RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Librarian resigns over auctioned painting



“Curly Locks,” a painting in the Proctor Library collection, had hung in the children’s section at the library.

Photo Provided
Toolbox

By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: May 22, 2009

PROCTOR — The town librarian has been forced to resign but won't face criminal charges after police and a library trustee said she auctioned off a nearly $100,000 painting owned by Proctor Free Library.

The Jessie Wilcox Smith painting "Curly Locks" has been part of the library's collections since some time in the 1940s and has occupied prominent places in the children's section of the library over the years. As one of a series of paintings for Good Housekeeping Magazine's Mother Goose series in 1914, the 26-inch by 33-inch work has been a valued hallmark at the library.

So it was a "shock" for Library Trustee vice president Stephen Follett to read in the Rutland Herald last month that an anonymous woman received the same painting from one of her spinster aunts years ago and decided to auction it off to help pay for her daughter's wedding.

About a week after reading about the painting's auction, which sold for $96,600, Follett said the Board of Trustees had gleaned the truth — head librarian Mary Brough admitted to taking the almost 100-year-old painting.

The admission by the eight-year librarian touched off a series of events, including her resignation, the return of both the painting and the sale's proceeds and a State Police investigation that ended without charges when the library decided not to press charges and the buyer and auction house were made financially whole.

"The board voted unanimously not to pursue charges," Follett said. "For my part, the reason was our primary interest was to get the painting back. She immediately confessed her involvement and we have the painting … as far as we're concerned, it ends here."

The State Police and Rutland County State's Attorney James Mongeon said they're following suit.

After conducting an investigation that included interviews with members of the Board of Trustees and Brough, State Police Detective Sgt. Samuel Capogrossi said he brought the case to Mongeon. But after a recent meeting with the state's attorney, the decision was made not to pursue charges.

"I don't have a case," Mongeon said. "You should talk to the Proctor Library, I can't speak for them."

Representatives from Kaminski Auctions in Beverly, Mass., couldn't be reached Thursday. In prior interviews with the auctioneers, the name of the painting's buyer was kept confidential.

Brough didn't comment Thursday, but her husband Tim did.

In a phone message, Tim Brough said "Mary's resignation and the reason for it are all my fault and we're trying to figure out what to do next together."

Follett said he believed some of the money might have been intended to pay for a wedding for Brough's daughter — a detail of the fictional account that she gave to the auctioneers that was true.

Capogrossi said Thursday that while the painting sold for close to $100,000, Brough had not taken receipt of the full amount. In fact, he said she had received only a small portion of it by the time the board and police caught on to the painting's absence.

He said what proceeds she did receive were all returned.

Follett, whose board is in the process of hiring a new librarian, said the painting will not return to the children's section until it has been insured.

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


NN, you are right, people do seem to be madder about this than about Wall Street. I guess because it is closer to home, it feels more personal. In my estimation, a $100,000 painting was stolen from the town of about 1800. This gives everyone in Proctor the right to be $55 worth of angry with the librarian.
I still say that there is something missing from this story.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, May 27, 2009, 6:52 am EST

report this comment


Wrong again! The only connection whatsoever are my own personal values. One big one being honesty and fair treatment for everyone.
-- Posted by White Witch on Tue, May 26, 2009, 11:26 am EST

report this comment


I would hope that the Proctor Library Trustees are reviewing all the financials for the library for the last 8 years. If this was so unexpected behavior, maybe this was her MO and who knows if or how much she's embezzeled over the years.
I'm sure they've thought about that..right?
-- Posted by Dave None on Tue, May 26, 2009, 9:24 am EST

report this comment


Though I must admit I haven't follow James Mongeon and his dealing with the criminal element in Rutland County, but in this case the way events are unfolding in this case he has no option in pressing charges. It is wholly a decision for the wronged party (in this case the Board of Trustees of the library and ultimately the citizens of Proctor) to press charges. If they want to let this woman off it's their prerogative.

That being said if it was my painting I would 1. Get it back and 2. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!! By not prosecuting the Town of Proctor is unwittingly sending a message--Steal something AND IF you get caught return it and get off. However if you don't get caught you get to keep the bounty.
-- Posted by Eric Traska on Mon, May 25, 2009, 12:33 pm EST

report this comment


Though I must admit I haven't follow James Mongeon and his dealing with the criminal element in Rutland County, but in this case the way events are unfolding in this case he has no option in pressing charges. It is wholly a decision for the wronged party(in this case the Board of Trustees of the library and ultimatly the citizens of Proctor)to press charges. If they want to let this woman off it's their perogative.

That being said if it was my painting I would 1. Want it back and 2. Prosecute to the full extent of the law!! By not prosecuting the Town of Proctor is unwittingly sending a message--Steal something AND IF you get caught return it and get off. However if you don't get caught you get to keep the bounty.
-- Posted by Eric Traska on Mon, May 25, 2009, 12:28 pm EST

report this comment


You make it clear you have no connection to anyone mentioned in your post. I am guessing your connection is to the person quoted in the story. Hmmmm
-- Posted by None None on Mon, May 25, 2009, 12:18 pm EST

report this comment


Laws are never applied equally. Your anger certainally makes it seem like you have a personal interest.
It is strange people seem to be madder about this, than bailing out wallstreet.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, May 25, 2009, 12:11 pm EST

report this comment


FYI...I don't know or have any personal, emotional or otherwise, connection to the people involved in my post. I feel that when laws are made for the better good of the whole then they should be applied to everyone equally.
-- Posted by White Witch on Mon, May 25, 2009, 11:09 am EST

report this comment


Contrary to what you think, I do know the law. I would suggest you take the time to look it up under the Vermont State Statutes. I may be emotional where this subject is concerned and with good reason. However, I can feel comfortable knowing I am educated with respect to Vermont State Law. Perhaps it's your emotional instability that allows you to think that an act of grand larceny committed by anyone would be okay and/or justified. If you are suggesting that because the library received back the painting and the monies involved were also returned it frees your friend of any accountability for her actions you are wrong. If the painting and monies had been forth given prior to being caught, this may have been the case. However, they were not. Mary is a grown woman who is a professional employed by a town. The way I see it is, Mary is an educated professional who embezzled a $100,000.00 painting from her employer and sold it to give her daughter a wedding. She had full capacity to know what she was doing was wrong and, you are an enabler of crime. You sound so much like the many parents who have had their child taken just to scream back "I only left them for a second." It's nice that you can have compassion for people but don't let it make you lose sight of right and wrong. The whole idea that Mary had to make something up about where the painting came from in the first place shows that she had absolute knowledge that what she was doing was wrong and against the law.
-- Posted by White Witch on Mon, May 25, 2009, 11:03 am EST

report this comment


It appears your anger impairs your ability to process information.It would also appear that you clearly do not understand the justice system, it does not simply operate on emotion or personal feelings.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 12:41 pm EST

report this comment


Is it an assumption? I don't think so. As far as being personally angry well let's just put it this way - again - I SEE NO JUSTICE IN THIS STATE. Does it make any sense to you at all that a person steals a collection container which possibly contains $40.00 and gets charged for it and someone else steals something worth $100,000.00 and sells it to boot and only ends up with the emotional burden of their actions? I believe any logical person would say no. Anyone who steals something has their own story to tell for why they chose to do so. Who's to say one person's reasons are any more justified than another? Obviously if a person resorts to stealing to obtain whatever it is they feel they are seeking then they must be experiencing a major crisis of some sort in their lives. The emotional magnitude weighing on the individual is quite possibly the same. The law is the law regardless.

Let me ask you this...If you had a housekeeper in which you had trusted to come into your own home, week after week for 8 years and they had stolen a painting worth $100,000.00 and they had sold it, I do believe it is safe to say, you would prosecute, right?
-- Posted by White Witch on Sun, May 24, 2009, 12:28 pm EST

report this comment


CF - What money do you want back? What does the buyer have to do with any of it? An innocent bystander, should be stoned in the town square,because why? To indulge your curiosity?
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 12:05 pm EST

report this comment


What purpose would it serve to send her to jail?
Why are you so personally angey White Witch? or maybe your name says it all witch. Did I say I knew Mary personally? You make assumptions with no basis.
CF - So before you purchase anything,is the first question:
Is this property stolen? You sound silly!
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 11:50 am EST

report this comment


"Let Mary move on with her life." -
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 8:11 am EST

GLADLY, STRAIGHT TO A JAIL CELL!!! I bet if this were someone you didn't know personally, you wouldn't feel the same way you do now.
-- Posted by White Witch on Sun, May 24, 2009, 11:07 am EST

report this comment


Yes, it is common for buyers to stay anonymous. Many buyers send representatives to do the buying for them.

But what about when a crime is committed? Isn't that when someone loses the right to be anonymous?

Stealing something = crime. Putting stolen propery up for sale = crime. The Auctioning house actually putting stolen property on the auction block = crime. And the buyer buying stolen property = crime. It doesn't matter if you know or not know about the stolen property. = CRIME!

I'm sorry. I don't think it is as easy as saying. "It's ok. Move on with your life. Don't do it again."

We are talking about $100,000 dollars worth of merchandise. That may even be worth more!

I can't help but wonder..... If ALL charges are dropped. And no one challenges this. Then there is no crime. And then this buyer and the full extent of this whole ordeal will never be known.

Sorry, our tax dollars have been ALREADY spent working on this case. Finish your job and get our money back!
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sun, May 24, 2009, 10:22 am EST

report this comment


There is no case for whatever reason. Put the issue to bed and move on. There was no point to this article, other than a slow news day, and that the Herald seems to behave like the NY POST. Oh, and that Steve Follett needed to have Mary stand naked in the town square for all to see. So Steve and his wife look like heros, the painting has been returned, and the library is moving forward. No harm no foul, all involved were made whole.
Let Mary move on with her life.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 8:11 am EST

report this comment


In the world of high $$ auctions,it's very common for the purchaser to remain annoymous, that's nothing new. I don't know when the artwork was taken from there, but from what I understand it was hanging in an obvious place in their library, so when did the other staff/trustee's realize it was missing? Did it take days, months or years to know it was gone?
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 7:38 am EST

report this comment


Oh yeah, the man purchasing the stolen property would also be punishable.

Strange, though. We don't have their name. How do you commit a crime and stay confidential? That only happens if you are a senator, congressman, or better?

How much money did this person give to keep their name confidential? Didn't they commit a crime? Shouldn't we be allowed to see their name as long as they are over 18?

If you buy stolen goods. It's a crime. Even if you didn't know it was stolen property.

Now let's look at the facts, Comfy.

Only one person is being completely protected in all of this. The buyer.

He came up with $100k to buy a painting. I'm sure it wasn't hard for them to come up with more money to keep this quiet. I could just be full of "Hot air".

But something just doesn't add up.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 6:39 am EST

report this comment


True Comfy,

But, say it was 8 years. Someone with a solid conscience would have been torn up about it.

Someone having the ability, after 8 years, to come up with an elaborate story of ownership. Go through the process of selling it. Sell it. And then start receiving money for it. This has been sitting by and been premeditated for 8 years. (If your idea is correct.) But you may be right. Statute of limitation may have been met. If that is so, then she knows for sure what she was doing. She wouldn't be prosecuteable but it would really show a horrible side to her character.

Think about it. Imagine someone with a conscience returning to work, for that long, knowing what they did. Sitting and waiting for that 7 long years to pass. Still working at the place. Dealing with the people she works with for that long. And still goes through with selling the artwork.

What you are saying is... And what the law describes is... It pays to not have a conscience? Because if you can steal, fool everyone, and keep it hidden for over 7 years. Then you are free to go. Crazy, huh?

What about the auction house?

Who was the auctioner? Wouldn't they be subject to crimes as well? Putting stolen property up for auction is also punishable. It's not only a crime to steal and try to sell. It's also a crime for any auction house to sell stolen property.

I think you are right. I don't think we have the full story. And maybe it has nothing to do with Mary to why they won't press charges.

She may just be getting lucky because the "Auction House" is under some good legal/friend/associate protection. Because if she got prosecuted. Then the "Auction House", and board of members, would have to go under investigation.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, May 24, 2009, 6:28 am EST

report this comment


If I were going to steal a painting from my local library/employer auction it and pocket the proceeds, I would make good and certain that there would not be an article about it's auction in the local newspaper.
From what I understand, this is not a stupid woman that we are talking about. It doesn't seem to quite add up. We are missing some of the story it would seem..Nobody said why there was no case. Did she steal it eight years ago and the statute of limitations is seven? Did she not really steal it and was it the result of some sort of misunderstanding? Is the idea that she has to confront people who know that she stole form them every time she leaves her house punishment enough? Is it because it is a first offense and apparently a freak occurrence in an otherwise upstanding and law abiding life? I'm not saying, I'm just asking...
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, May 23, 2009, 3:29 pm EST

report this comment


How do figure she was a state employee?
It is a private library.
-- Posted by None None

--------

Thanks-- I mean more generally, a 'government' employee. Technically, not "state," but she's described as "The town librarian..." Public servant, no? Tax payer funded?
.
-- Posted by mark on Sat, May 23, 2009, 2:51 pm EST

report this comment


Yes, the State's Attorney does have the option of going ahead and pressing charges even if the library doesn't opt to do so.

I personally don't give a rat's @$$ if Mary has a thyroid problem or an abusive husband. Thyroid problems run in my family and not one of them has ever done anything remotely like this because of it. Also, spousal abuse is not an excuse. Mary had and still has the option to get out of the abuse. If she makes the choice to not leave the abuse then she and her family have no justified reasons for going to a life of crime. The penalty she has received thus far is way off base and, people wonder why some of us have trouble believing in the judicial system and law enforcement to protect us and keep us and our families from harm.
-- Posted by White Witch on Sat, May 23, 2009, 2:05 pm EST

report this comment


Lots have been left out of the story. The story is being told from the view of one angry trustee, biased version.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 12:46 pm EST

report this comment


How do figure she was a state employee?
It is a private library.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 12:40 pm EST

report this comment


I always support a sympathetic justice system. But I too am confused as to the willy-nilly nature of it here in the Perfect Little State.

I guess VT-style justice.has a lot to do with who you are, and what class of people you belong to. Maybe she got off because she is a fellow gov't employee. In VT, the rising aristocracy is power-based: if you are part of VT's massive state gov't, you are in a privileged class. It's all "wink-wink" and wrist slaps.
.
-- Posted by mark on Sat, May 23, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment


I'm confused. She admitted to taking property from the library. Attempted to sell it. DID SELL IT. Was in the process of receiving money for it. There is motive, too. She needed the money. Obviously, she wanted to do something elaborate for her daughter's wedding and possibly for herself.

Tell me, what part of the case are you missing? I'm really confused. You don't have a case? Huh?

Did you waste time on this? Did state investigators waste time on this?

Then why isn't justice being served? Was it to easy?

Send the $20k bill to the library for the investigation, then. Someone has to pay for it.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 11:02 am EST

report this comment


Can't the state or city sue her? Afterall, time, paperwork and money was spent from the state to investigate this ordeal.

Their time could have been used for a better purpose. Our tax dollars shouldn't have spent on men/women working a case like this. And then to just walk away from it.

What do you mean you don't have a case? Huh? That is BS. Doesn't a state attorney or a district attorney have the power to prosecute someone even when someone else doesn't want to press charges?

Maybe I'm wrong. But I just can't fathom someone getting away with putting stolen artwork on auction, selling it, receiving money for it, and then just returning money and the artwork after they have been confronted. No criminal charges. Nothing. Have a nice day!

Huh? What?
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 10:53 am EST

report this comment


There has been 6 generations of my family that have enjoyed that painting and I would hope the next 6 could also.We have lost many things over the years here in Proctor and will lose more. But I hope that there will be a Library for ever. That is where all the memories are kept like a Time capsuale.Some of us have roots here and it ould be nice to have future generations be able to go and look up almost anything about Proctor and the people that started it all.
As for Mary she is a sweet kind person and I will not judge her or her family.It is what it is. And we dont know the whole story and dont need to know the whole story.
-- Posted by mark mark on Sat, May 23, 2009, 9:29 am EST

report this comment


Who are the trustees? Only one trustee was "shocked"?
What about talking to a lawyer? Is the library part of the town?
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 9:23 am EST

report this comment


What is the history? simply that it has hung in the library? how does that give history to the library?
What is there to be sentimental about? Most did not even realize it belonged to the library. And none had any idea of the value!
Books are culled on a regular basis from the library.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 8:22 am EST

report this comment


Oh ok thats right lets not sell it, lets just let it collect dust inside of a vault, or stick it back out in the childrens aisle and let someone else steal it, and sell it on the black market and then never see it again for 100 years. Yes that is just a wonderful idea

Like proctor is important anyway with what their whole 30 residents? 100 grand would be a nice chunk of change, oh but cant have that we have to have the painting there for another 70 years. because its just so important no one even knew about it until it was stolen
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 8:21 am EST

report this comment


Just wondering...prior to this happening, did any of the Library Trustee's realize the value of this artwork or what they really had hanging in the children's section of the town library? Or did it only become known to them & everyone else after this incident?
-- Posted by None None on Sat, May 23, 2009, 7:22 am EST

report this comment


The fact that it has been a part of the library for 70 years gives it a history to the building. How many generations have looked at it as they were sitting listening to story time or looking for the hardy boys books? That dosnt give it a history? Guess your not the sentimental type to appreciate that type of thing..
-- Posted by Mav Erick on Fri, May 22, 2009, 10:55 pm EST

report this comment


This is became interstate commerce, she could still be indicted by a federal grand jury.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Fri, May 22, 2009, 9:00 pm EST

report this comment


MAV
What is the history of the painting to Proctor? That it was a gift from the Proctor Family? I do not consider that history.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 8:40 pm EST

report this comment


I was under the impression that it was the library's choice not to prosecute. Am I wrong?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, May 22, 2009, 7:41 pm EST

report this comment


I haven't had any luck playing the lottery over the years, guess I'll move to Proctor, steal a $100,000 (even if I have to run someone over and kill them to do it) and make my fortune that way.

I certainly hope that the voters in this state have the common sense to get rid of Mongeon. He has made a mockery of the judicial system (or lack there of). He's the biggest crook in the state - and he gets paid to do it. Wake up and smell the coffee voters - things are never going to change unless you exercise your power at the polls. If Mongeon is elected again we're as guilty as he is for the joke which has become justice in Rutland County.
-- Posted by No Justice In Vermont on Fri, May 22, 2009, 7:30 pm EST

report this comment


They better not put that painting on the wall now or I will be "checking it out" myself.
-- Posted by Tyrell Brown on Fri, May 22, 2009, 7:21 pm EST

report this comment


NONENONE, Your absolutely right. the library should sell the painting that was a gift almost 70 years ago and has a history.While their at it, they might as well sell off half of the books on the shelves to raise money too. Are you people for real?
-- Posted by Mav Erick on Fri, May 22, 2009, 7:07 pm EST

report this comment


A smaller one and not nearly as interesting sold for $265,000 in Nov 07. I'd like to meet the appraiser that did the initial appraisal of what was it $15,000!!!! I believe if placed in front of the right people this would bring a lot more then $100,000. Her record high per square inch was $795. which would put this at $682,000! In my opinion It's not worth that much but there has been a bunch of hocus pocus all along this deal. When i first heard of the sale I felt bad because all you civilians thought this was so great and all I saw was insider trading fire sale! And one more con in the antiques biz.
-- Posted by Clarke Comollo on Fri, May 22, 2009, 5:10 pm EST

report this comment


Steve Follett, you and your wife Carol have had your wish come true. You outed Mary in the public arena, for all to see. How proud you both must feel, for now the people all know. Please, tell me what was the purpose of this article?
You have your precious painting back.I say sell the painting.How does the Library justify $100,000 hanging on the wall.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 3:46 pm EST

report this comment


Hey...
Did you hear about the librarian who the police caught smoking a joint while reading Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas???
FYI A "Joint" is a marijuana cigarett for those who do not know that.
-- Posted by My Comment on Fri, May 22, 2009, 3:15 pm EST

report this comment


I'm really getting tired of hearing that people who committed a crime "made a mistake". A mistake is when you use baking powder instead of baking soda in the banana bread. A mistake is when you add the $10 check you wrote instead of subtracting it. Stealing a $100,000 painting from the public and selling it is not a "mistake" it's a criminal act. As for it being her husband's fault, there are a lot of women out there who live with jerks who don't go around stealing. Other women with thyroid conditions don't steal either. A lot of us have had hard lives and we don't commit crimes so stop using it as an excuse. And please, please stop saying mistake when you are referring to crime.
-- Posted by Angel None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 2:26 pm EST

report this comment


OK, just a few thoughts from the peanut gallery:

1. I am not completely convinced that the "Tim Brough" who has posted here is legitimate. If he isn't, well, the joke's on everyone who responded to him and his offer to have them come to his home address to confront him "face to face". (Seriously, does ANYONE from the Herald ever bother to moderate these forums, or have all of those folks already been laid off?)

However... if that IS the real Tim: that's a very, very sad story (if it's real), and I sorta feel sorry for you, but ultimately it rings as hollow and as meaningless as Dan White's Twinkie Defense from thirty years ago. C'mon, now. Your wife did something incredibly stupid, abused her public position of trust, lied about it, got caught... and (short of losing her job, and deservedly so) is getting off scot-free.

As others have pointed out, kids in Rutland stealing crap worth one-hundredth the value of this painting usually end up with criminal records and/or jail time. Your wife is skipping away without punishment. Honestly, that's ridiculous.

3. At this point, someone oughta draw a map to the Rutland County Courthouse courtroom for Jim Mongeon, because I doubt the man knows where the h-ll it is. Seriously, I have never heard of a county prosecutor this lazy, ineffective, and just generally inconsequential. If I ever decide to commit a felony, remind me to do it in Rutland County, OK?

4. Finally, there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that famous Not-Really-A-Killer, No-Sir Local Celebrity Bryant Garrow planned to drunk-drive Ms. Brough's getaway car out of the state, if need be, because clearly these two are among the Criminally Untouchable in the Greater Proctor/Rutland Area. Nope. No truth to that rumor at all...
-- Posted by That Guy on Fri, May 22, 2009, 2:16 pm EST

report this comment


Hey, None None, that arguement can be made for every crime commited out there.
Maybe the same thing could have been said for the Garrow case. There's another punishment that didn't fit the crime.
Must be Proctor has an in with the legal system.
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment


One mistake should not curse or ruin a person's life. I commend the Library Board, for not seeking any criminal action, and seeing the value and worth of Mary's life.
The painting and monies were returned. I would think that Mary is suffering everyday, and do not think any criminal penalty, could be any more severe.
Keep your chin up Mary. You will be missed at the Library!
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 12:37 pm EST

report this comment


Tim,
Although it's unfortunate that your relationship is such with your wife.
This doesn't change the facts about what was done.
She stole a $100,000 art work.......
People are charged for offenses that are way less substantial than stealing a $100,000 painting.
Why should she get off scot-free?
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment


Definitely, a slam dunk quilty verdict here. A well educated financially independent woman commits grand larceny and then hides behind what seems to indicate her spounse's unstable mental condition. is this all it takes to negate any criminal charges by Mongeon. Sounds like the "son of Sam," plea.
-- Posted by Justn Thyme on Fri, May 22, 2009, 11:26 am EST

report this comment


Geez Tim....Chill out...its that that attitude that got you in this position in the first place? I honestly feel bad for your wife because you obviously have some issues. Bottom line is if she wasnt your wife and she did what she did, you would expect her to be punished. That's all people are saying. It doesnt matter if someone lives with an a**hole or if their childhood cat was hit by a car in front of them, traumatizing them forever. What she did was wrong, against the law, she did it for financial gain and she should have to pay the consequences.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 11:25 am EST

report this comment


For a little more than a year, I and my family have noticed a change in Mary, some depression, anxiety, not interested in things, etc. I've asked her what was wrong, but always evasive. After this happened we went to a doctor in Burlington and she was diagnosed with a pretty severy Thyroid condition (twice the high limit.) That's known to cause all of these things and impaired judgment as well. So yes, I am making an excuse here because I know this contributed, because nothing like this has ever happened before.
But that's not the whole story...the real guilt is mine. For 30 years I have abused my wife emotionally...always taking my weakness, failure and problems out on her, and this takes its toll over the years and put terrible pressure on her, and the sin of it is I knew all the time the damage I was causing and still continued to do it. I am truly sorry. This is all my fault. Something had to give and it did. I'm the one that did this. I'm sorry to all my family, everybody in Proctor, everyone I know, but most of all to my wife, whom I love more than anything...sure is a funny way to show it.
What was done was wrong, but it was my wrong and it is me that deserves any judgment or punishment, but my wife doesn't and you can attack me, I deserve it, but if anyone wants to attack my wife then come to my house and do it face to face. I live at 4 School St.
Tim Brough
-- Posted by Tim Brough on Fri, May 22, 2009, 10:12 am EST

report this comment


How is it that a teenager - 16 - is a lookout for another 15 year old to go into a person's vehicle and steal cd's gets charged with grand larceny as an adult and this woman gets nothing? This 16 year old kid had never been in trouble, at school or otherwise. He was an honor roll student most of his high school career. He had moved into a new town and got in with the wrong crowd. When they got caught he told the absolute truth. Although it was very hard. The other kid wouldn't talk and denied, denied, denied. So why is it that this child received a charge of grand larceny as an adult, which by the way, just about ruined him and his family, monetarily and emotionally yet, this woman embezzles from her employer a painting worth $100,000 and she gets nothing....I understand that the painting and any monies involved were returned but such was the case in the above as well...

I SEE NO JUSTICE IN THIS STATE...ONLY NARROW MINDED, POWER HUNGRY PEOPLE AT THE HELMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS MY OPINION THAT IF WE WERE TO INVESTIGATE THE REAL UNFOLDING EVENTS OF THIS CAPER, WE WOULD FIND THAT IT REALLY DOES MATTER WHO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH. MY GUESS IS THAT THIS WOMAN, AFTER ALL SHE IS A LIBRARIAN FOR THE TOWN, HAS ASSOCIATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.. WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS TO REALIZE IS THIS ISN'T MONOPOLY THIS IS REAL LIFE.
-- Posted by White Witch on Fri, May 22, 2009, 9:41 am EST

report this comment


I hope I can take advantage of a deal like that. Sounds like you are better off to steal a $100000 painting that you are intrusted with, than a $20 donation box. I think both are wrong and should both pay the consequences, but apparently Mr Mongeon is so much better at dealing justice than a judge or a jury. We really need to get this deal maker out of our system. Remember "we offer deals on 99% of the cases." It's just sad, maybe that's why we have so much crap going on here in Rutland. I think so.
-- Posted by Enoch on Fri, May 22, 2009, 9:24 am EST

report this comment


PRESS CHARGES!!!

DO EEET!! DO EEET NOW!!!!!
-- Posted by Dave None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 8:38 am EST

report this comment


Yeah really, Why does this woman get off on grand larceny but no one else received a get out of jail free card...How just is that? The woman wanted to sell a piece of history to fund her own greedy agenda.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 7:39 am EST

report this comment


So, I get it. I go into a bank, steal $100,000, hold on to it, when they figure out it was me, I give the money back and go free. Sounds like justice to me.
-- Posted by Tony Petrillo on Fri, May 22, 2009, 6:36 am EST

report this comment


As a Proctor taxpayer, I say sell the $100,000 painting. The Library comes to the taxpayers for around $60,000, in March. The Library can supply the $60,000 by selling the painting with money left over. In these tough economic times, I think that the library needs to think about sending the painting back to auction, and giving taxpayers a break this March.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, May 22, 2009, 6:17 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout