Re: HELP - POLICE?! how to contact?!
Corrine wrote: "Sherry/Weed/Rhonda - My take on the O'Reilly interview, was that he wasn't blaming these kids at all. I think they were just covering their own butts (probably coached by a lawyer) by saying that only 18 year olds were drinking. And they didn't want to smear their friend by saying she was drunk. Very understandable."
Corrine, my daughter is the girl who appeared on the O'Reilly show. I think that somehow in this post you meant to *defend* the teens and O'Reilly. But I'm afraid it came out very backhanded. Combined with Weed's post and some I've read on other boards, I can't help but publicly fume in response.
I realize that you and Weed and anyone else have the right to opinion, supposition, and speculation, but you'll understand my resentment of such statements when none of you knows anything of the facts. Corrine, you at least know I frequent this board. In fact, you know that I started the thread when I was desperately looking for information on the case. And you know my daughter was on the trip. I have posted 44 times with information, most of it relating what my daughter knew about the trip. This information has been consistent from the beginning, including the reasons my daughter said Natalee did not appear to be falling-down drunk. This was presented as an eyewitness statement, not as any sort of defense. We were as puzzled as anyone as to the circumstances as bits and pieces were coming out. This is reflected in that series of posts.
I have talked with you via private messages. I have appreciated your concern. Of course you didn't know that the girl on TV is my daughter. But you DID know my daughter was on the trip. If you had questions about the teens' statements on the on the show or were in any way skeptical, wouldn't it have been better to ask me, knowing that *I* know background circumstances and individuals at the very least? Or to post your concerns and ask for information -- from me or any others associated with the trip -- rather than writing negative suggestions?
The rest of this addresses your statements as well as Weed's post:
The comment about 18-year-olds drinking was in answer to Bill's question about Carlos n' Charlies' carding policy. She said she didn't believe 17-year-olds could get in. (The fact that Joran was underage is something that bears investigation, but the American teens had no way of knowing that.) She had no reason to "protect" anyone. I think it's amazing that she didn't jump on the "Blame Carlos n Charlies'" bandwagon that everyone else in the media has done.
She and Edward are both 18. Neither denied drinking; it was legal for them. Why should they have to "cover their own butts?"
Neither of them was coached by a lawyer or anyone else, for Pete's sake. They didn't HAVE to go on the show to face public confrontation. Why would a lawyer be involved AT ALL? Not even the adult volunteers are facing legal action. None of the parents *involved* blame the volunteers, & the Holloways have publicly stated the same. We also signed waivers absolving them. There is no legal or moral basis for a lawsuit. And neither teen is connected to the volunteers in any way, other than believing they are being treated unfairly.
The students had no idea what questions were going to be asked. They had no agenda other than wanting to address misinformation. In return for this, these 18-year-olds have been smeared and slurred by older posters. I understand that anything that is stated in the media could and should be available for debate, but how about asking for facts before slamming innocent, inexperienced teens?
How would you feel if *your* young daughter put herself on the line to defend others? I think they were brave to do so. Even though they were scared to death to be on TV -- much more so to face one of the harshest commentators ever -- they wanted to set straight allegations Bill had made the week before, allegations based on false reports and assumptions. After they offered information to Bill's producers, Bill softened and invited them on to address the issues in person.
Does that mean they were on the offensive, Weed? No. Defensive, maybe. Definitely frightened. Is that something deserving of criticism? I still don't know what Weed meant by the teens' being "cagey." I apologize for not identifying myself when responding but I wanted an answer without your being swayed by my being the girl's mother. You never explained what "cagey" is supposed to imply. And I still feel that placing the comments about the tv show in context of your other suggestions ("musical bedrooms" etc.) is reprehensible.
I am just absolutely shocked at some of the attitudes I have discovered. It's incredible that O'Reilly -- a commentator known for his harsh confrontations -- treated the teens with far greater respect and civility that some of the people here and on other boards.
I'm sorry to come down so hard, but I think *that's* understandable, too.
Arbeej
O
Reilly can be harsh but he really does treat his guests pretty well, maybe that's why I still watch his tv show.
I don't know about other parents, but even if drinking were legal at 18 in another country I would not want my child drinking. Maybe in Italy, some wine, with dinner and our family, that would be it.
However, I also know that when kids go off to college, still only age 17/18/19/20, they drink. It is hard to stop them. But I would never, ever make a statement like this mother did, appearing to approve of her 18 year olds drinking there...while, of course, they cannot do the same in their own country. Unless, this mother allowed her kids to drink at home, too so drinking in another country was not an issue to her, no matter what their age is.