Lawmakers of all three parties in the Legislature -- Democrats, Republicans and the left-wing Progressive Party -- quickly rallied around Lippert after his confrontation with Watters and denounced his ambush of the Democrat, who represents the town of Hinesburg.
But O'Reilly remained unbowed -- and attacked Lippert again as a "villain" in a July 8 broadcast, blaming him for Jacques' previous sexual-assault conviction. ". . .And this girl who got raped and murdered, it's on Lippert, because he's the guy that led the charge against Jessica's Law," O'Reilly roared.
Yet even O'Reilly's own legal analyst admitted -- and was forced to correct him later in that same broadcast -- that Jessica's Law could not have applied to Jacques' earlier conviction in 1992 because his victim then was 18 years old and legally an adult.
Episode Does Expose Vulnerability in Vermont's Handling of Sex Offenders
O'Reilly notwithstanding, the Bennett case does point to a vulnerability in Vermont's system of dealing with sex offenders.
In 2006, the Vermont Corrections Department recommended Jacques' release after his probation officer, Richard Kearney, wrote that Jacques had "satisfied and fulfilled all case specific conditions of probation put in place to reduce his risk of re-offense."
Despite strong objections from prosecutors, Vermont District Court Judge Amy Davenport ruled that Jacques' probation could end as long as no further violations occurred.
"According to Mr. Jacques' probation officer, he is a 'probation success story,'" Davenport wrote in her order. "He is married and has a child. He and his wife own a home in which they reside. He has been very successful in his employment and is now in a position which entails significant responsibility."
Prosecutors insisted that Jacques remain under probation for the maximum term of 20 years, because of the brutal nature of his earlier crime. While Davenport acknowledged that point, she noted that Jacques had completed a sex offender treatment program in 2000. In the judge's opinion, that met the terms of his sentence and that Jacques no longer needed to remain under probation.
Under those circumstances, the probation officer and the judge made what they thought was the right call based on the evidence they had to work with and the law they had to work under. Would a "Jessica's Law" have made a difference? No, since Jacques' victim in the 1992 case was legally an adult.
Would a "Jessica's Law" now on the books in Vermont make a difference if Jacques is ultimately convicted of sexually abusing his other, 14-year-old unidentified relative? Of course it would. Would it make a difference in the Bennett case? It's too early to know, based on what's been made public so far.
But the bottom line is that Bill O'Reilly has a tendency to be too quick with his accusatory trigger finger -- especially when he points it at someone before all the facts are in and ends up doing more harm than good.
Back off, Bill!
# # #
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).