Skip to content

Going To Jail: Marilyn Bagley Pleads Guilty

December 7, 2012

Below is the recitation of the facts from her plea agreement:

In 2002, MARILYN BAGLEY, and Defendant Edward Bagley, invited the female named in the indictment, Female Victim (hereafter “FV”) into their residence to visit and stay overnight. From 2002 to 2003, M. BAGLEY and E. Bagley, provided FV with housing, food, and an invitation to move in with them permanently. E. Bagley and M. BAGLEY knew that FV had previously been sexually and physically abused and grew up with a troubled life in foster care. In February 2003, FV moved in the Bagley trailer home permanently. E. Bagley was engaging in a sexual relationship with FV. M. BAGLEY taught FV how to do basic things she did not know how to do like dress, eat, wear makeup, cook and clean. FV was shown images and videos of people engaging in bondage activities online and downloaded from the internet. M. BAGLEY taught FV how to respond and behave for E. Bagley as his slave. E. Bagley had FV sign a “sex slave” contract to bind FV to him as his slave. E. Bagley sewed FV’s vaginal and urinary opening closed and began conducting sadistic acts on her. M. BAGLEY inserted dildos and devices inside of FV sexual organs, and used her arm to “fist” FV inside of her vagina. E. Bagley would punish FV if she did not do as he instructed. Over the period of the next six years, the E. Bagley’s sadistic acts upon FV increased in quantity and intensity. They involved, for example, strangulation, suffocation, breast and vaginal penetration with skewers, and electrical voltage. M. BAGLEY knew that other individuals, including the co-defendants in the case, James Noel, Michael Stokes, Bradley Cook, and Dennis Henry, came to the residence to engage in sexual conduct and sadistic acts on FV. Defendants Noel, Stokes, Cook, and Henry provided E. Bagley with bondage pornography, meat, cigarettes, and cash, among other items, in exchange for the sessions involving sadistic and sexual acts on FV. During this time period, E. Bagley ceased engaging in sexual or sadomasochistic acts upon M. BAGLEY and only focused on his sexual and sadistic acts on FV.

She has agreed with the government that she will receive probation, and if the Court declines to accept that, she will be able to withdraw her plea. The sentence is consistent with the prosecutor’s stated theory that she was an abuse victim before she was an abuser.

There is no explicit requirement that she cooperate and no contemplated cooperation letter of the kind usually provided for in cooperator settlements. It looks to me like the prosecution does expect her to take the stand, but certainly she can’t take the stand to help Edward Bagley, because the agreement says she blows up her deal if she gives testimony that the prosecutor thinks in good faith is false — so she would have to be consistent with what she said in the plea agreement.

I’ve been pretty sure that Ed Bagley is sunk since the other defendants started pleading. Without his wife standing with him, the viability of the “happy slaves” defense is zero. He’s toast.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Jeff permalink
    December 8, 2012 12:51 am

    You write that you think the government anticipates she’ll take the stand for then, but isn’t there a marital privilege issue? They’re still married, right?

    • December 8, 2012 7:47 pm

      Yes, but there are exceptions. Spousal privilege isn’t specifically codified, it’s one of the FRE 501 common-law privileges and there are exceptions that are a matter of specific federal evidence case law. Without having researched it, I think it’s probably subject to joint participation exception. The privilege is really two privileges, one for marital communications and the other for any adverse testimony; and adverse testimony part might fall because if she’s willing to testify the purpose of protecting the marriage is gone. The marital communications are probably less important than what she eye-witnessed and what her communications with FV were.

      • Jeff permalink
        December 8, 2012 8:41 pm

        I haven’t researched it either, but you’re certainly right about the privilege being two privileges. I think you’re right, the communications are irrelevant.

        According to my understand: generally, the witness-spouse has a right to never testify in a criminal proceeding against the defendant-spouse. So if she’s willing to waive that, then she’s good to go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: