By Monica Alonzo
By Ray Stern
By New Times Staff
By Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Robrt L. Pela
A psychologist who worked with Quinn in the months before Brock's arrest told Chandler Detective Chris Perez that Quinn had "learned to manipulate."
In police reports and transcripts of conversations with his jailed wife, County Supervisor Brock repeatedly refers to Quinn as "that little Dorian Gray," a reference to the young, hedonistic pleasure-seeker with loose morals whose beauty infatuates an older man in the Oscar Wilde novel The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Toward the end of their affair, Susan Brock described herself as Quinn's "personal slave," and the Quinns acknowledged that they had "no doubt their son began manipulating Ms. Brock."
After it was revealed that Quinn and Brock had been sexually involved, Brock threatened to kill herself on several occasions. She promised her young victim that she would change her will and give Quinn $300,000 after her death so he could "go to college and become the best lawyer ever."
Days later, during a call recorded by the Chandler Police Department, Brock told Quinn she'd "taken too many pills and was starting to scare herself."
Quinn then asked whether she yet had changed her will to ensure that he would get the money.
When Fulton Brock launched his 2008 campaign for county supervisor, he enlisted the Quinn family to help.
According to elections records, three members of the Quinn family were paid $8,730 by "Friends of Fulton Brock" during the 2008 campaign for doing services such as putting up campaign signs and collecting signatures.
Paul, records show, was paid $1,660 for setting up, repairing, and removing campaign signs. Laura Quinn was paid $3,422 for collecting signatures. These types of paid campaign jobs often are reserved for the closest friends and family of a candidate.
To be sure, the Quinns and the Brocks were very close — their kids went to school together, they were involved in similar social activities, and they often shared dinners and holidays.
By 2009, though, the two families were at odds over the amount of time Susan was spending with Paul. The Quinns disapproved of all the expensive items Susan had bought for their son and felt she was undermining their authority as parents by showering him with the gifts.
In August 2009, nearly two years after she'd become sexually active with Paul, Susan Brock and Laura Quinn got into an argument after Paul was forbidden from seeing his girlfriend. Brock, also a friend of Paul's girlfriend's mother, told Laura Quinn that she could not be friends with both her and her son — and that her loyalty was to Paul.
By this point, the Quinns' concerns over Brock's fascination with their son had been developing for quite a while. Laura told Brock to stay away from Paul, but Brock refused — she said Laura would have to "put her in jail" before she would stay away from Paul.
The Quinns told Brock to stop giving cell phones to Paul, another request the county supervisor's wife refused. The Quinns would find a cell phone Paul had received from Susan, and they would return it to the Brocks — often only to find it back in Paul's possession soon thereafter.
In October 2009, Paul's father, Craig, talked to a friend who was a former Chandler police officer. Craig explained the situation between his son and Susan Brock, and the ex-cop suggested that Brock might be sexually abusing Paul.
Rather than take such a concern to police, the Quinns turned to their church.
The Quinns called a meeting with their LDS stake president, Mitch Jones, and the Brocks to discuss their suspicions about Susan's interference in their son's life, and the possibility that she was sexually abusing Paul.
Craig Quinn specifically asked Susan — with her county supervisor husband in the room — whether she was having a sexual relationship with Paul. She denied it, but everyone in the room that day knew this was what the parents feared. Yet nobody there bothered to investigate further, much less call police.
The abuse continued for another year before police caught wind of the suspicion that a teenage boy and a 48-year-old woman were having sex.
According to clergy sex-abuse expert Marci Hamilton, not alerting authorities about suspected abuse is status quo for the Mormon Church.
"This, unfortunately, is very typical behavior in the Latter-day Saints church," she says. "They will take calls about abuse either to a stake president or to a bishop, and it doesn't get reported."
Under LDS protocol, Hamilton says, it's up to the stake president to decide whether to further investigate suspicions of sexual abuse. She says church leaders often choose not to look into such suspicions, to avoid humiliating the church with a sex scandal.
"They don't want to believe it," Hamilton says. "So instead of taking the position of maximum safety and going to the police, they persuade themselves that [the suspicion] doesn't have that much merit.
"Then you get exactly what you got in this case — another year of abuse of a kid who shouldn't have been abused in the first place."
When Quinn's girlfriend first learned of the affair between her boyfriend and Susan Brock — a year after the meeting with LDS Stake President Jones, when suspicions of abuse were first brought up — she told her mother. But her mother, who then also suspected that Paul Quinn was getting abused, didn't bother calling police.
The entire Brock family needs major psychological help! What has happened in this household behind closed doors to cause such perversion? Hopefully the other Brock children are getting much needed help. Could sexual deviation be hereditary?
This is a very common problem in the Mormon church. Even more disturbing is the fact that the church is more concerned with covering up these crimes so as not to be "associated' with it, thereby tarnishing their name. I just recently read a book from a Utah author called "Formerly Filthy Rich" which describes unbelievable corruption from within the ranks of the Mormon church and it's Mormon-owned pyramid scheme, Nu Skin Enterprises, a publicly traded company. I heard about the book on the radio, after it went public, the church and Nu Skin launched a full-scale attack against the author and have been able to almost completely erase his presence on the internet, including his blogs, links to the articles written about his book, and everything else. His website is still up and selling books, however, the books were pulled off Amazon and B&N within a week. Oh - the kicker - he discovered after divorcing his wife that she (the 52-year old owner of Nu Skin) molested his 13 year old boy for years, grooming him with gifts, and threatening him that his brothers and sisters would live on the streets if he ever told anyone. The book resonated with me on several levels, having been a victim of abuse from within the ranks of the Mormon church as well. However, the massive scale of the Mormon church's coverup for this high-level and very wealthy individual is deplorable and sickening. It is all too common that the voice of these victims is simply extinguished by those who are more interested in protecting their reputation than the innocence of a child.
Just like the catholic church and Joe Paterno, and others who play the hide and seek shuffle game with molester should be held accountable. Obstruction of justice, witness tampering, failure to report, etc..., this cult with a history of child exploitation actually includes in its bylaws/policy directions to keep vile acts secret.
Saggy...perfect for the wife's name...haha! Boy, that kid must have really loved those gifts to allow that old bag to blow him. And the porked out daughter...another loser. If these fat bitches don't stay in the custody of our State's finest for over, at least, 3-4 years...I know I won't be happy. They are some real creeps.But did the mother and daughter know each of them was doing that kid? Eewwwwwwww...ick...barf!
"The clergy-penitent privilege protects certain communications made by a person to their pastor, priest, rabbi, etc. The communication must be intended by the person to be a confession of sin in order to be protected. And, the clergyman must be acting in the capacity of a clergy member receiving the confession of a penitent. Once those prerequisites are met, the clergyman cannot be compelled to reveal the confidences of the penitent."
Wonder why hardly any crimes get reported by Clergy? Because here is another law that makes it difficult to prosecute clergy who don't report. They can use the Clergy/penitent privilege.
And if the protected information was used to obtain evidence, a defense attorney would argue the "fruit of the poisionous tree" doctrine to toss out all the evidence obtained as a result of using the confession, jeopardizing the case. Hopefully the state would argue the inevitable discovery doctrine and keep the evidence in...... Do you want to roll the dice on that with the child victim's life at stake?
There are ways around this, and some clergy have found it and have made reports of child molestation to the police, allowing the suspect to be tried and convicted. Our own laws make things look like it is a "cover up" when in fact people are just following the law.
@Kenneth Thatcher Except the mormon church has no equivalent to the 'priest' in 'priest-penitent' privilege... There are all sorts of reasons, besides being cheap, that the church doesn't want trained clergy...
Anyone who has ever regularly attended a mormon church will tell you, most everything that gets told to a bishop/stake pres or anyone else, becomes gossip for the rest of the local church members...
Interesting.... I just want to pork that daughter or recieve a handjob from saggy. Any laws that would help with that?
Well James King- you are either a Liar or stupid- your knowledge of MCSO's policy/procedure and ABILITY to record audio from visits is wrong... so you either got the quoted materials from another source or you manufactured them- either way- YOU LIED! pretty stupid!
None, you're the stupid one. You probably have your tongue well up Arpaio's ass. Work there, yoiu know... The materials quoted came directly from jail tapes. Read the story, fucking moron!
i agree- angry aren't we?! still wrong- they can't record audio from visits- now had you said phone calls- sure- but not visits... and based on what i said- what makes you think i work there? at least i can post a comment that does not rely on foul language to emphasise my point.
Dogbiter, I don't disagree that Fulton should have stepped up and made a report when he found out what was going on. But, would you? If you found out your spouse had committed a crime that would put them in prison for years, would you be ready to make the call to the police right then????? That is a tough decision that I am glad I didn't have to make.
I do have an issue with him using his postion to get favors at the jail, trying to intimidate the detectives into not doing the search and his claim that until the arrest he knew nothing. Obviously by the notepad with his handwriting on it that was not true.
At least you can run my name to look me up, but I keep a pretty low profile these days, so as you see, nothing is there.
Dogbiter, have you read ARS 13-3620 the mandatory reporting statute? In part it reads;
"A member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest may otherwise make of the minor." Now, do I believe this is the right thing to do, NO. Do I beleive this is what the LDS Church Handbook for Bishops advises, NO. But it provides a defense against prosecution for those clergy who receive a confidential confession and who chose to not make a report. That section makes it difficult to prosecute clergy.
Sure "almost all" of the article came from public records, the facts from those records is not the issue. What I take issue with is the article writer injecting strong personal opinions based on speculation as to what he thought someone knew and when they should have known it and the allegations of cover up from everyone involved. There is more to the incident that is not contained in the police records that would change some opinions if that information were known. But like I said before, that information was not material to the prosecution of the crimes. The police detective was provided the information, but concluded it did not need to be included in the police report, as it was not material to the prosecution of the suspects. What most people don't understand is the absolute psychological power and control the offender has over their victim, that most victims will be so controlled by the offender that they will not disclose being abused, even under direct questioning by their parents, friends, police officers etc. Without the victim's disclosure, there is no investigation. I have witnessed this happen many times and am grateful that things worked out in this case to allow for these crimes to be reported and prosecuted.
FYI I have dealt with many news reporters during the past 27 years on lots of news articles, I have been party to many news articles and given many comments to responsible journalists for their stories. I have witnessed how sometimes the desire to "prosecute in the media" has grown stories into things they are not.
Some people choose to see what they perceive to be the evil in things; others can look past the hype and follow the facts to get to the truth.
The revealing of the victim's name in this article was absolutely unnecessary, will cause him severe emotional trauma and make it harder for police to get others to come in and report being victimized as they will be in fear of having their identities made public.
Ken, come on... Fulton Brock should've reported it. Granted it would've been hard to prosecute without the kid's cooperation, but at least he should've demonstrated an ounce of integrity. I'm curious. Which city in the Valley do you live in to have dealt with the press so fully. Your name doesn't pop up on google in any official capacity.
Now let's assume Susan was a man and the child in question was a girl - there should be no difference in the treatment of this predator - her husband DEFINITELY knew and he has no business keeping his political position because he is not an enabler, he is an accomplice to child sexual abuse by NOT turning her in. If Sheriff Joe Arpaio is really helping Fulton Brock and his family, then he supports and promotes child sexual abuse as well...how very disappointing. Child sexual abuse should never try to be resolved within ANY religious structure - it is criminal and needs to be treated appropriately. I would even go so far as to say that if this type of behavior was acceptable in the Brock's home, one may want to dig deeper to see what type of role Mr. Fulton Brock played as well - did he ever touch his daughters inappropriately? There is a saying, you reap what you sow.
The Brock Family should ALL be in Jail for a long time. Her husband was very well aware of what was going on and probably had video of it. I would'nt be surprised one bit. He married a freak wife that deserves more then she is going to get. The daughter has been a product of her parenting and probably has a chance of a healthy recovery but probably not. Once again quality parenting..Fulton should be sweeping floors somewhere in a jail near to his wife. He doesn't deserve to be in the role he is..No matter the good he brings to this state..
The Quinns got what they deserved for reporting their concerns to their "church" clergy!!! FOOLS! Everyone knows Mormon clergy looks the other way or "prays" the abuse away. They abusers take after their founder, and major horn dog, Joseph Smith!
I wish it were that easy to get a police investigation into suspected molestations. I know of hundreds of cases where reports were made by people thinking something may be happening, and the case gets suspended as there are no facts to support their suspicions. To conduct the investigation the police need some facts and most importantly a statement from the victim that something occurred. In this case the young victim was not telling anyone, even his girlfriend, that something happened to him. The parents tried for a year to find even one fact to give to the police so they could investigate and couldn't due to the secrative paths that Susan Brock took to keep the victim quiet. If you have never been involved in a child molestation investigation, you don't know how hard it is get get enough evidence to prosecute. Investigators must follow strict rules under the Multidisciplinary Protocol for Child Abuse Investigations. That means once the victim denys anything is happening, the case is closed. The parents tried, the boys counselor tried, a retired police officer friend tried to get the boy to share what was happening and he was not going to say anything until his dad found the email and confronted him.
Sorry that so many of you don't know the whole story and want to jump on the parents and govt, thinking there was a conspiracy to cover up, but that is just not true. As to the two Priesthood Leaders who didn't make a report, That was looked at that the Pinal County Prosecutor didn't believe there was sufficient likelihood of getting a conviction based on the facts. Should they have made a report? One of them should have is not in dispute and I think they regret not moving faster and making the report. Even the GF's mom didn't call the police, instead she called Fulton Brock and the boy's parents. While she was not a mandated reporter, she certainly had the phone with the evidence and instead of calling the police and giving them the phone, she gave it back to Fulton Brock. Bottom line, the case was investigated in a very professional manner, the Detective did a great job covering all the bases and convictions were obtained all all 3 guilty parties.
Kenneth, you seem like a rational sort, and there lies your power. But you put up straw man arguments. The police themselves think that the Mormon clergy involved need to be arrested. It's the CA's office that's standing in the way. And nobody's saying the government fouled up here, except for the County Attorney's Office, which should go after Fulton Brock and the Mormon clergy, who failed to report this. And the "whole story" you think people don't know? It's there over eight pages in New Times. Give it up!
Dogbiter, Arizona Law gives Clergy protection from prosecution and the out to not report. A confidential confession is just that, a confidential confession. This is the problem the Pinal County Attorney was faced with and why I think they decided not to prosecute. Yes, the 8 pages in the article have a lot of information, some of it not accurate, but there was a lot more to what happened that was not part of the police report because it had no bearing on the case. And I learned a long time ago, newspaper reporters tend to slant a lot of infomation to sensationalize things, to get readership. I have know only a few "stick to the facts" reporters in my time and appreciate the job they did to report the truth, not twist it to meet their editor's demands. The Pinal County Prosecutor did his job, the Detective did his job and the criminals are in jail.
Kenneth, Almost all of this story came out of public records. There's no twisting of the facts here. Much of it has been reported in dribs and drabs in multiple other media. And, no, clergy does not get a free pass when it comes to child abuse. Neither is doctor/patient relationship given a free pass. It is strictly against the law for any professional to fail to report even the hint of child abuse. You may be right that it's hard to get a jury in this backwater to convict anybody in such circmstances, but it definitely is against the law. Besides, in what capacity have you dealt with newspaper reporters. You appear to be like so many others; it's only accurate if you agree with it.
The girl's parents gave the phone to the victim's parents, not to Fulton Brock. The girlfriend's parents called Fulton to tell him what they had discovered and to check some facts. They were unaware of the extent of the abuse as the phone only contained sexting messages with no indication that a sexual relationship existed. The boy was 17. The sexting messages were disturbing but no body knew there was anything more at that point. That information came from the victim after confronted by his parents with phone in hand. The extent of the abuse blew the minds of everyone and the realization of how long it had been going on was devastating to everyone. Susan was very clever and skillfully kept the parents from even knowing that she was continuing to have contact with the victim. This publication hurts the victims as well as all of these opinions based upon loose and inaccurate details. The parents did everything they could to protect their child. When your teenaged child tells you he is going to the movies and you drop him off there, and pick him up there, don't you believe that he has been at the movies? When he says he is going for a jog and comes back 45 minutes later dripping with sweat, do you confront him and ask if he was actually being groped by a woman who was threatening to ruin his life if he told? It seems that all of the know it alls who write comments would have the ESP needed to know to ask that question, right?. Good people are no contest for evil pediphiles. It is easy to sit back and judge, but anyone reading this can just as easily be a victim. Child predators do not care if you are educated or not, rich or poor, black, white or purple. Pediphiles are master manipulators and Susan Brock was tops. She even had a great disguise. She was a mother. Mothers do not hurt children unless they are monsters like Susan Brock..
All Illegal aliens should be allowed to apply for work permits but only while they are outside the United States in their home countries.
Too bad all the facts are not presented. The family, gov't and church did not try to cover anything up. The family contacted a police officer for advice and there was no facts to support sexual crimes were being committed. Until they were able to get some facts, an investigation would not have stopped things. The victim denied anything was happening when confronted months before the text messages were found, so what else could have been done? NOTHING. Unfortunate, but the boy had learned how to manipulate his parents and was not ready to disclose any wrongdoing by Susan. Lucky the GF and her mom told the parents about the texts, or this never would have been reported and/or prosecuted. The Dad did the right thing by contacting the retired officer for advice once he had the text and email information, and then they facilitated making the report happen.
Kenneth: just keep telling yourself that so you can continue sustaining those priesthood leaders who failed to follow the law in order to protect themselves and an elected politician.
And, let me remind you, even if the victim became manipulative when showered with all these goodies by Sister Brock, the victim is still the victim.
It's interesting that the only people who did anything in this instance were the two non-priesthood holders, i.e., the victim's girlfriend and her mother. So much for the Melchizedek Priesthood, I'd say. Not useful for a whole darn lot.
(And yes, before you jump on me, I am being extremely sarcastic. But if you think the priesthood gives you great power, then why isn't it being used?)
There are many on here, posters and bloggers alike, who already know what you've pointed out. They still have no problem in ignoring these facts in order to further their agenda of hatred of all things conservative.
It is simply an example of the times we currently live in and the power and control of the adversary.
Dogbiter, The parents did talk with a police officer about their concerns, who planted the seed that molestation could be happening based on the grooming pattern. Before then, the parents had no idea that was a possibility. The officer also consulted with other knowlegable police supervisors (non Mormon) who agreed that at that time there was not enough information to investigate. The parents were given suggestions on how to discover information, such as the keystroke tracking program, Court order to stay away from their son etc. Until the victim was ready to talk, the premature investigation would not have gotten anywhere. Check with the Chandler Det. if you wish to confirm.
The police should've been notified at the first hint of sexual abuse. Ask the Chandler detectives who handled the case. That is the law.
We both know only 'reasonable suspicion' is needed to initiate an investigation. That investigation may result in a determination of 'probable cause' that a crime has been committed and who most likely committed the crime. Once probable cause is present then an arrest may occur. As a cop you should know the distinction.
Dude, read the article. The cops wanted the clergy charged. They had probable cause. Also, stop trying to make this about some sort of liberal agenda. Nothing to do with that, dumbass. I'm as conservative as they come.
How deep is your head up your ass? Can you still move your arms? Police need probable cause to perform a search or obtain a warrant. You don't need to meet the same test to report the sexual abuse of children. Dogbiter is correct. The police should have been notified immediately.
This story reflects what passes for logic and truth among you leftists. In no way does it show Fulton did anything, but try to salvage his life, wife and daughter when starting to learn something screwed up big-time had happened.
It's almost laughable how the party of apologists for everything, try their best to slur him and by extension, ole Sheriff Joe.
You can tell by the recording the jail conversation, that he didn't know what happened, sure as hell didn't want to really know, and was caught in the whirlpool his pedo-wife had dragged him into.
But none of that matters to the party of beggars and thieves, who are scared whitless over having their free ride end and want to tear down everyone and everything before that happens.
His wife and his daughter broke the law. There's no proof at all he did. Sorry if that spoils your fun.
Fulton, um Tim... If you're not Fulton, you/re an effen idiot. Anybody who has third-grade reading ability can see that Fulton should lose his job and probably go to jail in this cover-up. Tim, um Fulton, shut the fuck up!
Tim, Fulton Brock sat in a meeting more than a year before his wife was arrested where she was openly accused of having molested the teenage male. She, of course, denied it, and then continued to 'see' him in spite of many attempts to stop her from doing so. Do you recall that tidbit?
At that point I would expect any man to be just a bit suspicious of his wife's activities. You can't say he didn't have a clue...
He was also an apparent conspirator when she was on the way to meet an attorney and was arrested. She had a list of questions written by him to ask the attorney. He got the attorney's name from Rick Romley, for a 'friend'.
He was also an apparent conspirator when he 'threatened' to call the MCSO to have them 'stop' the search incidental to the arrest and court issued search warrant.
You can wear your blinders if you want to, but all of the evidence indicates conspiracy in this case. The county attorney simply chose not to do anything about it.
You profess to have been a cop once. Did you ever go to interview a suspect only to have the spouse/ parent/ significant other run static to prohibit or hinder your ability to complete the interview? Did you arrest those subjects for hindering your investigation for questioning your intentions and the scope of your search?
Of course I did. But the investigation doesn't die there because a suspect lies and says his name isn't really "O.J"., as you know. No church has no business trying to conduct criminal investigations. You know that. Yes, I am a retired police officer. I was active for twenty years and 18 days and retired honorably with a number of commendations, as a command officer. You still have a ways to go to catch up with my experience, and apparently my knowledge base of law enforcement.
If truth be told, she was asked if she was engaged in sexual relations with the boy and she said no. Being asked and being accused are not the same thing.
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city