This is the third installment in a series on the Nancy Hollebeke case. What follows is what happened to Nancy after she was released from the hospital where she had her medical examination. It is about what EPPD Detective Brigitte Ballou, and District Attorney Jaime Esparza's employees Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton did to Nancy Hollebeke when they "interviewed" her.
-Nancy was NOT taken to a police station to give a statement as is the norm for adult rape victims.
-Instead DA employees, Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton directed Nancy to the Children's Advocacy Center where she arrived around noon. They took Nancy there directly from the hospital and arrived still wearing a sheet around her.
-Assistant District Attorney Penny Hamilton who was and is head of the rape and child abuse unit along with Assistant District Attorney Karen Larose who is one of Esparza's top managment and chief of the trial teams met Nancy there.
-They placed Nancy in an interview room that consisted of a small couch and chair with cartoon characters painted on the wall (keep in mind that this facility is for children and now also for adults who accuse cops of crimes).
-Nancy sat on the couch which was directly in view of a hidden one way window.
-Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton hid from Nancy behind the one way window. (Interviews of adult victims of rape are NOT conducted in this fashion.)
-The interview was recorded. The three women involved in Nancy's interview did not inform her that two of them (Larose and Hamilton) would be observing from behind a one way mirror or that they were taping and recording her. Nancy sat on the couch in a sheet.
-In the beginning of the interview, EPPD Detective Ballou asked Nancy standard non-cross examination style questions about the facts. Nancy answered.
-Nancy explained the series of events outlined in the last blog.
-Nancy spoke clearly, logically, and consistently. Her demeanor was appropriate.
-This portion of the interview went on for approximately an hour and a half.
-Detective Ballou then took a break and left the room.
-Nancy was left in the room covered by the sheet and was still being recorded.
SECOND PART OF INTERVIEW:
-Ballou returned to the interview room and scope of the video camera.
-This time she had a set of head phones on.
-She told Nancy that she had additional questions and that she needed to clear some things up.
-At this time one could hear a voice coming in over the head phones to Ballou. Ballou paused and listened to the instructions and then asked the questions.
-The questions then became cross-examine style questions, the kind a defense attorney would ask a victim on the stand in trial to trip her up.
-Nancy of course remained unaware of what was going on. She also had no idea of that Ballou and Larose and Hamilton were not following normal procedure.
-The voice (of Penny Hamilton) continued to come in over the headset and Ballou constantly paused her questioning to listen to the next set of instructions coming from Hamilton and Larose.
-Ballou's/Hamilton's questioning became more and more antagonistic, i.e. how did they pull your pants down? Which cop did it with which hand? Well what do you mean you didn't see, etc., etc.
-Nancy did her best to again explain what she saw and what the conditions were like out there in the desert and how it was dark and how she was struggling and how thecops had pinned her down.
-The voice over the head phone came in more strongly and Ballou on marching orders from the cowards behind the one way mirror became more and more aggressive with the detailed repititious questioning. (Keep in mind that Ballou questioned Nancy about allegations Nancy was making against two of Ballou's colleagues. The two trained attorneys watching saw no problem with this set up nor did they identify a conflict of interest with their directing the questioning/investigation while simultaneously being the prosecutors. In fact, they happily participateed. It is interesting the things you can do to a young girl when there is no defense attorney or judge around).
-When Nancy explained that there were some things she could recount and some she could not, as is normal in any rape case or any other case for that matter, Ballou threatened her and told her how it is a crime to lie, insinuating she was lying.
-The three of them, Ballou, Hamilton and Larose TRIED to tear Nancy down. (I have defended many rape cases and it is the dream of any defense attorney to have the prosecutor attempt to destroy the victim. How the three of them treated Nancy is unheard of).
-This conscience shocking and degrading spectacle went on for almost half an hour.
-Even Nancy, who was only 18 years old, realized that this could not be normal and ultimately stood up and called an end to the interview by saying "you're not on my side and I want my mother."
-Nancy left the room still wearing the sheet around her.
What should have happened instead of what did happen?
-Nancy should have been taken to an outside agency like the sheriff's office to give her statement. -The police should not be investigating their own for crimes.
-Detective Ballou should not have been anywhere around the case. An honest, intelligent and independent detective should have been assigned to the case.
-Nancy should have been taken to a station and seated before a computer to dictate her statement like every other adult rape victim.
-Nancy should have been wearing clothing and not covered by a sheet. This is degrading.
-Once the statement was typed, she should have been provided with a draft of it for her review and approval. If something were incorrect she could have made changes before signing it and adopting it as her own.
-Nancy should have been treated the way any other rape victim is treated.
-She should never had to have undergone a viscious cross-examination directed by two experienced assistant district attorneys secreting themselves behind a one way mirror, an action not seen before or since seen in this jurisdiction. What is also remarkable is that Esparza and his henchwomen were stupid enough to tape what they did to Nancy.
You should also know that anyone with an ounce of decency who has seen this video tape has left with his mouth hanging open watching what Hamilton, Larose and Ballou TRIED to do to Nancy.
Ralph Blumenthal, reporter for the New York Times, spent several days in El Paso in 2004 doing a story on this case and how it was handled by Esparza and the police. In my presence, Blumenthal watched the entire video. Would he have written the story if the video had been other than has been described? Interestingly, he asked Esparza if Nancy had been informed that she was being taped and recorded. Esparza told him that she had been. The recording shows no such advisory to Nancy and Blumenthal pointed that out in his article of June 4, 2004 which made the front page of the national section with huge photos of Nancy.
Why all the dissembling on Esparza's part? If what he did to Nancy is ok, why isn't he proud of his handiwork documented on that video? Why not just say, "Ms. Hollebeke wasn't advised that there were two of my employees with 35 years of experience between them hiding behind the one way mirror to cross-examine her and we didn't tell her about this or the fact she was being taped and recorded?" Why did they deviate from their normal practices? Why didn't the Sheriff handle the investigation? Why were all the assistant district attorneys and Esparza himself present on the scene on a Saturday morning?
Why wasn't the process properly followed?
Read more on the cover-up. Read about attorney Roger Montoya's affidavit which says that he spoke to Hamilton before the interrogation and she told him the case was going nowhere.
-Nancy was NOT taken to a police station to give a statement as is the norm for adult rape victims.
-Instead DA employees, Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton directed Nancy to the Children's Advocacy Center where she arrived around noon. They took Nancy there directly from the hospital and arrived still wearing a sheet around her.
-Assistant District Attorney Penny Hamilton who was and is head of the rape and child abuse unit along with Assistant District Attorney Karen Larose who is one of Esparza's top managment and chief of the trial teams met Nancy there.
-They placed Nancy in an interview room that consisted of a small couch and chair with cartoon characters painted on the wall (keep in mind that this facility is for children and now also for adults who accuse cops of crimes).
-Nancy sat on the couch which was directly in view of a hidden one way window.
-Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton hid from Nancy behind the one way window. (Interviews of adult victims of rape are NOT conducted in this fashion.)
-The interview was recorded. The three women involved in Nancy's interview did not inform her that two of them (Larose and Hamilton) would be observing from behind a one way mirror or that they were taping and recording her. Nancy sat on the couch in a sheet.
-In the beginning of the interview, EPPD Detective Ballou asked Nancy standard non-cross examination style questions about the facts. Nancy answered.
-Nancy explained the series of events outlined in the last blog.
-Nancy spoke clearly, logically, and consistently. Her demeanor was appropriate.
-This portion of the interview went on for approximately an hour and a half.
-Detective Ballou then took a break and left the room.
-Nancy was left in the room covered by the sheet and was still being recorded.
SECOND PART OF INTERVIEW:
-Ballou returned to the interview room and scope of the video camera.
-This time she had a set of head phones on.
-She told Nancy that she had additional questions and that she needed to clear some things up.
-At this time one could hear a voice coming in over the head phones to Ballou. Ballou paused and listened to the instructions and then asked the questions.
-The questions then became cross-examine style questions, the kind a defense attorney would ask a victim on the stand in trial to trip her up.
-Nancy of course remained unaware of what was going on. She also had no idea of that Ballou and Larose and Hamilton were not following normal procedure.
-The voice (of Penny Hamilton) continued to come in over the headset and Ballou constantly paused her questioning to listen to the next set of instructions coming from Hamilton and Larose.
-Ballou's/Hamilton's questioning became more and more antagonistic, i.e. how did they pull your pants down? Which cop did it with which hand? Well what do you mean you didn't see, etc., etc.
-Nancy did her best to again explain what she saw and what the conditions were like out there in the desert and how it was dark and how she was struggling and how thecops had pinned her down.
-The voice over the head phone came in more strongly and Ballou on marching orders from the cowards behind the one way mirror became more and more aggressive with the detailed repititious questioning. (Keep in mind that Ballou questioned Nancy about allegations Nancy was making against two of Ballou's colleagues. The two trained attorneys watching saw no problem with this set up nor did they identify a conflict of interest with their directing the questioning/investigation while simultaneously being the prosecutors. In fact, they happily participateed. It is interesting the things you can do to a young girl when there is no defense attorney or judge around).
-When Nancy explained that there were some things she could recount and some she could not, as is normal in any rape case or any other case for that matter, Ballou threatened her and told her how it is a crime to lie, insinuating she was lying.
-The three of them, Ballou, Hamilton and Larose TRIED to tear Nancy down. (I have defended many rape cases and it is the dream of any defense attorney to have the prosecutor attempt to destroy the victim. How the three of them treated Nancy is unheard of).
-This conscience shocking and degrading spectacle went on for almost half an hour.
-Even Nancy, who was only 18 years old, realized that this could not be normal and ultimately stood up and called an end to the interview by saying "you're not on my side and I want my mother."
-Nancy left the room still wearing the sheet around her.
What should have happened instead of what did happen?
-Nancy should have been taken to an outside agency like the sheriff's office to give her statement. -The police should not be investigating their own for crimes.
-Detective Ballou should not have been anywhere around the case. An honest, intelligent and independent detective should have been assigned to the case.
-Nancy should have been taken to a station and seated before a computer to dictate her statement like every other adult rape victim.
-Nancy should have been wearing clothing and not covered by a sheet. This is degrading.
-Once the statement was typed, she should have been provided with a draft of it for her review and approval. If something were incorrect she could have made changes before signing it and adopting it as her own.
-Nancy should have been treated the way any other rape victim is treated.
-She should never had to have undergone a viscious cross-examination directed by two experienced assistant district attorneys secreting themselves behind a one way mirror, an action not seen before or since seen in this jurisdiction. What is also remarkable is that Esparza and his henchwomen were stupid enough to tape what they did to Nancy.
You should also know that anyone with an ounce of decency who has seen this video tape has left with his mouth hanging open watching what Hamilton, Larose and Ballou TRIED to do to Nancy.
Ralph Blumenthal, reporter for the New York Times, spent several days in El Paso in 2004 doing a story on this case and how it was handled by Esparza and the police. In my presence, Blumenthal watched the entire video. Would he have written the story if the video had been other than has been described? Interestingly, he asked Esparza if Nancy had been informed that she was being taped and recorded. Esparza told him that she had been. The recording shows no such advisory to Nancy and Blumenthal pointed that out in his article of June 4, 2004 which made the front page of the national section with huge photos of Nancy.
Why all the dissembling on Esparza's part? If what he did to Nancy is ok, why isn't he proud of his handiwork documented on that video? Why not just say, "Ms. Hollebeke wasn't advised that there were two of my employees with 35 years of experience between them hiding behind the one way mirror to cross-examine her and we didn't tell her about this or the fact she was being taped and recorded?" Why did they deviate from their normal practices? Why didn't the Sheriff handle the investigation? Why were all the assistant district attorneys and Esparza himself present on the scene on a Saturday morning?
Why wasn't the process properly followed?
Read more on the cover-up. Read about attorney Roger Montoya's affidavit which says that he spoke to Hamilton before the interrogation and she told him the case was going nowhere.
on June 6, 2007, 8:21 am
"He also put the faces of people accused of driving while intoxicated and family violence on the department's Web site. "The purpose of that, to be quite frank, was to embarrass people," Wiles said. "I'm trying to hopefully put another type of
punishment in the arrest process to get people to think twice before they do it."
Wiles: Austin American-Statesman, June 5, 2007
Reply to this comment
on June 6, 2007, 9:04 am
I, too, was non-plussed to hear Wiles say that about putting another type of "punishment" in the arrest process. So now we are using the arrest process to punish people and not the court system? The things that come out of that man's mouth are truly amazing, like what you can hear him say on his videotape on this very web site about his men not liking magistrates because sometimes they find no probable cause!!!! So he wants to use the DA's office to find probable cause and not the court system? Do you see a pattern here? But apparently, from what I can see, no one in positions of power sees anything wrong with these statements of his. And, no doubt, he will be the next Police Chief in Austin. I mean just look at that fluff piece in the Austin American Statesman. What do you think that is all about?
Reply to this comment