Police accuse 'victim' in Long John Silver's break-in of lying, committing crime himself / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, November 11, 2009

November 11, 2009

A man who said he was robbed and kidnapped Friday night has been arrested on suspicion of falsely reporting a crime and burglarizing the business he worked for, local authorities said.

Kris Wenberg, 21, was arrested Wednesday morning at his home, Douglas County Jail records said. During an interview with 6News and the Lawrence Journal-World on Tuesday, the man described how he was knocked unconscious and driven to a country road north of Lawrence by two men who stole the keys to his employer, Long John Silver’s, 1503 W. 23rd St.

Wenberg was treated at the hospital for the injuries he received during the alleged kidnapping and had a staple placed in his head to close a gash.

On Tuesday, Lawrence police said they were actively investigating the reported crimes and made no indication that the story was possibly made up.

Wenberg will likely have his first appearance in court on Thursday. He’s being held in Douglas County Jail on $3,000 bond, according to jail records.

Brian Farrar, a 24-year-old homeless man, was charged with burglary and theft in the case, court records said. Police said Farrar is an acquaintance of Wenberg’s who was also involved with the break-in at the restaurant.

Police are seeking a third suspect and ask anyone with information about the crime to call Crimestoppers, at 843-8477 (TIPS).

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

11 November 2009
at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

papakeno (Anonymous) says…

Thousand bucks he was late to work!! Just a guess.
11 November 2009
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

garyr (Anonymous) says…

What? No way! Who would of thought this? Me. That's who.
11 November 2009
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…

DUH.
11 November 2009
at 2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Write2Know (Anonymous) says…

Working at LJS is punishment enough!
11 November 2009
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

Glad they took off the old article, I commented on it no way he would do this to rob what amounts to a months pay. I always underestimate the stupidity of humans.
11 November 2009
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hillbilly_jim (Anonymous) says…

hillbilly_jim (Anonymous) says…

srj (Anonymous) says…

Very negative people! Yes faking a robbery happens once in a while, but would a guy go to all this trouble to rob, what, a months salary, at the most?
___________________________________________

Answer: Yes, he works at Long John Silvers.
_________________________________________

*************************************************************************

devils_advocate (Anonymous) says…

Answer: Yes, he works at Long John Silvers.
––––––––––––––––––––––-
Now there is an ignorant statement.
___________________________________________

****************************************************************************************

Not so ignorant now, is it?
11 November 2009
at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

I did my time at LJS, it sucks.

11 November 2009
at 2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Informed (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, this is a big surprise. NOT!

Some of us called it and were promptly rebuked as being too negative or needing to wait until the facts came to light. Well, the facts are coming to light.

In fact, I would guess that devils_advocate's profile was created yesterday specifically to post about this story.
11 November 2009
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

AHHH see informed….this is how Lawrence rolls…..they are the ultimate judge and juror, or so they think!
11 November 2009
at 2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pace (Anonymous) says…

I was wrong. I apoligize.
11 November 2009
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…

Aaaarrrrggg, He be a pirate taking his rightful booty. Ole Long John Silver he-self be a pirate, what do they expect of a buccaneer, honesty?
Aaaaaarrrrrgggg.
11 November 2009
at 2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

diva~ Nobody's calling themselves “the ultimate judge and juror.” As far as I know, the actual judge & jurors still hold a suspect's fate in their hands. As it should be. You're really taking the discussions on these forums much too seriously. They're just talk.

It didn't take rocket science to know that this story smelled worse than a LJS dumpster in July. Fishy—as I said earlier—hardly begins to cover it.

Speculation on the news has gone on since the beginning of news reporting—before the internet, it was discussed over the garden fence, around the water cooler, etc. As long as such discussion and speculation doesn't hang anyone or send them to jail, no breach of justice is taking place. It's only natural for people to form opinions and conduct discussions. And this story raised many red flags.

It just did not add up. I would have been very surprised if the police hadn't arrested the employee after sifting through the information.
11 November 2009
at 3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hawkergrl (Anonymous) says…

Nicely put pywacket!
11 November 2009
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

garyr (Anonymous) says…

I guess it's the circle of life, karma, whatever you want to call it.
He stole LJS booty from the restaurant, Bubba's going to steal his booty in prison.
11 November 2009
at 3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KEITHMILES05 (Anonymous) says…

Lawrence people are getting pretty wacky these days.

11 November 2009
at 3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

py…it wasnt directed to you, however, read the comment above mine, or go to the original story where posters swore that it was someone who was “casing the joint” and knew when the guy had his keys, yip, thats where I got it!
I know probably to you they are just discussions, but to most people they are their life it seems. All riled up and wanting to blame the left and right and dems and reps, and conservatives and liberals and athiest and christians, so when they make themselves look foolish, im sorry but it is a bit funny as it were.
11 November 2009
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Make him walk the plank!
11 November 2009
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

I wonder if it was as simple as looking at security camera footage.
11 November 2009
at 3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

alm77 (Anonymous) says…

OldE, that's what I was thinking.
11 November 2009
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

We can't make him walk the plank, that was one of the first things gone with the budget cuts.
Not a bad idea though, a plank anchored on the bridge, the east span, so the body will float downriver.
11 November 2009
at 4:05 p.m.

Permalink

cold (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
11 November 2009
at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…

A big pile of fish and chips sounds good!
11 November 2009
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ricky_Vaughn (Anonymous) says…

I wonder if the perp rang that bell on the way out…scurvy dog.

11 November 2009
at 4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hbjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

The article forgot to mention that Wenberg was a K-State graduate. Nice job!!
11 November 2009
at 4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JGr (Anonymous) says…

I know that you want to feel like the elite Jayhawk - but Wenberg is not a graduate of any college.
11 November 2009
at 5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

puddleglum (Anonymous) says…

I would put him in a cell and let him eat nothing but Long Johns for a year.
11 November 2009
at 6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lawrencelifer (Anonymous) says…

After waiting for 45 minutes for a carry-out order last week, and watching a number of people glaring over the counter while waiting for food, I was afraid someone really had sought some fast food (or slow food in this case) justice. The last time I had eaten at LJS previously was about 8 month prior, and it took a long time too. That's about how long it takes to forget a bad experience, I guess.
11 November 2009
at 7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

The actual culprits were just caught on Clinton Lake…

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d7/uns…
11 November 2009
at 8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…

I've never had a good experience at ANY Long John Silver. Every time resulted in stomach cramps and half an hour on the porcelain throne. It's been probably 25 years since I was last in one. I'd eat a convenience store hotdog first before I went back to one again.
11 November 2009
at 9:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Diva~ That's cool. My own reaction (though triggered by your comment) could be a more generalized statement to those who earnestly seem to believe that we're denying someone their constitutional rights by speculating and assuming their guilt. As if our little throw-away comments here are so important!

As you have observed, some posters take these forums very seriously. I just view it as water cooler talk—without the water cooler. Sometimes we get in heated discussions, but we still shouldn't lose track of the fact that our yammering isn't going to send anyone to the electric chair. (If only….haha.)
11 November 2009
at 11:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Meatwad (Anonymous) says…

Who gave him keys? If I had given him keys, I would have changed my mind as soon as I saw those zipper pants.

12 November 2009
at 6:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kris_H (Anonymous) says…

puddleglum (Anonymous) says…

I would put him in a cell and let him eat nothing but Long Johns for a year.
–––––––––––––––––-
That would be a death penalty, wouldn't it? :D

–––––––––––––––––-
George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…

….. I'd eat a convenience store hotdog first before I went back to one again.

–––––––––––––––––—
You, sir, scare me. :D

Wonder if the third person is the one who bashed him in the head, or the hired homeless guy did, or if he managed that himself? I have to say, on this one, if it's like they're saying, nobody got hurt except someone who deserved to.
12 November 2009
at 8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

If you want to see a lie in progress try searching the archives for any information of the Rachael Leek hit and run.

The link to the DA's claim to file charges soon is missing, all the forum comments are disappeareded…gone…nada..nothing to be found.

This criminal kid should have read the JW for pointers in deceptions.
12 November 2009
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…

Smitty—

That's not true at all. Try this search string:

http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=Rac…

Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
12 November 2009
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Quigly (Anonymous) says…

Good one meatwad! I saw those wak parachute pants whatever they are. what happens when there is high winds? he looks skinny enough to be swept up like a kite. HA ,a ICP kite!
12 November 2009
at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

So why do I need to know the special password combination with Branson's name? DA charges or rachael leek or other combinations have produced archive results in the recent past, like yesterday. How difficult and complicated can searching for the local news get at the hands of …what new software?….surely not a conscious act of deception…

JK, you get the benefit of the doubt, that it is not of your liking but the problem still exists with accessing the archives on controversial local issues. Can this problem of archive accessibilty be fixed?
12 November 2009
at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…

Smitty—

The key to our search engine is throwing as many keywords as possible at it. I just put in the victim's name, which returns any story about Rachel Leek, and then limited it to only those that contain the DA's name. DA Charges didn't work because we don't ever use the colloquial abbreviation DA in our writing, so the search engine can't find that. And Rachel Leek probably would have worked, you would just have had to click the more search results link in the upper right corner of the story search result.

Jonathan
12 November 2009
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

FarneyMac (Anonymous) says…

Smitty: pwned. Another wacko conspiracy theory thwarted!
12 November 2009
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rdragon (M. Lindeman) says…

keithmiles05 (Anonymous) says…

Lawrence people are getting pretty wacky these days.

rdragon writes:

Lawrence has never been short of wacko's, it just seems there wacky dial has been turned up a notch or two. If you don't think we have aways had them, then just look at some of the posters to the LJW.

12 November 2009
at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

The name of the victim once called up all the articles….now nada…..I shouldn't need a coded approach to the archives…they are far from user friendly and more so as of late…….please fix it

http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=rac…
12 November 2009
at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…

Smitty-

You've got a spelling error. Rachel, not Rachael. That accounts for why you're seeing so few results.

Jonathan
12 November 2009
at 9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Thank you for that spell check .

Why doesn't the “DA to file charges” story not come up on this search?:

http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=rac…
12 November 2009
at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…

Smitty—
We can only show so many results on one page. In the top right you'll see something that says “3 of 8 results.” If you click that, you'll see the story you're looking for.

Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
12 November 2009
at 10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beawolf (Anonymous) says…

Smitty,

Take a few minutes and think things through when you search. Look at the search page, see what options are available, always check your spelling, try different key words or get JK to come to house and do the search for you.
12 November 2009
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

somedude20 (Anonymous) says…

May ole boy can take a page from the twinkie defense and say it was from eating too many batter crumblies that caused him to rob LJS
12 November 2009
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MichaelJ (Anonymous) says…

Smitty,

LPD and the DA's Office have teamed up to rig it so that only you cannot find the article you seek. They're out to get you, Smitty.
12 November 2009
at 11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

One more question on the spelling error of rach(a)el leek. If I put in rachael(spell error) leek(correct) I don't get anywhere in the archives but if if put in **leek ** http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=leek ** I get the stories? Something is wrong that a common first name throws out the search while the last name only, zeros in on the subject.

Just like you, mj, to never, never, repeat, never, reply to the subject when you can attempt to disparage some one.

My questions have nothing to do with anything but trying to better understand why there is no problem on other search engines quite unlike the JW's.

Your relentless obvious bias is again, typical local LE revenge rhetoric.

12 November 2009
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…

Smitty—

Search engines look for keywords. Even google works this way. If the keyword you typed isn't in the database, it won't find anything. So what your search string was looking for was any item that contained both the word rachael and LEEK. So first the engine found everything with LEEK, and then it removed anything that didn't also have the word rachael. That's why the more keywords you throw at a search string, the more likely you are to get the result you want. At the same time, though, if you put in a keyword that doesn't exist, it'll blow the whole search. You have to balance getting a meaningful number of results that you can sort through, but also getting what you're looking for.

Jonathan
12 November 2009
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Had I googled rachael leek that engine asks about a different spelling then proceeds to give both spellings in a search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&am…

Thanks for taking the time to explain, JK. I understand what you are saying. The current (new?)software requires an exact wording to get info from the JW archives that leaves me to question how much local printed history is missing in any inquiry, unlike the google search engine by comparison. For my purposes, future inquiries will include Google along with the JW archives search on local issues.

Thanks again for the education.
12 November 2009
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Holy crap!! Let Jonathan go get himself some lunch, Smitty.
12 November 2009
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Not to beat up on the LJW, but Smitty does have a point. I've always thought that the LJW's search “engine” (if you can call a wind-up rubber band contraption an engine) totally sucks. After all the fanfare about a “new” search feature, I see no improvement whatsoever.

If I need to find something from the LJW archives, I search Google. Using the same exact key words with the LJW search feature brings up anything but what I was looking for. Sorry.
12 November 2009
at 1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Had that hemorrhoid long, old dad?