What a group of psycho individuals. Father and daughter belong in prison also. Twisted dysfunctual family at its worse.
By Amy Silverman
By Olivia LaVecchia
By Monica Alonzo and Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Michael Lacey
By Weston Phippen
Under the Friday-night lights of a suburban high school football game, Chandler's Perry Pumas beat the Marcos DeNiza Padres 23-17, despite getting outscored 10-0 in the second half.
Paul Quinn, a 6-foot-1, 185-pound Perry junior, dressed for the game but didn't get in that night. Regardless, his girlfriend and Susan Brock, a devoutly Mormon mother of three and wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, watched him from the stands.
Susan Brock had been forbidden to see Paul by leaders of her Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, her husband, and the boy's parents, Craig and Laura Quinn, more than a year before the October 8, 2010, victory. But this didn't stop the two from secret meetings or stop Brock from showering the boy with gifts.
One of the many presents Brock bought for him was an iPod Touch, which she had with her that night and entrusted to Paul's girlfriend to give to the boy after the game.
Quinn, now 18, and his girlfriend had trust issues, which led to so many arguments that the girl's parents told their daughter she was no longer allowed to see Quinn. Suspicious of her forbidden love interest, Quinn's girlfriend cracked the password on the iPod and did some snooping before giving it to him.
What she discovered confirmed what several people — including the boy's parents, his own LDS church, and Supervisor Brock — suspected for more than a year: 48-year-old Susan Brock and 17-year-old Paul Quinn were having a sexual relationship.
In text messages discovered on Paul's iPod Touch, Brock — using the alias "Timmy Turner" — and the boy had a graphic conversation about sex she'd had with her county supervisor husband while the two were on a trip to New York about a month earlier. At one point, Quinn asked Susan whether Fulton Brock's penis was bigger than his.
"You are small — half his size on a good day," Susan Brock (as "Timmy Turner") joked, according to cell-phone records obtained by police. "Maybe it will grow with gravity."
The boy then jokingly asked whether his penis was the size of a 6-year-old's, to which Brock replied, "Pretty much, but it's all right. You're handsome and kind of nice to look at."
Paul Quinn later would tell police that he'd been sexually abused by Brock on at least 30 occasions.
As if the story of a devoutly Mormon wife of a powerful county official molesting a teenage boy wasn't fantastic enough, it was revealed that the Brocks' adult daughter, Rachel, had a sexual relationship with the same boy, starting when Quinn was 13. Rachel Brock, at the time, was 18.
But sexual abuse is only part of this story.
This is also a story about the great lengths to which Fulton Brock went to keep law enforcement from building a case against his wife.
It's a story about how the county supervisor abused his powerful position within the community to obtain favors from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to ensure that certain conversations he'd had with his jailed wife as she prepared for a potential trial were not recorded by detention officers.
It's a story about a boy who, psychologists say, learned from his abuser how to manipulate people and took full advantage of his unfortunate situation.
It's a story about how the sexual abuse of a boy could have been stopped a year earlier if his church, his school, his abuser's county supervisor husband, and his own parents had alerted police when suspicion first arose that Susan Brock was abusing him.
Susan Brock pleaded guilty in January to three counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, a far cry from the 15 felony counts on which she initially was indicted. She was sentenced to 13 years in prison for abusing the boy over a span of three years.
Rachel Brock originally was charged with seven counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of furnishing obscene materials to a minor. She pleaded guilty in June to two counts of child abuse with sexual motivation. She faces up to a year in county jail and 10 years of probation at her sentencing, scheduled for October 20.
Meanwhile, news that Quinn had been abused by Susan Brock hit Perry High School within hours of her October 26, 2010, arrest.
The person who revealed the situation was Quinn's best friend and football teammate, Jared Neff, who also benefited from Susan Brock's desire to keep the sexual relationship she was having with Quinn quiet.
"Everyone found out pretty much the day [the arrest] happened," another classmate and football teammate of Quinn's (who wished to not be identified because Quinn's liaison with Brock has become a "sketchy situation" at the school) tells New Times. "We knew that it was a kid at our school, and then one of his friends told people it was him.
"Everyone on the football team joked around about it and would say stuff like, 'Hear you like older women.' [Paul] always denied it."
"I went up to him and asked him about it, and he said no, it wasn't him, but everybody knew. You could just tell. After it happened, he walked around all depressed — like he was the saddest kid on Earth. Then, one day, he just disappeared."
Following Susan Brock's arrest, Quinn continued to attend Perry High School for more than a month. According to court documents obtained by New Times, he then was sent to a school out of state, where he is undergoing therapy to help put what happened behind him.
Marci Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Yeshiva University in New York City. She has written extensively about sexual abuse in religious institutions, including the book Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children. She served as constitutional and federal law counsel in many prominent sex-abuse cases involving clergy in state and federal courts, and has testified before state legislatures regarding elimination of statutes of limitations for childhood sex abuse.
After familiarizing herself with the case at the request of New Times, Hamilton concludes, "Every adult in this story failed the child because they didn't go to police."
Rather, they went to their church.
None of the principals in this story agreed to speak on the record with New Times. Multiple attempts to obtain comment from Fulton Brock, Susan Brock, the Quinn family, and LDS officials were ignored or declined. What is described here is derived from police reports, court documents, transcripts of phone conversations between Fulton and Susan Brock, accounts of those close to the case, and expert opinion.
The Brock and Quinn families met in 2003 through their respective LDS churches. Susan Brock and Laura Quinn were considered best friends. In 2004, Rachel Brock even went to her sophomore prom with Paul Quinn's older brother — who is her age and was thought by her mother to be a potential romantic match for her.
Paul's brother, himself a devout Mormon who completed a two-year mission with the church, ended the relationship with Rachel, saying the two "didn't have the same values."
Paul's older brother, it appears, caught the eye of Rachel's mother, Susan, too.
Paul's brother later told police how weird he thought it was that Susan Brock continually asked him about his love life under the guise of wanting to set him up with her daughter, and the Quinns later told police they suspected early on that Susan had a "fascination" with their older son. She had offered to buy him an iPhone on several occasions before he went on his mission. She had made similar offers when she took him to dinner upon his return. He declined every time.
Luring Paul, however, was easier, the Quinns say, and they believe Brock started "grooming" him when he was as young as 11 by buying him things they wouldn't — including an iPhone when he was in sixth grade.
In fact, over the course of the relationship, Brock bought Quinn whatever his heart desired, including several iPods and iPhones, a special edition Xbox 360 and numerous games, underwear, jeans, T-shirts, a sniper rifle, two assault rifles, an M-1 carbine, a bolt-action rifle, a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, a pistol, and paintball supplies.
Following at least 20 of the sexual encounters Brock had with the boy, she paid him $100. She often would bring whatever he and Neff wanted for lunch at school. Even after Quinn's parents told the school — more than a year before Brock's arrest — not to allow the middle-aged woman near their son.
Despite instructions to Quinn's school from his parents to not allow Brock near their son, she frequently visited the boy there. Police were never called when she showed up at the school, as Quinn's parents had instructed.
Perry Principal Dan Serrano would not discuss the Brock case with New Times, citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act as the reason. However, he says, "I strongly deny that I or anyone at Perry High School had any knowledge of any criminal activity."
Susan and Rachel apparently weren't the only Brock women enamored of Paul Quinn. Neff described a time when Quinn brought the Brock's youngest daughter, Beth Anne — the only member of the Brock family who's the same age as Quinn — to his house when the three were in sixth or seventh grade.
Despite Beth Anne's apparent friendship with Quinn, it was her older sister who was the first Brock with whom he had a sexual relationship.
During a July 2007 family trip to California, Rachel Brock and Quinn were under a blanket together on the beach. Quinn felt Rachel's breasts as she gave him a "hand job," Quinn told Chandler police.
About a month later, Rachel performed oral sex on Quinn as the two sat in Rachel's car as it was parked in front of the home of her county supervisor father.
Quinn's girlfriend, meanwhile, always found it weird that a "college girl" would be interested in a high school freshman, adding to her suspicions about her wayward boyfriend (in addition to the text messages between Quinn and Susan Brock, Quinn's girlfriend found naked pictures of other female classmates on his phone).
Neff knew of Quinn's sexual relationship with Rachel Brock. Quinn showed him pictures he had saved on his phone of Rachel naked that she had sent him, along with videos of her masturbating. Neff says Quinn told him that the two had actual intercourse at least twice, the last time in July 2010, just a few months before Susan Brock's arrest and nearly three years after Quinn was first abused by both Susan and Rachel Brock.
Neff, who briefly dated Beth Anne Brock, told police he always suspected Susan was interested in Quinn sexually but didn't know of any abuse until it came out in the media.
About a year and a half before Susan Brock was arrested, Neff says he was playing cards with Paul, Susan, and Rachel, when Susan suggested that the four play strip poker because she had recently lost a lot of weight. There is nothing in investigation records to suggest that the game actually occurred.
At the time of the strip-poker suggestion, Quinn already had been sexually active with both Susan and Rachel for about two years.
Susan Brock began her sexual encounters with Quinn in October 2007, about a month after Rachel went away to college.
Quinn and Susan Brock were alone in her Lexus SUV as it was parked in a partially developed neighborhood near the Chandler airport that month. Susan crawled over the seat, disrobed the boy, and grabbed his penis — the first of about 30 hand jobs Brock would give Quinn over the course of about three years.
On most of those occasions, Susan Brock would massage the boy's penis with vibrating sex toys. In one instance, as the two again were parked by the airport, Brock removed her Mormon temple garments so Quinn could ejaculate on her breasts.
"I don't know, it was always just the same thing," Quinn later told police. "Rarely would we do it at her house, and whenever we did, it would be [while] on the computer or her iPhone looking at pornography."
As Quinn raked in expensive gifts and cash from Brock, the most valuable service Brock provided the boy was the means to continue his relationship with his girlfriend after her parents forbade their relationship.
In addition to the ring, Brock would arrange ways for Quinn to have sex with the girl after the girl's parents had forbidden the two from seeing each other.
Brock arranged for the two to have sex on several occasions, made suggestions about which sexual positions they should try, and even provided them with a "sex kit" that included condoms, sexual lubricants, and sex toys.
In one instance, Brock drove the two to a mall parking lot so they could have sex in her car. Brock went inside to shop while Quinn and his girlfriend had sex, with the understanding that they would text-message Brock when they were done and ready to leave.
Looking back, Quinn's girlfriend tells police, she thought there were times Brock listened as she and Quinn had sex. There were occasions, she says, when Brock arranged for her and Quinn to have sex at Brock's mother's house, where Fulton Brock's wife would "linger."
In one case, Quinn literally had to push Brock out the door so he could have sex with his girlfriend.
Quinn's girlfriend said she should have known her boyfriend and the county supervisor's wife were having a sexual relationship. She said she recalls times when Quinn was in the backseat of Brock's car as she was driving and would put his feet on the headrest so Brock could rub them. She told police Brock would sometimes talk to Quinn in a "seductive-sounding voice."
In retrospect, the girl says, Quinn was confused and probably "felt stuck" in the relationship with Brock.
In an e-mail Quinn wrote to his girlfriend's mother following the discovery that he was having a sexual relationship with Susan Brock, he writes, "[It's] obvious you have uncovered my darkest secret that I have been trying to forget about for a very long time, but I really need you right now. I can't share this with anyone besides you all . . . This is very unfair. I wasn't able to see [your daughter] unless I played by [Susan Brock's] rules, and I was afraid [your daughter] would dump me if I didn't see [her]. I am begging you."
However, by the time Quinn had written the e-mail, he had "mastered the art of manipulation, deceit, and denial, which were taught to him by Susan Brock," according to Brock's pre-sentencing report.
Before he ever was sexually abused by Susan and Rachel Brock, and about the time adolescence started to kick in, Paul Quinn was having what his parents would later describe as "mental meltdowns."
At the time, they figured the "meltdowns" were the result of the troubled relationship between Quinn and his girlfriend.
Over the course of about five years — beginning before the sexual liaisons started — the Quinns took Paul to several counselors. The Quinns never brought to the attention of Paul's psychologists the possibility that he was getting sexually abused by Susan Brock, despite their bringing those very concerns to leaders in their church more than a year before Brock's arrest.
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.
On October 9, the day after Quinn's girlfriend cracked the code on his iPod Touch, her mother called Fulton Brock to tell him she knew his wife was abusing Quinn. Rather than call police, Fulton Brock took his wife to meet with the family's LDS bishop, Matthew Meyers, to confess the abuse.
Brock admitted having a sexual relationship with the boy to Meyers, who then called Bishop Troy Hansen, the "ecclesiastic leader" of the Quinn family, to alert him of the affair.
Neither bishop called police — or even told the boy's parents about the affair.
In addition to calling Hansen about the abuse, Meyers called Salt Lake City law firm Kirton & McConkie, which represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Meyers also advised Hansen to "call legal" after learning of the abuse because "um, you know, 'cause it, these things are . . . you know, anything with abuse," he later muttered to Detective Perez.
Still, nobody bothered to call police — not even LDS lawyers.
The church issued a statement about the abuse, claiming that it and bishops Meyers and Hansen "were instrumental in getting the [Susan Brock] matter reported to law-enforcement authorities," despite the fact that no LDS official who knew of the affair ever told police.
Meanwhile, on October 12, Craig Quinn — who'd secretly installed key-stroke register software on his computer — discovered the e-mail Paul had written to his girlfriend's mother, in which he references his "darkest secret." Not knowing exactly what Paul's "secret" was, he confronted his son, who broke down and admitted that he was engaging in sexual relations with Susan Brock.
Craig Quinn didn't call police then — he alerted his bishop.
As Craig later told police, after meeting with church leaders to discuss the abuse, he was "under the impression" that police would be called. But they weren't, and Quinn said he got "tired of waiting" and, on October 22, called them himself. This was nearly two weeks after learning of the abuse and more than a year after he first had questioned Susan Brock about whether it was going on.
Following an investigation into the church's responsibility to report the abuse to authorities, Detective Perez wrote in his report, "It is recommended that Troy Hansen and Matthew Meyers be charged with ARS 13-3620, [failure of] duty to report."
The case was handed over to the Pinal County Attorney's Office, which assumed control of the Brock case because of Fulton Brock's relationship with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and county Superior Court (supervisors control the budgets for these agencies).
The bishops, however, were not charged with crimes, despite knowing abuse was occurring and failing to tell police.
Pinal County Attorney's Office spokesman Kostas Kalaitzidis wouldn't say specifically why the bishops weren't charged. All he would tell New Times is that the County Attorney's Office looks at whether a case is prosecutable in determining whether to go forward. Though Detective Perez may have concluded that the bishops broke the law, prosecutors, apparently, didn't think they could prove it.
The LDS church continues to deny wrongdoing in the Brock case. Though it ignored requests for comment for this article, it has issued several more statements on the matter, including the following:
"Any allegation that church leaders knew of abuse but did nothing is inaccurate and offensive. The church is extremely proactive in its efforts to protect children from abuse of any kind and works diligently to support and assist victims of abuse. When abuse does occur, we work to see that it is reported to the authorities."
Calling the statement absurd, child-abuse expert Hamilton said she gained access to secret LDS temple papers that "show [the church] actually has a policy about concealing abuse."
In the LDS' Handbook of Instructions, excerpts of which were provided to New Times by Hamilton, church leaders, even in cases of child sex abuse, are told:
"To avoid implicating the church in legal matters to which it is not a party, leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases reviewing the conduct of members over whom they preside. A leader should confer with the church's Office of Legal Services of the area presidency:
• If he is subpoenaed or requested to testify in a case involving a member over whom he presides.
• Before testifying in any case involving abuse.
• Before communicating with attorneys of civil authorities in connection with legal proceedings.
• Before offering verbal or written testimony on behalf of a member in a sentencing hearing, or probationary status hearing."
The handbook goes on to advise: "Church leaders should not try to persuade alleged victims or other witnesses to testify or not to testify in criminal or civil court proceedings."
Hamilton says, "They don't want anyone outside of the religion to know what's going on; they don't want their religion besmirched. And they're willing to sacrifice the children for their own image."
When news broke of his wife's relationship with a teenage boy, County Supervisor Fulton Brock issued a statement the following day, October 27, 2010, in which he described his wife's arrest as "shocking." In another statement, he claimed to be "flabbergasted" by the news.
But Fulton Brock long had been aware of the relationship between his wife and the boy before issuing the statements, and he had worked to minimize the consequences for Susan.
Susan Brock was arrested October 26 after she was stopped on Loop 101 just west of their home. Detective Perez immediately served a search warrant at the house.
From the moment police got to the Brocks' residence, about 11 a.m., the county supervisor was uncooperative, Perez tells New Times. Brock denied having knowledge of his wife's affair with the boy:
"You know, Mr. Perez, I'm so reluctant to say anything that would implicate my wife. We did have a meeting with the Quinns several months ago, and Mr. Quinn did give me an iPhone that was either my daughter's or my wife's. That's all I know. I'm pretty much in the dark on this stuff."
Perez notes in his report that the supervisor's claim that he was ignorant of the relationship was inconsistent with the facts.
Fulton Brock then continued to lie to police, all while making sure they were aware that he was a powerful politician in good favor with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
"Why are there five of you here?" Brock asked Perez before asking whether he needed to "call the sheriff's department" — presumably to have the search stopped, prosecutor Jason Holmberg alleged during Susan Brock's sentencing hearing. Fulton Brock also asked the officers which judge had signed off on the search warrant.
After reviewing the warrant, Brock asked Perez, "What is it that you gentlemen intend to do?"
Perez told Supervisor Brock that he was looking for cell phones, credit cards, computers, and sex toys (one of them pink), among other items.
"This is crazy — a pink-colored phallic sex toy? I have never seen . . . my wife has never . . . could someone have planted that in my wife's car, or my wife's person?" the county supervisor asked Perez.
Detectives later found "a number of vibrating devices" in the Brocks' bedroom, one of which Fulton Brock told police he used for his bad back.
As for the credit card and cell phone, the county supervisor initially told Detective Perez he had no idea where they could be. However, when Perez pressed him about it later, Brock retrieved both the card and the phone from a locked metal box in his desk and turned them over to police.
Fulton Brock's desire to minimize the consequences for his wife didn't start on the day of her arrest.
In early September 2010, more than a month before Susan Brock's arrest — and several weeks before he was told about his wife's affair with Quinn by the boy's girlfriend's mother — the county supervisor asked former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley if he could help find a lawyer specializing in cases of sexual abuse of minors. He told Romley it was "for a friend."
As first reported by the Arizona Republic, Romley later hand-delivered the names of three defense attorneys to Brock's county office.
The day Susan Brock was arrested, more than a month after Romley delivered the list of attorneys to Fulton Brock's office, she told police it was their "lucky day" after she was pulled over on the 101.
Susan, it appears, was on her way to meet with an attorney about the sexual-abuse charges she apparently was anticipating. Police were "lucky" because an incriminating note was on the front seat of her car when she was stopped. The note was titled "History" and apparently was intended for an attorney.
At the top of the page was a "series of questions, presumably for a person Susan Brock was going to meet with," Detective Perez notes in his report.
The third line of the note stated: "How much might we cover in an hr?"
Under that line were the following notes:
"Mr. Larry Kazan said we could do hr. billing. Your rate is . . .?
"Intake treatment SLC goal. Avoiding prison goal. Putting life [in] order, keeping family together.
"Mother, daughter, girlfriend, extorted.
"Mentally insane defense?
"Any sexual felony difference intercourse or fellatio minor?"
The note, Perez concluded after subpoenaing a handwriting sample from the county supervisor, probably was written by Fulton Brock. The attorney for whom the note apparently was intended was one of the three on the list Romley had provided the supervisor.
Even after Brock was booked into a county jail, her husband used his position to make things as comfortable as possible for his wife — and to arrange special meetings with her that would not be recorded by detention officers.
Arpaio's willingness to help the Brocks apparently was unwavering.
Fulton Brock told Susan in a phone call: "Well, [then-sheriff's chief financial officer] Loretta [Barkwell] came to me yesterday, and she goes, 'Look, the sheriff wants to get all this craziness behind us, and we wanna bend over backwards, we wanna do whatever we can,' So I thought, Hmmm, maybe the time is right for me to call Loretta and say, Loretta, I got a problem."
At one point, Susan Brock complained that she wished the county supervisor had given her a "blessing" before he had left the jail during a recent visit.
"You know what? I should have had you give me one yesterday. I regretted that so much after you left," she said.
Fulton Brock responded, "I'll get permission again [for the blessing], and . . . the sheriff will make it happen."
During recorded conversations, Fulton and Susan censored what they talked about and repeatedly advised each other to save certain discussions for meetings that would not be recorded by detention officers. The following is a conversation between the Brocks after discussing a document Susan had signed while Fulton wasn't present:
Susan: "Oh . . . well . . . I will, I will explain everything. I'll tell you why . . . I just needed to, um . . ."
Fulton: "Yeah, just tell me tomorrow . . . I don't wanna . . ."
Susan: "That's what I'm saying."Fulton: "I don't want to say anything because these, you know, these . . ."
Susan: "I know! It's just . . ."
Fulton: "These vultures are listening to everything, and they're . . ."
Susan: "I know, I know. And . . . soon enough, they won't be interested anymore in what I have."
In another recorded conversation, Fulton Brock tells his wife how he had delivered a letter to her friend Christian Weems. It's unclear what was in the letter, but Weems later was charged with trying to destroy evidence against Susan after police learned Weems had been given the password to a secret e-mail account Susan used to communicate with Paul Quinn. Weems pleaded guilty last month to one misdemeanor charge of computer tampering. She's scheduled to be sentenced October 7.
Since the news of his family's sex scandal broke, Supervisor Brock basically has been a recluse, which has made his job as a public official awkward.
His first somewhat public appearance, where he was forced to face reporters' questions, was in May — nearly eight months after it was made public that his wife and daughter had engaged in sexual relationships with a teenage boy.
Following a speech with Sheriff Arpaio (to recovering drug addicts at one of Arpaio's jails), Brock faced a gaggle of reporters who had one thing on their minds: his family's sex scandal, about which he still refused to answer questions.
"I can only comment on government-related things today. I'm not gonna respond to anything relative to my family or personal matters," Brock told reporters.
Since Brock hasn't addressed these "family or personal matters," the question of whether he is capable of continuing on as a public official has been raised — mainly because he refuses to discuss when he first learned of the relationship and whether he should be held responsible criminally.
It's clear that he knew the boy's family suspected a sexual relationship between his wife and their son, that he never called police, and that he never did anything to stop the abuse.
It's also clear that Fulton Brock did what he could, as an elected official with powerful friends, to help her evade justice.
Aside from his "special" meetings with his jailed wife, compliments of political ally Arpaio, Brock also talked of appealing to Governor Jan Brewer, possibly asking her to pardon his sex-offender wife.
During one of the many conversations the county supervisor had with Susan while she was in jail, he mentions that he "ran into the governor today."
"Jan?" Susan Brock asked.
"Yeah. I had lunch today in Durant's as a guest of a vendor of the county," he said.
Susan asked, "Yeah, what did Jan say?"
Brock responds, "Governor Brewer was with three other ladies. She was with her chief of staff. They were all having a good time, and I shook her hand, and I said, 'I just wanted to say hello and thank you.' She called me twice, and I said [her calls] meant a lot to me. I just shook her hand, smiled, and started to walk away. She said, 'We need to have lunch.'"
Susan Brock then said, "Well, you need to have lunch with her. Wow, that's great!"
"She has the power to pardon," the county supervisor told his wife, before Susan added, "I'm gonna need it."
The Pinal County Attorney's Office tells New Times there are no charges pending against Supervisor Brock.
When asked whether there was a possibility that Fulton Brock would be arrested for lying to police about his prior knowledge of the affair between his wife and Paul Quinn, Detective Perez tells New Times: "Don't hold your breath."
This despite Arizona law's decreeing that "any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect [is required to report the abuse to authorities]."
Says clergy sex-abuse expert Marci Hamilton: "[Susan Brock's] a sociopath and a pedophile, and what really needs to be known is just how much her husband knew. That [was] a really corrupt and corrosive atmosphere in the [Brock] house, and if he knew about this boy and he didn't report it, that means [he] certainly is an enabler."
What a group of psycho individuals. Father and daughter belong in prison also. Twisted dysfunctual family at its worse.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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!
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.
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!
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..
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.
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.
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, 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.