Normally I like Peter Murcha’s articles. But I had several complaints with his recent story about some rocks that look like a skull and shoulders. For some reason, some people thought they were the remains of Natalie Holloway. But they weren’t.
Where did the Natalie Holloway component come from? It’s not really clear from this story. From what I gather, this local woman took some photos of rocks while in Aruba, and when she thought they looked like skull and bones, she handed it over to the FBI. So, just because you find some weird looking rocks, they’re automatically the bones of a missing girl? What?
The headline of Mucha’s story in the Inquirer is misleading: “Aruba halts divers’ search for Holloway remains.” Well, no…Aruba actually halted the divers’ search for some rocks. That looked like bones. That could have belonged to anyone.
Even Holloway’s parents thought they looked like rocks. Why is this even a story? If I were the editor, I would have canned it. Or at least given it a better headline – one that’s more relevant to the story.
Is it a story because a local woman took the photos? If so, wouldn’t it make more sense to see if they were actually a). human remains, and b). those of Natalie Holloway, before writing a story about it?
– Renee Cree