GROSS INCOMPETENCE: YOUTH AT RISK, PART II

CLICK HERE TO READ PART I

The Aruban beach where investigators are searching for evidence in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway

The blatant negligence in the Natalee Holloway case did not end with her disappearance, but extends deep into the investigation. The handling of the case by Aruban authorities has been a horrible travesty all along, and it's just getting worse.

To begin with, the Aruban police initially took into custody the three suspects, Deepak Kalpoe, 21, Satish Kalpoe, 18, and Joran Van Der Sloot, 17,[1] who were last seen publicly with Natalee. When the three pointed the finger at two hotel security guards, Antonius "Mickey" John, 30, and Abraham Jones, 28[1][2]; the three initial suspects were released while John and Jones were taken into custody. As the investigation progressed, the police once again took the three initial suspects back into custody while keeping John and Jones under lock and key. After being pressured by the victim's family to focus the investigation on the three prime suspects, Aruban police released the two guards, despite the fact that they had not been cleared.[1]

Van Der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers had initially told police that they had dropped Natalee off at a hotel in the care of the two security guards. According to FOX News, the Kalpoe brothers later retracted their story and told police "that Van Der Sloot and Holloway were kissing passionately and fondling in the back seat of the car. Holloway was extremely intoxicated, they said... The brothers said they left Holloway and Van Der Sloot at the beach and headed home."[1] Van Der Sloot, on the other hand, said that the others dropped him off at home and left with Natalee.[3]

Of course I am not privy to the evidence (or lack thereof) and strategy that the Aruban authorities may be keeping from the press, but this inconsistent behavior and the catch-and-release, catch-again and release-again procedure seems to be very unprofessional, to say the least... not to mention that it gave potential suspects the opportunity to tamper with evidence. And the authorities' decision to release two of the five suspects based solely on the other three's changing of their stories was premature. Just because the three suspects are lying doesn't mean that the other two are not involved.

The Kalpoe brothers' vehicles was impounded and a substance initially reported to be blood was found inside the vehicle. But once it was analyzed by authorities in Holland and the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation, it was not only determined to not be Natalee's blood, but not to be blood at all. Since the suspects had already conceded to Natalee's presence in the car, the authorities declined to test the sample further to identify whether it had been one of Natalee's bodily secretions. Okay, now what happens when the prosecution progresses and the suspects change their story again, disputing that Natalee was ever in the car? And what if the substance turns out to be semen from one or more of the suspects? That would potentially disprove claims that they'd had no sexual contact with the victim. Unfortunately, the evidence to prove her presence was never completely analyzed.

Today the world was encouraged as the Aruban police focused their attention on an alleged crime scene, indicating that they were on the verge of discovering physical evidence. But, as police began to search the area, they permitted local volunteers to participate in the search. A group of teens discovered a pair of women's panties, a string, used condoms and condom wrappers, and some kind of duct tape that could have been used as a gag. One of the boys, Charles Rafini, turned the findings over to Aruban authorities after picking them up with his bare hands, essentially contaminating the evidence and potentially destroying the only physical evidence tying the victim to her attacker(s). And what did the Aruban police tell the boy? That he had done a "nice job."[3][4] Sounds like gross incompetence to me.

This whole situation is truly every parent's nightmare: their child disappearing on a foreign island where the laws and customs are completely different from ours. Violent crime is so rare on this tropical island that the local authorities have little or no experience in handling such cases. As a result, they seem to be completely bungling the investigation so that not only does it appear that Natalee will not be found alive, but the case may never be solved. I pray that I'm wrong and that the authorities are deliberately feeding us misleading information, but this eternal optimist is once again pessimistic.

<><}}}0>


SOURCES:

[1] FOX News, "Aruba Authorities Begin New Search for Clues", 06/14/05, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159470,00.html
[2] NBC News, "Aruba Authorities Expand Search Area Near Hotel", 06/14/05, http://www.nbc13.com/news/4607599/detail.html#
[3] "Studio B with Shepard Smith", FOX News Channel, 06/14/05, 4:00 pm
[4] "Big Story with Jon Gibson", FOX News Channel, 06/14/05, 5:00 pm

MICHAEL JACKSON - "NOT GUILTY!"

Jackson leaves the Santa Maria courthouse a free man. Photo: Michael Mariant (AP)

Moments ago, a jury in Santa Maria, CA delivered the verdict in the highly-publicized Michael Jackson child molestation trial. Very surprisingly, the 8-woman / 4-man jury found Jackson "not guilty" on all ten counts. Michael Jackson is a free man.[1]

I was not necessarily surprised that the verdict acquitted on at least some of the charges, but I am surprised that they acquitted on all charges... especially considering that Michael Jackson confessed in the Bashir Documentary to sleeping with these boys.[2] But apparently the jury did not believe that there was enough evidence to convict on these charges.

We need to remember that a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily indicate innocence. It simply indicates that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt. And, in the end, that's the bottom line when it comes to the law. This verdict does not vindicate Jackson, but it does exonerate him.

There will undoubtedly be much public outcry as those who believe in Jackson's guilt dispute the verdict and Jackson's loyal fans defend their idol. The trial itself may be over and Jackson can never be re-tried for any of these allegations, but the public debate over this case is far from over.

As I reported in an earlier entry, racism has already been alleged in the prosecution of this case. Bearing in mind that this is a case combining the celebrity of O.J. Simpson and the racial unrest of Rodney King, a guilty verdict would have been sure to incite a reaction with elements of both previous cases. But the allegations that the jury was rigged against Jackson has now been proven false.

I am concerned about some of the aspects of this trial, such as the perceived probability that jurors had been exposed to the media during the trial. I cannot say with 100 percent assurance that this was a fair trial, but none of the evidence indicates that any of it had anything to do with race.

Is Jackson completely innocent? I seriously doubt it. But the bottom line is that today Michael Jackson was cleared in a court of law. Time will tell how he will fare in the court of public opinion.

<><}}}0>

Sources:

[1] "Studio B with Shepard Smith", Live Broadcast from Michael Jackson Trial, FOX News Channel, 06/13/05, 4:00 pm ET
[2] Martin Bashir documentary

YOUTH AT RISK, PART I

Natalee Holloway is pictured in this "Missing" poster distributed in Aruba

On Sunday May 30, 18-year-old Alabama high school senior Natalee Holloway disappeared from her graduating class trip to the tropical island of Aruba. She was last seen getting into a car outside "Carlos & Charlie's", a nightclub where she and her supposedly-chaperoned classmates were celebrating their graduation.[1]

One week later, on June 5, two hotel security guards were arrested after being implicated by the three young men with whom Natalee had left the club. On Thursday June 9, the three locals who had initially been witnesses against the two suspects, were arrested for suspicion in Natalee's disappearance. Saturday morning Aruban officials confirmed that human blood had been discovered in the car, implicating probable foul play on the part of the three young suspects[1], but the discovery was later retracted as the substance turned out to not be blood.[2] If indeed Natalee has been killed, this would be the first murder in Aruba in two years.[3]

This story would be disturbing enough, but I am very concerned with the sequence of events that I believe allowed, through gross negligence, this tragedy to happen. Here are the facts as they have been reported:

These high-school seniors were alone, unsupervised in a bar on a tropical island where Engish is not the primary, secondary, or even third or fourth language. Chaperones were on the island with the students, but they apparantly were not doing their job very sufficiently if one of their students was able to leave the bar with three strangers.

I don't mean to sound like a prude, but this whole scenario escapes reason with me. The whole process of events that lead up to Natalee's disappearance is ripe with behavior that completely defies common sense. I don't mean to impugn anybody's character, but there seems to be huge gaping lapses in judgment in this case.

First of all, what in the world were these students doing unsupervised in a bar on this island? The legal drinking age in Aruba is eighteen[6][8], but these students come from a culture and legal system where the legal drinking age is twenty-one. Many of these students had probably never tasted alcohol before their trip to Aruba. Now they were left unsupervised in a foreign bar completely at the mercy of a mind-altering substance and natives who may or may not have been a threat? How could any responsible adult allow these minors to participate in what Aruba's Minister of Justice described as "a wild drinking party".[4] It's insane, and it's no wonder that a tragedy like this would be the outcome.

Cases in point: May 2005 - "22-yr-old Oregon State University student Gina Zolonardo's body is found just yards away from a houseboat she'd been partying on just days before."[5] January 2004 - "18-yr-old high school cheerleader Lauren Crossman... falls nine floors from her hotel balcony to her death. Police say it was an accident, but confirm she and her friends were drinking alcohol at the time of the fall."[5] May 2002 - "21-yr-old Michael Norman from Connecticut falls to his death off a hotel balcony. Witnesses say the University of Hartford student had been drinking all night. According to the U.S. Consul, during that year's Spring Break, American students accounted for 2 deaths, 260 arrests, 4 injuries, and a rape."[5] And now Natalee Holloway disappears after a drinking party in Aruba.

Secondly, it was reported that 39 of the 40 chaperones returned to the United States with the other 124 students after Natlalee didn't show up for her flight home.[6][7] One chaperone stayed behind to wait for Natalee to show up.

Natalee Holloway apparantly was a straight-A student, so she wasn't stupid. But when an otherwise-intelligent young lady is exposed to a mind-altering substance such as alcohol for the first time, she may make decisions that defy her better judgment. Natalee was still a minor by her society's standards and her guardians (in this case, the chaperones) were responsible for protecting her. So regardless of whether she left with the three young men voluntarily, Natalee was not at fault here; she was the victim all around -- first of irresponsible and negligent adults in whom she and her parents had entrusted her safety, and secondly to whomever may be involved in her actual disappearance.

I hate to focus attention on finger-pointing when Natalee's condition and whereabouts are still unknown, but parents around the world need to be made aware that these dangers potentially await their children as well. As Natalee's mother said in an interview with Geraldo Rivera, "Natalee represents everyone's daughter..."[9] The search for Natalee Holloway continues and we must pray for her safe return, but we must also take measures to insure that this tragedy is not repeated with another young, naïve victim.

<><}}}0>

SOURCES:

[1] "FOX Report w/ Rick Folbaum", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 7:00 pm ET
[2] "FOX News Live", FOX News Channel, 06/12/05, 6:30 pm ET
[3] "FOX News Alert", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 5:00 pm ET
[4] Rudy Croes (Aruban Minister of Justice), Interview with Geraldo Rivera, "FOX Report w/ Rick Folbaum", FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 7:00 pm ET
[5] "Spring Break Dangers", "At Large with Geraldo Rivera", FOX News Channel, 06/04/05, 10:00 pm
[6] Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD Homicide Detective, ibid.
[7] "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren", FOX News Channel, 06/06/05, 10:00 pm ET
[8] Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD Homicide Detective, ibid.
[9] Beth Holloway-Twitty, Interview with Geraldo Rivera, "At Large with Geraldo Rivera", Live from Palm Beach, Aruba, FOX News Channel, 06/11/05, 10:00 pm ET

THE RACE CARD

Justice Janice Rogers-Brown (l) and Michael Jackson (r)

It never seems to take long in a political debate before it pops up: it's the race card. No matter what the issue, radical liberals eventually get around to accusing their opponent of racism. This week this wild card surfaced again in three different cases. But what makes it so outrageous is the instances in which they arose.

First, Janice Rogers-Brown was finally confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today (June 8) with a 56-43 vote in the Senate[1]; but not before she was attacked by liberals for, get this, racism. The NAACP accused Rogers-Brown, in a fax sent to Senators prior to the vote, of being "hostile to Civil Rights".[1] The irony of this statement is realized when you note that Janice Rogers-Brown is a black woman.

The second instance is the Michael Jackson molestation trial. Observers are complaining that there are no African-Americans on the jury, but these jurors were approved by Jackson's lawyers.[3] Why aren't they complaining? It seems to me that if there's any racism here, it's Jackson himself who has something against negros, since he turned himself into a white man in the late 1980's. Of course I'm being facecious, but you get the picture.

In the third instance, DNC Chairman Howard Dean jumped back into the limelight Monday (June 6) and stuck his foot in his mouth once again. This time, he said, "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same.... It's pretty much a white Christian party."[4] He reiterated the sentiment on NBC's Today Show; that the Republican party is "a largely-white Christian party" and that "they don't include other folks."[5]

Okay, let's take a look at the facts. Dean makes these absurd and inflammatory allegations despite the fact that Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, no less, is a practicing Jew.[2] Remember Miguel Estrada, the the Hispanic-Republican nominee who was filibustered by the so-inclusive Democrats? And don't forget high-ranking Republicans Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and the aforementioned Janice Rogers-Brown, who all happen to be African-Americans.

"I'm living proof that the (GOP) isn't what Howard Dean is trying to describe," Simi Valley Councilman Glenn Becerra told the San Francisco Chronicle during a telephone interview. "It's a sad day when Democrats don't have any ideas to put forward and they have to resort to race politics. President Bush didn't get 40 percent of the Hispanic vote (in 2004) because we're a monolithic, white Christian party."[4]

Maybe Howard Dean isn't really upset about the Republican's exclusiveness, but rather the fact that the public are starting to see through the Democratic Party's perpetual lie that they are the Party of the minorities, by the minorities, and for the minorities. Because more and more it's being exposed that the Democratic leadership does not speak exclusively for American minorities. Why do liberals make these absurd allegations when they're the ones that are attacking the minorities? Why do liberals accuse Conservatives of being racist when they're the ones that promote racism disguised as "Affirmative Action"? Maybe it's because they're the ones that are prejudiced.

What about Michael Jackson? A rich, successful black man who bleached himself white and has been labeled by the world to be the "King of Pop" is being persecuted because of his race? Maybe he's on trial because he's publicly admitted to suspicious behavior that indicates a proclivity toward the crime of which he's accused. Maybe it's because the evidence points to reasonable suspicion that he may be guilty. And maybe this case has nothing to do with race, but is, in fact, about justice. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any bias in the trial against Michael Jackson because of his race. If there was, then I'm sure his lawyers would have objected immediately. Why do liberals trump the race card when there's absolutely no evidence of racism? Maybe it's because they're the real racists, trying to incite racial warfare.

And what about Janice Rogers-Brown? A black woman who is racist against blacks? As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut) said today, these allegations are "irresponsible rhetoric" which is "unfair... uncharitable... [and] without any real foundation."[1] Rogers-Brown may be opposed by the liberal NAACP, but she has been heartily endorsed by the Congress of Racial Equality, an African-American organization dedicated to Civil Rights.[1] If there's any bias here it's these Senators' liberal prejudice against Conservative Christians. That's the true common thread among the filibustered nominees, whether they're black, white, latino, or Martian. And maybe that's what this filibuster is really about. Because that's where the evidence points.

The allegation that Republicans are against minorities is absurd; the notion that Michael Jackson is being persecuted because he's black is insane; and the idea that Janice Rogers-Brown, a black woman, is prejudiced against black people, is just plain retarded. I guess common sense is often elusive when you're dealing with liberal activists, especially ones who don't want to be burdened with the facts. But that won't stop independent-thinking voters from seeing through their rhetoric and holding them accountable for their racist lies.

<><}}}0>

SOURCES:
[1] "Special Report" w/ Brit Hume", Major Garrett reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[2] ibid., Brian Wilson reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[3] "On the Record" w/ Greta Van Susteren; commentary by Ted Williams & Jeff Brown, Criminal Defense Attorneys, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 10 pm EST
[4] San Francisco Chronicle, "Dean: The mouth that won't stop roaring
Even some Democrats weary of blunt talk", Carla Marinucci, 06/08/05, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/08/DEAN.TMP
[5] "The Today Show", NBC, 06/08/05