Police Identify Man Arrested At Obama Hotel

Do ya think he was lookin at www.halturnershow.com ?

Posted by John Zagada | July 4, 2007 8:28 PM

"Zakaryan" is an Armenian name. Probably a "Muslim" ethnically if not religiously. Is this the first public spat of predicted attempts against Obama because he is 'technically' a Muslim, due to his father's religion, who has abandoned Islam?

It would be further ironic if Zakaryan is an illegal alien like the Ft Dix Pizza Terrorists. Quick - issue them all "Z-Visas"

The ironies abound

Posted by Gary Seven | July 4, 2007 8:38 PM

Gary Seven's comment is the most jackass comment that I have ever seen. Where is this guy coming from, the moon? Armenians are almost totally Christian, 92% Eastern Orthodox Christians, 5% Catholic, 3% Evangelical Protestant with a small number of Armenian Jews.

Posted by Get Real Jackass | July 4, 2007 11:02 PM

Barack Hussein Obama was raised a muslim, went to muslim schools but now claims he's a Christian.

Posted by Franco | July 4, 2007 11:13 PM

Gary, religions are philosophies not ethnicities. One is not "technically" Muslim or Christian. They are the follower of whatever religion they adhere to.

In the final analysis, I agree with Ray.. Big fricken Deal! (lol)

Posted by JB | July 4, 2007 11:39 PM

Dear Gary,

Your sense of irony is misplaced. For one, Armenia is overwhelmingly Christian Orthodox. As for this guy's immigration status - you make quite a conjecture from a five sentence news story.

P.S. Please try to use "quotation marks" properly.

Posted by Frank G | July 4, 2007 11:45 PM

Armenia's Christian. Azerbaijan is Muslim. I'm an agnostic. You're an idiot.

Posted by Bill | July 5, 2007 12:04 AM

I live in Ottumwa (actually, just outside)...this is typical for the town.

Drugs (meth, esp.), gang violence, driving while barred, weapons, etc. It's all a problem.

My guess is, it's just a coincidence that this happened outside Obama's hotel, and it probably had nothing at all to do with him.

If he was staying at the hotel I think he was (really, there's only one "nice" hotel in the area), then it's even less of a surprise. Lot of crime in that area of town (right off main street).

Posted by Brian | July 5, 2007 12:58 AM

I stand corrected. The hotel he was in was north of town, an area that has a lot less crime:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/NEWS/70704027/1001

Posted by Brian | July 5, 2007 1:01 AM

GARY SEVEN (et al): "Zakaryan" is an Armenian name. But Armenia is nearly 99% Christian. Just check the CIA World Factbook.

Also, Senator Obama is not "technically a Muslim." The religion is not based on bloodlines, and attending a school (madrassa means "school") in a predominantly Muslim country (Indonesia) does not make a person Muslim. It makes them a student.

It's not ironies that abound, as Gary Seven put it. Ignorance abounds. Please stop spreading it.

Posted by Verita Prevale | July 5, 2007 2:08 AM

At the risk of being found by Hillary's hit men, I should respond to the incalculably ignorant statement by Verita Prevale:

In muslim countries like Indonesia, madrassa does indeed mean school...but what Verita is either ignorant of, or purposely failing to disclose, is the fact that in such areas, there is no such thing as a school that doesn't teach from the Koran. In the Islamic world, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Don't be fooled by leftist spin; Obama was indeed indoctrinated in an Islamic school; the only question is how much it has affected his judgment and/or loyalties.

Many leftist muslims have been caught fighting Americans on the battlefield in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by leftist death threat victim | July 5, 2007 3:12 AM

""Zakaryan" is an Armenian name. Probably a "Muslim" ethnically if not religiously."

Err...someone needs to Google "oldest continuous Christian nation in world".

You'll find the result: Armenia.

But nice ignorance, though. Thanks.

Posted by John | July 5, 2007 3:53 AM

Actually, the difference between "school" and "madrassa" is pretty much the difference between "school" and "catechism" around here. One you go to for "education", the other is for "religious instruction".
One of the principles of Islam is, once you convert, you will always be "muslim". If you have muslim parents, you are "born" muslim. Obama's rejection of Islam, whether he ever considered himself one or not, makes him an "apostate", and the penalty is death.
Try reading the Qur'an rather than CAIR's website as to what Islam really is.

Posted by Lee | July 5, 2007 5:46 AM

So a guy driving by a hotel gets stopped for a traffic violation. He has a knife in his car.
What does this have to do with Ombama?
This is news? WOW.

Posted by JJ | July 5, 2007 7:53 AM

Verita, you are the one who is ignorant (sorry, but you chose the word.)

Just as the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, the child of a Muslim father is Muslim. Bloodline certainly determines religion.

While I do not believe that religion plays a part in the discussion of this particular story, it is always interesting to watch apologists such as yourself jump to attention as soon as religion is raised.

Posted by Evan | July 5, 2007 8:22 AM

Oh give me a break, lol. Let me see if I follow the logic here. Obama spends part of his childhood in Indonesia. He goes to school in Indonesia. Indonesian schools brainwash kids into, what, moving to America, one day running for president and thus spreading Islam to the West?

Given what we have now, I kinda like the idea of someone who has some perspective on the world, beyond that gained by visiting dad's offshore oil rigs.

Posted by PLM | July 5, 2007 10:11 AM

What with the bloodlines and the Manchurian candidate claims, the virulent anti-Obama population here is extremely creepy. They remind me of the Confederate Heritage folks.

Posted by goethean | July 5, 2007 10:22 AM

Marc - I hope this does not become a magnet for creeps and crackpots to spout their bile and ingnorance about subjects they know little of. Perhaps it would help if you stuck to the real news about what is happening on the campaign trail. Like how the White House is now dragging out Clinton's pardons in defence of the Scooter Libby miscarriage of justice.

Posted by Mark | July 5, 2007 2:47 PM

I think we need to take seriously any threat - the man may be Armenian - I grew up with Armenians in the best schools in India - over 50 years ago, so rest easy! - but they didn't look as wild as this one does. They were indeed Greek Orthodox, high class, well-heeled and very talented and successful professionally. This was in Calcutta in the 1960's. This man's name is definitely Armenian but he certainly looks radical and rabid! I say we take seriously such loiterers who purport to sell campaign buttons and such. He definitely doesn't look like someone who came/went to cheer on a candidate! I did notice the number of security staff who were milling around Obama as he mingled with Iowans - this is not a good scenario, that we live in a country that has such hate on every side so that individuals are not safe to speak their mind or run for office.

Posted by Carol McFarlane | July 6, 2007 12:00 AM

Comment to Gary. Ignorance does abound and its your. Your writing reveals you know very little about Muslin's and nothing about Madrassa's. YOur ignorance of both is an enemy to America, pack up and go anywhere you want off american soil. We need to do what Australia is doing kick them all out, that is Muslin's which means Obama

Posted by Jeanie | July 17, 2007 3:35 AM

I've just been letting everything pass me by , but so it goes. I just don't have much to say these days. Pfft. I can't be bothered with anything. More or less nothing seems worth doing. I haven't gotten much done recently, but oh well.

Posted by dopornstars com | January 31, 2008 9:19 AM

This isnt the same guy, is it? Its the same name under peculiar circumstances in Armenia (from a download of lawyers document off google search on the internet):

Note: The following document was prepared by attorneys representing Joshua Haglund. The non-binding document was submitted to the Yerevan Prosecutor’s Office

ANALYSIS

In the Criminal Case of US Citizen Joshua Haglund Murdered in Yerevan on May 17, 2004

From May 18, 2004, the Yerevan City Prosecution Office has been dealing with the case of the murder of Joshua Haglund (US citizen born in 1971) who was a visiting lecturer at Yerevan State Linguistic University of V. Bryusov since September 2003.
It has been over one and a half years since the murder, but the crime has not been solved. The organizer, perpetrator, and participants of the crime have not been identified.
To the contrary, the case proceedings have been suspended; the pre-trial investigation and associated measures have been terminated.
Such an approach cannot be considered either lawful or just due to the following reasons.
Having learnt about the suspension of proceedings and the consequent termination of the investigation in the case, of which the victim’s successor has not been officially notified until this very date, we have finally managed to gain access to the text of this decision and the course of the investigation. According to the decision, the investigation tactically focused on examining certain episodes from Joshua Haglund’s life pertaining to the period immediately preceding his murder, with a particular emphasis on his sexual orientation.
Thus, from the first days on, the investigation hypothesis focused on Vahe Karapetyan, Hrayr Sargsyan, and others.
The police apprehended and arrested individuals that, due to their being homosexual, knew Joshua Haglund and often met and spent time with him. Homosexual jealousy was considered by the investigation as the motive of the crime. Vahe Karapetyan was being considered as the organizer and perpetrator of the murder, who, according to the investigation, was jealous of Joshua Haglund in respect of his partner Hrayr Sargsyan. The investigation decision does not contain any factual data to support this hypothesis. The interrogation and expert examinations performed in this area have not revealed any grounds that would support the above hypothesis. None of the activities performed have done any good in terms of solving the crime.
To the contrary, what was done has left some concerns.
Without the intention of focusing this Appeal on either the lawfulness of measures performed by the Yerevan Center Police during the night of May 17, 2004 and the days that followed, or the ethical and professional rules governing the conduct of law-enforcement officials in the course of apprehending to the police, detaining, and officially working with individuals in respect of the case, it is nevertheless necessary to mention the following: some of the activities performed were unethical, immoral, indicative of behavior indulged by excess of power, and lacking any sense of responsibility. As a consequence of these activities, the individuals apprehended to and detained in the police were morally and psychologically crashed, terrorized, and lost the ability and willingness to provide positive information or facts in support of the case.
This unlawfulness has significantly hampered the case investigation by strangling information, warning many individuals to stay away from the case and to not provide information (indicated by people’s refusal to testify as witnesses), generating an environment of fear around the case, and undermining the reputation of Armenian democracy as a consequence of this information becoming spread among diplomatic missions and international organizations present in Armenia and affecting perceptions. Moreover, several of the individuals apprehended to and detained in the police, terrified and humiliated by the persecution and violence, have left Armenia for permanent residence in the United States of America.
Why was such an unsound environment built around the case?
What was the aim?
We believe answering these questions is essential to solving the case.
If the intelligence information needed to solve the case was processed and used by the same unclean officials, then one can be sure that the case was doomed to fail from the very beginning.
It is our strong belief that the police was the initiator of the “Vahe Karapetyan, Hrayr Sargsyan, and others” hypothesis, which it then served to the pre-trial investigators, causing loss of time and quality. This belief is furthered by the fact that the Center Police knew Vahe Karapetyan, Hrayr Sargsyan, and their friends long before this case and long before Joshua Hugland’s murder, and already had a certain attitude and prejudice against them.
To be more specific: in early 2004, a young man that is known to the criminal case, but does not appear in the decision, by the name Sako, spent several nights in the apartment of Vahe Karapetyan and Hrayr Sargsyan (this apartment is also known to the investigation), because he was avoiding a possible conflict with family and relatives, as he had borrowed a large amount (about US $20,000) from the bank on his own.
Sako’s relatives, having found out where he was spending the night, had gone to Hrayr and Vahe’s apartment, where they attacked, insulted, terrified, and threatened them, and took Sako away with them.
Due to this and the fear of new attacks and the materialization of threats by Sako’s relatives, Hrayr and Vahe filed a complaint to the Yerevan Center Police and testified on what had happened.
The Center Police dealt with the complaint, and this is where the police became acquainted with the complainants—homosexuals Hrayr Sargsyan and Vahe Karapetyan, and the respondents—Sako and his relatives. After some time, Hrayr and Vahe learnt that Sako’s relatives had managed to get the case closed.
From May 17, 2004, Sako came to light again: this time, he was around some people that knew Joshua Haglund (Sako met Joshua Haglund in a cafe and publicly stated on several occasions that he would not mind a close friendship with Joshua Haglund). As for how this acquaintance developed from this moment to Joshua Haglund’s tragic death, it should, in our opinion, be the most crucial element of the investigation.
The police only elaborated on the hypothesis of “Vahe Karapetyan, Hrayr Sargsyan, and friends,” whereas Sako’s factor did not even become a possible hypothesis for the investigation: the possibilities of Sako and his relatives (who had a history of attacking others) encroaching upon Joshua Haglund were not investigated.
It is also worth mentioning that, according to the victim’s successor, there is a common belief that Sako and his relatives are directly related to Joshua Haglund’s murder and are avoiding punishment due to some high patronage.
Moreover, the victim’s successor is not sure that the police, which was very well aware of all of this, communicated all of the available information to the criminal investigation authority.
There is another circumstance: the decision specified that Joshua Haglund was planning to return his apartment and to leave Armenia, but there is nothing about the reasons for doing so. In reality, Joshua Haglund was having conflicts and was being pressured in Armenia due to his activities as a lecturer Yerevan State Linguistic University of V. Bryusov.
Thus, in a number of letters addressed to his friends, Joshua Haglund expressly complaint about the unacceptable educational morals at Bryusov University, as well as the improper and irresponsible behavior of several students. On another occasion, Joshua Haglund told a friend that some female students had organized a protest claiming that the relationship between the teachers and students were improper. In reality, all of this was due to Joshua Haglund’s firm and unyielding demands regarding academic tasks, which led to the dissatisfaction of some privileged female students and the pressure in the form mentioned above.
There is another circumstance: in mid-March, 2004, Joshua Haglund told his American colleague in Yerevan that when he had been walking in the street with his dog, a person speaking Russian had attacked him. The reason and motive of this attack were unclear. The case troubled Joshua Haglund.
We believe it is important for the investigation to find out when and through whom Joshua Haglund’s being homosexual had been publicized in the Bryusov University, especially among students with a personal interest in Joshua Haglund. This could intensify the negative attitudes that an unpleased group of students already had.
The victim’s successor believes that Sako could have played the role of disseminating such information and escalating the negative mood.
There is already the opinion that the investigation and the related special measures were performed artificially, without any serious hypothesis. Certain case-related circumstances and episodes were not exhaustively investigated; facts and investigation findings were not cross-checked; and a profound and sincere analysis of the case was not performed.
It is undisputed that Joshua Haglund received a part of the numerous physical injuries while within the apartment.
It is also undisputed that Joshua Haglund, who was in this condition, managed to get out of the apartment, take the stairs down, and even reach the courtyard. This fact is confirmed, among other evidence, by the blood stains found outside the apartment, near the staircase handrails, which makes it obvious that due to his condition, Joshua Haglund was staying close to the handrails while going downstairs. In the apartment entryways on each floor, the blood stains were scattered, showing that Haglund had apparently tried to move away from the handrails, closer to the apartment doors.
However, Joshua Haglund’s attempts at getting help and saving his life were in vein.
We believe it is obvious that Joshua Haglund was not alone on the staircase and in the apartment entryways, as he was accompanied by the offenders that obstructed his attempts at getting some help. We also believe all of this could not have taken place without voices and noise, without pushing and pulling around, and without a struggle that would have attracted the attention of the building residents in the same way as the noise and argument inside the apartment, which had been heard by second floor residents Gohar Gyulbenkyan and Armen Mkrtchyan (who testified to that extent).
It is also not precluded that some of the building residents heard, saw, or even knew the criminals, as well as Joshua Haglund, who was trying to free himself and call for help.
The mere fact that two of the building residents (Gohar Gyulbenkyan and Armen Mkrtchyan) heard noise and arguing voices, and another one (Albert Yeranosyan) saw a young man dressed in black, who was running out of the main entryway, shows that the building residents are potentially in possession of information that would be essential to solving the case. We tend to agree with those who claim that witnesses become very talkative and provide information, but only when the law-enforcement agencies so wish.
It is commonly agreed that Joshua Haglund was cautious and opened his apartment door only to those whom he knew.
From this perspective, it is more likely that at around 10pm on the day of the murder, the apartment door was opened for a person that Joshua Haglund knew, who then cleared the way for his accomplices to enter into the apartment.
According to the victim’s successor, it is not precluded that on the night of May 17, 2004, Joshua Haglund had opened his door for Sako, whom he knew, who then facilitated the others’ entry into the apartment, and consequently, using his knowledge of English, initiated the noise and argument that had been heard from inside the apartment.
To this end, it would have been extremely important to ensure the timely organization of voice and look recognition (in a confrontation that would include Sako) through case witnesses Gohar Gyulbenkyan, Armen Mkrtchyan, and Albert Yeranosyan. We are confident that had the police exerted genuine effort, it would have been possible to determine the identity of the two young people described by case witness taxi driver Vladimir Harutyunyan and the relationship of these two with the case. However, like others, this circumstance has not been exhaustively revealed.
The decision on suspending case proceedings specifies that at around 10pm on the day of the murder, witnesses Davit Zakaryan and Karen Margaryan, as they were entering into the building courtyard, saw Joshua Haglund who was on the ground, bleeding, and called the police and an ambulance, trying to find out what had happened from Joshua Haglund, who was then still alive. According to the witnesses, Hugland had said his name and shown his three fingers. Before the ambulance arrived, Joshua Haglund was dead.
It is not clear from the decision when the ambulance received these witnesses’ telephone call, who introduced himself as the caller, what circumstances were communicated over the phone, when the ambulance left the station, which road it took, and when it arrived. If assistance had been provided earlier, could it have saved Joshua Haglund’s life? It is not clear from the decision who witnesses Davit Zakaryan and Karen Margaryan are, whether they are law-enforcement officers or not.
There is also concern that after the murderers escaped, the knife used for the crime was left in Joshua Haglaund’s body, but disappeared “thanks to” some individuals during the first contact with the body.
This concern is due to information provided by one of the residents of the building.
From this perspective, investigating the timing and scope of all the steps taken by the aforementioned two witnesses would be extremely important.
Back in March 2005, an agent of the victim’s successor filed written motion with the investigation bodies, providing some information and an analysis that could be useful in identifying the criminals. The motion, in particular, addressed the work-related activities of Joshua Haglund, which was the least-scrutinized part of the investigation.
However, due attention has not been paid to the motion, and to date, there has been no response.

This Appeal once again draws your attention to the need to conduct a thorough investigation of students that had problems with Joshua Haglund in respect of their academic responsibilities. It would be especially important to investigate the possible relatives and friends of certain students, which could have the privilege of acting unlawfully and using their resources and ability to influence the authorities by organizing the “punishment” of the homosexual American lecturer, who was firmly “creating problems” without any “respect” for local “priorities”.
There is a common belief that Joshua Haglund was murdered with the aforementioned motive, by military circles, which is the reason for the inefficiency of the ordinary investigation. The flaws and inaccuracies discussed in this Appeal, the bias that leaves concerns and the existence of numerous facts that require investigation show that the decision taken in this case is ill-founded, and that the pre-trial investigation must be conducted impartially at full force.

Based on the foregoing, the following has been proposed to the Yerevan City Prosecution Office:
1. To annul the decision on suspending proceedings of criminal case number 13206204 on the ground that the decision is ill-founded and hinders the prosecution of suspects in the case.
2. To prohibit the performance of any future operational, intelligence, or investigative measures in this case by the Yerevan Center Police;
3. To demand the Yerevan Center Police to avail a copy of Hrayr Sargsyan’s complaint and all the materials developed on the basis of his Complaint, to attach them to this criminal case, and to perform the necessary procedural and investigative measures in respect of the said Complaint;
4. To bolster operational, intelligence, and search measures by means of entities that are utmost impartial;
5. To undertake investigative and procedural steps to fill the gaps described earlier in this Appeal;
6. To instruct the performance of appropriate genuine and effective measures to identify the two young men that took the taxi and their relationship with the crime;
7. To instruct, along the same lines, the identification of the young man that was running out of the building and his relationship with the crime and the young men that took the taxi.
8. To instruct performance of the confrontation/recognition specified earlier in this Appeal, alongside with the necessary procedural measures;
9. To take legal measures about the violations and unlawful acts committed by the police; and
10. To keep the victim’s successors informed of the investigation progress and results in order to enable the exercise of their procedural rights.

Advocates M. Janoyan

T. Janoyan

Posted by Angela Lee | February 24, 2008 9:42 AM

The Aging Population Hurts The Economy

Posted by gay bears hardcore | March 29, 2008 6:25 AM

Police Identify Man Arrested At Obama Hotel

Comments (23)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives