Conservative Babylon

See main entry for Susan Brock

See all entries for Susan Brock

It sounds to us like Susan Brock has something (besides the obvious) in common with another child molester in the news recently: Their shared church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is spinning like mad regarding what church officials knew about Brock’s ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old boy, and the story they’re spinning makes us wonder about… a lot of things.

For two months in 2010, fifteen people in the Mormon church knew that Boise police officer Stephen R. Young had been sexually molesting infants and toddlers over the course of some thirty years — and nobody turned him in. He was excommunicated, but still, nobody turned him in. Only after a fellow officer heard the scuttlebutt through the church and convinced Young to turn himself in did Young face justice.

Making things worse is Idaho’s “clergy privilege law,” which shields the LDS church officials who knew about Young’s child-sex crimes and did nothing; these people (in our eyes, no different from accomplices after the fact) will never be punished for their role in what amounts to a cover-up for a fellow Mormon trumping both justice and child safety.

Young’s church scrambled to claim it was because “of that very clergy privilege that Young is in prison today.” [Idaho Statesman] We, however, find the church’s logic specious at best.

As for Susan Brock, it’s now come to light that, more than one year before her arrest, Brock and her husband, Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, met with the parents of Brock’s young victim in front of Mormon stake president Mitch Jones (this Mitch Jones, we think) to discuss Brock’s “interference” in the boy’s life.

A 73-page police report, containing the graphic details of Brock’s encounters with the boy (for which she paid him as much as $100 for each of 15 or 20 [out of a total of more than 30] times she abused him — and, yes, at least once she removed her “temple garments“), reveals that at this meeting, the victim’s father asked Brock directly if she was having “sexual relations” with his son. Brock, of course, denied she was.

In the light of this meeting, the Mormon church was quick to issue a statement:

“Our hearts and prayers go out to the victim in this case. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not condone child abuse in any form and will not tolerate such actions by anyone affiliated with our faith. Local Church leaders did not become aware of any credible information about this sexual relationship until October 2010. Within a very short time, these leaders were instrumental in getting the matter reported to law enforcement authorities. The meeting that took place in October 2009 was not held to discuss allegations of sexual abuse. The victim’s family asked for the meeting to discuss their concerns about improper gifts and influence. In the course of the meeting, one question was asked and the allegation was denied. There was no evidence at the time that any sexual conduct had taken place and neither the church leader nor the victim’s parents saw any reason to believe it needed to be pursued further. Later, when there was evidence that sexual abuse had taken place church leaders were instrumental in getting the matter reported to authorities. We have zero tolerance for abuse of any kind.”

Was everybody involved born yesterday?

Let’s ask this question: If two families met with a church official because the parents of a young girl had “concerns about improper gifts and influence” by a grown man, what do you think the outcome would have been?

Is the church saying one of its stake presidents is really that stupid?

And then there’s the question of how much Fulton Brock knew — or convinced himself not to know. The supervisor issued a statement Wednesday:

“My wife was untruthful to me. She was untruthful to the victim’s parents. I knew nothing of this inappropriate sexual behavior until the police arrested my wife. But I certainly know enough now to divorce her and be the best Dad possible to three children who really need me.”

Yet, the police report also says that after the 2009 meeting, Fulton Brock took away his wife’s credit cards, as well as a phone she used for communicating with her young victim.

So Fulton Brock had possession of the phone.

More damning: Fulton Brock had possession of the iPod his wife had given the victim.

At the meeting with the bishop, as summed up by the East Valley Tribune, “Fulton Brock grabbed an iPod that one of the boy’s parents was angrily trying to hand back to Susan, who had given it to him, the report says.”

This was the same iPod that was seized, along with other devices (including, we assume, the cell phone) from the Brock home after Susan Brock’s arrest.

So, Fulton Brock had one iPod (it sounds like the boy was later given a second iPod) and the phone for more than a year, and it never occurred to him to check them out? (You can believe the police are sure checking them out now.)

Maybe Fulton Brock really is that stupid — or at least deliberately that stupid.

Or not. Chandler police sergeant Joe Favazzo told the East Valley Tribune that, while Fulton Brock “is not under investigation at this time for any possibility of prior knowledge of the relationship,” he nevertheless “did make an admission that there was a meeting at the LDS church, and that at that time he knew there was some kind of inappropriate relationship going on.”

Well, what the heck else is the phrase “inappropriate relationship” supposed to mean?

Is there any adult on this planet so stupid as to believe a grown woman’s obsessive interest in a young boy doesn’t involve at least some form of slap-and-tickle?

“Susan Brock,” writes James King in the Phoenix New Times, “may have lied to her husband, but even so, the writing was on the wall — her husband, it seems, just chose not to look.”

Meanwhile, both the East Valley Tribune and KSAZ Fox 10 take turns explaining the details and ramifications of Brock’s plea deal: In short, Brock won’t be dragged through an embarrassing trial, and her victim will be spared the trauma of having to testify.

Brock is also gambling on the likelihood of facing less time (probably half) by copping a plea than if she had been convicted in a jury trial; still, she could get up to 15 years in prison come sentencing March 16, 2011, and, no matter what, she’s looking at a lifetime of probation and registration as a sex offender.

Opined one attorney to the EVT: “Her life is pretty well over.”

Here’s Fox 10’s news report, in which Brock appears (to us) to be having a moment’s doubt when she asks the judge if probation means she can’t see her grandchildren. (It doesn’t mean that, although there may be restrictions on how, where, and when she can see them, or any other children.)

Susan Brock’s Plea Agreement Explained: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

No word yet on Brock’s accused accomplice, Christian Hart Weems, or on daughter Rachel Brock, accused of (but not yet charged with) having sex with the same boy as her mother.

Speaking of Weems, here’s a much longer version of the “beach house” phone call between Weems and Brock:

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Susan Brock Scandal Didn’t Cost Ex-Hubby-to-Be Fulton Brock Supervisor Chair — Daughter Rachel Did
2. Mormon Mommy Susan Brock Pleads Not Guilty to 15 Child Molestation Charges
3. Stunner of the Year, Part 2: Susan Brock, Rachel Katharine Brock, and Christian Hart Weems (with News Video)
4. Stunner of the Year: Susan Brock and Daughter Rachel Accused of Sex with Same Boy, Plus: Friend Christian Hart Weems Arrested for Destroying Evidence (with News Video), Part 1
5. Susan Brock (R-Mormon Mommy, Ariz.)

Comments are closed.