Navy wife arrested over baby’s death in Hawai’i

http://www.kitv.com/news/6164302/detail.html

Woman Arrested In Ohio Over Baby’s Death In Hawaii

Authorities Say Mother Smothered Infant

POSTED: 5:22 pm HST January 16, 2006

HONOLULU — Authorities arrested a military wife in Ohio wanted for the murder of her baby in Hawaii.

It involves a cold case from a few years ago. Initially authorities didn’t have enough evidence to go forward with a murder charge, but new evidence has come to light and a federal grand jury indicted the woman last month, a source close to the investigation said.

Nina Manning, 25, was placed in custody at an Akron, Ohio, jail. Akron police arrested Manning Friday after U.S. marshals in Hawaii alerted Ohio authorities of the federal warrant for her arrest.

Manning is accused of smothering her infant child to death while living in Pearl Harbor Navy housing in 2002, then trying to cover it up.

From Hawaii, Manning and her family moved to Georgia. There, according to a source, her other children were taken into custody by state authorities.

Manning was living in Ohio with relatives when she was arrested Friday, sources said.

Domestic violence experts said many people find themselves overwhelmed when faced with parenthood, but they say there are community resources to help.

“It is hard to ask for help, but it could save a life. I think they can call anonymously to certain agencies,” said Nancy Kreidman, of the Domestic Violence Clearing House.

New tent at Arizona offensive to some

Sunday, January 30, 2005
art

FL MORRIS / FMORRIS@STARBULLETIN.COM
A private company, Pearl Harbor Visitor Center, has erected a large tent in the Arizona Memorial parking lot. Inside the tent, retail vendors sell to the public.

New tent at Arizona offensive to some

Some say that the for-profit venture is inappropriate at the Pearl Harbor site

CORRECTION

Tuesday, February 1, 2005

» The land where a tented retail operation has been erected near the Arizona Memorial Visitors Center is administered by the U.S. Navy. A story on Page A1 Sunday incorrectly said the land was part of a national park.


The Honolulu Star-Bulletin strives to make its news report fair and accurate. If you have a question or comment about news coverage, call Editor Frank Bridgewater at 529-4791 or email him at corrections@starbulletin.com.

A tented retail operation going up on Navy property next to the Arizona Memorial visitors center is drawing fire from military veterans, Pearl Harbor survivors and others, who say the for-profit venture is too crass to be in a national park honoring the 2,000-plus who died on Dec. 7, 1941.

Even the blind snack vendors at the visitors center and members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation are raising questions about the operation.

But supporters say the food concessions and tables under the 5,000-square-foot tent already have become a welcome addition to a hugely popular tourist area long criticized for its meager eating options.

“I think it’s a big improvement, and the overall plan is great,” said Oahu resident John Peters, a retired Navy submariner.

The white open-air tent, named Pearl Harbor Visitor Center, eventually will house about a dozen vendors selling products ranging from smoothies, hamburgers and pizzas to World War II-themed memorabilia, T-shirts and jewelry, according to Patrick Brent, chairman of Pearl Harbor Visitor’s Center Inc., the company overseeing the project.

Only a few vendors were in place last week, but Brent said he expects to have the full roster operating by mid-March.

By then, the tent is supposed to have the feel of Hawaii circa 1942. TV monitors altered to look like 1940s-era models will show newsreels from that period. A nearby bus-stop is being rebuilt to resemble one from 60-plus years ago. A 1941 Chevy bus also is being restored.

And to emphasize the historical significance of the area, a docent will be available to answer questions about Pearl Harbor’s past and the importance of its three main attractions: the Arizona Memorial, USS Bowfin and USS Missouri.


art


But the purpose of this modern-day commercial venture is to turn a profit.

One planned booth will help visitors purchase tours to areas of Hawaii that have nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Another vendor plans to have two WWII-vintage Jeeps on hand so people can sit inside them, don helmets and have their pictures taken — for a fee.

“As the son of a WWII naval officer, I am simply outraged at the incredibly tacky, for-profit ‘tourist trap’ that has suddenly sprung up — in a carnival-style tent, no less!” Glen Winterbottom, a Big Island resident, wrote in a letter to the Star-Bulletin. “Has Oahu’s real estate frenzy reached such epic proportions that the U.S. government cannot resist parceling out one of the nation’s most sacred shrines to sleazy mainland promoters, so they can milk unsuspecting visitors who have come thousands of miles to honor our fallen heroes?”

Since the tent was erected in mid-December, Ray Emory, historian for the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, said he has heard from about a dozen survivors who believe the operation is too tacky and denigrating.

“They think it’s horrible what’s going on,” Emory said.

Pearl Harbor Visitor Center representatives say they are mindful of the area’s historical significance, won’t be doing anything that disrespects that history, and are offering people a comfortable place to rest and eat while waiting to visit the nearby attractions.

At peak times during the year, tourists can wait as long as four hours for their boat ride to the Arizona Memorial, and until the tent operation went up, they had few options for buying refreshments.

Even though 1.5 million people visit the memorial annually, its visitors center has only a tiny snack shop with concrete seating areas nearby, and the Bowfin museum has a hot dog stand with a handful of tables in a shaded courtyard.

Brent, an ex-Marine, said he understands why people are concerned about what his company does at Pearl Harbor, and that’s why so much care went into developing the concept, which stresses the historical component.

Brent said all his “crew members” — he doesn’t call them employees — must pass a history test on Pearl Harbor so they are able to answer questions from visitors.

Signs, displays and photos will reflect that history, and some of the products sold under the tent also will have a historical bent, he said. For instance, some jewelry that Maui Divers plans to sell will have Pearl Harbor insignia, and some T-shirts offered by Hilo Hattie will feature WWII themes, according to Brent.

Even the port-o-potties will be painted Drab Olive, the standard military color.

“I don’t want to look like I’m trying to do Disneyland,” Brent said. “I want to be respectful. I want to do history.”

Brent’s company is subleasing the 6.6 acre site known as Halawa Landing from a joint venture between Fluor Hawaii and Hunt Building Co. That joint venture got the lease rights to Halawa Landing in 2003 as part of its $84 million agreement to redevelop Ford Island. The lease runs for 65 years.

The big white tent is supposed to be only “temporary.”

Brent said his company hopes to have a permanent visitor center built closer to the shoreline within the next year or two. That plan also includes a pedestrian promenade and a sit-down restaurant.

Once the permanent center is completed, the tent will be taken down and that area converted to parking, Brent said.

The company’s plans could undergo considerable change if recent opposition, including complaints reaching the halls of Congress, is any indication.

Even though Brent’s company hasn’t done anything to suggest the lease terms for the Navy land are being violated, some key politicians are weighing in on the controversy.

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, a decorated WWII veteran, said he is aware of the concerns that have been raised and, like the others, questions the appropriateness of the use of that site.

“Many veterans and survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor consider that land as part of a larger surrounding area that is ‘sacred,’ honoring the men and women who served and sacrificed for our nation in the Pacific during World War II,” Inouye said in a statement. “I am hopeful that the leased Navy land between two important World War II landmarks will be utilized with appropriate sensitivity.”

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, on the House Armed Services Committee that deals with the military, said he met with Hunt officials last week and gave them this advice: “My suggestion was that everybody ought to step back, take a deep breath and start over.”

The Navy in a statement said it was still working with Ford Island Ventures, the entity that has the sublease agreement with Brent’s company, on the short- and long-term plans for the site.

The Navy said it was “very sensitive” to the concerns of veterans and strongly committed to “maintaining a suitable mood of dignity and respect for the memorials in the area and the service personnel whom they honor.”

Part of the difficulty, Abercrombie and others said, is that a for-profit operation is being placed in a national park with several nonprofit neighbors, and their missions are all different. The money raised by the nonprofits goes exclusively to support the respective programs of their museums or memorials, while net proceeds of a for-profit enterprise go to its owners.

“To place a for-profit entity right in the middle of that is pretty much out of context,” said Tom Shaw, president of the Arizona Memorial Museum Association, which raises money to support programs for the memorial. “It’s like building a skyscraper in the middle of the Grand Canyon.”

About 1.5 million people visit the Arizona Memorial each year.

In one respect, Brent said he is surprised by the opposition his project is generating because the plan basically adopted key elements from what was recommended in a 1999 study commissioned by the Navy. Some of the same groups now criticizing him participated in the study, he said.

“We want to be good neighbors. We don’t want to upset people.”

That’s already too late at the snack shop in the Arizona Memorial visitors center. The blind vendors running the shop are worried the new tent concessions will significantly hurt their sales, according to Stephen Teeter, business manager for the state’s blind vendor program.

Teeter also said he believes the new tent operation violates U.S. law that provides blind vendors on federal property certain protections from competition.

The matter is being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office, Teeter said.

If opposition from the blind vendors wasn’t disheartening enough for Brent, several tourists randomly questioned by the Star-Bulletin last week gave his operation the thumbs down.

They said they didn’t think a for-profit business should be running such a retail operation in the park, noting the potential for it to become overly commercial.

“This could get out of hand very easily,” said Kathleen Gallo, 62, of San Jose, Calif.

Swarthmore, Pa., resident Stella Mazur, 72, who has visited the Arizona Memorial almost every year for the past two decades, said a for-profit operation would taint the sanctity of the memorial.

“It’s better to keep it the way it is,” Mazur said. “This is sort of sacred ground.”

Sailor’s deal angers relative of slain women

Thursday, May 8, 2003

Sailor’s deal angers relative of slain women

The brother/son of the victims is upset that their killer avoids the death penalty

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

A Singapore man whose sister and mother were killed last summer by a Pearl Harbor sailor is outraged by a plea agreement that limits the admitted killer’s jail time to 30 years.

Kasti Ahmad told the Star-Bulletin by e-mail yesterday that his family was never consulted about the agreement Navy prosecutors made with Petty Officer 2nd Class David DeArmond.

The agreement allowed DeArmond to escape a possible death sentence for killing his wife, Zaleha DeArmond, and his mother-in-law, Saniah Binte Abdul Ghani.

“I am outraged at the plea agreement and the extremely short time that the deal was made without even informing me,” said Ahmad. “Getting a conviction without the usual sentence is a total sellout. I think this is a deal of convenience to shorten the process and to protect other negligent circumstances that led to the death.”

Ahmad added that such a deal would have never happened in Singapore, where his sister, Zaleha DeArmond, and their mother, Abdul Ghani, are from and which is known for its strict judicial system.

DeArmond, 33, a 14-year Navy veteran, agreed to plead guilty to the murder of his mother-in-law and the voluntary manslaughter of his wife.

The plea agreement was accepted Monday by Navy Capt. Michael Hinkley, the military judge presiding over DeArmond’s court-martial. The murder conviction has a maximum sentence of life, while a maximum sentence for manslaughter is 15 years.

However, Lt. Cmdr. James Lucci, the Navy’s lead prosecutor, told Ahmad in an e-mail dated Saturday that the plea agreement limits the maximum prison time to 30 years.

Lucci said in the e-mail: “This agreement is very advantageous for us, the government as well as the defense. We are now guaranteed a conviction for murder, which removes the uncertainty and chance associated with any contested trial.”

It also meant that DeArmond would not face the death penalty, which is not allowed under state law but is permissible in the military.

However, Lucci acknowledged that DeArmond could spend less time in jail because he still has to be sentenced by a jury of at least five sailors and officers.

That will take place during the first week in June.

“Although HT2 (hull technician 2nd class) DeArmond has signed an agreement to limit his sentence to 30 years,” Lucci said, “the military court may sentence him to a shorter or longer sentence.”

However, under the plea agreement, the military judge would have to set aside any prison time longer than 30 years.

Lucci recommended that Ahmad and his family attend the June session to say how “the loss has affected them.” Ahmad said he plans to attend. He also said custody of his sister’s three children should be granted to his family. The children are in a foster home.

Zaleha DeArmond and her mother were killed on the second floor of her townhouse in the early morning hours of June 10 during a domestic argument.

Forensic evidence presented during pretrial hearings disclosed David DeArmond hit his wife about four or five times with an iron skillet.

His mother-in-law tried to stop the argument by attacking DeArmond with a steak knife, which he took away from her and used to stab her 10 times.

Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/05/08/news/story6.html

Sailor admits to killing wife, having sex with his wife’s dead body

Sailor admits to killing wife, mother-in-law

By B.J. Reyes
ASSOCIATED PRESS

8:03 p.m., May 5, 2003

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii – A sailor on Monday tearfully admitted to fatally beating his wife with an iron skillet and stabbing his mother-in-law to death at the couple’s home last year.

Petty Officer 2nd Class David A. DeArmond, 32, pleaded guilty to charges of murder, voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse in exchange for prosecutors dropping charges of premeditated murder, which could have resulted in the death penalty.

DeArmond admitted having sex with his wife’s dead body.

Prosecutors dropped charges of attempted rape and obstruction.

“I just want to say I’m sorry for what I’ve done,” DeArmond said. “I accept responsibility.”

The murder charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A military jury will decide DeArmond’s sentence. That phase of his general court martial is scheduled to begin in early June.

Attorneys declined comment after Monday’s hearing.

DeArmond’s Singapore-born wife, Zaleha, 31, and her mother, Saniah Binte Abdul Ghani, 66, were found dead June 10 in the couple’s home in a Navy housing complex at Pearl Harbor.

Witnesses testified at a pretrial hearing that the relationship between DeArmond and his wife was strained.

At Monday’s hearing, DeArmond testified that he hit his wife with a skillet during a confrontation in the pre-dawn hours of June 10.

He then testified that his mother-in-law tried to intervene and swung at him with a steak knife, which he disarmed her of and used to stab her.

Though Hawaii doesn’t have the death penalty, murder can be a capital offense under military law depending on the recommendation of the presiding judge.

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030505-2003-navy-doubleslaying.html

Sailor faces execution

Thursday, January 9, 2003

Pearl sailor faces execution

The Navy petty officer is accused of killing his Singapore-born wife and mother-in-law

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

Navy prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a Pearl Harbor sailor who they say killed his Singapore-born wife and her mother.

Rear Adm. Robert Conway, commander of Navy Region Hawaii, decided yesterday that Navy Petty Officer David DeArmond will be court-martialed for allegedly killing his second wife, Zaleha DeArmond, 31, and her mother, Saniah Binte Abdul Ghani, 66, on June 10.

DeArmond, 31, is accused of killing his wife by hitting her on the head with a skillet during an argument in the couple’s two-story home while their three children slept a few feet away. In the second premeditated-murder charge, DeArmond is accused of repeatedly stabbing his mother-in-law with a knife.

DeArmond also is charged with attempting to rape his wife, abusing her body and destroying, tampering and moving evidence from the couple’s townhouse on Leal Place outside Pearl Harbor’s Nimitz Gate.

If prosecutors are successful in seeking the death penalty, DeArmond would be the first Hawaii service member to be executed since statehood.

The Navy said a service member convicted of a capital crime would be executed with a lethal injection administered at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Dwight Sullivan, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Maryland who specializes in military capital crime cases, said that since 1950 “there have been no executions from court martials held in Hawaii.”

Sullivan said military capital crime cases have been “very rare” since 1997, when the option of life without parole became a possibility.

“Capital crime cases are very expensive,” Sullivan said, “and very difficult to try.”

DeArmond’s court-martial could come within 90 days. Under military regulations, the case must be tried before a panel of at least five military members.

Earle Partington, a local lawyer who specializes in military cases, said the military generally evokes the death penalty in “very heinous cases.

“The classic cases generally involve multiple homicides,” Partington said, “with a rape involved in the crime.”

Partington said he cannot recall any military member being charged with a capital crime since he moved here in 1975.

There are now six men — three Marines and three soldiers — awaiting execution at Leavenworth’s U.S. Disciplinary Barracks. All six on the military’s death row were convicted of premeditated murder or felony murder.

The National Law Journal reports that 35 people have been executed by the Army since 1916. The last military execution was held April 13, 1961, when Army Private John Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder.

In 1983, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals held in U.S. v. Matthews that military capital sentencing procedures were unconstitutional for failing to require a finding of individualized aggravating circumstances.

In 1984, the death penalty was reinstated when President Ronald Reagan signed an executive order adopting detailed rules for capital courts-martial. Among the rules was a list of 11 aggravating factors that qualify defendants for death sentences.

Only the president has the power to commute a death sentence, and no service member can be executed unless the president personally confirms the death penalty.

Capital punishment was abolished in Hawaii in 1957. However, debate over the issue was renewed recently when a state senator said he would propose that the death penalty be reinstated when a child is murdered.

During a pretrial hearing held in November, witnesses testified that DeArmond believed that his Singapore-born wife was seeing sailors whom she met at a Pearl Harbor “single sailors’ bar,” where she worked as a waitress.

Jeanette William-Wallace, DeArmond’s first wife, testified that DeArmond was afraid to divorce his second wife because he was fearful that she would leave him and flee to Singapore, taking with her the couple’s children, Danny, 5, Courtney, 3, and Brandon, 2. The children are now living with foster parents.

DeArmond, 33, is a hull technician assigned to the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.

His wife’s family members in Singapore have said they thought that she wanted to leave her husband because he was abusive.

She met DeArmond in San Diego while on a trip, and the two were married in 1996. Saniah was killed a day before she was supposed to return to Singapore.

Zaleha DeArmond’s 90-year-old father also had been living with the couple until he returned to Singapore in January.

Zaleha DeArmond had sought a restraining order May 3, saying her husband trashed the dining table until it broke, threw away the Quran, tossed their wedding photo in the toilet and threatened her.

DeArmond’s current enlistment was supposed to expire on Dec. 7 but has been placed on hold pending the outcome of the double homicide charges. He has been in the Navy for 13 years.
Schofield held execution in 1947

Star-Bulletin staff

One of the last reported military executions here occurred in 1947 at Schofield Barracks.

On April 22, 1947, Army Pvt. Garlon Mickles, 19, was hanged for beating and raping a female War Department employee on Guam a year earlier. “Death came 20 minutes after the trap door was sprung,” the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported, noting the soldier mounted the Schofield Barracks gallows at 6:45 a.m. at a place called execution gulch.

The newspaper reported the Missouri man seemed to have accepted his fate: His final hours were spent in “gay spirits,” the provost marshal said. At 5:30 a.m., Mickles sat in the Schofield Barracks stockade eating sweet rolls and drinking coffee.

On the gallows, when he thought the noose was properly placed around his neck, Mickles made a last request to the guards: that his mother be informed he “died like a man.”

Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/01/09/news/story1.html

Infamy Indeed

This author’s critical review of John Gregory Dunne’s 2001 New Yorker article “The American Raj: Pearl Harbor as Metaphor” is typical of apologists for American Empire.   Somehow the fact that the U.S. illegally invaded and occupied the independent Hawaiian Kingdom is excusable because the U.S. occupiers were not as brutal as the Japanese.

Infamy Indeed

John Gregory Dunne suggests imperialistic Americans got what they deserved at Pearl Harbor

John Wilson | posted 5/01/2001 12:00AM

Exactly seven months from today, Americans will mark the 60th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A number of media events will surround that occasion, including a Tom Brokaw-hosted TV special. But even now the commemoration is underway. If you’ve been to a movie theater lately, you’ve probably seen the trailer for “Pearl Harbor,” a cinematic extravaganza scheduled to open on Memorial Day.

As if to launch a preemptive strike on the pieties of official ceremonies, the self-conscious gravity of documentaries, and the high-tech confections of Hollywood, John Gregory Dunne has written a piece for the May 7 issue of The New Yorker, an acid-penned article called “The American Raj: Pearl Harbor as Metaphor.”

Like his wife, Joan Didion, Dunne is a superb writer motivated above all by a hatred of cant, hypocrisy, and self-serving naivete. Whatever the subject of a particular work by Dunne, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, the ultimate purpose is the same: to show How Things Really Are, to rub his readers’ noses in it, and to expose the falseness of this or that comfortable illusion.

The primary illusion Dunne intends to expose in the New Yorker piece is nothing less than the myth of American exceptionalism. That is the master lie, so to speak, from which many smaller lies follow. Hence his title, “The American Raj,” which one would have thought was clear enough. But just in case some reader misses the point, Dunne’s piece appears under a kicker, “Annals of Empire,” which drives the lesson home: the United States rules over an empire, gotten by hook or by crook, just as the British did in India. The American sense of a distinctive national virtue is repugnant, and dangerous to boot.

Take the case of Pearl Harbor. In his deft, sardonic narrative, Dunne pictures the U.S. Navy of that era (prewar and wartime too) as a “feudal” domain in which the ethos of the American Raj appeared in an especially concentrated, virulent form. “Implicit in the idea of a Raj,” Dunne writes, “is a subject people, a question of color.” So the Navy, and particularly the Navy in Hawaii, was characterized by a smugly vicious racism. Dunne quotes from memoirs by Navy brass, newspapers of the period, and similar sources that speak contemptuously of the “mixed blood” hordes that contaminated Hawaii.

In a one-paragraph aside, Dunne argues that “racial condescension was matched by arrogance in tactical matters”; the U.S. fleet was woefully unprepared for the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor because the Navy systematically underestimated the Japanese, and did so because as Americans they were convinced of their racial superiority. The implication is that the arrogant racist American dunderheads more or less got what was coming to them when the Japanese planes appeared on the horizon early in the morning of December 7, 1941.

But that is not his main thrust, and quickly we move into territory familiar to readers of Dunne’s fiction, as he retells the story of the notorious Massie case, which began in September 1931 with the alleged abduction and rape of a Navy wife by five “half-breed hoodlums.” Apart from the moral issues-the handling of the case reflected racial condescension and arrogance in full measure-the story is full of the sort of bizarre detail Dunne relishes (as in his extraordinary account of the Teena Brandon case, published several years ago in The New Yorker), and the savage gusto of the telling rather overwhelms the ostensible point of the anecdote.

What was that point, exactly? No doubt there are Americans somewhere to be found who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the reprehensible deeds that are part of the national heritage. Still, wouldn’t the much more common view be that yes, America is far from perfect, but in the conflict between the American empire and the Japanese empire, say, or the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union, as Ronald Reagan called it, there was no moral equivalence?

Is it relevant, for instance, to consider what the Japanese occupiers in the early 1930s-the time of the Massie incident-were routinely doing to Koreans, whose country they had taken over just a decade or so after the United States took over Hawaii? Would it be relevant to compare notions of racial, ethnic, and national superiority as found in the American popular press of the 1930s, and reflected in the U.S. Navy, with similar sources from Japan during the same period?

Not at all, Dunne might say. His case doesn’t require idealizing the Japanese; he merely needs to expose the myth of American virtue. I wonder. The differences between the empire of the Stars and Stripes and the empire of the Rising Sun seem quite profound. Acknowledging the import of those differences does not entail an uncritical, arrogant Americanism, but it suggests that the traditional understanding of Pearl Harbor is fundamentally correct.

John Wilson is editor of Books & Culture and editor-at-large for Christianity Today.

Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/mayweb-only/5-7-11.0.html?start=1