Chapter 9 - Jason Offers A Deal
Eight months after the backyard rescue, Jason’s attorneys approached prosecutors.
He would plead guilty to financial fraud, identity theft, and unlawful restraint of Emily.
He would admit locking her in enclosure.
He would not admit kidnapping Sarah.
He claimed she went voluntarily to discuss finances and stayed voluntarily at warehouse/cabin until “marital argument escalated.”
Voluntarily in restrained room?
He claimed restraints were used only briefly after Sarah became “physically aggressive.”
She denied.
Then why move twice?
Safety from Michael.
Why fake messages?
Business dispute.
Why cabin funded through fake company?
Coincidence/financial structure.
The state rejected first offer.
Then second:
He would plead felony kidnapping if prosecutors reduced intent and recommended twelve year cap, federal fraud concurrent.
Sarah’s input requested.
She said:
“I care about Emily not testifying.”
Emily might not need.
But Sarah also wanted official admission.
Jason refused wording:
“I abducted Sarah to force a false statement.”
He offered:
“I unlawfully prevented Sarah from leaving during a marital dispute.”
Words.
Control through wording.
Sarah said no preference on trial beyond truth.
I wanted maximum.
Then therapy made me confront.
A plea could spare Emily.
But state chose.
They decided trial on state kidnapping/child counts first, financial federal case later perhaps plea.
Emily’s testimony could be mostly through forensic interview and limited closed court.
Jason had right challenge.
The court planned protective procedure.
Then defense motion:
Exclude lockbox letter as hearsay.
Some parts admitted for Sarah’s state of mind and to explain investigation, not truth of all claims.
But Sarah alive and could testify directly.
Letter not needed for substantive fraud claims.
Good.
Exclude pool bags as prejudicial? They were evidence tampering.
Allowed selectively.
No theatrical black bag display unless relevant.
Then my backyard confrontation.
Defense wanted show Michael violent.
Video.
I shoved Jason.
Could support frame theory that I was aggressive.
Prosecution could not pretend.
I would testify.
Then Jason’s previous acts against Sarah.
Did he hit before?
One prior shove not reported.
Sarah had photo bruise.
Judge allowed limited evidence if relevant to coercive pattern? Depending rules. Let's not overdo.
Main abduction evidence enough.
Then Sarah’s car.
Forensics found Jason DNA and Sarah. Normal.
In trunk, fiber from warehouse blanket.
And a zip tie package receipt from Jason’s company.
Could be work.
Then cabin.
Jason's fingerprints everywhere because owned/managed.
Sarah DNA utility room.
Restraint marks photographed.
Again.
Then digital.
His laptop had draft affidavit:
I, Sarah Bennett, state that Michael Carter and I formed Carter Recovery Partners...
It continued:
Michael asked me to route payments because his employer would not allow side work.
False.
At bottom, blank Sarah signature.
Metadata created two weeks before kidnapping.
Why prepare if voluntary business?
Jason said because Sarah agreed then changed mind.
She denied.
Then fake company web hosting purchased from Jason’s work card initially, later reimbursed by shell.
Direct.
Then Trevor Miles.
Outside bookkeeper.
He testified Jason told:
“Michael is silent partner. Sarah knows.”
Trevor never met me.
He processed invoices.
When he asked W9 mismatch, Jason sent forged.
Could Trevor be charged?
He cooperated after investigation.
Prosecutors found insufficient evidence he knew identity false early. Later he suspected and ignored. Civil/professional penalties, maybe misdemeanor false bookkeeping? Let's say he pled to failing to report a material tax discrepancy? Better not invent obscure. He received no criminal charge but paid regulatory/accounting penalties? He was unlicensed bookkeeper. Fine, no charge.
Then Jason’s motive in kidnapping.
Force Sarah to sign affidavit before federal fraud uncovered.
Frame me if she disappeared or reported.
Maybe he intended release after signature.
Still kidnapping.
Then why black bags? Destroy copies he found.
Why lock Emily? Prevent call/witness.
Then pool lockbox survived because he didn't find.
Everything coherent.
Then Sarah filed divorce.
Jason contested property but criminal asset freeze.
House.
Jointly owned Sarah/Jason? Sarah owned before? Maybe Sarah bought after divorce with settlement, Jason contributed. House sold later after case, proceeds divided subject restitution. Pool drained and processed. No one lived there.
Emily never returned.
Then one day she asked:
“Can we fill pool?”
“It’s not ours.”
“Oh.”
She wanted it gone.
May you like
Eventually house sold and new owners renovated.
We tell later.
