Showing posts with label Natalee Holloway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Natalee Holloway. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

'The Bitch made me do It!' Defense


You know, if it weren't for all those bitches in the world, we would have a whole lot less crime.

Consider poor Joran van der Sloot. Twice, bitches have messed up his life. First, Natalee Holloway dies on him while trying to force him into sex on the beach (or after falling off a balcony while stupid drunk), and now he is languishing in a South American prison because another bitch, Stephany Flores Ramirez, took her pants off and snooped on his laptop. Geez, what's a guy to do with hos like this in the world? Joran can only hope that the jury will understand his temporary insanity and realize that he only bludgeoned and choked Stephany to death because "The bitch made him do it."

Mayor Marion Barry, the long-serving Washington, D.C. politician, had his career ruined by another bitch, Rasheeda Moore, who enticed him away from his wife to her hotel room and stuck a crack pipe in his mouth. "The bitch set me up," defense didn't work very well for Barry because the jury couldn't get it that Barry was sucked in by this siren. Post-prison, Barry got reelected and the second time he was caught with drugs, his career was dealt a death blow. Apparently, this time the bitch split before the cops showed up and left him high and dry with nobody to blame but himself for getting caught.

Convicted serial rapist, Sammie Lee Nichols, was just a teen when he unfairly got 149 years to life when two bitches took advantage of him on separate occasions, forcing sex on this underage kid. He explained to the jury how he had been a victim of statutory rape. In fact, he was so terrorized by these adult women's sexual assaults on him that he had to hold a gun to their heads during the acts just to protect himself from further harm. I guess, in this case, the bitches did it to him.

One of the hallmarks of a high level of narcissism and psychopathy is not taking responsibility for one's actions and always blaming someone else for one's poor choices or crimes. It is always someone else's fault. Many serial killers have an interesting way of twisting their crimes into a "Bitch made me do it" scenario. "All I was did was knock at her door and when she answered, she got all nasty toward me." Of course, it will be proven later in court that Mr. Handyman was carrying duct tape, rope, and a knife in his tool bag.

Serial killer David Bullock blamed one of his many victims, saying "He started messing with the Christmas tree, telling me how nice the Christmas tree was, so I shot him." He also used "The bitch made me do it" excuse, claiming one of his female victims "laughed in his face," causing him to have to shut her up with a firmly applied pillow over the offending wordhole and a bullet to the mouthy bitch's brain. Sometimes, the victims don't have to do anything except be who they are. Thugs like Daniel Rodriguez and Daniel Aleman, who were charged with a hate crime in the brutal assault of a gay man, simply believe their victims "deserve the beat down."

Women, though, almost always get blamed by the offenders who attack, rape, and kill them. If a woman was walking home from work on an isolated road, jogging alone at dusk, or exiting a bar at closing time into the parking lot, the perpetrators of crimes against them will say she was asking for it; if she had any sense of decency, she wouldn't have been there, and since she wasn't decent, she deserved what she got.

The truth is, when you get caught doing nasty things to defenseless women, pretty much all you have to salve your ego is to tell yourself and everyone else, "The bitch made me do it."

Note: Female offenders also toss blame around to avoid accepting responsibility for their crimes. They may say, if they murder their husband, "The bastard made me do it," and claim he was abusive or that she feared for her life (due to the fact women are more vulnerable in a domestic situation, this can sometimes be true). Women who are part of serial killer teams may claim their partners forced them into it or they fell under his spell. However, women more often than men to claim a psychiatric disorder as an excuse. And, oddly, women are more likely than men to simply tell the truth: it was fun, I was sick of him, I got tired of taking care of the baby, I killed them because my boyfriend didn't want my kids around.


Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Truth of the Matter

by Pat Brown

On December 6th in Salt Lake City, Utah, Josh Powell's wife, Susan, went missing sometime in the wee hours of the morning. It wouldn't be too unusual if she had been out jogging in the dark at midnight or was last seen drinking in the parking lot behind a bar with some sketchy character; serial killers look for victims that are easy prey and female joggers and intoxicated women are two of their favorite targets.

But, Susan Powell didn't spend the last evening before her disappearance involved in any high risk behavior (and I mean behavior that one should have a right to engage in, but could get you killed nonetheless). She had friends over for dinner with her husband and two children, and then, as far as we know, settled in for the night. Her hubby, on the other hand, must have been a bit restless.

When the clock struck twelve, Josh Powell got a bit of wanderlust, so he says. He woke their two young boys (and I say woke because a two-year-old and a four-year-old are unlikely to still be up when both parents have work in the morning) and, with no argument from his wife or his sleepy boys, took them on a 'just us guys' adventure, one they were sure to be excited about! A trip into the desert in a freezing cold snowstorm! Woo hoo! I hope they had a great time, because when Mr. Powell finally brought the boys home at 5 PM Monday afternoon (well, he didn't go to work because he forgot what day it was), his wife wasn't there. Josh found his wife had gone missing in the middle of the night, leaving her purse and cell phone behind (no wonder she never called Josh to remind him what day it was).

Susan's family, on the other hand, knew it was Monday. They were called when she never dropped her kids off at day care. They found out Susan had never shown up at work. They couldn't find Josh and the children. They called the police. The police came to the home and found a wet spot on the carpet with two fans blowing on it. Apparently Susan must have spilled something after Josh and the kids went off on their camping trip.

I can see what all of you are thinking, but don't jump to conclusions. The police have clearly stated Josh Powell is not a suspect. When I slipped up yesterday morning on the Today Show, Matt Lauer promptly corrected me, as he should; Mr. Powell is not a suspect. The family also does not view Josh as a suspect. They say there were no problems between him and Susan and that his middle-of-the-night camping trip was not so strange for him. He also often forgets what day it is. They think the police should broaden their investigation to include scenarios other than a domestic homicide.

Let's get real. I don't know when this silly rule showed up where the police can't say someone is a suspect when he clearly is. In this case, the police haven't looked at any other possibility than that Josh Powell killed his wife in the middle of the night. They have not reached out to the public for information or informed them that Susan was kidnapped. They said she is unlikely to have run off, since her purse and phone were still in the home. They won't, however, say Mr. Powell is a suspect. They won't even say he is a person of interest. Obviously, the legal climate has dampened the ability for folks to be forthright and honest. Well, let me do it for them. Josh Powell is the one and only suspect in the disappearance of Susan Powell, unless some other information or evidence comes to light that takes the focus off of him.

Let's look at the three most likely scenarios in the disappearance of Susan:

1) Josh Powell killed her.
2) Susan ran off with a lover or was sick of taking care of her kids and working.
3) Someone kidnapped her in the night.

Scenario Two goes like this: In spite of the fact Susan has a good character, that she is a stockbroker with good career, that she loves her little boys, and that no one has said she acted in any bizarre way in the past, she just took off. She is running off to meet her lover or abandoning her family or she is seeking attention by staging a domestic murder or abduction a la Jennifer Wilbanks, the Runaway Bride. I would have to vote for the attention-getting motive for disappearing since the other two reasons would mean she would probably take her purse and phone along and her car (unless her lover was picking her up). But, that night she decided she wanted to worry everyone and vanish without a trace. Lucky for her, Josh decided to take the boys on a camping trip at midnight allowing her to slip away on foot into the night, with nothing on her person.

Scenario Number Three goes like this. A serial killer or an obsessed stalker decided he wanted to grab Susan. Rather than pick a time when she was home alone or out taking a jog or a walk by herself, he decides to go to the house on a Sunday evening hoping to find her alone. But, alas, the whole family is at home. However, he is a patient man and waits, hoping he will get lucky. And, whaddya know? The husband decides to take his boys on a camping trip at midnight and drives off leaving Susan alone for her abducter to grab. He is really good at not leaving any evidence around, too; no sign of a break-in, no sign of a struggle, no footprints in the snow, and if he did leave evidence, he must have scrubbed it away and set the fans out to dry the carpet because he really cares about leaving a house the way he found it.

Now to Scenario Number One: Josh Powell killed his wife, tried to eliminate the evidence, and took her body in the van to some remote location. He may or may not have taken the children with him at that point in time. He may have left them alone like Bobby Cutts did with his son while he drove to a park to dispose of his pregnant girlfriend. Then again, he may have brought the kids along so they wouldn't wake up and start screaming and alert the neighbors that something was amiss in the home. The police say they went to the location where Josh says he was camping, but we have no way of knowing if he really went there or if he went there after he made a detour. Josh had all night to find a good hideaway for his wife's body.

I don't think it is too difficult to figure out which scenario is likely the right scenario. But, if most of us see this, then what of Susan's family? Why do they disbelieve Josh couldn't have anything to do with what happened to their daughter? Well, if I were them, I would want to believe more than anything in the world that my son-in-law is just an oddball and has a bad memory and communication problems, because the alternative is too awful to consider. They know Susan isn't any Jennifer Wilbanks, so they have to hope she was abducted and is being held somewhere to eventually escape or be found and saved. They have to hope their son-in-law is really not a person of interest or a suspect and the police are failing to due their job diligently.

Sadly, in spite of the family's support for Josh Powell and the police refusal to call him a suspect, the odds of this case not being a domestic homicide are about as good as Natalee Holloway living a life of blond girl slavery in Guyana. It might be a distant possibility, but no police detective is really entertaining alternative theories when the evidence in front of them all supports the same scenario.

I hope some evidence shows up that changes this bleak picture, and Susan Powell can come home to her boys, but in spite of all the effort to avoid calling her husband a suspect, we all know in our hearts he is.


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Women in Crime Ink Celebrates First Year Online

Women in Crime Ink is celebrating its first anni-versary today, and we want to mark this special occasion by thanking all of our contributors—and especially our readers!

It’s been quite a year since we launched on March 10, 2008. Most of the crime news took a backseat to a fiery election campaign, but there was no shortage of crime stories. The Caylee Anthony saga took us by storm and may prove to be one of the most followed crimes of the decade. And the most-publicized crime of the '90s was given a final chapter with last year's conviction of O. J. Simpson. The newly discovered DNA evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case kept us chirping through several posts, while Women in Crime Ink gave cases like those involving Becca McEvoy, Davina Buff Jones, and Belinda Temple the attention they deserve.

Of course, we haven't forgotten the disappearances of student Natalee Holloway or toddler Madeleine McCann. By offering new theories, we have attempted to keep these and other missing persons cases alive in the public consciousness.

Our regular contributors have also brought you some of our personal stories that led to our respective "lives of crime."

As serious and thought-provoking as we try to keep our posts, occasionally, we like to have fun with our readers. Were you one of those who fell for the April Fool's blog that Jimmy Hoffa's bones had been found in New York? You weren't alone—that prank post spread like wildfire in cyberspace, burning nearly all who read it. (Don't be caught off guard this coming April Fool's Day. . . .)

Also last spring, Women in Crime Ink had the honor of a brief "appearance" on Broadway, at least within the pages of the Playbill for the production of "The Judas Tree," the visually stunning true-crime musical based on the crimes of serial killer Dorothea Puente. (photo credit: Alex Moore)

Early this year, we stepped onto another stage, joining the Facebook frenzy. If you haven’t already, stop on over at our Facebook page and become one of our fans! There you will also find a bookstore where you can browse titles by our contributors.

Our fans and readers have also been contributors to Women in Crime Ink. WCI guest contributors have ranged from homicide detectives to a polygamy survivor. Who can forget our "Independence Day Series," which featured the harrowing first-person account of a man who was nearly executed for a crime he did not commit? And then there have been those special occasions when people we've written about—or their friends and family members—have surprised us with a response. Indeed, sometimes reader comments have taken over our posts. For example, the brief (130 word) announcement that Manson member Susan Atkins is dying of brain cancer has generated 25,000 words. Keep 'em coming. We love hearing from our readers.

So let us know your thoughts about our first year! Use the comments section to tell us what you like about the site . . . what you haven't cared for . . . stories you’d like to see more of . . . and any ideas you have as to how we can improve.

Thanks, everyone, for reading and for contributing to Women in Crime Ink. And a special thank you to Cole Stevenson for designing the site and to Rex White for creating our Justitia logo and original art. These talented men helped the women of WCI get up and running . . . and our contributors and readers have kept us going strong. Thanks!


Monday, November 24, 2008

Getting Away with Murder - Part 2

by Stacy Dittrich

Today, in Part 2 of Getting Away with Murder, I’ll be focusing on the cases of Natalee Holloway, Rilya Wilson, O.J. Simpson, and JonBenét Ramsey. (Click here to read Part 1) Out of these eight featured cases, only two bodies have been found (Simpson and Ramsey), and only three suspects have been arrested in the murders (O.J. Simpson, who subsequently was found not guilty, Geralyn Graham, and Casey Anthony, both who are currently awaiting trial). While watching the various experts commentating on most of these cases, I hear repeatedly how difficult it is for the prosecution to proceed with charges without a body. Not so, says Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Tad DiBiase, an expert in the area of “No Body Cases.”

DiBiase has tracked these cases as far back as 1834, when seaman Maurice Fitzgerald was murdered at sea and his body was never found. However, his killers were tried and found guilty of murder. According to DiBiase, this case and 279 others in the United States (excluding ID, NH and VT) tracked through November 2008, only resulted in 25 acquittals or reversals on appeal due to the fact no body was found. His contention is that it is a high probability of a conviction without a body, and the case should proceed.

Unfortunately, it seems that some prosecutors are “gun shy.” The possibility of a not guilty verdict or the suspect walking free is too great in their eyes. In the meantime, the murderer is out on the streets free to kill again. In this aspect, I say kudos to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in Florida for the arrest of Casey Anthony. If the evidence is there, take it and run with it.

Regardless, there are some circumstances that it would be highly unlikely any charges would come whether or not the body is found—these are few and far between. In the case of missing Alabama student, Natalee Holloway, sometimes politics plays a far greater role than a murdered high school student.

4. Natalee Holloway—Missing May 30, 2005, No Body Found.

I believe it’s certainly safe to say at this point that the Aruban government has thoroughly botched the investigation into missing American high school student, Natalee Holloway, 19, and failed her family miserably.

On Monday, May 30, 2005, Natalee Holloway was last seen alive in a bar in Aruba while on a senior class trip. There is no question that she was accompanied by then 17-year-old Joran Van der Sloot, and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe (pictured right with Holloway) as she left the bar. She was never seen again and her body has never been found. In the meantime, all three men have been questioned in the case and no formal charges have been brought. The fact that Van der Sloot is the son of a prominent Aruban political figure raises some eyebrows. Apparently, his father's influence is enough to erase the fact he recently confessed to the murder of Holloway on videotape. Smoking marijuana, the Aruban authorities claimed they could not proceed as he “was under the influence when making that claim.”

According to Women In Crime Ink’s Robin Sax, an L.A. Deputy District Attorney, it is not for the prosecution to question his frame of mind—it’s up to the defense to prove he was “muddled by the wacky weed.” But, like all of the other claims and witness statements in the case, the information was ignored. Just recently, Van der Sloot was videotaped taking part in a sex ring in Thailand. Allegedly, there’s more to the tape than that. FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren claims to have in her possession more of the tape which has Van der Sloot confessing to Holloway’s murder—yet again. She offered to bring it to Aruban prosecutor Hans Mos in person, but he refused. Why? He said there is nothing on the tape that has any substance—a claim made even though he has never seen it.

At this point, Joran Van der Sloot is laughing at law enforcement in his country, and at the Americans that believe in his guilt. Unfortunately, it may take this sociopathic animal murdering another human being before he is finally caught. Either that or the Kalpoe brothers need to grow a conscious and start talking. But, the question remains: even if they do talk, and Holloway’s body is found, will they even prosecute Van der Sloot then? I think not.

This sends a clear message to parents out there: If your child is taking a class trip or vacation with friends—send them to Florida.

5. Rilya Wilson—Missing, unknown month, 2000—No Body Found.

There are some people who actually have not heard of 4-year-old Rilya Wilson, but you may have heard the story. Rilya was the foster child in Florida who went “unnoticed” by the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Living at the time with foster mother, Geralyn Graham, DCF didn’t notice Rilya was missing until two years later. According to Graham, Rilya was picked up by a caseworker for a doctor’s appointment and was never returned. DCF authorities quickly established this wasn’t the case, but admitted they had “lost this child” within the system.

Furthermore, the outrageous actions of the DCF ultimately caused the resignation of the DCF chief, and news laws that require officials to track missing foster children and the supervision of caregivers.

In 2005, Geralyn Graham was charged with first degree murder in the death of Rilya. While incarcerated, she allegedly told a fellow inmate, “I killed it.” She claimed Rilya (pictured left) had demons and she dumped the child’s body in a ravine—authorities have yet to locate her remains. At this time, Graham is still awaiting trial and prosecutors are confident they will attain a conviction.

The case sparked outrage against DCF treatment of African-American foster children and is presently being used to help lobby a bill that would enact the “Rilya Alert.” Similar to the Amber Alert, the Rilya Alert would be geared towards missing African-American children within the foster care system.

6. O.J. Simpson—Found Not Guilty in the Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, October, 1995.

Like most, the mere mention of Simpson’s name is difficult to say without vomiting in my mouth a little. One would be hard pressed to find a person that truly believed in his innocence, especially after he wrote a full blown confession in a book years later. His arrogance and mockery were never-ending (I’ve always seen a chilling connection between the attitude of Joran Van der Sloot and Simpson . . . blech). The case in which the famed football star brutally sliced and diced his ex-wife and her friend has caused prosecutors, and defense attorneys, to tighten their belts and get their acts together for the last decade. The world’s obsession with the O.J. Simpson case is never-ending. Just recently, Simpson (pictured right) was tried and convicted of armed robbery in Las Vegas for holding a memorabilia dealer in his hotel room at gunpoint. Some say it’s retribution for getting away with murder.

As Simpson sits whining away in his jail cell awaiting sentencing, he is appealing his conviction based on the fact he is black. However, some say this is precisely the reason he was acquitted in the murders over a decade ago and that he uses his ethnicity to his benefit when suited. Black or white, most prudent people of all colors believe that this is a man who deserves to live, and die, in prison. It looks like we may just get our wish. Simpson will no longer be remembered for his impressive football career—he will forever be remembered in the graduating class of the upper echelons of crime like Manson and Bundy. It would seem that miracles in the halls of crime really do happen—The Juice has finally been squeezed dry.

It’s at long last time to throw that used-up-piece-of-fruit in the garbage where it belongs.

7. JonBenét Ramsey—Murdered, December 26, 1996—No Arrests Made.

The case that, twelve years later, still is heatedly debated on the crime blogs and media, the Ramsey case is, undoubtedly, solved in the minds of many. However, it is the prosecutor who is most important and, apparently, they don’t have a clue who the murderer is. I wrote my own theory on the Ramsey case (view it here) that sparked outrage among the supporters of John Ramsey, the father of victim 6-year-old JonBenét. Referring to someone like myself as a BORG, which I think stands for “believer of Ramsey guilt.”

Either that or they’re obsessive Star Trek fans.

The small group of supporters launches an immediate attack for anyone pointing to JonBenét’s parents as the murderers—a fact I firmly believe. No doubt several of them will make an appearance in the comments section of this post.

No one but John and Patsy Ramsey (who is now deceased) really know what happened the night of December 26, 1996. After a lengthy Christmas day, they put their 6-year-old daughter to sleep, woke up the next morning, found her missing, and ultimately discovered her sexually assaulted and dead body in the basement.

The prosecutor has since cleared the parents and believes that, someday, DNA evidence will hit on a match to the true murderer. It’s my opinion that the human race will most likely witness The Rapture before an arrest in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. It’s a shame, but the man that brutally took the life of this small, innocent child has to look in the mirror every day and live with it.

But, if he can be so cold-hearted to commit murder he probably doesn’t care.

All eight of these cases have generated millions of dollars in movie, television, and book deals, feeding society’s hunger for a good crime story, and driving those at-home-super-sleuths into a frenzy for the need to solve. There may be several more that I didn’t touch on, but these are the ones that come to mind when I think of “crime stories.” Of course, it’s a historical fact that these cases will be replaced over the next few decades with a new class of innocent victims and barbaric heathens that will get away with murder—a sad, and frightening, fact.


I have always said during my tenure as a police officer that my job security was higher than anyone’s. Now, as a full-time crime writer, my opinion remains the same.


Wednesday, July 23, 2008

WIN AT ALL COSTS? NOT REALLY

by Kelly Siegler

Why is it that the media and Hollywood seem to be obsessed with the idea that prosecutors are always after the "win," the "scalp," the conviction? How many times have we read a book or watched a movie that was all about some unethical prosecutor seeking to advance his or her career by convicting an innocent citizen? Not just about blurring the lines and disregarding the rules of evidence but flat out doing their utmost to convict someone who the make-believe prosecutor knows full well is innocent of any crime.

Oh, it all makes for a very touching and absorbing story. As well as feeding into the kinds of tales that Hollywood likes to tell.

The only problem with such stories is that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact, from the standard, typical everyday problem that truly exists with prosecutors. Ask any veteran police officer or detective. Ask any long-time crime victim advocate. Ask any respected judge. They know what the true problem is with way too many prosecutors. And it has nothing to do with trying to convict innocent citizens.

The real problem is that far too many prosecutors are worried about taking on a difficult case, a case that is not a slam-dunk or a whale ("as easy as harpooning a whale in a barrel," as we say in Harris County, Texas). Too many prosecutors demand that the cases presented to them for the filing of charges come to them with all the questions answered and wrapped in a pretty, little bow. What prosecutors seem to forget is that the question they need to be asking is whether a jury of twelve, ordinary, normal, non-lawyer citizens would convict on the evidence presented to them or evidence easily developed by the prosecutor after the filing of charges.

Evidence easily developed after the filing of charges. Maybe it's laziness that's the problem. Or maybe prosecutors get away with rejecting charges because everyone forgets that a lawyer can work up a case and investigate it further just like the police officer who initially worked on the case can. There is absolutely no reason for someone preparing to go to trial to not try to make the evidence stronger. The truth is the truth and a prosecutor can find that one additional witness or one little piece of evidence just as easily as a cop can.

I betcha if you could interview a group of experienced detectives and ask them what their number one pet peeve about their job was, the answer you would get would be having to present their cases to prosecutors who have no guts. As a prosecutor with over twenty years of experience, I can't count the number of times I have heard well-respected police officers vent about this problem.

So why is this "chicken" attitude such an unknown problem? Simple. Primarily because prosecutors don't usually talk about it. And those same righteously upset cops don't typically tattle about it; they just try to figure out a way to work around the problem. So instead of officers being able to go to a prosecutor to seek advice on an investigation, what happens more often than you would ever expect is that the officers find the prosecutors they are forced to deal with to be an obstacle in their investigations.

And that is a tragedy.

What is even more tragic is the number of victims in our society who have been made to believe that the crime committed against them or against their loved one is a crime that does not merit the prosecution or filing of charges. It would be a rare case for a police officer to say to a grieving family member that he believed that there was enough evidence to file a charge and convict a guilty defendant BUT the PROSECUTOR he went to decided there was not enough evidence. Cops don't do that because all that does is cause a victim more pain. So in effect what happens is a cowardly prosecutor is shielded from having to make a tough call or take on a difficult prosecution. And a hurt or grieving family is left to suffer even more.

So let this serve as a wake-up call or a call to arms to victims. If you have a true understanding and appreciation of the evidence in a case that concerns you, ask your detective what he thinks about the state of the evidence. If necessary, complain. To the police officer's supervisor, perhaps more importantly to the prosecutor's supervisor. What if the prosecutor is the elected DA who has no boss? Then complain to your local media; that's a story they would love to jump all over. They would get a twofer: the ability to investigate a REAL crime and criticize the local prosecutor's office while showing them up. Besides, what do you have to lose by complaining?

What seems to get lost in all of this is the fact that prosecutors are like any other professionals. By that I mean that no two are alike. Do you think every teacher handles her classroom the same? Or every orthopedic surgeon agrees on when surgery is necessary? Is there a difference in attitude between NFL quarterbacks Brett Favre and David Carr? Or between Diane Sawyer and Nancy Grace? Same thinking applies to prosecutors and how they do their jobs. It's just that we don't seem to appreciate that personalities do affect their decisions, such as what constitutes enough evidence to file charges.

Prosecutors' differences are more apparent in the courtroom during trial. We need to realize that those same differences apply to their decision-making, especially when it comes to that initial decision on whether to take on a case that might well be more difficult than most.

In contrast to the very rare, despicable prosecutor like Mike Nifong (below), how many more are out there handling cases but refusing to accept charges when the evidence seems more than sufficient to you? Nobody truly knows ALL of the evidence in any case but the investigating officers. Do we really know ALL of the evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case? (See Stacy Dittrich's blog for an update.) Or Natalee Holloway's case? Or even in a case that concerns you?

Win at all costs? Funny. Unfortunately, the truth is, all too often, prosecutors won't even get in the game.


Wednesday, June 4, 2008

The Body of Evidence Tells the Story

by Vanessa Leggett

We have all seen this face. The image is of little Madeleine McCann, the British toddler who disappeared while on a family vacation a year ago last month. What we haven't seen, and, in all likelihood, never will, is the body of Madeleine McCann.

Without a body, I doubt we will ever know for sure why she disappeared without a trace the night of May 3, 2007. I believe an autopsy of Madeleine's body could tell us exactly what happened. And that is why, I propose, her body had to be concealed at all costs, including a family's usual need to hold a funeral to memorialize the life of a loved one who has passed.

Let me state right off that I do not think that Madeleine's parents intentionally caused the death of their child. If they're guilty of anything, I believe it is of placing too much trust in what some charge were unorthodox methods of parenting. More on this shortly.

I should also make clear that I have not followed this case as well as I'm guessing most of our readers have, so I might very well have some of my facts wrong. (Readers, I'm counting on you to set me straight in the comments section to this post.) Further, "my theory" might be nothing new. I hadn't given any serious thought to this case until last week, when Portuguese police announced they are considering filing child neglect charges against Kate and Gerry McCann (pictured right) in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.

Childcare: Careless Death, Careful Cover-up

I never believed that the little girl's parents meant to cause Madeleine's death. From my passing understanding of facts that have emerged over the past year, I formed the opinion that Madeleine's death was a case of simple negligence by parents who should have hired a sitter.

The parameters of the current investigation are considerably broader than child neglect. According to a recent ruling released by the Evora Supreme Court of Justice in Portimao, the McCanns will be investigated for abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment of a child, and concealment of a corpse.

In response to the court's pronouncement, the McCanns, through a spokesman, "vigorously denied neglecting Madeleine, but were pleased abduction was being investigated."

This remark did not surprise me. From the beginning, the McCanns have claimed their daughter was abducted. Any energy and expense in that direction would be eagerly embraced by them. Personally, I believe the McCanns have led the public on a global goose chase. The natural question is Why?

To Sleep, Perchance to Die

Which leads to my theory of the case, a conclusion that hinges on early reports that, to my knowledge, have not been proved or disproved. But they are allegations that, if true, could explain what happened to Madeleine. I believe that the McCanns—both doctors—drugged their children. The specific allegations are that Madeleine died from an overdose of sleeping pills her parents had given her before they met adult friends for dinner, only 50 to 100 yards from where the McCann children were sleeping.

On the whole, the McCanns were probably excellent parents. It's not outside the realm of possibility that they were over-protective parents who, to safeguard against potential abuses, would rather give their children sleeping pills than entrust their care to anyone but themselves. If the kids were asleep, they might have (erroneously) reasoned, no sitter would be necessary, especially when Mom and Dad were close enough to check on them, as appears to have been the case that fateful night.

Still, it seems to me that even if the McCanns had checked on their children, unless the doctor-parents took vital signs each time they popped in, it might not have been apparent that their child had stopped breathing. We see what we want to see. If they did in fact drug their children, they surely thought they were administering safe dosages. I don't believe they would have had any reason, or, after x glasses of wine with dinner, inclination to closely examine their children. That is, perhaps, until it was time to kiss them goodnight at whatever hour the parents returned from their engagement.

If Madeleine's death was in fact caused by accidental overdose, the most likely scenario is that the McCanns did not know Madeleine was dead until they returned from dinner to retire for the night. As overwhelming and gut-wrenching as finding a dead child would be to most parents, as much as time might have stood still, those parents would have had to do some quick thinking to avoid further catastrophe to their family.

Given their medical backgrounds, the McCanns would had to have feared that in a case of drug overdose, a toxicology screen would reveal substances in their daughter's system. If the couple wasn't able to produce a babysitter (who could have served as the scapegoat for drugging their daughter), then consequences were certain: Kate and Gerry McCann would at the very least be charged with child neglect for abandoning their children as well as child endangerment and whatever other charges could arise from giving a child drugs.

That this revelation would irreparably damage their reputations as parents would have been bad enough. What put them over the edge, I think, was the threat to their livelihood. If exposed for giving their child drugs that led to her death, the Mcanns risked the revocation of their medical licenses.

Even if they admitted they drugged Madeleine and convinced everyone that their daughter's death was a tragic accident, they would be held to a higher standard of care than average parents. Pharmacological babysitting might have worked for them without complication in the past. But, as physicians, they should have known the risks inherent in administering drugs to a child.

If they could no longer practice medicine, they might have thought, then how could they support their other children? And what if criminal convictions led to jail time? The McCanns currently face a sentence of up to ten years if found guilty of child neglect. They would have risked that and, quite likely, additional time for other charges a year ago. Their 18-month-old twins could have been orphaned during their most critical years of development.

Kate and Gerry McCann could not reverse what happened to Madeleine. But upon finding her dead, they could still make choices they felt were in the best interest of their surviving children.

If She Dies Before She Wakes . . .

As horrific and incomprehensible as it might seem to anyone not in that same circumstance at that moment, the only way to avoid further tragedy, in their minds, was to make sure the body was never found.

Without a body, no toxicology. Without toxicology reports indicating the presence of drugs, no charges. I believe the McCanns quickly made the decision to conceal their child's body, in a place known only to the parents. A private burial for family.

A body is not necessary to prove neglect. But to prove that the child was drugged, police would need considerably more evidence than what has been made public. An admission from either parent is not likely.

Even an admission won't cinch a case of criminally negligent homicide. I'm thinking of another disappearance in which drugs might have played a role in a death that I'm inclined to think was accidental.

Death and the Maidens

The month of May was also the anniversary of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, the 18-year-old student who never returned from a senior trip to Aruba. Officials did not gather enough evidence to charge Joran van der Sloot with Natalee's death. It was apparently because Joran thought he was off the hook for murder that he made incriminating statements to a Dutch reporter, who videotaped the conversation. Naturally, Joran has recanted those statements, maintaining he was only saying what he thought the journalist wanted to hear. That's his story now. When talking to the reporter on tape, Joran said, "I'm being honest with you."

Aside from Joran's denials, the reliability of his statements was further compromised by the fact that Joran was under the influence of marijuana when he confessed that Natalee had died in his presence. Joran reportedly used drugs regularly.

While Joran has been vilified in the press, I do not believe, based on his recorded statements, that he intentionally brought about Natalee's death. I am convinced he gave her drugs, with or without her consent, and that, similar to the McCanns, Joran knew that her body would tell the tale of drug use—drugs that likely contributed to her death, drugs that could be linked to him. To avoid responsibility, Joran decided her body had to disappear. In his taped confession he told the reporter "they'll never find" Natalee.

"I know what happened to that girl,'' Joran continued, adding that he was "just incredibly lucky that she's never been found. Because if they found that girl, I'd be in deep shit."

On tape, Joran described a romantic encounter with Natalee (pictured right) on
the beach. At some point, he said, she lost consciousness, probably from whatever drug/s she had ingested.

"Suddenly, she wasn't moving anymore," he said. "I tried to shake her. . . . I was shaking the bitch. I was like, 'What is wrong with you, man?' I almost wanted to cry. . . . Why does this shit have to happen to me?"

If these statements are true, Joran did not intentionally cause the death of Natalee. But a compelling case of criminally negligent homicide could be made, especially if Natalee had been alive when her body was thrown into the ocean, as some have speculated.

Joran went on to say that, in a panic, he phoned a trusted friend. "And I told him, 'Well, this is what happened. Come, come, come help me. And please don't call the police.' "

Not only did Joran fail to seek emergency attention—he admitted he specifically asked someone else to keep authorities in the dark. Joran enlisted the help of his friend to dispose of Natalee's body.

Joran told the journalist that it was a relief to tell someone what happened to Natalee that night. "I'm putting it away and for me," he said, "it's finished. Case closed."

Not so fast. Based on those tapes, authorities have reopened the investigation. Although
Joran said he had no trouble sleeping the night that Natalee died, odds are he isn't sleeping as easily since police have turned up the heat.

Disturbed Sleep

If my theory about the McCanns has any merit, they could be equally restless now that the investigation has shifted directions. After Madeleine's disappearance last year, there were numerous reports that Kate McCann was able to sleep "just five days" following her daughter's disappearance.

The implication was not that Kate McCann had been up for four nights straight before the poor woman finally collapsed from exhaustion. The subtext was that because Kate knew what had happened to her daughter, she was not kept awake by the twin torments of parents of missing children: the "agony of the unknown" and the hope that at any moment the child would return.

Of course, Madeleine returning is as unlikely as it is that murder charges will ever be filed against her parents. And there is little hope that Natalee Holloway's body will ever be recovered. Whether Madeleine or Natalee were actually murdered will probably remain a mystery.

As WCI Cold Case Detective Connie Park shared in her post on Monday: "You must consider the body as evidence—the one piece of evidence you discover which will ultimately help you solve the murder investigation." Without those bodies of evidence, we cannot expect real answers about how they met their deaths.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Hear No Evil - WCI Podcast

Scared Monkeys Radio was not afraid to give the mic to Women in Crime Ink . . . even when three of us shared airtime with wife murder suspect Drew Peterson. The Dana Pretzer Show featured Women in Crime Ink on Tuesday, March 11, 2008. Listen in on an interview with Criminal Profiler Pat Brown, Crime Writer Vanessa Leggett, and Sex-crimes Prosecutor Robin Sax. Other guests: former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson with his attorney, Joel Brodsky, and a Scared Monkey on the Natalee Holloway case. Take a listen. We'll speak no evil.