Not again

I was wondering why I was getting all these renewed hits for key words "Melinda" and "Duckett".

I get it now: Mom's Adult Videos, Nude Photos Investigated In Missing Boy Case.

And on came the conspiracy theories, like a flood. I don't want to do this again, folks. Let's all calm down until we see something of substance.

As for the good news: Trenton might be alive? Great! Let's concentrate on finding him instead.

*UPDATE*

You all wonder why I've taken such a personal tone with this story? It's because comments like these are a common find in online forums and message boards:

"If [Trenton] is alive, I have a horrible feeling he’s being used for child porn."

...and we proceed to kick around Melinda's corpse for another couple weeks or so. Nancy Grace, lead the way!

Taking Action for Victims' Rights

(Technorati Tags: Melinda Duckett, Marc Klaas, Nancy Grace)

The tragedy of the Ducketts encompasses the full account of that family’s tribulations: the pains of divorce, the grief for a lost son, the shock of a mother’s suicide. And we’ve yet to reach the denouement: where, now, is Trenton?

“The Media is Always a Friend”

In the month that these previous acts have played out, the media establishment has been far from kind in its analysis, particularly from the likes of proclaimed victims’ rights advocates Nancy Grace and Marc Klaas, who both have been closely following this story. Unlike Grace, Klaas has actively committed himself to making a difference in protecting victims—our children. His daughter, Polly Klaas, was kidnapped and murdered in 1993; he now works to "give meaning to Polly's death,” and to “create a legacy in her name that will be protective of children for generations to come by pursuing the singular mission of stopping crimes against children,” as quoted from BeyondMissing.com, a nonprofit Klaas began to help parents find their missing children.

But viscerally similar to his CNN counterpart, Marc Klaas recently had choice words to say and hateful assumptions to strew concerning Melinda Duckett and the Media:

“In these kinds of cases the media is never the problem. The media is always a friend…. It’s about working with the media and it’s about getting over that hump that people are looking at you. And quite frankly, Melinda is not doing that very well at all.”
(Nancy Grace 9/8/06)

“I’m beginning to think that this was an extremely evil woman who was diabolical, vindictive. She seemed to cause great damage to anyone who came anywhere near her. She told her parents that they didn’t understand her. She let her grandparents find her bloody corpse. She did those things to her husband. And this little boy is absolutely missing.…
She may very well have sold that little boy for $900 that she left to her grandparents. She might have traded him.”
(Nancy Grace 9/26/06)

“Well, and you have a crazy woman, too, an evil, crazy woman.”
(Nancy Grace 9/28/06)

Evil, crazy, diabolical, vindictive, able to cause great damage, and she’s apparently also a saleswoman.

Marc Klaas: Intent and Impact

While we are proud of Klaas for his commitment to protecting our children, we do need to fault him for his indecency in defending the media’s role in the onslaught of the Ducketts and in further terrorizing Melinda. We need to fault Klaas because we want to see this media parade stopped; we want him to change his ways, and to continue focusing on helping the victims instead of victimizing the helpless.

But it follows that we now need to be on the defensive: for someone to hold such moral convictions, but in the same breath to also display such truly despicable and dehumanizing contentions, is a sign for concern. What exactly is going on in Marc Klaas’s head?

We need to be concerned that his convictions to help the victims—our children—are translating into effective efforts to stop criminals. And we should start concerning ourselves with his programs, beginning with BeyondMisssing.com.

BeyondMissing

Marc Klaas founded BeyondMissing.com, a nonprofit public benefit corporation based in California, in 2001, with the intention to “provide law enforcement agencies with a secure, Internet based system to create and distribute missing child flyers to law enforcement, the media, and public and private recipients.” This technology provides victim and abduction information immediately to law enforcement departments in the proximity of a child’s disappearance, as well as to businesses along routes of possible escape. Klaas’s nonprofit has secured over $1.5 million in grant money from the government just in the period of 2002-2004 to do this, but where exactly is the money ending up? 50% of it went to compensation and employee benefits. The other half is a little harder to pinpoint (PDF: 1,2,3).

BeyondMissing itself states that its technology has “assisted law enforcement in the search for a total of 221 missing children,” and “as of April 2006, 186 children have been found, and 35 children remain missing.” But the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) cites studies showing that, in a 1-year period of time, 797,500 children are reported missing. That’s 2,100 children each day on average.

In a total of 5 years, Klaas’s nonprofit has assisted 1/10th of the average number of missing children reported in one day.

Moreover, BeyondMissing has only 95 children listed as missing in the United States today.

Compare this with other endeavors implemented without a dime in donations or funding: the National Voice For Children (NVFC), for instance, gives another forum for families to post information about their missing children. The NVFC offers a system able to be updated by users via comments where families can communicate news directly and efficiently to the public domain regarding their case. The simplicity and ease through which families find use in the NVFC shows in the numbers: it has assisted 2153 children in coming home safely since inception in 2005. NVFC had 93 missing children listed in only the first 2 weeks of operation, and with time and effort it has only expanded the options available to help victims.

It was even through the NVFC that Melinda Duckett first made attempts to deposit case information for Trenton on the internet, on September 4th, 2006.

NVFC exemplifies the power of grassroots activism, and makes one wonder what exactly is being done for the children with the funding from Klaas’s nonprofit. Indeed, while the dissemination of information to law enforcement agencies and local businesses is a great idea, it is seeing a paucity of use and, sadly, is wasted potential.

KlaasKids Foundation

Marc Klaas’s other endeavor, the KlaasKids Foundation, was established in 1994 to also “give meaning to the death of twelve-year-old kidnap and murder victim Polly Hannah Klaas, and to create a legacy in her name that would be protective of children for generations to come.” Initiated with a meager $2000, its pockets are now lined almost entirely with donations made from the general public: $778,682 during 2000-2003 alone (PDF: 1).

But looking at the KlaasKids website does not necessarily fill one with assurance that much is being done with that money. Portions of the website have not been updated for years, such as the “New” newsletter of Summer 2004, or info sheets copyrighted in 1998. Basically, the website offers detailed information about child safety that need not ever be updated, as it currently stands. One of the only interactive activities offered on the website is the “Child Identification Packet (PDF),” which acts as a bare outline for fingerprinting one’s own children and encourages parents to keep samples of their children’s cheek tissue, blood, and baby teeth. Somehow, asking parents to keep blood and teeth in the freezer does not appear to be the best use of ~$200,000 in donations per year.

KlaasKids is often not even in charge of any event planning; instead, the foundation will ask for sponsors (community-minded businesses) and will then assist the sponsors in brainstorming for their local events, and will offer ideas on how to advertise and how to find volunteers. The community is the one putting in the effort, the planning, the location, the volunteers, the advertisements, and when the hard work is done Klaas comes in with his “Sentry Kids SK3000” machine that fingerprints and takes pictures of the children. For the latest fingerprinting-bonanza, “Print-A-Thon”, businesses are encouraged to “earn the respect of customers, community leaders, peers and employees for less than the price of a direct mailing.” Why shouldn’t the foundation defray the costs?

Promoting Action through Communication

Klaas’s two programs, BeyondMissing.com and the KlaasKids Foundation, suffer from inaction. They’ve both successfully accrued a large pool of funding, yet both seem unsure of what exactly to do with it. Active communication with law enforcement and the greater community would greatly assist their goals.

One need only look toward another Nancy Grace episode to prove this point:

On December 28th, 2005, Nancy Grace pleaded with the nation to help find or to offer information regarding a missing 13-year-old from California, Diana Gama, and informed viewers to contact the local police department or BeyondMissing.com with any information they may have had. This puzzled Steven Eckmann, founder of NVFC, who had recently contacted the PD and received the information that Gama was recovered on November 26th of that same year, after being missing for a total of three days. It seems Grace was slightly misinformed, and in turn misinformed the entire nation.

The worst part? BeyondMissing.com, where we assume Grace received her information, listed Diana Gama as missing for 9 whole months before the case was correctly updated. Of the few children that are listed on BeyondMissing, it’s quite possible that there are other situations similar to Diana Gama’s.

A program which exclusively provides “high speed communication tools” does not sit on its hands for 9 months. Open lines of communication between Klaas’s project and law enforcement would have easily prevented this situation, and for the tax dollars that are supporting it, we should expect nothing less.

But Klaas needs to also reach out more to the community for his ideas to be implemented. Why are there only 95 children listed as missing? Why haven’t more families of the 2100 children reported missing each day flocked to BeyondMissing? Why isn’t KlaasKids doing more than fingerprinting our youth, doing more to reach out to our communities nationwide, and doing more to get the information out and into our reach? Instead of actively pursuing our interests and our concerns, both programs idly wait for us to find them, and it is not effective.

What's Next for Marc Klaas?

Marc Klaas has great intentions; we definitely cannot fault him for wanting to do good in our communities. But the impact he has leaves a lot to be desired. We ask these things of Marc Klaas:

* Use the money in both of your projects’ coffers and some ingenuity to foster active communication with law enforcement agencies, and to keep your database of missing children up to date.

* Reach out more to our communities. Update your websites with current newsletters and actively pursue our interest.

* Utilize your influence and spotlight in the media to stop value-based assessments that destroy families, and stand up to Nancy Grace when she wants to make and encourage them.

* Help the Ducketts find Trenton. Set up a center to aid in the search. It’s the least you can do for Trenton after the pain you and others caused his family.

Marc Klaas, the Ducketts deserve better, the victims deserve better, and our children deserve better. We want better. And we are waiting.

O'Reilly on Melinda: "Suuure Looks Unstable"

(Technorati Tags: Melinda Duckett, Bill O'Reilly)

If you haven't seen it I'd suggest taking a look at this clip of Melinda's Attorney Kim Schulte as she interacts with another node of the media's Project Polarization, Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

He was definitely in top shape last night. O’Reilly walked all over Schulte, and successfully spun the interview where Melinda was indeed the killer, and we only now need to look for the evidence to incriminate her. You can't not love this man.

It’s fairly easy to see how O'Reilly framed this interview, beginning with his subtle language choices. He began by saying that Melinda “could well have killed her little son,” even though she also "could well have" done a lot of things, like, maybe, not kill her little son. O'Reilly also added that it just "makes more sense" that they "had someone on her, shadowing her" and waiting for her to go back to the "crime scene". While the police did state they were able to arrest Melinda days after the disappearance of her son, but chose not to and opted to keep surveillance on her instead, let's not spin the reasons for the possible arrest:

The reason for the possible arrest does not include hard evidence of her involvement in Trenton's disappearance, but instead relies on an affidavit (PDF) stating that Melinda lied about a threatening email she supposedly received from her estranged husband earlier in the summer. Of course, that email may also just have been a product of a messy divorce and have absolutely nothing to do with Trenton, but O'Reilly implies that the case could have been a done deal if the police chose to act and arrest her. They would just have to find the "crime scene" later. Guilty as almost charged, right?

Bill also makes mention that "we all agree" how "unstable" Melinda was. Another generalization to add to the (growing) list in this story, and Schulte let this one slide without much opposition, too. Her reply was an important start, when she stated that anyone would be in the same frantic condition if they were making the same 911 calls and interviews. She did not, however, correct O'Reilly on the overarching "we all agree" comment, nor did she ask what he was implying with the word "unstable".

There’s a subtle difference between being “unstable” given the context of the interview (Melinda presented as the probable killer, "unstable" in her actions) and being an “upset” or “grieving” mother. Schulte didn’t vocalize this. When she stated that any mother would act the same way in a similar situation, he handwaved her off and asked why she didn’t make Melinda take a polygraph.

Also important to briefly mention is the juxtaposition of segments of the 911 tape that reference instances where Melinda was unable to answer questions given to her, and O'Reilly's introduction about the Grace interview where Melinda similarly could not answer. Viewers are reminded through this juxtaposition that "unstable" Melinda could not answer Nancy Grace or the 911 operator, weakening her credibility and her defense.

Schulte had a lot of good answers to give, but with the way she quickly presented them, swallowed whole by O'Reilly's interjectory big mouth, they had little impact. These ought to be noted here: that Melinda was not initially allowed access to her lawyer, and that Melinda was counseled to not take the polygraph test. Media accounts have for the most part depicted Melinda as the one evading police, when in fact she was cooperating and following the advice given by her attorney (to not take the lie detector test) and police (to discuss events directly with the FBI and not with the local department).

In general she could have been a lot more vocal, as she often flailed and allowed O'Reilly to interject and disregard her answers, while making up answers of his own and in the eyes of the collective public whom feeds off this polarization.

Decency Lost: Attacks on Melinda Continue

(Technorati Tags: Melinda Duckett)

There is no end in sight to this indecency.

Police acknowledged on Thursday that Melinda Duckett is the prime suspect in the disappearance of her son. Note, however, that they have NOT stated Melinda is to blame for her missing son, but that's a common misconception you'd get if you were continuing to read up on the story and continuing to discuss this with others.

What began with Nancy Grace's prosecution phone interview of Melinda Duckett has led to an array of baseless accounts of Melinda's guilty involvement.

A lot of folks have been spreading beliefs that a "real mother" would have helped the authorities more, or that losing one's child makes you do X Y and Z, or that Melinda could have hung up on Nancy Grace whenever she wanted to. These folks are acting on gut instincts and perpetuating this media parade that started off with an immoral emphasis on ratings, but continues even today because folks want to make generalizations and fabricate evidence that support their assertions.

This act of using generalizations to support our assertions runs rampant in our society. You'll see it often if you look for it: an inherent fear of Black people at night because "lots" of black people commit crimes, avoiding Middle Easterners because "lots" of Middle Easterners are terrorists, asking gay people about fashion tips because "lots" of gay people are trendy. These are ridiculous notions, both untrue and dehumanizing, but folks continue to use them to support their actions, rather than logically looking at the factual evidence.

Many of the attacks on Melinda have used the same thought process, without any understanding of the situation she was in.

For instance, it may be very easy for some of you to tell Melinda what she “should have done”. After all, "lots" of mothers would have been able to do this or do that. Maybe you yourself are a mother, and know "exactly" what you would do in her position, and of course "lots" of other mothers would do the same. But remember that these are value-based assessments that emanate from your own personal experiences. Remember that you weren’t the one raising a child on your own while working 2 jobs and attending school, you weren’t the one who went through the trauma of losing a son, you weren’t the one being impugned by crass viewers of society with more interest in spouting gossip than thinking logically, and you most certainly weren’t the one being interrogated by a news show host who has no shame. You are not Melinda.

You might assume that there is some “correct” response to the situation she was in, that other “real moms” would have done this and this and this much differently. Again, these are value judgments that you’ve made, that are true for YOU and for those you may associate with, but may not be true for Melinda in the situation that she was in. You, like many others that have contributed to the gossip surrounding this story, are implicating others without actual evidence or actual facts. It’s these gut feeling accusations that Melinda also had to deal with, besides the situation with her son and family that she was already dealing with. You are not Melinda.

On that note, while you may have dealt with some similar issues that Melinda did, have you dealt with all of them at the same time? Have you been implicated in the disappearance of your son from a baseless news show host and value judgments that millions of others may have made about you? Has your story been a topic of national interest, the privacy of your family been torn asunder with intricate details and commentary made public? No, you haven’t, so remind yourself that you really can’t understand what was going on in Melinda’s mind at the time, nor can you understand the stress weighing down on her and how that changed her, and cease with these endless conjectures and attacks on her credibility. You are not Melinda.

Few (if any, though I'd love to actually talk with you if you have) of you know personally how Melinda was faring at the time; the only interaction you’ve had with Melinda is through the media’s perception of her. She may well have been a nervous wreck. Stop assuming she wasn’t. You are not Melinda.

Some of you have even gone so far low as to assert Melinda was a bad mother, because there are pictures of her and friends drinking together, and MySpace comments that say she goes out to parties and, *gasp*, dates other men! After all, partying, drinking, and banging guys 24/7 is the pastime of "lots" of other 21-year-old ladies, especially ones who occasionally post pictures of drinking with friends. Did she really do this “every day”? And were you there with her when she was drinking with people “every day”? And do you know for a fact that the actions she was taking outside of her role as a mother and provider were hindering her ability to be a mother? You’re making an assumption on her character from a few pictures and MySpace comments that you’ve seen. Just stop. You are not Melinda.

With regards to the media involvement, you might assume that Melinda "knew" what she was getting herself into with taking on the Nancy Grace interview, or that "lots" of mothers would be able to hang up the phone and end the interview. But how well aware are you of her emotions and her psyche? Did Melinda really want the media to rip open hers and her family’s lives, to scrutinize everything and anything, to add commentary to every last detail, and to encourage others to make the same value judgments on her innocence and guilt? Melinda was on national TV to help forward the efforts to find her son, NOT to invite a crusading news show host to impugn her in his disappearance. But by the time she was doing the interview, would hanging up really stay the incrimination that Nancy Grace pushed onto her?

Nancy Grace deserves to be reprimanded here for her lack of journalistic integrity. Any other responsible individual, whose respect for the human condition weighed in larger than greed for ratings, would have performed the interview differently. To say that Nancy Grace’s ruthless questioning, implications of Melinda’s guilt, and encouragement of others to make these value judgments, combined with the already existing factors in Melinda’s life, led to her suicide, is a logical assertion to make when all the facts are addressed. And it's very painful to hear.

The fact that Nancy sought to torment this girl with her line of critical questioning, particularly given the situation Melinda was in, is absolutely repulsive.

As a final thought, the story of the Ducketts is not about YOU; it’s about Melinda and Trenton and their family. You are not Melinda Duckett.

Let the factual evidence the authorities find make or break the case against Melinda, and NOT your own value judgments and personal gut reactions. The perpetuation of your assertions is among the ranks of Nancy Grace in revulsion.

Show a little decency for this family.

More on Melinda: Blogs and Perceptions

(Technorati Tags: Melinda Duckett)

I must say, I am having a hard time gauging my emotions on this issue. I am very taken with this story as of late, as I actively scour the internet on my free time for more information. Bear with me as I sort out my feelings and figure out why I am so personally hurt by this situation.

To start, I found a YouTube clip (courtesy of Tampa Pirate) of an MSNBC Panel Discussion that puts the issue into perspective. If you watch the clip, you can take a wild guess how I feel about Steve Adubato's perspective (my flippin' hero). In it, Steve brings up a salient point, when asked if Nancy Grace "should have run the interview [with Melinda] after Grace knew this young mother had killed herself":

"You mean, run it because it's the right thing to do for the public to see, or run it because, 'Boy, isn't this great for ratings?' ...Nancy Grace apparently has no line that she will not go over to get ratings. It's disgraceful."

The Media's involvement in this situation is truly abhorrent, with it continually escalating this horror into a ratings battle as more and more personal information is broadcasted on national TV, with subsequent analysis and commentary, for the purpose of polarizing the public and having viewers fabricate their own suppositions and stories for evidence of why Melinda is guilty or innocent. My criticism, then, should also extend to any form of media that has encouraged viewers to 'take a stand on the issue,' whatever that means. I'm talking about blogs.

One of the main sources of news and commentary for many, I've found several blogs covering this story that have pushed for readers to form opinions about the state Melinda was in, about what Melinda was really saying with her MySpace posts (and this might be a generation-gap-thing, but for chrissakes, it's MYSPACE, not a formal journal, so let's stop trying to find specific meaning in her posts), and to forge assertions of Melinda's guilty intentions. I recently had a discussion-- albeit strained at times on my end, marked by the state I am in-- on a blog about this issue, and so I will reproduce my comments here. To put it into perspective, what really got me was the poll that asked if readers thought Melinda Duckett was "absolutely guilty" or "definitely not guilty", and then the subsequent post that offered some of the author's speculation on the events that occurred:

Me: How about we all stop assuming what happened to Trenton and let the authorities carry out their investigation? The way you folks treat your feelings and assumptions as factual evidence is disgusting.

You are speculating on her innocence or guilt based on value judgments, and you are asking others to do the same thing, an example being with your inane poll entitled “Is Melinda Duckett Guilty in her Son’s Disappearance?”

These tactics infringe on the privacy of the family, impugn individuals with no evidence other than your thoughts and feelings, and facilitate the notion that we as outsiders should also be actively making value judgments on the issue, and it is truly despicable.

There is a difference between informing and actively polarizing your readership.

I admit, slightly vitriolic.

The responses I got included that many people want to share their opinions about this story, and so it was just a forum to continue doing so. Also, that there were no privacy issues because all of this information is already being made available online. I responded:

Me: I appreciate your responses, thanks to both of you.

The fact that people want to share their opinions and make these value judgments on innocence or guilt does not imply you are doing the right thing by egging them on, such as by polling your readership, asking if people think Melinda is “absolutely guilty” or “definitely not” guilty. How can anyone come to that conclusion with the actual evidence we have?

As I’ve written before, the Media is ripping open the lives of this family for everyone to see, with detailed commentary on divorce papers, hobbies, mental illnesses, including accusations and assumptions of Melinda’s guilt, which should be roles relegated to unbiased law enforcement agencies, not polarizing talk shows. You are facilitating these intentions, by giving links to where people can find more (often personal) information and by creating an online environment that asks folks to gossip and make their assumptions heard in a public setting. It matters not that this information was already on the internet to begin with; you are further disseminating this material with the underlying intention of having folks speculate on it and about what happened. I dislike the Media for doing it, and I certainly feel the same way about blogs that do it as well.

If the focus should be only on Trenton right now, make it so. Change your poll, control the urge to surmise what happened, and encourage readers to do the same. Do your part in protecting this family’s privacy and Melinda’s character and integrity. Noting every painful thing that has happened to them, it’s the very least we can do.

The poll was taken down. A step in the right direction.

And as I've said before, the fact that I'm again bringing this story up and offering sources for more information in effect forwards some of the same goals that I despise. However, the key difference is intention.

I am promoting this information to prove the point that there is absolutely no reason anyone should have Melinda's guilt or innocence made up in anyone's mind. No reason at all. Let's fight the push by media pundits to polarize this story, and recognize that the difficulties in Melinda's life were tremendous, as are the tensions and grief of the ones who recently said goodbye to a mother and are still searching for a son.

It's the least we can do for this broken family.

Melinda Duckett and the Media

(Technorati Tags: Melinda Duckett)

I'm not really sure how I haven't even heard of this story until now. There is a dearth of actual information on any of the news sites I commonly use, but googling affords a good timeline of news events relating to the story. It's tragic--and not just in the way that every newscaster has feinted the phrase to gain the collective emotive response from viewers that helps boost ratings.

The media is ripping open the family's lives for everyone to see, with detailed commentary on divorce papers, hobbies, mental illnesses, including accusations and assumptions of Melinda's guilt, which should be roles relegated to unbiased law enforcement agencies, not polarizing talk shows. Media even went so far as to begin their own arm of the prosecution, and some assert this, combined with other factors, may have sparked the conditions necessary for Melinda's suicidal intent and delivery.

On some of my own investigatory work (or google), I discovered Melinda's MySpace page, although it is (and has always been) set to private and so one cannot see more details. But looking at the empty profile page alone breaks my heart.

What do I see?

I see an attractive 21-year-old woman, smiling, standing in a blurry picture. I see her heartache, her troubles with the father to her baby, her difficulty in managing her life as a young mother, her fear of loss, her stress, written in unseen text. Her tribulations are tremendous--I will never understand how difficult young, single mothers must have it, nor will a lot of the folks reading this.

I also see a lot of love and hope, both for her own life and that of her child. And I see an empty future.

It's painful to see, and I suffer vicariously just knowing that life can offer these difficulties, but then fails to offer necessary support. The simple fact that I, too, am making light of this story on my blog, and am offering links on where others can find out more information, means that I'm furthering some of the goals of the media that I find hideous. But my intentions are not the same: I don't want you to make a value judgment of Melinda's innocence or guilt. I want you to acknowledge the pain in her life, and the fate that befell her.

I sent a message to Melinda just now, and felt sharing it would tie up my thoughts before I head to bed:

I'm sorry. I'm sorry for your child. I'm sorry for your fate. I'm sorry I was able to even find this page, courtesy of all of the media attention your story has received.

I used to have a friend who also struggled to make ends meet as a young, single mother. She is your age, and deals with stresses I cannot begin to fathom. I am thankful that she is managing so well in raising her son, despite a lot of obstacles thrown her way. I only wish you, a stranger to me, would have an opportunity to see the same for your son.

Rest peacefully,
Chris