?). The last Board let the 25-year-old organization go down the drain without a struggle to keep it going. Offers to re-energize it got no response. Obviously, "younger blood" was needed for it to continue, but the Board did little or nothing to perpetuate the group. Remaining funds were transferred to the Crime Stoppers of McHenry County, and presumably the $1,000 reward was abandoned.

Whether or not the Crime Stoppers of McHenry County still offers its own $1,000 reward in this case is anyone's guess. It is virtually impossible to contact the group or get a response from them. In any event, no one is likely to step forward with information about Bentley for the petty sum of $1,000. No private or family reward has been mentioned for almost three years.

Who should care if a married woman goes missing from a community? If family and friends don't "raise hell", should anyone else? I've had several women tell me that they hope they never go missing from Woodstock.

What does that tell you about whether Woodstock is a caring community?

Beth Bentley - Week 127!

Week 127! Beth Bentley, of Woodstock, Ill., has been missing since about May 23, 2010!!!

Who is involved in finding her?

Woodstock (Ill.) Police Department
Mount Vernon (Ill.) Police Department
Centralia (Ill.) Police Department
Jefferson County (Ill.) Sheriff's Department
Illinois State Police, Investigations (Zone 7? Zone 1?)

Did any of them interview Nathan Ridge and Ryan Ridge, brothers that Jenn Wyatt and Beth purported visited in Mount Vernon on the fateful week-end in May 2010? Did Ryan or Nathan tell police whether or not they saw Beth early Friday morning, May 21, 2010, after Jenn and Beth supposedly drove all night from Woodstock to Mount Vernon?

It's 330 miles from Woodstock to Mount Vernon. What time did they leave Woodstock? What route did they take? Where did they stop? What tolls were paid? Where did they buy gas? Who drove and how far? Did both drive? How many miles were put on the rental car? Was there a rental car? What time did they arrive in Mount Vernon?

Beth's car was parked inside Jenn's garage that week-end. Did investigators inventory her car after taking the missing-person report on the evening of May 24, 2010? Did investigators even go through Jenn's rental house at 749 Tara Drive, Woodstock? Ever take a specially-trained sniffer dog into the house? Down into the basement?

This case continues to be classified as a Missing Person case by the Woodstock Police Department.

I say "classified", not "treated". If you are treating a case as a Missing Person case, don't you ask the public for help? Don't you remind the public that the Person is still missing? The November 11, 2010 flier is still posted on the PD's website, but with no further information than was originally posted. The expiration date for the flier is now May 11, 2013, which is 2 1/2 years after the flier was put on the PD's website.

Now that's optimistic, isn't it?

The flier states that rewards of $2,000 are offered by the Woodstock and McHenry County CRIMESTOPPERS (sic), but there may no longer be a Woodstock Area Crime Stoppers group.

Earlier this year I was told it had folded and that the remaining funds had been transferred to Crime Stoppers for McHenry County. I guess that trims the reward to $1,000. At one time there was a total of $5,000 offered as a reward.

In checking the Illinois Secretary of State's website today, the Woodstock Area Crime Stoppers, Inc. is still listed as Active. The next Annual Report Filing Date is December 15. Maybe they are just going to let it dissolve involuntarily, which would make it harder (impossible?) and more expensive to resurrect, if interested parties showed up in the future.

Police update on Beth Bentley case

Let's take a look at the July report of the Woodstock Police Department in the Beth Bentley missing-person case. Each month the P.D. informs the City Manager (and through him, the Mayor and the City Council) of its activity in this case. The July Report, included in the September 4, 2012, packet to the City Council read:

"The Woodstock Police Department continues to investigate and follow up on all leads in the investigation of the Endangered Missing Person Benedetta "Beth" Bentley. The Investigations Division maintains contact with the family of Benedetta Bentley, the Illinois State Police and all other Police Agencies involved in this case for updates and the sharing of intelligence/information."

Sound familiar? It should. The same two sentences appear month and month with only the slightest change. For example, previous reports have included "aggressively follow up". The July report does not. The detail is called "boilerplate". Using it month after month reflects poorly on both the sender and the recipient. It basically says, "Ain't nothin' happenin', boss."

The only nibble on the investigatory hook earlier this year was the arrest of Jennifer Wyatt on felony charges that were dismissed by a judge, before ever getting anywhere near a trial. The felony charges were embarrassingly thin and never should have been approved by the State's Attorney's Office in the first place. The P.D. didn't have even the slightest chance of proving them because they didn't meet the statute.

What would happen is MIAT were pulled into this case, even now? What if trained investigators from several law-enforcement agencies in McHenry County were assembled and started a new investigation from Day One? What's MIAT? Major Incident Assistance Team?

Is not the sudden disappearance of a 41-year-old mother, wife and employee a "major incident"? Especially when so many conflicting stories arose so quickly?

Any suggestions from readers about subjects or people for MIAT to put under the microscope?

If you are afraid to associate your name, email address, or "poser" name with comments, then email or mail them to me. If you want to fax them, call first so I can switch the line to my low-tech fax machine. The phone line for the home phone/fax machine does not have CallerID. Honest! Sources will be held in the strictest confidence.

Beth Bentley gone 113 weeks. Lawyer: dismiss case

Beth Bentley vanished in May 2010. She disappeared sometime between May 20-23. She was last seen in Illinois.

Sure glad I wrote my article about Jenn Wyatt's charges on Tuesday because, on Wednesday, her attorney appeared in court and asked for charges to be dismissed.

Her argument? Sure sounds like it was close to mine, and mine wasn't even new. Shortly after the felony charges were filed against Jenn back in March, I wondered out loud whether the Woodstock Police would be able to make them stick.

Jenn's attorney is Kim Messer, Assistant Public Defender in McHenry County.

Felony charges have to be approved by the State's Attorney's Office. A police department can't just file felony charges. So what do you suppose led the Woodstock Police Department and the McHenry County State's Attorney's Office to believe they'd be able to successfully prosecute Jenn on these charges?

Maybe they'll surprise Jenn and her lawyer and be able to do it. On the face of it, they shouldn't be able to, because the Woodstock Police have never spoken of any "crime" having been committed. Beth Bentley is "just" a missing person. Of course, that's if you believe the Woodstock Police Department.

When you start asking around, no one believes Beth Bentley is a missing person. The good people of southern Illinois have rallied from the start and assumed that Beth had vanished from southern Illinois. But did she?

Did Beth vanish from Centralia, Ill., where Jenn says she dropped Beth off near the Amtrak Station on Sunday, May 23, 2010?

Or did Beth vanish from Mount Vernon, Ill., where Beth and Jenn had reportedly visited Ryan and Nathan Ridge? Has either Ridge ever been interviewed by the Woodstock Police Department, the Mount Vernon, Police Department, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office or the Illinois State Police in this case?

Or did Beth really ever leave Woodstock on Thursday night, May 20, 2010?

Jenn knows. Ryan Ridge knows. Nathan Ridge knows. My guess is that another half-dozen people in Woodstock know.

When the Woodstock PD officers interviewed Jenn on May 23-24, did she tell them that she had driven the rental car 300 miles back from Mount Vernon on May 24? Did they ask her for any photo identification? Did she show them an expired California Driver's License? Did they notice at the time that it was expired and raise the question about her legal authority to operate a motor vehicle in Illinois? Did she drive away from the interview that night?

Should Woodstock police officers worry?

Being a police officer is sometimes a hazardous, dangerous job. You never know what is going to happen when you respond to a domestic disturbance. You never know what is going to happen when you pull a car over for a traffic violation, even one so minor as a taillight out.

As an officer, you always have to be on your toes.

But should you have to worry about how your own department is going to screw you over, if you get injured while on-duty?

Every member of the department must be aware of the ordeal that former Woodstock Police Department Sgt. Steven Gorski is facing. Every member must be worrying, at least to some degree, that, if he (or she) gets injured on duty, just how hard is he going to have to fight for the benefits to which he is lawfully entitled?

The following information comes from public court records on file at the McHenry County Circuit Court. Anyone can read them. Today I read them. Every police officer with the Woodstock Police Department should go to the courthouse (better go off-duty and out of uniform, if you know what I mean) and look up Case No. 11MR000372.

Go to Room 353. The public viewing computers are there. The clerks will assist you in using the correct program so that you can find and read the Complaint that was filed on November 22, 2011.

Why has former Sgt. Gorski filed this legal action? Because the Woodstock Police Pension Fund made a huge error in its decision. Although Sgt. Gorski was on-duty on September 12, 2005, in uniform, in a squad car, and had responded to the scene of a fatal automobile accident, the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund decided to award him benefits for an off-duty claim.

So, officers of the Woodstock P.D., is this what you have to look forward to? If you get hurt on duty and would be entitled to 65% of your pay and not have to pay Federal or Illinois income taxes on it, do you have to worry about be awarded just 50% of your pay and then having to pay taxes on that?

Three police offices sit on the Board, plus two civilians appointed by the City of Woodstock. Police Chief Robert Lowen was sitting in the hearing, when the Board announced its unanimous decision.

What's this whole mess really costing the Pension Fund? Recently, Mark Gummerson's law firm joined the action, representing the Pension Fund, the Board of Trustees, the iindividual members of the Board, and the police chief. What's that going to cost the Pension Fund?

And the Crystal Lake law firm of Campion, Curran, Dunlop, Lamb and Cunabaugh, P.C. has lined up with Attorney Tom Duda on Gorski's team.

Since Gorski has asked for attorneys' fees to be paid, and for sure the Pension Fund will pay the fees charged by Gummerson, Rausch et al., the legal fees will probably come close to equaling the final award to Gorski.

Is the City of Woodstock a party to this legal action? It's not named as a Defendant in the Complaint that was filed November 22, but online Court records for the case do list "City of Woodstock" as a Defendant.

The Complaint for Administrative Review lists the bases for the complaint, including factual errors by the Board of the Pension Fund and wrong legal standard of causation.

Gorski was injured on September 12, 2005, and he applied for disability on September 28, 2007. That's more than four years ago. Does anyone else think that's too long to wait?

How did Woodstock PD car crash happen?

I picked up the crash report this afternoon on last Wednesday's crash involving a Woodstock police car and two other vehicles. The report was written by Deputy #2002, whose name does not appear on the report. More and more departments are going to "Officer #xxxx", with an occasional illegible signature scrawled on the report, but the MCSD report is fully electronic with no handwriting.

The officer driving the Woodstock squad car was Ofc. Mitchell Falat, not previously identified in the MCSD press release, which is now posted on the sheriff's department website, or in the newspaper article.

Ofc. Falat told the investigating deputy that, while making other maneuvers in the intersection before proceeding westbound through the intersection with his emergency equipment operating, he "was informed that the fleeing subject with a warrant for their (sic) arrest changed direction, and began fleeing north." Was he assigned on that call, or was he monitoring another officer's activity? Was the subject who was wanted positively identified by the other officer? Was the other officer "called off" the pursuit, because he could not positively identify the wanted person as being in the car? Did all of that happen before the time of the crash?

Ofc. Falat stated that he stopped on westbound Lake Avenue, waved traffic out of his way, checked both ways and observed that all vehicles (on Route 47) had stopped, and started across the southbound lane, whereupon "instantly" he was struck by a southbound vehicle. That impact caused him to hit an eastbound vehicle stopped in the left-turn lane on Lake Avenue.

Numerous witnesses are listed in the crash report and confirmed that the emergency equipment was operating on the police car and that Ofc.Falat had entered the intersection slowly.

The driver of the southbound vehicle, Tara Madigan, told the investigating deputy that there were vehicles stopped in the southbound left-turn lane. Those would have interfered with the line-of-sight for both Ofc. Falat and her.

Ofc. Falat did make several changes in his direction of travel just prior to the crash. He arrived at the intersection on Lake Avenue from the northwest, as if he had driven from the vicinity of the police station or farther northwest. (Lake Avenue runs diagonally northwest-to-southeast.) He was using the emergency lights and siren on his squad car and, due to heavy traffic at the intersection of Lake Avenue and Route 47, he went around traffic in the eastbound left-turn lane on Lake Avenue by using the oncoming lane of traffic, and then he turned south on Route 47. He then made a U-turn, apparently intending to return to the northwest on Lake Avenue. Due to heavy traffic, he first made a right turn onto eastbound Lake Avenue and then made another U-turn. Because of heavy traffic on Lake Avenue, he used the oncoming (eastbound) lane to get to the intersection.

He says he stopped before entering the intersection, and witnesses agree. Witnesses reported hearing the siren and seeing the emergency lights on. Then he slowly entered the intersection and, as the investigating deputy recorded, "...observing that all vehicles had stopped, unit two (patrol car) continued through the intersection..."

Only all vehicles hadn't stopped. There was a southbound vehicle on Route 47 that he apparently didn't see before he pulled into its path.

I am reminded of a crash I investigated 30+ years ago, after which a driver said, "The other car came out of nowhere." (This is where you laugh.) Cars obviously don't come out of "nowhere."

Do I feel the deputy was wrong to issue a ticket to Ms. Madigan? Yes. It seems to me that she didn't have any real warning that Ofc. Falat was about to pull in front of her vehicle. Since he was crossing a lane of traffic with a green light, it was his responsibility to stay out of her way, not the other way around.

As I quoted the other day, the law allows authorized emergency vehicles to proceed past a red traffic light, but the driver is required to slow down "...as may be required and necessary for safe operation." Ofc. Falat did slow down, but then he apparently drove into the path of the southbound vehicle.

Which driver should have been place as Unit One? Unit One is the driver who is at fault (or more at fault)? In this case, based on the investigating deputy's report, Ofc. Falat should have been entered as Unit One. The City of Woodstock should cause Ms. Madigan's ticket to be dismissed and should pay for the damages to her car, the WFRD bill for her passengers and her, and the medical care expenses incurred at the hospital.

Intersection crashes with emergency vehicles

Generally speaking, it's a good idea to avoid a crash with an emergency vehicle that is using its emergency lights and siren (or, in Illinois, lights or siren). It spoils your day. It spoils the officer's day. He doesn't get to the call to which he was hurrying. And you get the ticket.

Several years ago I spoke with a driver who had been hit by a police car that he said ran a red light. When I inquired whether the officer had gotten a ticket, he asked, "Can police officers get tickets?" He fought the allegation that he had been at fault. He later told me that it had taken three years, but the City of Woodstock finally paid him for the damage to his vehicle.

I recall a story of a rookie police officer elsewhere who got into an accident on the way to a call. It was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket! And, much more recently, a Wisconsin police chief passed a stopped school bus, and he wrote himself a ticket - and paid the fine!

I'm awaiting the crash reports for last Wednesday's crash in Woodstock at Route 47 and Lake Avenue, where there is an IDOT traffic signal. One of the drivers must have had a red light, yet apparently no one was ticketed for running a red light. One civilian driver was ticketed for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. At this point I'll assumed that Ms. Tara Madigan, of Woodstock, who was driving southbound on Route 47, had a green light. The speed limit is 35MPH, but daytime traffic usually does not allow a driver to move at that speed.

A Woodstock police officer was westbound on Lake Avenue and, according to witnesses (not identified by the newspaper), there was a "stopped 2000 Chevrolet Trailblazer that was facing east on Lake Avenue"). So, was the light red for Lake Avenue traffic in both directions? Was it red for the police officer?

The light could have been green for westbound traffic, if the signal was allowing westbound left-turning and through traffic to proceed was green, while through eastbound Lake Avenue traffic waited on its red. But then it would have been red for Route 47 traffic. And Ms. Madigan would have gotten a ticket for running a red light.

But she didn't get a ticket for running a red light, which causes me to think that she had a green, and the Woodstock officer had a red.

What does Illinois state law say about police running red lights?

"The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may ... 2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be required and necessary for safe operation." 625 ILCS 5/11-205(c)2

So, a police officer can "proceed" past a red light, but he must do so safely. If he doesn't do so safely, then a crash is likely. Did last Wednesday's crash happen because the officer pulled out into the intersection unsafely and into the path of the other car?

If so, the investigating deputy from the McHenry County Sheriff's Department made an error in issuing a ticket to Ms. Madigan, and she should fight it. No deal. No plea bargain. She should get a good, strong attorney to fight this ticket for her. And sue, if necessary, collect all the damages to repair her vehicle, to pay for the paramedics and the hospital and doctors' bills, and enough extra to reimburse her for her legal expense in fighting the ticket.

Now, if the police chief can quickly ascertain that the police officer did proceed through a red light and drive in front of Ms. Madigan, then the City should quickly step up and have the ticket dismissed AND arrange payment of all her damages. If the City is at fault, it makes no sense to fight a claim and only increase its eventual pay-out.

I wonder what the crash report will have to say about which driver had a red light or if the report will be silent about that. The driver of the eastbound Trailblazer knows, as will any impartial witness(es). If anyone witnessed this accident, contact the drivers and inform the Woodstock P.D. that you witnessed the accident. Ask that a supplemental report be written, and submit your own handwritten or typed statement of what you saw for attachment to that report.

You might also follow up and confirm that your own statement did get attached to the report. One of my own statements did not. I have always felt that Woodstock's prosecuting attorney would have won his case, had he known what was in my report. The officer's report indicated that my report was attached, and his supervising sergeant signed off on the report. However, the Woodstock PD Records Department didn't have the report, and so the prosecuting city attorney never got it. Where did it get lost between the sergeant's desk and the Records Department?

Woodstock Police car - was it hit or did it hit?

In Wednesday's crash at Route 47 and Lake Avenue between a Woodstock police car and two other vehicles, the crash was described in a newspaper article in the print edition this way. "The squad car was headed westbound on Lake Avenue while responding to a call for service when it was struck by a 2003 Ford Windstar that was southbound on Route 47." That explanation came from a press release from the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.

Above are photos of the police car, which is typically assigned to Beat 22 (note the number on the fender) and is believed to have been driven by an officer assigned to Beat 22, although his name is not mentioned in the newspaper article and has not yet been released by the Woodstock Police Department.

You decide for yourself. Does it look to you like it "was struck by" another vehicle, or does it appear that it struck another vehicle. Note the extensive front-end damage to the squad car.

Beat 22 is the northwest quadrant of the City, but the squad car was being driven west on Lake Ave. That would be inbound from Beat 24 and well outside Beat 22. Had the officer been assigned to a call in Beat 24, which would explain his being outside his beat?

What was the "call for service" to which the officer was headed with emergency lights and siren in use?

When a City police car is involved in an intersection crash, the citizens are entitled to an explanation, and it should be forthcoming quickly from the police chief. Two days later, there still is no word.

Is there a Department policy for automatic alcohol- and drug-screening following an on-duty accident? It should be a routine step and spelled out in the HR employee manual and the agreement with the union. The assumption, of course, is that an officer on duty has not used drugs or drunk alcohol within a specific period of time before going on duty. But is there a policy?

Beth Bentley - missing 6 weeks now

Woodstock resident Beth Bentley, 41, disappeared from sight six weeks ago, on Sunday, May 23.

Somebody knows where she is.

One of the big questions is whether she might have chosen to vanish. Woodstock Police classify this case as a Missing Person case - an Endangered adult is missing, although "Endangered" has not been defined. The police said last month that they have no evidence of foul play.

The second, and latest, missing-person flier on the Woodstock Police Department webpage is dated June 9, nearly a month ago. It states that she was staying in the Mt. Vernon area on two days; perhaps "visiting" is a more accurate word. She had driven there on Thursday night and was expected back in Woodstock on Monday.

It also states that she was dropped off in Centralia on Sunday to catch a train for Chicago, apparently leaving the rental car in the possession of her woman traveling companion. Since that still appears on the PD website, do they still believe it?

I don't think there are a lot of people left who still believe that.

The Beth Bentley missing-person Facebook page now has 7,000 followers. The reward is up to $5,000. If you have any information, contact the Woodstock Police Department at 815.338.2131 or CrimeStoppers at 800.762.STOP

What is the Beth Story?

Beth Bentley, 41, disappeared on Sunday, May 23. That's more than five weeks ago.

She was reported missing on Monday, May 24. It is claimed that she called home about 4:15PM on Sunday. After that? Nothing. No contact. No phone calls. No text messages. No use of her credit cards. No ATM withdrawals. No use of her cell phone. (Who did she talk to at 4:15PM?)

At least, that is what has been said.

The position of the Woodstock Police Department seems to be "No foul play." No evidence of foul play. No evidence of foul play. Is the absence of evidence possibly evidence of suspected foul play?

What are the possibilities?

She ran away, voluntarily. OK, what's she doing for money and transportation? Is any money missing? From any source to which she had access? The police and the family aren't saying.

Did she go to Centralia late Sunday afternoon and get out of a car near the Amtrak station? One person says so. And that person says it wasn't to take a train (read, not to take the 6:08PM train to Chicago, where a late connection could be made for the Metra to Woodstock, scheduled to arrive at 2:01AM Monday).

If she was in Centralia, how was she going to get back to the Woodstock area and meet up with her traveling friend and the rental car?

What, exactly, were Beth's movements after arriving in the Mt. Vernon area early on Friday morning? Are all the restaurants, grocery stores, liquor stores, bars, nail salons being checked?

Beth, Jenn, Ryan and a second man were seen having dinner and drinks in the Frosty Mug in Mt. Vernon on Friday night? Have all the employees at the Frosty Mug been interviewed?

Reportedly a boat was rented on Rend Lake on Saturday, but no one seems to know much about that. Who knows about that?

Why have there been no searches organized by law enforcement? The Woodstock Police Department is the lead agency investigating Beth's disappearance, but it is 330 miles from Mt. Vernon.

There are more than 6,700 "Friends" on the Facebook page set up to follow Beth's disappearance. For some reason, right now the Friends or Fans section is not visible on Facebook. Hopefully, it will be restored.

There is almost a lack of urgency locally about finding Beth; at least, that's how it seems to a number of people. There are no frequent press conferences. There is little or nothing in the local papers. Do the police or the family know something about her whereabouts or missing status that precludes a high sense of urgency about searching for and finding her?

The public can help and will help.

Beth Bentley - Day 34

Beth Bentley, 41, went missing on May 23, 2010.

Why hasn't there been a press conference in Woodstock? Wouldn't you think that the Woodstock Police Department and Scott Bentley would have conducted several press conferences by now?

Beth was reported missing to the Woodstock Police Department on Monday, May 24, as of 10:48PM, according to the second missing-person press release of WPD. Not the first.

When was the first press release delivered to the press? On its preparation date of May 27?

On May 30 Chicago Tribune "Breaking News" carried a story that "friends and relatives" were asking the public's help, not that the Woodstock P.D. had announced that she was missing.

On or about June 9 the Woodstock PD finally put the May 27 press release on its website but buried the second press release behind a tab that most internet users would believe held only older news. That June 9 press release has since been moved to the WPD first page of press releases.

But still there has been no organized, ongoing public appeal for information that might lead to finding Beth. CrimeStoppers announced a $2,000 reward, which has since increased to $5,000.

The 6:08PM train story has pretty much been blown off the tracks. Speculation is rampant. Beth's Facebook "missing" page has 6,626 followers. A few followers from out-of-town are hard chargers and anxious to see less talk, more walk.

Even the fundraiser that has been announced will not be until July 16. Where is the sense of urgency about finding her?

Those who were with her in Mt. Vernon need to be under the microscope until every grain of truth about the week-end comes out.

What law enforcement agency is really in charge? Woodstock PD? Mt. Vernon PD? Jefferson County SO? Illinois State Police? If WPD is the lead investigatory LE agency, how do you manage a missing-person case from 330 miles away?

The fundraiser ought to happen right now, so money can be raised for a private investigator and an organized public effort of search parties in Mt. Vernon. A PayPal link could be placed on the http://www.bethismissing.com/ website (which has gone stale), with assurance that any money donated would be publicly accounted for and used for searching for Beth. If 6,000 people donated $2, it would be a good start.

"Bad" drugs in Mt. Vernon

Through a message received directly from a Mt. Vernon, Ill. resident I've learned that it is believed there is a "bad" batch of heroin being distributed in the Mt. Vernon area. Now, I'm one who would say that there is no "good" batch. A "bad" batch is, to me, one that results in fast and/or abnormal reaction to the drug. To a new or infrequent user it could be almost instantly fatal.

This information was sent to me in connection with the Beth Bentley disappearance.

If anyone - anyone - has knowledge of drug use by anyone being associated with any of the parties connected to Beth or this case, contact the Woodstock (Ill.) Police Department at 815.338.2131 with information. It couldn't hurt also to contact the Mt. Vernon Police Department and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, just to be sure that everyone gets the same information fast.

Or you can call the Crime Stoppers Coalition of McHenry County at 800.762.STOP. Crime Stoppers' phone lines are supposed to be confidential; this one is answered at a local police department. Rules in certified Crime Stopper organizations may be in place to tightly control who has access to the list of numbers from which calls are received, but the McHenry County Coalition is not a certified group. If you want to be sure that your number is not revealed, use a Calling Card. But call, and call today.

Every tip could be useful in finding Beth. You never know how it might be connected with another tip, which could then lead to locating Beth. Every day that passes reduces the odds of finding her.

Crystalgenie ...

... this one's for you.

For you who don't know who "Crystalgenie" is, she is one of the commenters on the Websleuths.com thread about Beth Bentley's disappearance. The second thread, now 16 pages in length, can be viewed at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106331 If you wish to read the first long thread, go to the beginning of the second and click on the link there to go to Part 1.

Over the past 14 years I have disagreed with a number of decisions and actions of the Woodstock P.D. This has resulted in my having a "reputation" with them.

I won't rehash them here or now; perhaps one day in the future I'll just run out a list of them, and you can decide whether or not I "like" Woodstock P.D.

I am a proponent of fairness. I dislike retaliation. I understand the "cop" mentality. Fortunately, I don't have it. In my race for Sheriff of McHenry County in the November 2 General Election, I am a "citizen first, cop second."

Some of the Woodstock officers understand where I'm coming from. And I understand why they don't speak out. A good example in today's news is Gen. McChrystal.

Falat Deal - there's more

This morning's Northwest Herald reports another part of the "deal" between the Woodstock Police Chief and Ofc. Mitch Falat, who was suspended for 30 (non-continuous!) days without pay on Wednesday, August 19.

An additional provision of the Agreed Disciplinary Order, not disclosed publicly at the Special Meeting of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, is that Ofc. Falat is to have no intentional contact with City Councilman (and Chief of the Woodstock Fire Rescue District) Ralph Webster.

The newspaper reports that the "Woodstock family" had taken their "concerns" to Councilman Webster.

Why does a family find it necessary to take "concerns" to a City Councilman? One must assume that they had reported their "concerns" to the chief of the Woodstock Police Department. Did they feel that nothing was happening? Or that anything that was happening, was not happening quickly enough?

Falat was disciplined for violating a February 19 order from the chief to have no contact with the Woodstock woman. Therefore, the complaint must have been registered with the police department prior to February. How long before February was their complaint filed?

If he did continue to have contact with the woman, in violation of the February 19 order, what subsequent complaints or reports did the family make to the police department, and why did it take until August 19 for the disciplinary hearing before the Board?

I had a conversation with this family on July 2, and that followed their meeting with the City Manager. Putting pieces of the puzzle together, then it seems to me that the family went to Councilman Webster in June. February-to-June is a long time for lack of decisive action by command personnel at the police department.

And from July 2 - August 19 is a long time to take action to discipline extraordinary behavior or actions against a town resident.

What else is in the Agreed Disciplinary Order? Is there more that has not been revealed? Why was there even any "negotiation" to it? The chief has the authority to initiate discipline. He could have placed the officer on immediate paid leave and requested a Board meeting, which would have been held no sooner than two days later.

Instead, this family had to endure months continued unwanted and improper attention from the officer. Apparently, discipline resulted only after the family appealed to a City Councilman and the City Manager became involved.

By these delays, the City has very likely allowed itself to be exposed to financial liability. The first responsibility is to its own residents, not to its employees. It did not meet its first responsibility in this case.

30-day suspension - not continuous!

Yesterday I wrote about the 30-day unpaid suspension imposed on Ofc. Mitch Falat of the Woodstock Police Department for violation of a department order by Chief Robert Lowen to stay away from a certain Woodstock woman.

Today I learned that Ofc. Falat is on duty, as he was during the period of investigation that preceded yesterday's Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.
Upon telephoning Chief Lowen of the Woodstock Police Department, I learned that his unpaid suspension is not 30 continuous days.

No wonder that yesterday's Board meeting was cut and dried. All the Board did was accept the negotiated deal between Ofc. Falat, his attorney and the Police Department. There was no discussion. No witnesses were called. The woman involved and her husband were not called to testify, so that the Board could hear all the details that led up to the "deal." The meeting was over in minutes, without reading or verbal discussion of the deal between the police department and Ofc. Falat.

The Board did not reveal the terms of the Agreed Disciplinary Order during the very brief meeting. They had been given copies of the disciplinary order by the chief and, once in session, they accepted it as offered.

Where is the representation of the victim in this whole matter? Is the City really looking out for the resident?

I didn't ask the chief why the 30 days were not continuous. But something about that arrangement really stinks. If an officer is told by the chief to stay away from a married woman in his community and he doesn't, the discipline needed to be swift and certain. And enough of a kick in the butt that he got the message.

The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is supposed to serve as a Board of the City of Woodstock that is independent of the Police Department. That's why, I guess, they now, finally, meet at City Hall and not at the police department. But maybe it's time now for a complete turn-over in the Board, which is appointed by the Mayor, with the consent of the Council.

The Mayor, City Manager and members of the City Council ought to be hopping mad at this most recent deal and the way it was handled. Transparency in government has gone out the window. The proper action at the Special Meeting would have been for the charges to be submitted to the Board and the disciplinary agreement read aloud and submitted to the Board, after which they could have voted on it.

There will be more to this story.

Woodstock officer suspended for 30 days

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners met this afternoon at 5:00PM at City Hall to accept a deal worked out between Woodstock Police Chief Robert Lowen and Officer Mitchell J. Falat that imposes a 30-day unpaid suspension on Officer Falat.

Neither Ofc. Falat nor his attorney appeared today.

The Agreed Disciplinary Order, already signed by Ofc. Falat, was presented to the Board, and it voted to accept it without discussion and without the need to go into executive session. The chief's charge against Ofc. Falat was violation of a no-contact order issued to Ofc. Falat on February 19. Ofc. Falat was to have no contact with a married, female resident in Woodstock.

In response to questions after the meeting whether the Board was aware of a Temporary Order of Protection obtained by Ofc. Falat on June 9 against that female, in which he identified the dating relationship as "boyfriend/girlfriend", and whether the police department had investigated the truthfulness of the statements made in the request for the OP, City Attorney Rich Flood responded that the OP had been investigated.

Cop Sought Order of Protection

The following details were taken from public records at the McHenry County Government Center.

A Woodstock police officer sought, and was granted, an Emergency Order of Protection (OP) on June 9, 2009, against a Woodstock woman. In his petition he identified the relationship with the woman as "boyfriend/girlfriend" and hand-wrote an extensive summary of personal problems which led to the request for the OP.

In the petition he listed a confrontation that had occurred between the woman's husband and him. The officer didn't request the OP against the woman's husband, but against her. He also checked the boxes that the woman "has threatened to or is likely to use firearms illegally against me". And that she possessed a firearm.

In his petition the officer stated that he had discussed the problems with his chief and the chief had suggested the OP.

A hearing was scheduled for June 19, and the woman was in court for the hearing. The officer? He didn't show up for the hearing, and a Motion to Vacate the OP was granted. A hearing was set for June 23 at 9:00AM.

The June 23 court date arrived, and the officer did not show up in court. The cause was dismissed for want of prosecution.

* * * * * *

Now, here's the question. When an Order of Protection is sought, the person seeking it must make a sworn statement as to the circumstances leading to the request. Based on those statements a judge makes a decision whether to issue the OP.

What opinion will you form after realizing that the officer did not show up in court twice to re-state and explain the sworn accusations in the Order of Protection?

Should the judge have required his appearance?

Is WPD's application fee illegal?

At the June 1, 2009, meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC), the City proposed charging police officer applicants $30.00 for a testing fee. Although it expected to have only one position to fill, there was a feeling that as many as 300 candidates might apply.

Some quick math (300 x $30 = $9,000)... At the time $9,000 sounded like a lot of money to scarf up to fill just one position. There hasn't been any further mention of testing. Could it be that the economy now precludes hiring to fill any vacancies?

And then today I came across a State law that might have some bearing on the $30.00 fee to applicants.

"65 ILCS 5/10‑2.1‑6) (from Ch. 24, par. 10‑2.1‑6) Sec. 10‑2.1‑6. Examination of applicants; disqualifications. (a) All applicants for a position in either the fire or police department of the municipality shall be under 35 years of age, shall be subject to an examination that shall be public, competitive, and open to all applicants (unless the council or board of trustees by ordinance limit applicants to electors of the municipality, county, state or nation) and shall be subject to reasonable limitations as to residence, health, habits, and moral character. The municipality may not charge or collect any fee from an applicant who has met all prequalification standards established by the municipality for any such position."

A-ha! Read the last sentence again. "The municipality may not charge or collect any fee from an applicant who has met all prequalification standards established by the municipality for any such position." (Emphasis added)

Could a silly little provision in State law keep Woodstock from charging a fee to an applicant?

Half-truths and rumors?

So that this reader's comment doesn't get lost in the long string of comments in the article about politicizing the Office of the Sheriff, I am going to post QuitWhiningAlready's (QWA) comment here in a new article.

QWA wrote, in part, "Gus receives letters that contain half truths and rumor. None of it is substantiated any further than, "Oh, I heard that, too!". And we all know that if more than one person "heard" something at the SO it must be fact!"

One of the first letters containing "half truths and rumor" that I received informed me that a certain sergeant with the McHenry County Sheriff's Department had caused an accident in Woodstock that was never reported in the newspaper and for which he did not receive a ticket.

The story is "old news" now and doesn't require retelling in great detail.

When I began checking it out, sure enough, it had happened. The sergeant said he was "distracted" because he had sighted a "suspect" on the sidewalk, and he ran the stop sign. Unluckily for him, there was a car crossing the intersection at the time and he hit it, causing damage to both cars.

The accident was investigated by a Woodstock police officer, who didn't ticket the sergeant. No report of that accident was ever printed in the Northwest Herald. The Woodstock Police Department told me that they don't report every "minor" accident to the media.

And the other driver didn't scream about no ticket having been issued. He was the son of a police chief of a nearby community. And that chief is a resident of Woodstock and is a member of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

I want to be quick to add that I suspect no involvement or influence from the father of the young man whose car got hit. But, if the officer didn't recognize the relationship of the driver to a BOFPC member, I am sure that someone was quick to inform him.

Any other driver - ANY driver! - who ran a stop sign and caused an accident would have gotten a ticket.

No wonder people criticize the police for giving favors to police officers who violate traffic laws. This only became a big deal for me because it got "buried." If the sergeant had gotten a ticket for causing the accident, I wouldn't have batted an eye over it.

Another reason given to me by the Woodstock Police Department for "no news" about the accident was that officers have discretion whether to issue tickets. And well they should. But not when a driver admits to being distracted when he ran a stop sign and caused an accident.

And so, to answer QWA, I do check out the so-called "half truths and rumors." Reading a police report about an accident seems to be pretty good confirmation of facts.

Fords or Chevies

From a local reader. Any truth to this?

"Lowen has done it again.

"In case you haven't heard or seen.

"The squad cars are being switched over from Ford Crown Victorias to Chevy Impalas because the County has them and Woodstock wants to try them out.

"Think of this logic - if they're going to need dealership repair, the nearest dealership will be Gary Lang after Reichert's closes, which means having to travel over to McHenry with two vehicles to drop off and return back to Woodstock; or will Gary Lang provide pick up for the city.

"The PD should stay with Crown Victorias and use the local Ford dealership instead of the money for repairs and parts being spent elsewhere."

Comments, anyone? So much for "Buy Local." And don't forget the trip back to pick up the car after Gary Lang has worked on it!