AMY VARGAS - 16 yo (2010) - Eastpointe MI/ Cancun MX

A Michigan woman says her teenage daughter vanished while on a trip to the Mexican resort Cancun.
D'an Simmons told The Detroit News her daughter, Amy Vargas,
disappeared while taking a bathroom break from a pickup baseball game
on the beach Thursday.

The 16-year-old from Eastpointe, Mich., was
staying at the Great Parnassus Resort with her grandmother and great-grandmother.
Vargas, who is half Costa Rican and speaks Spanish well, had long
wanted to visit Mexico because of the country's passion for soccer, her mother said.
"I told her you are from two cultures and should know both cultures," Simmons said.
Simmons planned to go to Chicago to try to get an emergency passport so she could fly to Cancun and help search for her daughter.

Eastpointe -- Amy Vargas had always dreamed of visiting Mexico, a country whose passion for soccer mirrored her own love for the sport. A
veteran of several soccer leagues in Macomb County, Vargas, 16, dreamed
of one day donning a uniform for a professional team like her idol, David Beckham. Last Saturday she flew to Mexico with her grandmother and great-grandmother and stayed at the Great Parnassus Resort
in Cancun. On Thursday she was playing baseball on a beach with a group
of people and then left the game to use a restroom, her mother D'an
Simmons said. Vargas never returned.

"It was a dream that turned into a nightmare," Simmons said of her daughter's longtime wish to visit Mexico. Vargas is half Costa Rican and fluent in English and Spanish, her mother said. "I told her you are from two cultures and should know both cultures," Simmons said. Simmons
is preparing to fly to Chicago, where she will make a plea for an
emergency passport to travel to Mexico to help in an effort to find
Vargas. "That is the only thing keeping me calm," she said of the preparations. "I just want her back safe." Simmons said the FBI, police in Mexico and the resort's security team are working hard to find her daughter and she praised their efforts. The
FBI office in Detroit on Saturday confirmed they had received a missing
person report for an area juvenile but declined to comment further on
the case. Simmons said her daughter is no stranger to traveling safely and over the summer visited St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. She said Vargas planned this trip to coincide with mid-terms wrapping up at Dakota High School; she is in the 10th grade. "She had been looking forward to the trip for forever," Simmons said.

CANCUN, MEXICO – Sixteen-year-old Amy Vargas from
Eastpointe, Michigan who was reported missing Thursday was recovered
Monday and now is safe in Mexico, the FBI said.
Amy Vargas traveled to Cancun, Mexico January 23 with her
grandmother and great-grandmother. Vacationing at the Great Parnassus
Hotel, Amy asked to use the restroom last Thursday but didn’t return.
“Amy Vargas, of Eastpointe, Michigan, was recovered today in Mexico.
Vargas has been returned safely to her family,” the FBI said in a
statement.
Investigators tried to contact Amy, but her cell phone was
apparently turned off. It is unsure where Amy was during her absence
although one report states that a manager of the hotel said she had
called and reported she was fine.
It is also believed that she had left with and employee of the hotel and two other men.

EASTPOINTE, Mich. -- The Eastpointe teen who had federal authorities searching for her in Cancun, Mexico is now in the Macomb County youth home where she is facing assault charges.
Amy Vargas was arrested on Sunday after allegedly assaulting her grandfather.Thomas Ersin, 56, suffered minor injuries, police said.Vargas, 16, a student at Dakota High school in Macomb went missing in Cancun, Mexico on Jan. 28.The FBI Told Local 4 News that Vargas showed up a few days later unharmed.The specific details of where she was were never released.Ersin and his wife, Norma, are the teen's legal guardians.When Vargas disappeared, her grandmother told authorities they were at the pool at their hotel in Mexico, Vargas asked to use the restroom and never returned.Authorities had interviewed a resort employee who they believed left the property with the girl and two other men.Elias Lopez, Vargas' former boyfriend said he had talked to her online while she was missing. "She was talking to me on MySpace yesterday. She said that she ran away with some friends -- with the guy -- a worker and that she had a job and she was happy."Vargus told Mexican authorities that she was upset that her grandmother had reprimanded her.

I received an email from "GUEST" yesterday, and I have no way to respond to guests, so I posting it here.

I understand your frustration, "Guest" but I cannot, or I should say, will not, remove this article.

Please 1) click -OR- 2) copy-and-paste this link for THE accurate story and its resolution.

Edited to remove link.

Poster's Note: When I went to that link I was shocked to find this:

NOTE:
Several Web sites have run wildly inaccurate versions of this story (usually based on mendacious court-appointed attorney statements) and have refused to: 1) correct the record; and/or 2) respect the privacy of innocent individuals and minors.
AMONG THEM:
justice4caylee.forumotion.net (the worst offender), www.macombdaily.com, and www.clickondetroit.com. Citizen journalism is generally good; however, these sites represent a clear downside to it.

The article above the derision is:

written by Lynn M. Charles
(based on accurate but necessarily anonymous sources at the police dept., court house, probation dept., and child's inpatient treatment program)

Let me straighten this out:
1) We, at J4C, occasionally have "sources" who are close to cases who provide information anonymously and help to "correct" erroneous MSM reports. Primarily our reporting is based on what law enforcement and other investigators and litigants release to the media.
WE DO NOT MAKE THESE THINGS UP!
2) I see no need to, "correct" anything. Everything that was reported in this case was already released to the public. If there are errors then you need to take up your issue with those who reported that information.
3) Our policy is that we follow every case to its conclusion, when that is possible. We do not redact names of victims or perpetrators as we see this as a trite attempt at "closing the barn door after the horses have gone to the field." As we have all discovered, "When it's on the Internet it's written in ink, not pencil"

Further, this linked article begins with:

It was easy to disparage the grandparents/guardians and spread false information about them in the local news--especially when the story included a self-serving, prevaricating court-appointed attorney and a teenaged girl carrying excruciating emotional baggage from her pre-teen past.

Earlier the writer used the term:
men·da·cious

   [men-dey-shuhs]
–adjective
1. telling lies, esp. habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthful: a mendacious person.

2. false or untrue: a mendacious report.

Wow! Now that's certainly opinionated! Has this attorney read this? Perhaps you should prepare for a "slander" suit.

written by Lynn M. Charles
(based on accurate but necessarily anonymous sources at the police dept., court house, probation dept., and child's inpatient treatment program)

Um excuse me, Lynn M. Charles, you DO realize any information you receive from the child's inpatient treatment program is a HUGE violation of PRIVACY and against the law. Ever heard of HIPPA? The fact that you would even admit it astounds me, given your little diatribe against our forum.

You may want to correct your link to us...although you can reach us that way, a better link is justice4caylee.org. The dot org represents the fact that we refuse to collect any revenue from this site. How much money are you collecting, Lynn? I'm going to bet you aren't doing it for free.

Well, lookie who changed their tune....

NOTE:


Some professional and many "citizen" Web sites have run grossly inaccurate versions of this story (usually based on mendacious court-appointed attorney statements). They refuse to: 1) correct the record; and/or 2) respect the privacy of innocent individuals and minors. (Even if the false or confidential information is already out there, it is still helpful to the victims to minimize the number of sources.)





We formerly named some of these sites but have decided it's counter-productive to give sloppy, un-fact-checked reporting any further recognition. Citizen journalism is generally good; however, these sites represent the downside.

too late, we already copied your previous statement about gathering info on this child from her inpatient treatment facility. Talk about sloppy, ILLEGAL...and grossly inappropriate....and furthermore, it's hard to take you seriously when "The Onion" is one of your contributing editors. I'd link to you, but you generate revenue from hits on your page right? And even more if visitors click on your sponsor's ads, yes? Thanks but no thanks.

Hello Admin:

Backbone is not the issue here.

- First - I had my editors delete the negative remark about your site (which does do very good work) because I realized that my remarks were unfair to Justice4Caylee. I apologize, and thank you for pointing that out. Additionally, you were right about "The Onion" link. It does detract from our otherwise serious publication.

- Second - all accurate and ethical journalism involves making corrections to the record when those are known. Therefore, only the latest edition of our site, including its corrections, can be considered accurate, notwithstanding your copy-and-pasting outdated text from it.

- Third - I hope that you will reconsider your censorship of our site, allow our site link to stand, and follow through on your own commitment to "follow every case to its conclusion, when that is possible." We are making this very possible for you.

- Fourth - Vast numbers of the most ethical Web sites on the Internet attempt to support themselves through, virtually, the only way possible: advertising. You can probably guess that I make about 2 cents per week from this site. Advertising does NOT make a site less accurate, ethical, or newsworthy.

Once again, thank you for pointing out my errors in journalism. As an intern, I appreciate these "teaching moments."

Best Regards,
Lynn M. Charles

Please 1) click -OR- 2) copy-and-paste this link for an accurate followup to this story and its resolution.

--- http://www.legalbulletins.info/ ---

LynnMCharles, tell me, I'm not a journalist but as an intern, were you taught that if you publish something inaccurate, or later wish to retract an article you simply delete it and that's problem solved? In my experience when a journalist has published such an article the correct course of action is to print a retraction of the earlier statements and also an apology if appropriate. Or simply as part of the continuing follow up articles, if you're covering an ongoing story, publish the new, correct information as it unfolds. You can't hit delete and undo the published word. I'm also shocked and find your statements about the "self serving lawyer" ridiculous. Take Casey Anthony's case. Would you suggest we don't publish any articles written about the case if it includes her lawyers making what some people deem "self serving and prevaricating" statements. Surely, as a journalist you see the frivolity of your remarks.

Dear "Justice4Caylee Community"
(Admin, kiwimom, TomTerrific0420, etc.):

Once again (this time: "kiwimom"), you have clouded your legitimate responses with points that are not well-thought out.

1) "kiwimom," About the retraction: At your urging, we have reconsidered our initial decision not to print one. I hope you can see there were non-frivolous reasons for our mistake, whether you agree or disagree with those reasons. I reprint our retraction for your benefit at the end of this post.

2) "kiwimom," You said, "I'm not a journalist . . . ." My friend, you may not be a trained journalist, but you are a journalist by virtue of editing and printing information on this open-to-the-public posting site. Therefore, I hope your statement doesn't attempt to excuse you from standard, ethical, even layperson journalistic guidelines. Otherwise, you could be "one of [those] worst offenders [of citizen journalism]" that I referred to, earlier.

3) "kiwimom," You asked me, "Would you suggest we don't publish any articles written about the case if it includes her [or his] lawyers making what some people deem 'self serving and prevaricating' statements? Surely, as a journalist you see the frivolity of your remarks."

My answer is: I suggest no such thing. That WOULD be frivolous--and work against story accuracy. But if your credible sources and your investigation have uncovered that the court-appointed attorney's statements ARE, in fact, "self serving and prevaricating," I definitely would expect you to--print, but also--qualify his or her remarks as such. (You don't always take the fox's sole word about the condition of the henhouse he's in charge of.) You say, "I'm not a journalist . . . ." But however you define yourself, Wouldn't it be your intention to report the most accurate form of the story, to the best of your ability? Surely, as a self-described NON-journalist (and--my words--intelligent layperson), "you see the frivolity of your remarks."

4) "Admin," I appreciate you leaving my link up in the name of "follow[ing] every case to its conclusion, when that is possible." However, you replaced the second dot with a comma so that the link does not work. I checked my copy-and-pasted version, which virtually rules out a typo on my part. I'm assuming this was an editing error at your end. I don't request a retraction but simply a correction of the text so readers can easily "follow [this] case to its conclusion . . . ."

Admin (and Justice4Caylee Community), I respect what you do with your site, and I automatically assume that your motives and responses are always honorable. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to air out our differences, in a civil, respectful way, on your site.

Sincerely,
Lynn M. Charles

RETRACTION:
On 10/27/2010, we [LegalBulletins.info] posted a caveat (which appeared for approximately eight hours) to a story on our site. We assumed no one saw it in that short time, and we corrected it without comment. However, we now agree that someone might have read it. We can only hope our readership is that numerous and dedicated. Therefore, our retraction is in order. We reported that the fine non-profit Web site, Justice4Caylee, was “the worst offender” regarding citizen Web sites publicizing confidential information about innocent victims or minors in the pursuit of a story. We were wrong about this, and we do apologize. ( - The Editors, http://www.legalbulletins.info/FrontPage.html )

LynnMCharles, now you're just being vexatious.

Lynn, I appreciate the retraction. Upon further investigation, this story seems to be the only story you have on your site. Your story was highly emotional, and completely skewed, which leads me to believe you are either a family member or very close to a family member. The only way you could possibly have information from Amy's inpatient treatment program is if you are her guardian. I feel your pain, and I am sorry for Amy, as well as her grandparents. Her grandparents did the best they could with what they had to work with. They were definitely in a no-win situation, the domino chain had already been built, it was only a matter of time before the chain collapsed. I really am sorry.

As for your link, if you have something to say, if you really are concerned about your story, then you are welcome to post your comments here, rather than link to them. We've seen more than our fair share of bottom-feeders in so many cases, people who try to profit off families' pain, and we do our best to prevent that.

4) "Admin," I appreciate you leaving my link up in the name of "follow[ing] every case to its conclusion, when that is possible." However, you replaced the second dot with a comma so that the link does not work. I checked my copy-and-pasted version, which virtually rules out a typo on my part. I'm assuming this was an editing error at your end. I don't request a retraction but simply a correction of the text so readers can easily "follow [this] case to its conclusion . . . ."

---Ms. Charles, you always have the ability to edit any post you make. It's in the upper right hand corner of each post. Just click "EDIT" and your post will then appear as you originally had posted it and you can make any changes or corrections you deem necessary. You cannot do this with other members' posts, only those you have submitted. Admins and Mods can make these changes to ANY post.
In the essence of fairness and speed, I have already changed your link for you.

kiwimom,

I think you must have meant "gracious"--or "anxious" (as in "when bad things happen to good people"). But certainly not "vexatious" (I'll admit, I had to look it up--I don't know every word in the English language yet).

Your friend, Admin, definitely picked up on the true spirit of my correspondence: the pursuit of truth tempered by restraint, empathy for the "little guy," and the knowledge that I can be wrong, I can make mistakes, but most things will work out if my intentions are honorable. I know this probably sounds overly idealistic and naive. But if I don't try to instill it as a young intern, how will it ever stay alive when I turn into a cynical middle-ager. I'm guessing that Admin is a kindred spirit at some level in my idealism--if not my naivete.

I'll stick with "gracious," or, at least, make that describe my intentions.

Peace,
Lynn M. Charles

Dear Admin,

OK, Let me be honest: I don't really have information from the treatment program--that's nearly impossible to get. As you can see, my story information was easily assimilated from my other sources. I admit to a classic rookie mistake of trying to "artificially beef up my credibility"--in my adviser's words. Furthermore, she said I didn't need this, that my investigation was solid anyway.

No, I am not a family member or friend. I did become an acquaintance after convincing some family members to grant me an interview. This is my first real campaign. I made mistakes; however, my biggest success was in gaining the trust of the family and keeping my word of integrity to them. I'm simply a local journalism student who needed to choose a Detroit Metro Area story to re-open/followup for one of my final, in-the-field, projects. If I seem too close to the story at times in my reporting, that's another lesson for me to learn; but it's also because I found that the other, original side to this story has been reported ad infinitum.

As you know in a case like this, there is usually another--often the real--storyline that has yet to come out. Some of these family members had local TV and print media camped out on their lawn for several days straight. The (non-custodial) mother chose to jump into the spotlight with both feet, perhaps out of guilt, perhaps because she simply loves the spotlight. All other family members chose not to answer the door, sharing nothing with the media because they saw how the media distorted what they did get from mother, attorney, etc.

I can understand your healthy skepticism about potential bottom feeders. I uncovered one or two of them, myself. But that is not where I come from, as I feel you now understand. True, this Web site is new, and this is the first exclusive story on it. I assure you there will be more to follow. I got the bug--like you did. Another part of my curriculum is understanding "new media"--Web sites and blogs (and their great disparity in journalism standards), social media, and search engine functioning.

Once again, I sincerely apologize for the false accusations made toward your site, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to civilly air out our disagreements--and now, our many agreements. This experience has taught me a lot. You must have noticed that every time someone from your site pointed out my mistakes, I tried to immediately correct them. That was not "covering up." That was me correcting my mistakes, with your help.

Sincerely,
Lynn M. Charles

PS: TomTerrific0420, Thanks for schooling me on my ability to edit a post and for fixing my link. But it still didn't appear to work, so I took the liberty of fixing it again. Keep up your site's good work, but don't turn into Nancy Grace. She's comes from the classic "kill the messenger" school of journalism. Notice how she often skewers neutral information-providers in the name of sympathizing with the victim and victim's families. Now Scott Peterson was another story. But let's face it; he deserved all the wrath she could muster.

Regarding the story of Amy Vargas and Ersin Thomas (aka Ersin Tom ), please follow this link to see how it all turned out in the end.

http://www.legalbulletins.info/TeenWhoLeft-AGrandparentsLove.html

I read your story. It's confusing. Was she kidnapped or not? Do you know for a fact that the people she ran away with intended to kidnap her? Was the person you call "the captor" charged? The following two snips from your article seem at odds. You say she was nearly kidnapped but then you refer to her "captor" dropping her back at the resort.

"What started as an impetuous vacation runaway stunt
has been widely (though, erroneously) reported on. Not known is how near
this girl came to being kidnapped"

"Grandmother's local media pressure forced the captor
to drop the child off at her Cancun resort hotel after four days--on
Sunday--telling her she was now "too hot."