(5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 6)
Loading ...Mary Shieler of Oak Hill, West Virginia, is a married mother of two. She is in her forties, pudgy and by all definitions, a house frau.
Mary used her daughter’s online identity to seduce two men online, both of whom worked at the same factory outside Buffalo New York. She turned the men against each other and one of them gunned the other down in cold blood.
Tom Montgomery killed Brian Barrett in a jealous rage over a stupid cyber love triangle.
Now one man is dead, the other is in jail for 20 years, leaving a broken and humiliated family behind, and Mary Shieler is a free woman.
Everyone in this sad tale helped to bring about this tragic end to Brian Barrett’s life at the age of 22. Mary posed as a hot 18 year old and used cybersex to seduce Tom Montgomery, 48, who was pretending to be a hot, disturbed Iraq War marine online. When Tom’s true identity was outed by his own wife, an angry Mary enlisted the help of Brian Barrett, Tom’s coworker, to use Mary’s passwords to her chat accounts to hound and humiliate Tom online. And when the rivalry grew intense, Tom shot and killed Brian.
From the SFGate here:
A 48-year-old man entangled in an Internet love triangle built largely on lies was sentenced Tuesday to 20 years in prison for killing his rival for the affection of a woman he had never met.
Thomas Montgomery, who posed as an 18-year-old Marine in online chats, pleaded guilty in August to gunning down Brian Barrett, 22, in a parking lot at the suburban Buffalo factory where they worked.
The motive was jealousy, investigators said. Both were involved online with a middle-aged West Virginia mother — who herself was posing as an 18-year-old student.
Prosecutor Frank Sedita argued for the maximum sentence of 25 years, describing Montgomery’s “almost predatory” pursuit of the woman and his resentment of Barrett when she cooled to Montgomery’s advances after 1 1/2 years and thousands of pages of Internet chats.
Montgomery began chatting with the woman, identified in court as Mary Shieler, in 2005. Occasionally, the woman would mail packages to his home. When one of the packages was intercepted by Montgomery’s wife, she wrote back, telling Shieler her husband’s true age and saying he was married.
Barrett, whom Montgomery had mentioned in his exchanges, was drawn into the triangle after Shieler contacted him online to confirm what she had been told by Montgomery’s wife.
This story makes it sound pretty cut and dry. To read all the sordid details, check out this Wired story. It is very detailed, including the bits that Mary didn’t want her real name used because she was supposedly an upstanding citizen. Her daughter, Jessi, was quoted in the paper several times during her school’s girls basketball championship run.
But Mary Shieler remains a free woman, which is somehow, grossly unfair. She committed aggravated identity theft to torment an unstable married man to the point that he murdered another man! How self absorbed and vacuous can a bitch be? She sounds just like the neighbors who drove a young girl to suicide by creating a fake profile on Myspace.
(5.83 out of 6)
Related Articles
15 people responded in this post
[...] to Belchspeak for the links. brian barrett Eliminating the Competiton murder thomas montgomeryShare [...]
I just saw this awful story on an MSNBC documentary. One thing is bothering me, well, lots of things are outrageous about this, but the thing that bothered me about the documentary, and this commentary here as well–i’m not finding enough anger and condemnation of Tom Montgomery, the murderer. Really, much more venomous things are being said by this sick miserable rotten woman, but the lack of similar anger at Montgomery, and even, unbelievably, what almost sounds like making excuses for him and putting all the blame on Mary Shieler, really bothers me. As if he, Montgomery, was a victim. Obviously that’s how he sees it, he’s appealing his conviction and arguing that he was forced into a guilty plea. Mary Shieler should be condemned and held up to public condemnation and humiliation for the rest of her life because of her role in the crime, but Montgomery seduced “her” from the beginning, knowing that he was a man in his 40s while “she”, the fake Jessi, was a teenager. He lied, he manipulated, he disrespected his wife and family,and when he was caught, he continued to pursue the “girl” who’s heart he believed he had broken, for his own ego gratification, to enjoy feeling wanted by her, he continued to toy with her, knowing he would never be what he was trying to tease her into believing he could be. The psychologist on the program, like most everyone else, expressed a lot of anger at Shieler, while sounding compassionate for the poor Montgomery who was simply a victim of an addiction to “love.” Love?? Self centered exploited ego driven selfish lying pretense toward someone he believed to be a kid, is not LOVE. But that’s what the psychologist sad, really not a touch of anger in his comments on Montgomery, while i was surprised to hear the hostility and disgust in his voice when talking about Shieler. Montgomery was the one who chose to continue the relationship, Montgomery was the sorry loser who had nothing better to do with his life than indulge his addiction to this cheap phony ego stroking. Montgomery was the one who slaughtered Brian Barrett, age 22, while thinking he had a right to continue a sick relationship with what he believed was a teenager. Yet he wants to appeal his conviction. I would expect something like that from a person like Montgomery, selfish lying killer. But it really bothers me that all the people i’ve heard commenting on this crime express no anger at this guy, while expressing outrage at Shieler as if she is the only really evil one involved. She is a dishonest manipulative exploitive phony predatory immature did i say phony self centered miserable loser, and she and Montgomery were really perfect for each other, they should’ve hooked up. But she is not the murderer. She did what she did, but to say that she caused the murder is to support and fuel the kind of irresponsibility, misplaced assigning of responsibility, that i’m getting from the failure of social commentary to express outrage and condemnation of the real killer, the guy who made the choices to play with what he thought was a young girl, and then to go on thinking of himself as the victim, even after he had hurt his family, and apparently hurt the girl. That wasn’t enough. He had to kill this young guy, take away his life, and he only got 20 years?? To me, this is the greatest outrage. As for Shieler, this story should be disseminated, let everyone know what’s out there on the internet and don’t be a fool and a loser, there are real genuine high quality internet relationships but they aren’t based on addictive manipulative striving to use other people to avoid living a responsible meaningful life. This man, Montgomery, might actually win his appeal and get a lighter sentence, given the way society thinks so forgivingly about him, and he is not remorseful at all. He is a dangerous person. He thinks he is the victim, along with the man he killed and the young girl he thought he was controlling. He just got back what he was asking for from Mary Shieler, he got his just desserts from her. There is no excuse, NONE, for killing Brian Barrett. I am bothered by the lack of sense of proportion that is shown in the public reaction to this crime which involves a very intense anger at Shieler and not at Montgomery, the killer. As for Shieler, there needs to be laws, anti-fraud laws, to punish people who do what she and Montgomery and others do on the web. If you defraud someone face to face, or through the mail, you are breaking the law and can be punished. There are reams of evidence of these internet chats proving the fraud and people can be easily convicted if there are laws with penalties. I hope this case leads to such laws. Murder is murder. I don’t agree that Mary Shieler stirred Montgomery up into killing. At least in the documentary i just watched, they put her text up on the screen and it was noticeable to me that when Montgomery told her of his rage and his murderous intentions, she backed off, she didn’t seem to want things to go that way at all. She wanted him to want her, she wanted him to be in love with her, but there is no evidence that she incited him to violence. That is all on him. She should be held accountable for what she did, she defrauded him and she exploited her daughter’s identity, and there should be serious punishment for that. To hold her accountable for the murder is to confuse the issue and to dilute the assignment of responsibility where it belongs, to the person who is a full grown adult who can choose what he wants to do, and he chose to destroy a young life. There is no excuse for that. NONE. but he is appealing his guilty verdict. That’s why he continues to be a remorseless dangerous man. i wish he had a life sentence.
Thanks for the comment. I had no idea that there was a documentary on this. I will try to find that.
It just came out tonight, Sunday, i don’t know if they’ll repeat it, the producer is Barbara Schoeder. It’s called talhotblond. It’s for sale on iTunes and Amazon for $11.99. here’s the website:
http://www.talhotblond.com/
It’s being rebroadcast at midnight, according to the guide on my DVR. It certainly was thought provoking.
Jaw444: Your argument would be much more effective if it was shorter and less repetitive. Never leave a comment that is longer than the original story. I understand you based your opinions on the documentary, but you haven’t read all the chatroom exchanges, trial transcripts, or been privy to any pyschological examinations of Montgomery. Let’s assume the professionals know more than we do. It obviously bothers you that prosecutors, detectives and psychologists give Shieler a lion’s share of the blame, yet you don’t seem to understand why from a criminal law perspective. This is similar to a murder-for-hire, in which the person doing the hiring usually gets a harsher sentence than the actual murderer. Of course it is wrong to murder, but the person who sets the murder in motion is held more accountable. Shieler manipulated Montgomery’s emotions, which triggered an unstable man to commit murder. It likely bothers people that Shieler, who set these events in motion, escaped punishment. BTW, this isn’t the only story of a woman whose internet love interest killed someone: Sharee Miller killed her husband via the internet and was back on facebook this year.
P.S.-Most murderers are remorseless and dangerous. Let’s not give Montgomery too much credit. He’s not even a serial killer.
I think a good question to ask is: If Montgomery had never met Shieler online, would he have still killed Barrett?
I watched the doc, and would like to add a few thoughts to my earlier post. I noticed Montgomery was charged with manslaughter and not murder, which means that there was no evidence of premeditation and that the prosecutors believed the internet relationship played heavily in the murder. Also, I noticed Barrett’s parents reserve most of their contempt for Shieler, not Montgomery. This tells me that those close to the case blame the instigator more than the murderer.
Katie,
Yes, there is anger, more at Shieler than Montgomery, not as much for the act as the motivation behind it. Its like reading about a guy who was mugged at an ATM and killed over 300 bucks. Versus, the guy who was mugged and killed over 7 bucks in pocket change.
Its the senselessness and irresponsibility of it that makes it so outrageous and tragic.
Here’s the google map (street view) of Mary Shieler’s house in WV where she did all the cyber stuff.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=advance+auto+parts,oak+hill,+wv&fb=1&gl=us&hq=advance+auto+parts,&hnear=oak+hill,+wv&cid=0,0,10216396635414659120&ei=cZMsS_qcG4WVtgeV6-37CA&ved=0CAoQnwIwAA&ll=37.995934,-81.130053&spn=0,359.986267&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.993637,-81.132242&panoid=0unUsLPjy55W-zbUOE1zbg&cbp=12,145.68,,0,-1.43
katie: when i wrote the post, i had just finished watching the movie and what i wrote was not an argument so much as an emotional reaction to the impact of the very provocative film. i was totally unfamiliar with the case and didn’t know that Jessie was really Mary until it was disclosed in the film, it was a very impactful story. Even so, i am bothered by the interpretation of the role of Mary as, in your terms, analogous to a murder for hire. At least the chatroom transcripts that i heard in the documentary didn’t make that case to me. When Montgomery talked about killing, all or most of Mary’s responses were to back off, not to encourage. I didn’t hear any response by Mary that urged Tom on when he began explicitly talking about committing violence as this thing was coming to a climax. I heard no evidence that mary intended for Brian to be killed; only Montgomery showed intent, at least in what i saw in the film. I don’t see how what Mary did was different from what Tom did–both adults pretending to be young people in order to seduce real young people. Two cons conning each other. They were both acting as con artists, both are guilty of that. Mary doesn’t know that Tom is an old guy, until tom’s wife tells her. Tom doesn’t know that Jessie is her mother, until after he kills Brian. Each is playing with the mind of the other to gratify their own immature irresponsible ego needs, both of them spiritually empty, shallow and selfish. The way the story is being framed sounds as if Mary’s version of this was qualitatively more despicable than Tom’s. Why? I’m not getting that. People are rightly appalled at Mary for exploiting her own child’s identity, sending out the photos, playing the part if her child, how creepy is that? But I don’t see how Tom’s presentation of himself as the seductive Tommy to the person he thought was a teenager was less appalling and creepy. Both of these people thought nothing of playing with other peoples’ minds, and young peoples’s minds in particular, taking advantage of kids, both of them predators. Of the two, only one of them also took that life of a young person. I don’t see the analogy of what Mary did to a murder for hire, not based on the transcripts i heard. As for assuming that professionals know more than “we” do, i’ve learned not to make that assumption. Cases like this are politically loaded. The film maker had an agenda, and one that i agree with, to encourage legislation to impose some limits on what people can do to other people online, some evidentiary standards of establishing harm and culpability for harm, to justify appropriate punishments as deterrents to protect the public. but it bothers me the way the film (and other commentary i’ve read on the web) renders such an unbalanced assignment of responsibility, being quite benign toward Tom, as if he, this grown man, were nothing more than a puppet. I don’t see evidence for the rationale for that position. As far as the case for manslaughter v. 1st degree murder, you’re right, i don’t know what legal standards came in to play. I would be surprised if they didn’t find premeditation since apparently there was evidence that Tom laid in wait for Brian to get off work, stalked him and then slaughtered him. I can see a mental incapacity defense in Tom’s case. He was way off the deep end for sure. Mary is an obvious nutcase too. And Brian is dead. As far as Brian’s parents go, i don’t know what the full picture would be. What i saw was the documentarian’s selection of material to make a certain point. Nothing i saw would rule out that they would have plenty of hostility to express toward Tom. But it seems most people do, as you put it, reserve most of their hostility for Mary. This strikes me as skewed. As to your question, if Montgomery had never met Shieler online, would he have still killed Barrett, no, no way, of course. But he may have killed someone else. He was a narcissistic ultimately sociopathic loose canon who could’ve been set off by anything that triggered his pent up rage, another love interest online, they are so plentiful, or some girl he meets in a bar and has an affair with. Based on what i heard in the film, i’m not reassured that he wouldn’t kill again. He obviously has poor impulse control and fantasies of extreme grandiosity. He doesn’t strike me as someone who would find help in psychotherapy or spirituality. But maybe he would. As for Mary, same thing, i have no reason to think she will not continue on with her selfish sick behaviors. Those behaviors do not include violence, nor have i seen evidence that it includes inciting violence. A better analogy would be that her relationship to the killing was like the bartender who serves alcohol to an already drunk person before go out to drive themself home, but even that is a bit of stretch. It presupposes that she should’ve known that Tom was likely to kill Brian, and i don’t see that in the transcripts in the film. She didn’t know Tom was going to kill–maybe she should’ve known based on some of his talk, but there was so much fantasy in their talk, how would someone know that something being said was not fantasy, when everything else was. An analogy to the bartender is a reach..
that bitch mary shieler is walking around somewhere and she played a huge part in this… if not, the MAIN CHARACTER.. that bitch knew wat she was doing… now a young man is dead, a psycho is locked up, and this bitch still has access to internet and potentially hurting other ppl and that bitch is free? why?
I just finished watching the MSNBC documentary tonight. I think Montgomery & Shieler are equally to blame and both should be shot.
I saw a little bit of the film tonight when i turned the TV on, it was the part right before Brian’s murder, 5 minutes or so before the murder. I need to revise one of my earlier comments, i had said i thought Mary didn’t know Tom would kill and given that the whole thing was a fantasy, could not have been expected to know. What i saw in the transcript tonight was that she is starting to get scared that Tom could really be dangerous, he is telling her he is going to hurt her by killing Brian–he says this by implication, and she understands what he means. At that point she tells him good bye and that’s the last time she talks to him. She immediately contacts Brian and warns him, she tells him that Tom made a threat against Brian, to her. She tells him she is really scared. He tells her he is worried about it too. So it’s quite clear that this woman realizes she has gotten into something dangerous that she didn’t anticipate, and she tries to stop it by breaking off contact with Tom and warning Brian. It’s much too late. I think she should’ve also contacted the police at that point, although i don’t know that they could’ve done anything just based on her saying that a man made a murder threat in a chat room, but maybe they could’ve at least talked to Tom. It might’ve angered him even more. But it was clear to me that once Mary takes Tom seriously, that he will really hurt Brian, she tries to stop the momentum. She didn’t want Brian to be killed and she wasn’t nonchalant about it. she sounds quite scared, and i’m sure she must be scared of Tom herself, once he gets out of prison.
Saying that from the evidence i see, there are no grounds to prosecute Mary for anything under current law, and in any event, no evidence that she was any more negligent than any other woman who teases a man with a violent result–women are not held responsible when men kill in jealous rages–so whatever she may be and should be found guilty of, imo, it’s not murder, nor accessory to murder, nor negligent homicide, or anything like that.
The question that the story raises is, what if any laws should and could be made that might deter people from doing what Mary and Tom did. Existing law clearly does not apply in this case, to me, based on the evidence presented in the film. What laws might help prevent something like this from happening again? How could someone like Mary be held accountable? I’m thinking that her daughter might theoretically sue the mother in civil court, for damage to her reputation and fraudulent use of her identity, but i’m not sure–maybe. But i’m not sure what the criminality is.
Again, what bothers me about one of the subtexts of the film is the implication that somehow Mary is more guilty than Tom. The fact that she was doing the same thing to him that he was doing to her makes it illogical to hold her guilty of manipulating him for her own gratification since he was manipulating her for his own gratification. she beat him at his game and he was enraged. That doesn’t give him an excuse to kill. If he hadn’t chosen to kill the innocent young man, the whole thing would’ve just been a sick stupid internet jerk off between two pathetic people. It was Tom, not Mary, that made it something far worse than that, robbing a person of his life, and his family and friends of their loved one. I am curious on what grounds Tom, the admitted murderer, is or was appealing his conviction.
Would Montgomery have killed Barret if he hadn’t met Shieler? Maybe not. But he did, while at his age and station in life he knew murder was wrong. Would he have found another reason to take a life? Quite possibly. And in all likelihood he would have found someone else to blame for it, too.
Shieler was wrong to steal her daughter’s identity not just from a legal perspective, but sexual gratification at the expense of your own child is also a very messed up thing. Might I just say, “EW” to that idea..? But I’d have to agree with Jaw; Shieler didn’t actually have her daughter engage in any sort of sexual activity with Montgomery – “virtual” or otherwise – while Montgomery actually took a life.
Want to Say Something?
Your comments are appreciated. And don't forget to rate the post!