Watched this story again recently, yesterday in fact. I still can't understand why this seemingly happy church-going wife and mother basically threw everything away to help a convicted murderer escape from prison.

Just doing some searching on Google I found some interesting sites about Jon Yount. Apparently he's looking for another penpal:

http://www.prisoners.com/mfyount.html

http://www.prisoners.com/yountad1.html

Some articles about his capture:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1988/06/06-30-88tdc/06-30-88dnews-10.asp

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1988/06/06-30-88tdc/06-30-88dnews-05.asp

I know...it was so obvious from the beginning she helped him escape.

I know...it was so obvious from the beginning she helped him escape.

I was surprised to learn that Diane's husband, Chester, died several years ago. I can't help but wonder if she ever contacted Jon Yount again.

It's difficult for me to wrap my mind around why Diane Brodbeck would want to help Jon Yount escape prison, too.

About the only thing I can imagine is that Diane was somehow convinced that Jon was a "changed man", that he didn't need to be in prison anymore, regardless of what his sentence proscribed. Whether she came to this conclusion completely on her own, or he coaxed and cajoled her into believing it--that it was HIS initial suggestion--could be anyone's guess, I suppose.

Another thing I could envision is Diane being "bored" with her marriage, or maybe she didn't feel appreciated by her husband. Maybe the idea of having a romantic relationship with a prisoner brought her some sense of excitement, a huge thrill. As was shown on UM, he did write her dramatic, extensive love letters. She may have gotten caught up in the desperately romantic notion of being in love with someone who would be perpetually separated from her--that is, unless she could free him from his "chains." I think lots of women who assist male prisoners in escape fall victim to this particular syndrome.

Things I'm nearly certain of, however:

1. Jon Yount did not threaten Diane into helping him escape.

2. Diane Brodbeck is not a psychopath, eager to help a convicted rapist and murderer out of prison so he can continue his crimes.

I think she simply was in love with him...

Her husband came off as being a bit hard to live with (RIP) but that still didn't mean she needed to help him escape.

I can't remember if it was this one, or one of the similar type segments, but they basically explained why a person like Diane would fall in love with someone like John as this: A person who is imprisoned, more or less, has all the time in the world. That is to say, John can write these letters and pour all of this attention on Diane because he has the time to. Whereas most people in society would not have near that amount of time. Diane was basically John's entire world and I think this flattered her. I'm not saying I agree that that's the way it should be, but that is probably what happened.

I can't remember if it was this one, or one of the similar type segments, but they basically explained why a person like Diane would fall in love with someone like John as this: A person who is imprisoned, more or less, has all the time in the world. That is to say, John can write these letters and pour all of this attention on Diane because he has the time to. Whereas most people in society would not have near that amount of time. Diane was basically John's entire world and I think this flattered her. I'm not saying I agree that that's the way it should be, but that is probably what happened.

I have a simpler explanation: bored, unsatisfied housewife feeling the thrill of being seduced by a bad boy with all the time in the world to wedge himself in her desires. She wanted to live a more adventurous life, like some sort of Bonnie and Clyde fantasy, and framed it in her mind as being "in love" with Jon Yount.

People in love are capable to do anything, even criminal nonsensical things, for their mates, and those with abhorrent personalities or unfulfilled needs are capable to hurt, kill, and commit all kinds of felonies to join, protect, or satisfy their loved ones. What we call Love is a brain chemical and hormonal reaction, it's worse than crack and cocaine combined for someone "in love". Our brains are literally hijacked during the time we are under passion, and it can lead some of us to do totally immoral things.

If it hadn't been Jon Yount, it would have a been the mailman or the neighbor. However, Yount had the special something that he was a dangerous, carefree, confident, and assertive male to her, yet safe and capable of protecting her and excite her - as long as she was submissive to him.

They mentioned that Diane and Chester had been married for 25 years, and she was 43 years old. That means she got married at age 18. Basically, she went from her parents straight to her husband. I don't know about anyone else, but those early 20s are really formative years, and I'm of the opinion that you need to do some living on your own during that time. Maybe she felt she got married too young, was bored, regretted her decision later in life, etc. Her daughters could have been old enough to be out of the house, and the empty nest was too much. Maybe she just didn't like Chester anymore. Who knows? But yeah, if it hadn't been John Yount, it would have been someone else.

Watched this again last night and for me I believe that Jon Yount and Diane Brodbeck actually loved each other. I don't think he brainwashed her in any way and he obviously didn't threaten her as Chester alleged in the segment. I just think the two of them connected.

You have to remember with Jon Yount that he was an educated man who as far as I'm aware up until the time that he murdered Pamela Sue Rimer didn't have a history of violence. I think I read somewhere where Yount said the reason he killed Rimer was that he tried to make sexual advances towards her and she started acting hysterical and things deteriorated from there. That obviously doesn't excuse what Yount did but the point I'm trying to make is that prior to murdering Rimer, Yount's line was probably more in life with that of an average citizen than a stone hard killer.

This is borne out by the fact that once Yount had escaped from prison both he and Brodbeck easily assimilated back into society and I believe Diane may have had several character witnesses at her sentencing hearing talking about positive things that she and Jon had done for others during their time on the run.

This being said I could easily see why Diane Brodbeck fell in love with Jon Yount. He was probably a very attentive, well spoken, likeable person who if you didn't know about his grizzly past probably wouldn't grab you as someone capable of taking a human life.

I believe she was in love with him, and probably very drawn to him. He probably had very good rhetoric and before murdering had been well-liked.

I think the scum should have fried. "You have no idea what it's like being in a car with a hysterical 18-year-old" Nice excuse, Yount. So your manparts just happened to get inside her while in such a situation? Same excuse for the killing?

Of course, I doubt Diane knew it from the real point-of-view. He probably told her it was an accident or that he was sorry, etc. and she was drawn in enough to believe him/accept him.

What really saddens me is that this woman was married for 25 years to a man (who apparently loved her enough to stay with her after this) and had a mother and children left behind as well, worried sick, hurt, confused.

I feel kind of stupid, posting in this thread which is feel old.
But I just have to say, after researching John E Yount, he sounds like a changed man, who had one moment of rage.
He really effected lifes of everyday americans, through his lawsuits, and made people pay attention to how states gerrymander districts with prisions.

I research him after watching the case on my personal collection. Sad to say that he committed suicide at age 73. What I found interesting in reading about him about him, the author says. At the time he was sentenced to life, it really didn't mean life. And that many people had their sentences communted starting at 7 years, and almost all had their cases communted after 20. John got denied again after 20 years. Which may have stirred him up.

Also, the unsolved mystereis piece did not go into this at all. His trail sounds like a sham. His first trail was thrown out because they didn't read him his rights fast enough and they couldn't used what he said. Then in his second trail they used members of the jury who said openly in court they have a bias, and made up their mind. This is what made john appeal the case, a lower court sided with john, for a new trail. However the SCOTUS decided no, the verdict stands.

I feel, like John, should have been paroled a very long time ago. It is sad to see someone make one mistake and pay for it the rest of their life. We have some sense of retribution in this country, that since he killed someone he should suffer. Which I don't agree with one bit.

anyways i could go on and on about this case, but here is the actual article
http://seemydeath.com/suicides/3304-jon-e-yount-74-commited-suicide-in-his-jail-cell-three-days-before-the-46-year-anniversary-of-his-gruesome-crime.html#axzz2YLcbYHyc

At amazes me that he was involved in so many court cases.

Even when he escaped to Idaho, it sounds like he used his talents to help the poor and the sick. To me, it makes no sense why this guys sentence was not commuted. Esp. after all the positive things he did while in prison.

Sorry for rambling,.

I feel kind of stupid, posting in this thread which is feel old.
But I just have to say, after researching John E Yount, he sounds like a changed man, who had one moment of rage.
He really effected lifes of everyday americans, through his lawsuits, and made people pay attention to how states gerrymander districts with prisions.

I research him after watching the case on my personal collection. Sad to say that he committed suicide at age 73. What I found interesting in reading about him about him, the author says. At the time he was sentenced to life, it really didn't mean life. And that many people had their sentences communted starting at 7 years, and almost all had their cases communted after 20. John got denied again after 20 years. Which may have stirred him up.

Also, the unsolved mystereis piece did not go into this at all. His trail sounds like a sham. His first trail was thrown out because they didn't read him his rights fast enough and they couldn't used what he said. Then in his second trail they used members of the jury who said openly in court they have a bias, and made up their mind. This is what made john appeal the case, a lower court sided with john, for a new trail. However the SCOTUS decided no, the verdict stands.

I feel, like John, should have been paroled a very long time ago. It is sad to see someone make one mistake and pay for it the rest of their life. We have some sense of retribution in this country, that since he killed someone he should suffer. Which I don't agree with one bit.

anyways i could go on and on about this case, but here is the actual article
http://seemydeath.com/suicides/3304-jon-e-yount-74-commited-suicide-in-his-jail-cell-three-days-before-the-46-year-anniversary-of-his-gruesome-crime.html#axzz2YLcbYHyc

At amazes me that he was involved in so many court cases.

Even when he escaped to Idaho, it sounds like he used his talents to help the poor and the sick. To me, it makes no sense why this guys sentence was not commuted. Esp. after all the positive things he did while in prison.

Sorry for rambling,.

That is the single most revolting thing I've ever read. Jon Yount raped and killed a little girl and you're making him out to be some kind of saint and chalk it up to "one mistake". Boo freaking hoo he spent the rest of his life in prison, he deserved to. Get in touch with reality.

That is the single most revolting thing I've ever read. Jon Yount raped and killed a little girl and you're making him out to be some kind of saint and chalk it up to "one mistake". Boo freaking hoo he spent the rest of his life in prison, he deserved to. Get in touch with reality.



After being in prison for 20 years, he wasn't a threat to anyone. And as i stated above his work, and the fact that other mens sentences were commuted after twenty years, should of been enough. Just read the article about his accomplishments and tell me what you think, before you want to bash my head in.

Yount’s Campaigns

Over the years Yount’s energetic personality and deep-seated commitment to change helped him build a broad network of friends, lawyers, and prison-reform advocates who respected his depth of analysis and strategic vision. Peter Wagner, now Executive Director of the Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), credits Yount’s research with framing the mission of his project back in the late 1990s. At the time, Wagner was a young researcher investigating the ways in which those devising census rules and regulations manipulated prison populations by a process that has come to be known as “prison-based gerrymandering.” According to census-taking policy, incarcerated people are counted as residents of the city where their prison is located, not where they lived before they were locked up.

While criminal justice reformers struggled to figure out what the census bureau’s prison count meant, an extensive study by Yount in 1998 zeroed in on the crucial aspect of the practice: the demarcation of state legislative districts. In some state districts, up to 10 percent of the population was made up of people behind bars who could not vote, diluting the votes of every resident in the state who did not live next to a large prison. Legislators with large prisons in their districts could then use their extra political clout to push for longer sentences and more prison construction. In addition to playing a major role in the formation of the PPI, Yount’s refocusing of the census issue influenced successful legislative campaigns in states like New York, Maryland, Delaware, and California. For more than a decade, Yount served on the PPI’s advisory board and communicated regularly with Wagner on this issue.

Yount’s second major legal focus was combating the excessive phone charges that Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections (DOC) levied against people inside. Without access to cellphones or email, those incarcerated remain crucially dependent on their prison’s suite of landlines to communicate with families, friends, and legal representatives. Yount’s research in the early 2000s revealed that the charges for this monopoly service were massively inflated, garnering super-profits for the provider, T-Netix. Yount’s investigation also revealed the hypocrisy behind this practice: at the same time that the DOC touted the importance of phone communication for keeping people in touch with their families, it was taking kickbacks from T-Netix. According to Yount’s submission to the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, the DOC received more than $3 million in a single year for this collusion with the company. This practice outraged the Utilities Commission, and it ruled in favor of Yount’s appeal, forcing a refund of inappropriate charges.

But even more far-reaching than the phone charges case was Yount’s participation in Mixon v. Commonwealth, which expanded the voting rights of those with felony convictions. Before this case, a person who served time for a felony in Pennsylvania could not cast a ballot for five years after their release if they had not registered to vote before entering prison. In collaboration with attorney Sam Stretton, who filed the actual suit in 2000, Yount turned the law upside down, giving all people on parole in Pennsylvania voting rights.

Yount managed to produce a vast number of legal documents from the confines of his cell, where at best he was armed only with an electric typewriter. Jim Scofield, an English teacher at a local college who visited Yount over the course of several years, recalled Yount’s battles to obtain a simple correction tape for the typewriter. Despite many attempts by Scofield and others to supply the tape or connect with vendors, the prison authorities refused to cooperate. Yount was confined to correcting the errors on his submissions with whatever material the underground prison economy could provide. But technical obstacles didn’t stop Jon Yount.

What Motivated Jon Yount?

Yount’s legal success was rooted in his personal transformation. Though not inclined toward self-promotion or written reflection, there are a few clues to this process in his writings, and more can be gleaned from those who knew him. To begin with, he rejected simple notions of remorse, arguing that after a long time in prison, “if you just sit around all the time and try to find out what’s wrong with yourself, instead of looking for positive things that you bring to this world, you end up being a much lesser individual than you are capable of and [less] than society wants you to be.”

Stretton saw an additional factor at work: Yount, he said, “loved freedom.” Unlike most people with a life sentence, he did taste freedom briefly. When he first entered prison, the average term for a person doing life for first-degree murder was twelve years. In 1986, after he had spent nearly two decades behind bars as a model citizen, he became frustrated by repeated denials of his requests for sentence commutation. One afternoon he escaped from a minimum-security facility with his lover, Diane Brodbeck, a local housewife and mother of two who had been one of Yount’s regular visitors. For two-and-a-half years, using the name Jim Forsgren, Yount lived in Idaho where he and Diane established themselves as caring and responsible citizens of the community. However, when his case appeared on the network TV series Unsolved Mysteries, a neighbor turned them in. Though his Idaho landlord and other neighbors assured the courts they would provide Yount with housing and welcome him back to their community, the authorities refused to commute his life sentence. Yount was to be stuck inside forever. In prison parlance, he was “through with money.” Whatever freedom he would taste would be vicarious, the freedom he could help procure for others via his legal work.

Jon Yount’s Anti-Racist Legacy

While Yount’s major documented successes were in the courts, he ultimately came to locate his research within a broader social justice framework. He was not merely what people inside call a “legal beagle.” Scofield noted that Yount read widely and was thrilled to receive a subscription to the Nation, which he shared with his colleagues. “Jon was aware of things beyond his own circumstances,” Scofield observed. He saw “the problems of poverty in the country and the pseudo-class system.”

Yount’s reflections on the racial dimensions of the U.S. criminal justice system are the best testament to the breadth of his political vision. Long before Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow brought notions of the racialized nature of mass incarceration into the public eye, Yount compiled a systematic analysis of the racial politics of incarceration in Pennsylvania in his 1998 essay, “Felon Disenfranchisement: Pennsylvania’s Sinister Face of Vote Dilution.” In this work he spoke out candidly about the role of politicians in racializing incarceration:

A commonly expressed indictment of politicians is that they collectively respond only to money and/or votes. Unfortunately, the growing number of incarcerated Black and Hispanic felons has little of the former and none of the latter!

The essay went on to condemn the increasing rates of incarceration at the time as a “systemic predation upon minorities,” which Yount categorized as “an invidious form of gerrymandering that substantially dilutes the access of minorities to the ballot as well as to preferred representation in government.” Yount then issued a call to action, urging the disenfranchised to “join with community-based, minority-interest groups in a judicial challenge to this invidious agenda…”

“I want to be free.”

Although Yount remained a model of prisoner discipline after his escape and return to prison, his uncompromising advocacy eventually caught up with him. Ironically, the Pennsylvania authorities transferred him from Huntingdon to a remote maximum-security facility in Greene County not after his escape and re-arrest, but after his resounding victory in the phone charges litigation in 2008. Yount called his new home “Siberia-South.” There, separated from the members of the Lifers’ Group who had provided him sustenance for so many years and far from those who visited him regularly, Yount sunk into depression, which finally led to his suicide. According to Stretton, the suicide was perhaps a moment “where Jon just said, ‘I want to be free.’”

Yount’s intellect, legal insight, and selfless dedication to the cause of those in prison had a deep impact on those who worked with him. In eulogizing Yount, Peter Wagner noted that “Jon…spent the rest of his life showing…that he was much better than his worst act.” Ultimately, this transformed former teacher stood for the rights of incarcerated people as full human beings: entitled to maintain family ties, to be seen as more than fodder for enumeration and voting games. As Scofield put it, “Jon cared about other people; he cared about the nation, the world.”

However, we would be wrong to commemorate Jon Yount as a solitary crusader. No one succeeds in prison alone. Yount’s strength and understanding emerged from his relationships with many other incarcerated men who shared their experiences and insights with him and helped him to apply his analytical talents to the law and other issues. They will remain invisible to the public, gagged behind prison walls; their roles in his legal victories will go unnoticed. But Yount’s lifer colleagues were central to his transformation from a conservative, small-town, white teacher into an anti-racist intellectual with a powerful critique of the system of mass incarceration and a nuanced understanding of national and world politics.

There are good ways to honor the memory of Jon Yount, a man who should be remembered. The first is to work to re-shape popular thinking about the invisible people in prisons, focusing on their potential to make positive contributions to society. Second, we should continue to expose the financial and political interests that sustain our prison system. This system hounded Yount to his death, rather than recognizing and rewarding him for his contributions to advancing the human rights of the colleagues and comrades from whom he drew his strength.

I read the article and this is what I think:

John Yount brutally raped and murdered an eighteen year-old girl by stabbing her and then slitting her throat. He stayed exactly where he needed to be. It has far less to do with retribution than it does ensuring people--and yeah, that includes teenaged female people--don't get hurt again.

I read the article and this is what I think:

John Yount brutally raped and murdered an eighteen year-old girl by stabbing her and then slitting her throat. He stayed exactly where he needed to be. It has far less to do with retribution than it does ensuring people--and yeah, that includes teenaged female people--don't get hurt again.

But if that is the case, why was it that the average life sentence, in the state at the time was 12 years. After 12 years, inmates had their sentences commuted by the Governor. I think, without a doubt that with all the work he did throughout his life, he should of like everyone else had his sentenced commuted.
In the years he did escape, he spent it helping the poor and the sick. The people he lived with said without a doubt, they would of never thought he did the crimes he committed twenty years ago. I think he got a feel unfair justice, again. Just going by the facts.
At somepoint, locking people up anymore just doesn't make sense. If it is only for our sense of retribution.

But if that is the case, why was it that the average life sentence, in the state at the time was 12 years. After 12 years, inmates had their sentences commuted by the Governor. I think, without a doubt that with all the work he did throughout his life, he should of like everyone else had his sentenced commuted.

The injustice here is not that John Yount didn't get his sentence commuted--it's the notion that inmates serving a life sentence would get released after twelve years, as though it were a universal, expected favor the state "owes" its inmates.

Then again, I don't know how accurate the information provided in that article is. There is an obvious bias toward Yount and why he "should" have been released. I do know this: the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s were notorious for light sentencing for violent felons all over the country. The fact that "everyone else" serving a life sentence in PA usually had their sentences commuted after twelve years does not in and of itself justify Yount being released as well. And the fact that it might have been a frequent occurrence "at that time" does not automatically imply that it was just.

In the years he did escape, he spent it helping the poor and the sick. The people he lived with said without a doubt, they would of never thought he did the crimes he committed twenty years ago. I think he got a feel unfair justice, again. Just going by the facts.
At somepoint, locking people up anymore just doesn't make sense. If it is only for our sense of retribution.

There was never anything preventing John Yount helping the poor and sick while incarcerated. He did do many positive things for others in prison. But that wasn't good enough for him--he had to break the law yet again, and hurt yet another family in the process.

"Going on the facts", this man violated the trust of a teenaged girl, threw her from his vehicle, viciously raped her in the woods, stabbed her, cut her throat, left her to die (which she did), and then broke out of prison twenty years after the fact. I don't see any reason at all whatsoever why any governor in this union would EVER consider commuting John Yount's sentence.

I read the article and this is what I think:

John Yount brutally raped and murdered an eighteen year-old girl by stabbing her and then slitting her throat. He stayed exactly where he needed to be. It has far less to do with retribution than it does ensuring people--and yeah, that includes teenaged female people--don't get hurt again.
I agree.I also think he clearly had this idea in his head for a while and was probably planning to attack her for quite some time. If you read articles about his victim, she was very afraid of him and the way he would look at her. Maybe he didn't plan on killing her, but I think he did plan the sexual assault (and perhaps that's why he had the knife on him).

What always really pissed me off about Yount, apart from this downright HORRIBLE crime, is that he tried to pass it off as him reacting because she was hysterical. He beat her with a wrench, sexually assaulted her, and cut her throat. This was no ''I panicked'' scenario and I hate that he tried to excuse himself that way. I've never found any information that he was remorseful or anything about what he did.

The fact is that he took a young girl's life away. Why should he get to walk after a short sentence and be free, putting others at risk and allowed to have a life outside of jail after taking one away? I think he fully deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison. Yes, this was his sole crime, but it was an extremely brutal one and no small matter.

@rarjake: Did you ever stop to think that if Yount did help people it was not because he wanted to be a better person, but because he had something to gain, as in, freedom?

I agree.I also think he clearly had this idea in his head for a while and was probably planning to attack her for quite some time. If you read articles about his victim, she was very afraid of him and the way he would look at her. Maybe he didn't plan on killing her, but I think he did plan the sexual assault (and perhaps that's why he had the knife on him).

What always really pissed me off about Yount, apart from this downright HORRIBLE crime, is that he tried to pass it off as him reacting because she was hysterical. He beat her with a wrench, sexually assaulted her, and cut her throat. This was no ''I panicked'' scenario and I hate that he tried to excuse himself that way. I've never found any information that he was remorseful or anything about what he did.

The fact is that he took a young girl's life away. Why should he get to walk after a short sentence and be free, putting others at risk and allowed to have a life outside of jail after taking one away? I think he fully deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison. Yes, this was his sole crime, but it was an extremely brutal one and no small matter.

Agreed on all counts--I think the rape was definitely planned. I think he thought she would be so afraid of him she wouldn't struggle to get away, and that she wouldn't tell anyone what happened. That's about the only "panic" he ever had.

The escape attempt tells me flat-out that he had no remorse for what he'd done. He thought he was so damn special--that HE didn't have to be in prison with other people who committed similar offenses. There are innocent men and women who never once even so much as plotted escape who spent DECADES in prison before they were released. John Yount had no excuse and I do not pity him in the least.

Agreed on all counts--I think the rape was definitely planned. I think he thought she would be so afraid of him she wouldn't struggle to get away, and that she wouldn't tell anyone what happened. That's about the only "panic" he ever had.

The escape attempt tells me flat-out that he had no remorse for what he'd done. He thought he was so damn special--that HE didn't have to be in prison with other people who committed similar offenses. There are innocent men and women who never once even so much as plotted escape who spent DECADES in prison before they were released. John Yount had no excuse and I do not pity him in the least.
I agree with you entirely. I just did some article reading on the case and apparently, Yount also wrapped her stockings around her neck and still he went back and forth between making the ''hyterical reaction'' excuse and saying he didn't remember anymore and was incredulous that he's actually killed her. :rolleyes: He claims that he grabbed her by the coat when she got mad at him for making an inappropriate comment and tried to leave and that things spiralled from there. But I think you're right that he had it planned. Because she was so afraid, trying to get out of his class, and had told her mother how creepy his eyes were when they looked at her, I'm guessing she put up a hell of a fight/tried to run/threatened to tell and he went nuts. I wasn't aware that he actually threw her from the car :(

hmmm ..well how would any of you feel if it had been YOUR 18 YO daughter he killed? too bad he didn't get the death sentence.

I am not trying to say he is innocent, or that his crimes were not terrible.

the only thing i am saying is that like every other 'life sentence' in that state at the time, after about 10-15 years, the Governor would grant the man a commuted sentence. To me, this should of been a very easy case, if his case was not so heavily broadcast in the media. He was probably one of the most famous inmates in the state, not for his crime but because of the work he was doing behind bars.

the sad thing is too, even after he didn't get his sentenced commuted which was common at the time, he would of been paroled, if he admitted to doing the crime. which he never did.

the only thing i am saying is that like every other 'life sentence' in that state at the time, after about 10-15 years, the Governor would grant the man a commuted sentence.

For the second time, a once-common practice in sentencing does not automatically denote a just practice in sentencing.


the sad thing is too, even after he didn't get his sentenced commuted which was common at the time, he would of been paroled, if he admitted to doing the crime. which he never did.

There's not a damned thing that's sad about this case except Pamela Sue Rimer being raped and immediately murdered afterward--and that her family, the Younts, and eventually the Brodbecks all had to suffer because of it.

I'm pretty much in agreement with wiseguy: diminishing John Yount's crime as a "mistake" and lamenting that he wasn't granted parole is pretty freaking revolting.

Finally, John Yount did admit to the murder. He denied that it was premeditated. You may want to do some research beyond a single source before you post, or in lieu of just assuming certain details are true, or otherwise totally fabricating them.

i never said he admitted it, i said he didn't. if he did he would be paroled

i never said he admitted it, i said he didn't.

I know. You're incorrect in that assertion. Read before you post, please.


ETA--From Pennsylvania's Courier-Express:

A Penn State Daily Collegian article said Yount admitted the crime but adamantly disputed the degree of murder.

http://www.thecourierexpress.com/courierexpresscourierexpresslocal/958750-349/jon-yount-dies-in-prison.html

From the LA Times:

...Yount said he vaguely recalled striking her with a wrench, but he didn't remember stabbing her with his pocket knife...


In December, 1985, a petition for a third trial was denied. F. Cortez Bell III, assistant district attorney in Clearfield County, believes Yount fled when it appeared that all his legal avenues had been closed.

"Yount consistently felt the sentence he received was unfair," said Bell, who argued before the Supreme Court in Yount's case.

Yount thought he should have been convicted of second-degree murder, for a non-premeditated slaying, which then carried a 10- to 20-year sentence, Bell said.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-17/news/mn-36514_1_math-teacher

And finally, from the SCOTUS:

At about 5:45 the following morning, respondent Yount appeared at the State Police Substation in nearby DuBois. Yount, who had been the victim's high school mathematics teacher, proceeded to give the police oral and written confessions to the murder.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=467&page=1025

I know. You're incorrect in that assertion. Read before you post, please.


ETA--From the LA Times:

...Yount said he vaguely recalled striking her with a wrench, but he didn't remember stabbing her with his pocket knife...


In December, 1985, a petition for a third trial was denied. F. Cortez Bell III, assistant district attorney in Clearfield County, believes Yount fled when it appeared that all his legal avenues had been closed.

"Yount consistently felt the sentence he received was unfair," said Bell, who argued before the Supreme Court in Yount's case.

Yount thought he should have been convicted of second-degree murder, for a non-premeditated slaying, which then carried a 10- to 20-year sentence, Bell said.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-17/news/mn-36514_1_math-teacher

He never admitted and took responsibility for the crime he was charged wtih. Again, that is why he wasn't granted parole. They don't care if you want to say you forgot, or that you should of been charged with some lesser crime. so again, i made no mistake.

I disagree with the notion that we need some form of retribution. That does not solve anything, nor does it detour crime in anyway.

all you chanting he should of been sentence to death are the ones who make me sick. You claim to be a superior moral bein. But at the same time are saying lets kill this guy. Because want some form of sick justice. To me murder is murder, and the fact that still in the 21st century this country has the death penalty is beyond me.

He never admitted and took responsibility for the crime he was charged wtih.

He took responsibility for the murder. He screamed and squalled about the first degree conviction because he knew there wasn't a guaranteed 10-20 year limit, and that is precisely why he broke out of prison, after he had exhausted his legal options.

Again, that is why he wasn't granted parole. They don't care if you want to say you forgot, or that you should of been charged with some lesser crime. so again, i made no mistake.

If you can produce actual facts to strongly indicate somehow that the reason Jon Yount wasn't granted parole was because he fought and screamed over his first degree murder charge, please do. Because I'm sure that's pretty illegal.

I disagree with the notion that we need some form of retribution. That does not solve anything, nor does it detour crime in anyway.

You will not have a functional society if you do not have a penal system. Key word: penal. As in penalty. As in you do something wrong, you pay penance. Period. We have rules here. I've spent considerable time in a country that did not. It wasn't pleasant to watch nor deal with.

all you chanting he should of been sentence to death are the ones who make me sick. You claim to be a superior moral bein.

Please direct us to our comments on our own moral superiority. I don't see any.

But at the same time are saying lets kill this guy. Because want some form of sick justice. To me murder is murder, and the fact that still in the 21st century this country has the death penalty is beyond me.

Surprise! I'm anti-death penalty, too. Nice attempt to paint us all with the same brush, however.

Jon Yount was never sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison. And he ABSOLUTELY should have been. I assume you would've rather seen him bee-bop off into society ten years after the conviction. That's your prerogative. I wouldn't be shocked that yours is not a well-shared sentiment, however.

Rarjake, while I can respect that you have a different opinion, I find many problems with your argument. Firstly, Yount absolutely DID admit to committing the crime.

*According to the UM segment, he confessed to the crime the day after it happened.
*According to newspaper articles, when police showed up to his door he said, "I am the man you are looking for."
*Yount did act incredulous that his actions had caused Pamela's death, according to some accounts, but he never denied that he committed the crime. He chalked it up to her being hysterical and him reacting by response.

Why are you convinced he didn't admit to it? Please, by all means, put that evidence forward.

Sorry, I know I'm necro-posting, but I'm Diane's grandson and this is the first time I've ever looked up anything about my grandma's time on the run... I heard about the Unsolved Mysteries episode, but I guess I never just thought to Google it. If anybody has any questions about the her, feel free to ask.

I can't for the life of me find any pictures of me and her together, but my niece (black, colorful design shirt) is in both of these pictures. Diane is wearing the blue striped shirt. I'm the one on the left in the gray shirt in the second picture. The third picture is just to give you a better view of what she looks like now.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1001420_564042356986691_1758060546_n.jpg
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1157724_564042110320049_1341797609_n.jpg
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1001936_564037330320527_713409971_n.jpg

Thanks for posting, Uyersuyer! I hope your grandmother is happy and healthy today. I noticed in the last picture there is a woman standing right next to Diane. Is that person her sister? I ask because her sister was interviewed in the Unsolved Mysteries segment, and the woman next to her looks very much like the person interviewed in the segment.

I realize this was many, many years ago, but I hope your family has healed after what happened. John Yount was a messed up, mixed up human being.

I haven't seen the segment myself (we have a VHS somewhere, but it doesn't appear to be anywhere online... if anybody could help me find a digital copy so I could finally see it, that'd be amazing) so I can't be sure if it's the sister in the segment, but yes, that is her sister Faye.

Our family is doing fine. My grandfather died years ago and my grandmother has since remarried and taken the name of her new husband. Honestly, if you were to meet her, you'd never suspect her of something like this - she's just a sweet old religious woman who loves cooking and baking. In our family, we don't really refer to it as anything except "that time Nan went crazy and broke a dude out of jail." I've never talked to her about it directly, but the immediate family I have talked to about it treats it like a big joke.

I haven't seen the segment myself (we have a VHS somewhere, but it doesn't appear to be anywhere online... if anybody could help me find a digital copy so I could finally see it, that'd be amazing) so I can't be sure if it's the sister in the segment, but yes, that is her sister Faye.

I can send you a dvd copy for free if you'd like.

I can send you a dvd copy for free if you'd like.

You have no idea how absolutely amazing that would be - I've been dying to see it ever since I was a little kid! My mom says we have it on VHS somewhere, but I've never been able to find it anywhere in her house. Should I just PM you my address or something?

Uyersuyer, thank you for posting and sharing those photos! I'm glad to hear your family is doing well. :wave:

I haven't seen the segment myself (we have a VHS somewhere, but it doesn't appear to be anywhere online... if anybody could help me find a digital copy so I could finally see it, that'd be amazing) so I can't be sure if it's the sister in the segment, but yes, that is her sister Faye.

Our family is doing fine. My grandfather died years ago and my grandmother has since remarried and taken the name of her new husband. Honestly, if you were to meet her, you'd never suspect her of something like this - she's just a sweet old religious woman who loves cooking and baking. In our family, we don't really refer to it as anything except "that time Nan went crazy and broke a dude out of jail." I've never talked to her about it directly, but the immediate family I have talked to about it treats it like a big joke.

That made me laugh out loud. :)

I'm so glad everybody is doing fine and your grandmother is happy. Faye is the sister that was interviewed on the segment. I knew she looked familiar. Thanks again so much for posting. I'm always happy to hear when someone featured on the show is doing well.

I have a simpler explanation: bored, unsatisfied housewife feeling the thrill of being seduced by a bad boy with all the time in the world to wedge himself in her desires. She wanted to live a more adventurous life, like some sort of Bonnie and Clyde fantasy, and framed it in her mind as being "in love" with Jon Yount.

People in love are capable to do anything, even criminal nonsensical things, for their mates, and those with abhorrent personalities or unfulfilled needs are capable to hurt, kill, and commit all kinds of felonies to join, protect, or satisfy their loved ones. What we call Love is a brain chemical and hormonal reaction, it's worse than crack and cocaine combined for someone "in love". Our brains are literally hijacked during the time we are under passion, and it can lead some of us to do totally immoral things.

If it hadn't been Jon Yount, it would have a been the mailman or the neighbor. However, Yount had the special something that he was a dangerous, carefree, confident, and assertive male to her, yet safe and capable of protecting her and excite her - as long as she was submissive to him.


Oh wow ! :)

:talk: That is the best summary I have ever read on this entire subject !

I apologize for bumping this old thread, but was Diane ever found?

I apologize for bumping this old thread, but was Diane ever found?


Yes. According to the UM Wiki page: Diane and John were found living in Boise, Idaho, under assumed names, and have since been captured. She served two years in prison (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_2dbaebec-5724-53c6-9c2e-ff04546c600e.html) for helping him escape and has since been released. Her husband, Chester Brodbeck, passed away in 1995. John Yount later committed suicide (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/courierexpresscourierexpresslocal/958750-349/jon-yount-dies-in-prison.html) in state prison in April 2012.

Yes. According to the UM Wiki page: Diane and John were found living in Boise, Idaho, under assumed names, and have since been captured. She served two years in prison (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_2dbaebec-5724-53c6-9c2e-ff04546c600e.html) for helping him escape and has since been released. Her husband, Chester Brodbeck, passed away in 1995. John Yount later committed suicide (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/courierexpresscourierexpresslocal/958750-349/jon-yount-dies-in-prison.html) in state prison in April 2012.

Thanks! I wonder if her and her husband got divorced after she was found to be willingly living with Yount?

Thanks! I wonder if her and her husband got divorced after she was found to be willingly living with Yount?

While I'm not quite sure if they stayed together, the update after her capture indicated that she was back at home with her husband pending trial.

Scroll up in this thread to see some posts by someone who claimed to be related to her (a grandson?).

Thanks! I wonder if her and her husband got divorced after she was found to be willingly living with Yount?

I kinda feel like her husband stood behind her even after all of that...

So late to the party on this comment, but I was struck by rarjake's arguments about how John Yount "should have" been released because it was common knowledge that most states let life sentences out after 12-ish years.

Meg made a very interesting rebuttal I wanted to comment on: She observed that there are several people who are innocent who sit their time and do not try to escape. I actually KNOW one of these folks. He's the first man on death row who was exonerated by the use of DNA: Guy's name is Kirk Bloodsworth. I think I've talked about him before on the boards. He was wrongfully convicted for the death of an 9-year old in his home state and was SENTENCED TO DEATH for a crime he ultimately didn't commit. He didn't try to bust out of prison. He fought the conviction through the appeal process. When that failed, he turned to the Innocence Project, which led to the DNA testing and the DNA that was not his. He was released after spending 9 years in jail.

If anyone deserved to "break out" of jail, it was this guy. Yet he didn't.

So late to the party on this comment, but I was struck by rarjake's arguments about how John Yount "should have" been released because it was common knowledge that most states let life sentences out after 12-ish years.

Meg made a very interesting rebuttal I wanted to comment on: She observed that there are several people who are innocent who sit their time and do not try to escape. I actually KNOW one of these folks. He's the first man on death row who was exonerated by the use of DNA: Guy's name is Kirk Bloodsworth. I think I've talked about him before on the boards. He was wrongfully convicted for the death of an 9-year old in his home state and was SENTENCED TO DEATH for a crime he ultimately didn't commit. He didn't try to bust out of prison. He fought the conviction through the appeal process. When that failed, he turned to the Innocence Project, which led to the DNA testing and the DNA that was not his. He was released after spending 9 years in jail.

If anyone deserved to "break out" of jail, it was this guy. Yet he didn't.

I agree. I read that posters comments and wanted to tell them how crazy he/she is.

I watched this on Amazon tonight and it reminded me of a thread we did a few years ago about UM cases that would make great TV movies. This one would be a perfect example because it has everything; a murder, a mother's quest to make sure the killer's life sentence isn't shortened, a forbidden romance, a prison escape, a national search, a capture and a reunion with the family. There's so much material, it wouldn't even fit into a single movie and would probably have to be split up into a mini series.

As for the case itself, I think the segment would have been made more powerful if they had interviewed Pamela Sue Rimer's mother, just to give a face and some quotes to the viewers of someone who was effected the most over the death. I've read online that as soon as Jon Yount was convicted and given a life sentence, she always lived in fear that the sentence would be reduced and she fought to make sure that never happened. She must have been in hell those two years he was on the run.

You have to feel for what Lavonne Rimer went through. Her son was killed in a farming accident three years before Pamela was murdered by Yount. One of the last quotes she made before her death a was particularly heartbreaking. She said - "What he [Yount] did just didn't end my daughter's life, it ended my life and my husband's life. I have nothing, no children, no grandchildren. No one calls me to say, 'How are you mom?' My life has been over since then."

On the Diane Brodbeck side of the case, I guess it's nice that there was a happy ending. But the crabby part of me feels like she got off a little too easy. Yes, she served two years in jail for helping Yount escape. But her family forgave her and, according to the grandson who posted on this thread a couple years ago, got to the point where they laughed it off. She's extremely fortunate her family forgave her because she really put them through hell. Her mother and sister in particular seemed extremely worried and devastated during their interviews. I can't imagine just going back to these people and starting life over again like those two years didn't happen. Many family members would NOT be as forgiving as hers were.

As for Jon Yount...meh. He's gone and that's fine by me. I'm glad he spent the rest of his life behind bars where he belonged.

This case has long been solved and Diane has served her sentence and gone on, and Jon Yount died six years ago. Lately, however, I've found myself watching and rewatching this segment, and reading news articles about the case, articles on Jon Yount himself, and Yount's many appeals.

Some thoughts:

- I strongly believe Yount was never entirely truthful about the day he offered Pamela Sue Rimer a ride and ended up murdering her along that country road in DuBois, PA. He claims that he saw her walking along the road, offered her a ride, and that somewhere along the way he made an "innocent" comment she "mistakenly" took as predatory. She threatens to go to the police; he panics and kills her. It might be a somewhat plausible scenario save for the violent overkill...and rape.

What really strikes me, however, is how Yount ultimately, and repeatedly, put the onus back on Rimer for her own death. Because she made a "mistake" in interpreting Yount's remark (which, according to various articles and perhaps Yount himself, was something like "Want to go for a ride?"), he panicked and lost control. The implication seems to be that had she simply "kept her head" about her, he wouldn't have felt the need to act as he did. I understand this isn't an uncommon theme among those who have committed a violent crime, but I find it intriguing in light of the whole picture of Yount's time behind bars. He was, indeed, an exemplary inmate. He was a highly intelligent, highly capable, action-oriented person who committed himself to inmate justice issues that I found myself nodding along with: prevention of unfair business practices towards inmates from phone companies, identification of voting rights violations, and so forth. He used his teaching skills to reach and educate other inmates. And yet, Yount could ultimately never accept full responsibility for this egregious crime he had committed.

Certainly one could make the argument that the impetus for Yount's activism stemmed from a certain selfishness: as an inmate, the achievement of these goals ultimately benefited him, and others it may have effected were incidental. Perhaps it could be argued that his teaching efforts were linked to his desire to build a strong character before the parole board. But for me, the jury's still out on that one. The degree of Yount's sincerity is something that ultimately can only be speculated, but I admit I've found it a fascinating thing to ponder.

- I think a big part of what attracted Diane Brodbeck to Yount was the fact that she too was extremely active in her own community--a "doer", a servant. In a way, they seemed to be of like kind in this regard. I have to wonder if Yount didn't truly feel the same way toward her. Again, I don't know. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter as the events at hand were long-ago occurrences, with only Diane herself still alive today. But I can't help but be curious about it.

- I wonder what went through Diane's mind those two years she lived with Yount out west. Certainly she missed her children. I would even suggest she probably missed her husband, too. What was life like for her then? Did she want to pick up the phone and call her family? Did she want to drive down to the police station and just turn herself in? Did she ever think about leaving?

And I wonder if she ever thinks about Jon Yount now, or what she felt when she heard he had hung himself back in 2012.


All of this to say that a pretty cut-and-dried, albeit classic UM story can make for some pretty profound meditations on the sheer humanity of people.

I really thought he would have just killed her so loved the update.

1 of my UM bugbears is family members stating how they know their loved one would never do this and that. Diane's mother was doing this saying how she would never help a murderer despite it being overwhelmingly clear she did. I got to confess there is a part of me that would have loved to talked to her after Diane was found and be like "so still think you know daughter well"

I wonder what became of Diane after this and if she is still alive.

1 other thing. I was reading an article about his suicide and this quote from the mother of the victim he killed in 1966 is heartbreaking

"But after her daughter was murdered, Rimer's mother, Lavonne Rimer, worked to ensure Yount did not have his life sentence shortened.

'What he did just didn't end my daughter's life; it ended my life and my husband's life,' she told the Collegian before her death two years ago.

Rimer's parents had also lost their son in a farming accident three years before the murder.

'I have nothing, no children, no grandchildren. No one calls me to say, "How are you Mom?" My life is over since then,' she said."

She died 2 years before he committed suicide.

Hey man. Thanks for the update. Hope she is alive and well but have you ever talked to her about it yet?

Sorry, I know I'm necro-posting, but I'm Diane's grandson and this is the first time I've ever looked up anything about my grandma's time on the run... I heard about the Unsolved Mysteries episode, but I guess I never just thought to Google it. If anybody has any questions about the her, feel free to ask.

I can't for the life of me find any pictures of me and her together, but my niece (black, colorful design shirt) is in both of these pictures. Diane is wearing the blue striped shirt. I'm the one on the left in the gray shirt in the second picture. The third picture is just to give you a better view of what she looks like now.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1001420_564042356986691_1758060546_n.jpg
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1157724_564042110320049_1341797609_n.jpg
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1001936_564037330320527_713409971_n.jpg

First off, he raped and murdered a teenage girl. Sorry if I am one of the ones that says he ought to die in prison, but he did deserve that, and he eventually did.

Secondly, Diane was taken in by him and threw away a life that maybe was mundane but at least she had something many would cut their left arm over (husband and two kids). Instead she becomes a fugitive. Her husband Chester died in 1995. That was rather young, I don't know the cause of death, but there is no way that what Diane did didn't shorten his life in some way. That would have been awfully embarrassing for him to have people know that his wife left him for a fugitive. No doubt that took years off of his life.

There are people on UM segments that are just selfish people and Diane is one of the worst out of all of them. Gail Delano comes to mind as well by committing suicide and never leaving a note or even having her family know where she was for several years. But Diane had options. Even if she initially let Jon out, she wasn't being held captive. There could have been a day or two where she slept on it and said "Oh no, what did I do to myself and my family?" But she still didn't take back what she did.