When Family and Friends Compromise Your Security

,

By Lyn Twyman 

Many of us are brought up with the belief that we should be able to trust our family for everything, our safety, security, emotional and physical well being but for some of us, the family has proven to be the most hurtful and even most dangerous battle ground we will ever encounter. Survivors and family violence advocates can attest to this all the time, making it almost become a myth that the family is the safest environment. I've talked to many people who have shared their deep, painful pasts about loved ones, mothers, fathers, siblings and spouses who have betrayed them through abuse. When a family member abuses you, it becomes an unsettling, traumatic experience to say the least. We feel that we can no longer trust others and ask ourselves how can we ever trust others again?

So what happens if you ask for help or just mere moral support from a family member to get you through or even after the abuse, only for you to learn they too cannot be trusted, that they actually went to the abuser and disclosed private information about you? At that point you don't know all that has been said but through some event, you learn that this once trusted family member has indeed betrayed your trust and with the abuser of all people. This revelation burns at your core and eats away at you, perhaps making you feel vulnerable. It makes you wonder if they ever believed you in the first place. It re-victimizes you.

Whether the offending family member ever believed the abuse did occur or not does not matter at this point. You now have an obligation to yourself to remain physically and emotionally safe from any further abuse. You also have to wonder how many people have lost their lives to abusers, not because the system failed but because family members failed and failed miserably, either by calling the abuser, writing them or even befriending them on social media sites, disclosing personal information about you. What I have found about people who are so willing to go to abusers, and violate your trust as the victim, is they are often susceptible at being manipulated and victimized as well. In this case, they have been manipulated by the abuser, charmed into gaining the abuser's trust so the abuser can acquire more information about you. All the abuser wants to do is continue his bondage and control over you and the family member is allowing themselves to be used as a tool.

Abusers rarely stop abusing; they rarely stop victimizing and abuse is like an addiction. If you take away the drug of abuse, all the abuser wants is to go back and abuse more. They get an adrenaline high from controlling and hurting the object of their abuse, the victim. Abusers never completely let go and let's face it, someone who has lived their life in attempts to psychologically and physically control others isn't just going to give it up. It's an addiction.

So, as a survivor, you've worked hard to get away from this abusive person and you're thrown this curve ball by a family member you thought you could trust who goes back to the abuser and discloses information about you, your whereabouts, address, pictures, updates on your lifestyle, work, new friends and acquaintances, etc. What do you do? How do you handle this? With all cards put aside, now you are left with a dynamic  shift in your relationship with the family member or even friend. There are four things I want to share that I believe may help you:

1. Remember your safety is first and foremost - When someone discloses personal information about you to the abuser, you can never guarantee from that point on what that person says is truth. You can only assume and assumptions are not good enough when it comes to your life. Take all necessary steps to find out as much as you can from the family member in terms of what they repeated back to the abuser. From there take the necessary actions to be extra cautious, either way. Change your phone number, email address, driving routes, ask for a schedule change at work if possible, increase security at your home or even move. You may have to notify a neighbor to be on the lookout for any suspicious activity and don’t neglect to notify your local police depending on the severity of your circumstance with the abuser.

2. Remember you have a right to your privacy that not even the police have the right to disclose your whereabouts - The family member who chose to share personal information about you has taken a liberty upon themselves that even the police nor a private investigator cannot do under law and that's disclose someone's whereabouts and other data without that person's consent or without a court order. What the family member did was wrong and there is nothing that can justify it. Whether the breach in your privacy occurred because of their lack of judgment or because of malice does not matter. Again your safety is first and foremost beyond their motives.

3. Give a written warning and perhaps a verbal warning to the family member or friend - Let the family member know what they did was wrong, they are not to divulge personal information about you and if you have warned them before about your right to privacy, remind them again. State specifically, ‘I do not want you sharing my information to anyone about me without my consent, not even to people you believe I may know and not even to my abuser.’ Also let them know that if you are hurt as a result of their actions with the abuser or the abuser’s acquaintances, they can be held legally responsible for your endangerment.

4. Distance yourself from that family member or friend who breached your trust - It's obvious they lack the necessary concern, discernment and care they need to have for your situation so again, for your safety, it may be more than wise to eliminate any further communication with the family member. As mentioned before, you may have to change your phone number, email, work schedule, etc.

The scars left behind by abusers run deep no matter if the abuse was physical or non-physical. NO ONE has the right to make any decision on your behalf, especially when it comes to your personal and private information. Be careful who you speak with and what you say to them or what you post online, even to family members. Know that your life, happiness and well being is precious and extremely valuable. No one has the right to take that away from you and you have rights even when it comes to family.

“Ask Me No Questions and I’ll Tell You No Lies”

By Donna Gore, M.A. 

There is no denying a survivor of crime’s pain no matter what form it takes, whether it is homicide, stalking, assault, domestic violence, a hate crime, home invasion, kidnapping etc., they all represent long lasting violations on the human condition.

However, as a homicide survivor, I cannot stand in judgment of those who have experienced any one of these types of crimes. For me to pre-suppose and say I have “walked in their shoes” would seem somewhat arrogant. Why....? ‘Because an apple is not identical to an orange….. My environment, education and life experience is unique unto me and therefore, I cannot say “I know what you are going through” in the true sense. But, we do have commonalities. This is what keeps me humble, for I really don’t have any idea what anyone is burdened with on a day to day basis, irrespective of crime.

It struck me when reading about someone else‘s victimization recently that I cannot embrace everyone’s pain all of the time. I am one of the most compassionate people on earth. BUT, it cannot be squandered. In the language of professional therapists, I believe they refer to “compassion fatigue,” a type of burnout, as a very real pitfall in certain professions.

I raise these issues as I want to discuss the difference between “Victim” versus “Survivor” and “Entitlement” versus “Reality.” I can personally affiliate with a number of oppressed minorities should I choose to, at any given time. These include –female, LGBT community member, physically challenged member, homicide survivor, lefty/left-handed, person surviving a ridiculous number of surgical procedures as a child…..

Given all of these minority based affiliations, I am well aware of the difference between victims versus survivor.

I caution all survivors of crime, that if we are not careful to protect our psyche, we can easily step over the line.

According to the 2010 Random House dictionary a “Victim” can be: 


1) A person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: (as in a victim of an automobile accident).

2) A person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: (as in a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion).

3) A person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed (as in war victims).

4) A living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

(You can judge for yourself whether these are illuminating examples of “victim hood.” DRG)

I can attest to the fact that we are sufferers of destruction and injury, deceived and cheated, at times by our own emotions and sacrificed at the expense of others’ actions.

“Survivor” definitions that apply can be:

1) A person or thing that survives.

2) A person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks.

***The second definition, ladies and gentlemen, is what we strive for and the equivalent of the “Take Back the Night” rallies.

Entitlement Definition: To give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim.

(Such a definition appears hollow and without substance or context. DRG).

Aren’t we entitled to our rights as crime victims? Aren’t we entitled to our anger and respect? Aren’t we entitled to revenge…. Or to have our loved one back again…or our body and mind restored to health …or to feel safe again? We are entitled, aren’t we?

Contrast Entitlement with Reality, or the knowledge that life, indeed is more often “not fair” despite our best efforts. Survivors of crime eventually come to know that they cannot resolve the “why me why us” and must move on to address the “what next” instead!

So, when crime happens to you, what is your alternative? You sit around the circle of the support group and listen, or cry, or contribute. Alternately, you can become an advocate/activist or you can become stuck in your anger until it destroys the fiber of your being. You may also continue to deny, place blame on everyone else for your prolonged dysfunction or escape to a fantasy world. All of these negative responses feel like lies, as they are not “who we used to be.”

**But the bigger lie is to not place blame squarely on the perpetrator(s) and at times, the vulnerability and/ or unwise decisions of those murdered. It’s a slippery slope when you allow your emotions to become an indictment of society as a whole. You have so many conflicting emotions that you lose perspective.

In my opinion, the difference between being a victim and a survivor is huge. The key to crossing over to survivor status is motivation. I can say with certainty that we all start out as a victim- a victim of the event itself a victim of circumstances that follow, a victim of “the system.” And then, slowly but surely, if we are fortunate enough to receive support and counseling designed specifically for this experience, we see that wallowing in our own victimization ends up being worse than death itself and a luxury we cannot afford.

Rather, some of us realize that to use our grief toward positive outcomes for others is in itself immensely therapeutic…. and the only conceivable path for “a new day.”

So I say, carry on as best you can, healing more with each day looking forward and taking control of your life in the smallest of ways. To do otherwise, is giving power to the perpetrator(s) and sinking your soul into the abyss.

Respectfully Submitted,
Donna R. Gore, M. A.
Homicide Survivor from Connecticut

History can only be written by the survivors….

By Donna R. Gore

As a homicide survivor, I am privileged to author this initial blog in furtherance of understanding, shared information and some degree of comfort for my fellow members of this fast growing “club.”

In 1981, my father was murdered at age 47 by a career criminal whose  many crime credentials included bank robbery, drug dealer and two time murderer.  Those are the credentials I know of… The details of the murder I will save for another chapter.

However, the incredulous nature of our ongoing victimization leads me to think of a number of “FIRSTS” (i.e. those circumstances that appear to have occurred only to our family at the time).  Such “firsts” are aberrations, a series of mistakes, oversights, slights, inefficiencies, acknowledgements and offerings from systems overburdened by humans who were just doing their job or not doing it at all.  Irrespective of the perpetrators actions, such occurrences add insult to injury and have the cumulative effect of an avalanche as time marches on trying desperately to catch up with justice.

I will state that these “FIRSTS” occurred over a six year period (without benefit of any particular order)

FIRST:

As my father did not return home one evening, after checking with friends, neighbors and hospitals, my mother opened the newspaper to learn of his possible demise versus being notified by the Hartford Police.  She exclaimed, “Oh my God, that’s him.  It has to be…..”   (Referring to an article of a missing man found in a green van).

We actually had to call the police ourselves and inquire if the person in the paper was indeed my father. (My mother reported that the detective supposedly covered his hand over the phone’s speaker and announced to others that, “She’s just identified him”)

I’ll never forget walking into the police department and seeing his coat paraded past us in a plastic bag.

Possible Explanation: It had been a bad month for my Dad.  He was stopped at a light that month and a person demanded his wallet.  He had not replaced his identification in his wallet yet.   

No Justification:  However, it was a matter of record that as an entrepreneur of several successful businesses in the past, he was a registered used car dealer well known to all with contact information readily available from other sources such as his license plate etc.

Why did this happen in this way?  Were the police too busy, lazy or incompetent?  No one knows…  We have never received a reasonable explanation for such an injustice so early on in the process.

Another FIRST

When my father was killed, there was no specific provision or protection of your employment for crime victim’s participation in a murder trial.  At the time, I was working as a clinical speech-language pathologist in a Rehabilitation hospital.  When I asked for time off to attend the trial, six years later in 1987, hospital Administration was supportive but stated,

 “The only time off we have to cover such absences is a maternity leave.”

Solution:  As trial proceedings typically did not start until 10 a.m, I was permitted to write patient notes while waiting for the trial to begin and report to work during any recesses during the three week trial. 

Thank God times and rights have changed!

Connecticut is one of the first states in the U.S. to provide employment protection for crime victims.  Under C.G.S. §54-85b an employer cannot fire, harass or otherwise retaliate against an employee subpoenaed as witness in criminal case or against the crime victim for:

      (1) attending court proceedings related to the criminal case; or

      (2) being the beneficiary of a restraining order or protective order.  

With respect to a protective order issued outside of the state of Connecticut, to receive protection from employer retaliation the order must be registered in Connecticut.

An employer can be found guilty of criminal contempt and fined or imprisoned for violating this law.  Further, a crime victim (or witness) can bring a civil lawsuit against the employer for damages resulting from the violation and for a court order reinstating the victim (or witness) or otherwise rescinding the employer’s unlawful action.

(1981, P.A. 81-186; 2002, P.A. 02-136, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002.)

Another FIRST

When the homicide occurred in April 1981, the perpetrator was wanted for criminal drug charges in the state of New Jersey and by law had to serve out that sentence prior to conviction of the Capitol murder of my father.

The perpetrator of my father’s murder actually committed murder again one month later when his accomplice in a bank robbery could be identified when his mask was removed. 

This double murderer filed for a speedy trial to be extradited back to Connecticut, saying his rights were violated!  Luckily the wise judge in his discretion was not persuaded of this Sixth Amendment right.

The perpetrator, whose name is a type of fish (How appropriate) in the end, was convicted of 50 years to life for felony murder and concurrently, 25 years to life for accessory to murder for the second killing “of his friend/accomplice.”
As luck would have it, the harsher, more absolute determinate sentences were not imposed in Connecticut until July of 1981 (just three months short) of determinant sentencing.
The Difference in Connecticut:

Indeterminate Sentencing in effect until 1981. Imposed minimum and maximum terms and parole board had authority to release offender from prison after completing the minimum term less any "good time" credits earned.

Determinate Sentencing, enacted in 1981, imposes fixed prison term and reduced "good time". Discretionary release authority shifted from parole board to Department of Correction.
And so, we were caught in the morass of the change of laws in 1981.  ‘ Long story short, “the fish” in jail for those in six years until extradited to Connecticut to stand trial for two murders.  We were re-victimized.  He will technically be eligible for parole in 2013
Another FIRST
 As we all know, during a trial, the victim’s life is put on trial, is open for judgment, character assassination and spectacle.  Anything goes if it will help make the defendant look better.  During the defendant’s time, the relatively new (2^nd chair) public defender looked for real and imaginary skeletons in my father’s closet without consideration of our feelings.  This is how it’s done. (My father was not perfect, but his sins did not rise to the level of a death sentence….)
After sitting through this three week trial, listening to the good, the bad and the ugly, this lanky ands seemingly arrogant and insensitive public defender approached me personally and stated, “I’m sorry I have to do this.”  I was told by court personnel that such an exchange had never occurred before to their knowledge.  It wasn’t much of an offering, but it was an attempt given horrendous circumstances,

 Twenty five years later, this same PD is a specialist in criminal and civil law.  Funny how he “cut his teeth” on the trial that was so very important to us…
Another FIRST
Imagine your first exposure to criminal proceedings.  You are used to seeing one jury and one crime presented at a time.  However, this was not the case.  Suddenly I noted that there was testimony regarding the killing of my father followed by testimony of the second crime simultaneously with one jury!   What is this, I thought?  Are they trying to save taxpayers money by doubling up on trials?  I don’t get it….   My Dad deserved center stage!
We had heard that our prosecutor, Atty. A. was very tired after just finishing a long and arduous trial of a well known cardiologist who killed his wife by staging it to look like a car accident.  Did this have something to do with the two trials-one jury scenario?
Later I was to learn that this was a intelligent but lesser used legal concept known as” joinder.”
“Joinder in criminal law is a legal term which refers to the inclusion of additional counts or additional defendants on an indictment. In English law, charges for any offense may be joined in the same indictment if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar nature. A number of defendants may be joined in the same indictment even if no single count applies to all of them, provided that the counts are sufficiently linked. The judge retains the option to order separate trials.”
In practical terms, this means that when a person is on trial for criminal charges in more than one murder, as was the case here, this legal option may be used.  In our case, the evidence was strong with my Dad’s murder while the evidence with “the same cast of characters”in the second case  was weaker.  By using joinder, convictions can be facilitated by the stronger case carrying the weaker case. From written information on our case it appeared that the jury was able to differentiate the evidence and come to the conclusion that “the fish” most likely committed the second murder as portrayed. 

Unintended Benefits

Several years ago, I was doing research at the law library for an Advanced Victimology Course and actually located my father’s case in a Connecticut  law journal.  How cool is that???  Although I would much rather have him with us today versus having his case appear in publication, it may in fact, serve to help others. 

Another female well known public defender in our case (the “1^st chair”) was kind enough to send me information for my paper when I requested it…. all these years later.  To have communication with “their side” was an eerie feeling.  Maybe, just maybe it was a small gesture of delayed justice.

Another FIRST

Within the first 48 Hours, there is always a whirlwind of activity when you are dealing with serious crime.  Family members are at there most vulnerable.  So, imagine, if you will, our family gathered around the television hearing reports about your very own father.  But, instead of stating his name, the local anchor man (not a hair out of place) reputation, suddenly stated his name as “Daniel” when his name was “Donald.”  We were horrified that such simple fact checking was not performed and another indignity was visited upon us.

 

Reality Check…. Nowadays, the media is a very different animal ,where almost anything goes in the most exploitative manner.  Such a seemingly small detail is enough to send you over the edge when your entire world is collapsing…  Daniel, Donald, it still matters to me.  It was my father.

Final FIRST

If you will, picture us in a packed courtroom, “word weary” after listening to nearly three weeks of testimony.  At the end of the day, the public defender (“2^nd chair”) imposes upon the court an unusual request.  It seems that the perpetrator is inconvenienced each day with the proceedings in that, by the time he returns to his cell, his dinner is cold.  So, would the court consider ordering that the defendant receive hot food, please????

I do not have to tell you his response…. Enough said!

Respectfully Submitted by:

Donna R. Gore, M. A.

Homicide Survivor in Connecticut

Ladyjustice16738@sbcglobal.net

Tunnel Vision Deja Vu

By Randy McCall

Last week I found an interesting online article, posted on a Psychology Today blog by Mark White. This particular article, titled Tunnel Vision in the Criminal Justice System examined the work of several professors, which detailed how false convictions happen when investigators and prosecutors unconsciously decide that a particular individual must be the perpetrator.

In essence, the article says that law enforcement and prosecution, having committed to the idea that they have the criminal in custody, then views all following investigations, collected evidence and interrogations through a biased lens.

Findley uses this case as an example of tunnel vision in the criminal justice system, identifying mistakes made at each stage of the process that can be traced to common cognnitive biases. In Findley's words, "tunnel vision is the product of a variety of cognitive distortions, such as confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and outcome bias, which can impede accuracy in what we perceive and in how we interpret what we perceive" ("Tunnel Vision," p. 6).

Some quick definitions would be helpful here:

Confirmation Bias: from the article "Confirmation bias describes the natural human tendency to interpret new information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, to remember previous events in a way that confirms those beliefs, and to discount or discard information that challenges them"

Hindsight Bias: from the article "Hindsight bias describes another natural tendency to regard a past event as inevitable, or at least much likely than originally thought, after it is confirmed by later information. Otherwise known as the "knew-it-all-along" effect, it stems from the way we construct our memories of events, using all of the information gathered since the original occurrence to arrive at a much more definite causal chain of events than is objectively warranted."

Outcome Bias: An error made in evaluating the quality of a decision when the outcome of that decision is already known.

We can sum these up much more simply - if the article author will forgive me for the vast oversimplification - as:

• I believe what I've seen
• I've seen it all before
• It's always worked out for the best.

I was particularly interested in the list of cognitive distortions listed above, as - having my own cognitive biases - it immediately occurred to me that we could apply the Tunnel Vision effect to crime victims in-and-out-of the criminal justice system.

Let's call it Tunnel Vision Deja Vu.

Within some elements of society - and certainly within the judicial and reparation systems - there are a series of biases or beliefs about crime victims. Crime victims, viewed through this lens, are all assigned the same general thoughts, motivations and desires, despite their drastically different experiences, personalities, ethnic or cultural backgrounds, and religious or ethical persuasions.

Some of the more common stereotypes, which I'm sure you've read or seen before: Victims are weak, are damaged goods, are somehow at fault for - or caused - their own victimization, are always exaggerating, are attention seekers, are solely interested in vengeance, will always seek maximum penalties, are only interested in money, and so on.

Precisely how these beliefs developed is the topic for a much larger article. I can take a few educated guesses, however.

In some cases it's simply a matter of psychological self defense... for example, the belief that victims caused their own victimization springs from a refusal to believe that: "something bad could happen to me... I would never do that, therefore I am safe, and they were stupid".

In other cases, it could be the result of a very negative experience by judicial staff with a few victims. It's only human nature to remember the worst, not the best, about people, just as a defense: remember "Once burned, twice shy"? Of course, these staff are going to be the ones training new staff members, and sharing their experiences with peers. It doesn't take long for the worst possible examples to be passed around between offices, courts or regions. Over the years the few negative examples from different offices build up and become the base norm. This field is also particular susceptible to the "We know what's best for you" and "It's always worked out for the best" viewpoints. It makes life so much easier than tailor-making solutions.

Finally, some of these viewpoints can be based in the systemic policy of an agency, as is shown in great detail in Adding Insult to Injury, a report by the Ombudsman of Ontario on the Provincial Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as well as in a UK report on their national Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Compensating Victims of Violent Crime. Both these reports found policies having staff to stonewall victim applications, to not give full information, and to treat all applications as suspicious (e.g they only want money), all in an effort to pay out as little compensation as possible. Unfortunately, what starts out as a policy, ends up as a bias.

Thus, while Tunnel Vision can drive innocent people into prison, for victims Tunnel Vision Deja Vu creates entire mindsets which then try to force victims of crime into pre-set molds, prepared expectations, assembly-line solutions, and pre-determined successful outcomes.

Time society took another look, don't you think?

Natalee Holloway: Re-injury Cycle

By Sheryl McCollum

How much more does Beth and Dave have to endure from this guy?  Joran Van der Sloot has confessed yet again.  He now claims to have “dumped her in a swamp”.  This is their baby he is talking about.  The media of course seizes on this story with frenzy.  This information surfaced in 2009 but we are just hearing about it as though it is breaking developments. Its old news and Aruba will do nothing with it – standard procedure from them.

What does this latest “confession” mean?  Is this last “confession” enough to convict him?  Could it be that he is trying to get on TV?  Is he trying to send searchers away from where the body is?  Is he just hurting the people who loved Natalee?  Is he just a pathological liar?  Does he know where Natalee’s body was disposed of but gets off during every search?   

Review

·       May 30, 2005 Natalee missed flight home

·       Early morning hours was seen leaving a bar with Van der Sloot

·       Last Known Person Seen with Victim

·       At first Van der Sloot claims was he did not know Natalee

·       Then claimed she was drunk and preformed oral sex on him

·       Then he stated he dropped her off at the Holiday Inn

·       Days later he fingered two black hotel security guards

·       June 5^th the security guards sre arrested

·       June 9^th 10 days after Natalee disappearance Van der Sloot is arrested

·       On June 10, 2005, Joran claimed that the Kalpoes dropped him off at his house and drove off with Natalee.

·       On June 11, the Kalpoes said they actually left Joran and Natalee at the beach

·       On June 17, police arrested Steven Croes, a local disc jockey who played music at bars and on a party boat called the Tattoo. Croes was a friend of Joran and Deepak and backed up their story that they had dropped Natalee off at the Holiday Inn after riding around the island in Deepak's car.

·       Ten days later a judge decided that although Croes had lied to police, he wasn't directly tied to Natalee's disappearance.

·       June 18 and 19, Aruban police spent a total of seven hours questioning Joran's father, a lawyer who was training to become a judge. Four days later the police arrested him.

·       On June 26, without explanation, a fellow judge ordered Paulus van der Sloot released from custody

·       Joran said he lied about taking Natalee back to her hotel because he was scared. "I didn't want anyone to know," he told ABC News. "I didn't want anyone to know I left her at the beach. I lied because, yeah, I was scared. I had a girlfriend at the time. I didn't want my dad to think bad of me. I didn't want my friends to think bad of me."

·       In another version of the story, this one reported by Jossy Mansur, editor of the Aruban newspaper Diario, Joran told police investigators that he suspected Deepak may have returned to the beach after dropping him off at home.

·       According to the police report the suspect J.A.P. van der Sloot, the suspect D. Kalpoe had returned to the girl after having left her sleeping on the beach. To our question to the suspect J.A.P. van der Sloot what he thought had happened between the girl Natalee Holloway and the suspect D. Kalpoe, he declared that he thought that the suspect D. Kalpoe raped and killed the girl. To solve the problem, Joran again adjusted his story. He said he walked home from the beach, a 30 to 40 minute walk.

·       Later, Joran changed his story again. He called Deepak for a ride, he said, but Satish picked him up instead, in Deepak's car.

·       Then on August 26, Aruban cops arrested the Kalpoes again, citing "new facts and circumstances" that implicated the brothers and others in "premeditated murder and rape." Six days later, on September 1, a judge ordered the police to release Joran. The next day, the judge ordered the release of the Kalpoe brothers.

·       On April 27, a team of 20 Dutch forensic investigators began two days of searching and digging at the van der Sloot estate on Aruba.

·       Jordan writes a book about the case 2007

·       February 3, 2008 Van der Sloot “Confessed” in vehicle on an undercover camera that Natalee began convulsing and died and a friend disposed of the body

·       An Aruban Judge denied the arrest warrant based on the tapes

·       November 2008 Van der Sloot gave an interview where he stated he sold Natalee into “white slavery” and his father paid off police officers

·       February 2010 it was reported that Van der Sloot “Confessed” to a friend in 2009 that he “dumped her in the marsh”

·       Aruban authorities dismiss this latest information as “unbelievable”

Aruban authorities have dismissed every single bit of evidence and did not look for others. 

Joran’s home was not searched until June 15, 2005.  What could be covered up, destroyed or altered in just over 15 days? 

This case is a textbook study for re-victimization.  The arrogance of the number one suspect only compounds the damage.  Every “confession” and lie was just retracted as though it was no big deal.  He has stated that he would “hate Natalee” if he met her for putting him through this.  The title of his book refers to what happened to him.  He stated he was “shaking the bitch” on the beach saying “what’s wrong with you man”.  Now that daddy is gone and can’t pay off police and can’t stop Joran from running his mouth will we get another confession soon?