Natalee Holloway in the Rebound #34

quote:

Op donderdag 9 april 2009 23:19 schreef OUWEFIETS het volgende:

[..]

gaan we het hebben over fotootjes sparen Johan?

over stalking gesproken, hoe is eigenlijk het met je eigen wervelende collectie op je eigen druk bezochte (not!) Welcome! forumpje http://www.nataleeholloway.smfnew.com/index.php Johan?

oehoehoehoe dat was niet mis!

Al nieuws van Obama? Heeft ie al bij je mogen overnachten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 april 2009 21:18 schreef johan555 het volgende:

[..]

Daar kan jij helemaal niet kijken

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 00:17 schreef mrBhimself het volgende:
Ik neem aan dat je wat screenprints hebt gemaakt OF?

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 april 2009 14:41 schreef OUWEFIETS het volgende:
Speciaal voor duikkie de persconferentie van januari 2009
Ga er maar even lekker voor zitten :
-------------------------
Press Anouncement Jan. 6, 2009

We find it fit to address those allegations today.

The third reason is that my Office and the Police Department would like to urge all people that have information about things that have occurred on May 30th 2005 or about persons that are or might be
involved in this case, whatever that information may be, to hand that information over to the Police or to the Public Prosecutors Office.

For a good understanding of the facts – which is sometimes needed in this case….especially when it’s taking a bit longer…I think it’s a good idea to take you back to
December 18th 2007. Then you and I met as well, at the time in the old room of the office….concerning the fact that the criminal investigation against the 3 – at the time (emphasizes this)- suspects by the ALE was formally ended. That didn’t mean that the investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway also was ended. That was never the case. That investigation never stopped. If new evidence would come up against the former suspects their investigation could always be re-opened. This is possible as long as the criminal facts they are suspect of….were suspect of I should say…wouldn’t barred by the statute of limitation. That is not yet the case.

Nobody could imagine at December 18th 2007 that within a month the ALE was confronted with the programme of Peter R. de Vries with the secret taped footage of conversations between Joran and Patrick van der Eem...broadcasted to the people. After watching the footage, by the way a few days before the broadcast Peter R. de Vries supplied the footage to us. Based on that footage the ALE re-opened the criminal investigation against Joran van der Sloot.
Furthermore – and this was before the broadcast of Peter R. de Vries – the investigation was fully operational again. With the goal to find as much corroborating information and evidence as possible of what Joran van der Sloot had told in those conversations….that this could be correct. Verification of his statement. The judge was asked to approve the third consecutive custody – and this might be considered quite unique- of Joran van der Sloot based on that new information from De Vries. And as you know the investigating judge denied that request of the OM. The OM appealed to this decision at the Common Court of Appeal. Unfortunately that didn’t work out because the court upheld the investigating judges' decision and denied the request of a re-arrest.

Now, I do think it would be a good idea – to avoid misunderstandings- to take a good look at the Court of Appeals' decision of last year February concerning that request of the OM. Why – for the third time- a suspect couldn’t get arrested. Let’s be clear: the court took into account that particular footage of Peter R. de Vries; a lengthly summary of that footage…the most incriminating footage. And combined this with all the investigative results from the old investigation. And weighing the question whether there was enough serious material, call it evidence (necessary to be able to put one into custody) the Court decided that the new elements that Joran had told himself in the conversations with Patrick van der Eem…I will quote now “were NOT corroborated by objective facts.” On top of that the Court considered the fact that the suspect had argued during his statement that there ARE objective facts that could contradict the new elements that were told by him. The fact that Van der Sloot also had supplied a motive for his lying behaviour and indicated himself that he doesn’t tell the truth quite often, something we already knew at the ALE, made the Court of Appeal decide at the time that the self incriminating statements of Joran are devaluated.

In short: there is NO corroborating evidence - in February 2008- for the statements made by Joran and what he stated is devaluated by his own statement concerning his credibility, his lying behaviour.

What does the Court's decision mean when we take a closer look? First of all; the content of the file & content of the conversations of Joran van der Sloot with Patrick van der Eem weren’t sufficient enough to arrest him for the third time. And one can immediately conclude from that; that’s the second conclusion you can take….that all the material that was available at the time is not enough for a conviction. That is not a conclusion from the OM, that was a conclusion from the Court concerning the request to arrest Joran for the third time. Not enough to arrest him and thus also not sufficient to get a conviction.

Because of this ruling of the Court the OM made sure to use the time after the airing of Peter R. de Vries -he was going to broadcast it; this was certain- to obtain as much evidence as possible from those "objective
facts" that could support the content of his statements. That the OM was already aware of that task might be clear by the fact that the process of verification already had started way before the broadcast of Peter R. de Vries, just about the day after we had gotten the information from them. I will give you an overview now of what we’ve done in the 10 months after the re-opening of that investigation.

January 21 we talked with De Vries and already on January 22 the investigation concerning ‘Daury’; by Joran mentioned as the accomplice – as you might remember- started. And concerning the person identified as Daury R. – I won’t mention his surname- turned out he probably was involved in drug trafficking activities (something Joran van der Sloot also had mentioned in his statement). Because of that and following his own TV-appearance on 20-20, he was arrested in the USA on the suspicion of international cocaine trafficking. He is currently detained in the USA.

An investigation was started concerning the so called outside phone near the pool outside the Marriott Hotel. And also investigated was the fact if Joran van der Sloot might even have been able to make a phone call because one needs a credit card to make a phone call with such a phone….this is investigated.

The re-opening of the investigation made us request numerous things from the National Prosecutor's Office in Rotterdam; and together with the The National Crime Squad those were executed quickly and effectively. One of those requests was making various house searches where Joran stayed in the Netherlands as well as questioning Joran because he couldn’t be arrested. He was questioned.

Since then over 20 witnesses were interviewed, including people that were interviewed before in the investigation. Among the witnesses were questioned concerning – And I assume Rene van Nie is happy now- the white shoes of Joran that are missing and about the person ‘Daury’. And those white shoes, they maintain to be important, were investigated thoroughly because they were talked about in the statement of Joran. Every possible spot, road, channel from the beach to Jorans house has been investigated. Tubes and drunes have been inspected.

Furthermore the two brothers – who were considered suspects until 18 December 2007- but that were set aside by Jorans’ statement of not knowing anything, have been heard as witnesses. And also Patrick van der Eem – known by you by now- was questioned twice during his stay on Aruba as a witness.

Besides these facts, they were able to get checked & investigated by the police, the programme of Peter R. de Vries provided a lot of information, tips & clues. The most important were given to us by De Vries. Of those 4 turned out to be researchable, checked and have lead to further investigation.

Subsequently research has been done on account of a statement made by a witness, until then unknown for OM and police, but who was known by the Holloway family. It concerned a fisherman, who claimed that
that in the night of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway a large knife was stolen from one of the Fisherman's huts while at the same time a large crab cage was missing that at least was there until the month of April. You know this story. The owner of the crab cage was also interviewed as a witness by the Police, that hadn’t happened before, but stated that the concerning cage wasn’t at the huts but at his home. The fisherman was initially approached and questioned, so he stated, by mrs. Holloway who was accompanied by local press. The identity of this man was never revealed to the police. For us he was an unknown witness. It was because the Persistence ship at that time was searching for that mentioned cage and the OM started talking about this during a conversation with the father of Natalee Holloway, Dave Holloway, which lead to the identity of the witness….who was approached by the police then. Mind you, that happened just about 3 years after the girl disappeared. Only then the identity of this man was known.

As you know, the expedition of the Persistence led to only one finding that considered to be possibly relevant to this case. Special Police divers brought certain material to the surface of which one might
assume could be the clothes of Natalee Holloway. These samples were sent to the FBI laboratory. After examination by the FBI the result was that these samples did not match the clothes of Natalee.

In the month March, known to you since it was in the paper, the OM got to know of a witness who was urged by Holloway – Dave Holloway- to come and tell his story at the OM. The witness, accompanied by his lawyer, came to the OM and made a statement. This statement is considered widely known: the witness claims he saw Joran van der Sloot in the middle of the night Natalee Holloway disappeared walking in front of his house, soaked up to his chest, walking on one shoe and one bare foot and heavily breathing. At the time he didn’t say anything more to the OM. What the witness supposedly wanted was that the police would thoroughly investigate the dam of Monserrat…not far away from his house. Nevertheless the witness could not give us any reason why he concluded Joran had been there. It was just his conclusion. There was no indication this was the case. For that reason the OM didn’t ask the police at the time to perform that research at the dam of Monserrat. We only do this when witnesses can give concrete indications that something might be found there. This witness couldn’t do this. Later people from the Persistence asked if they were allowed to conduct a search. They were told that they could go ahead if they wanted to. It didn’t lead to anything. Besides that, the Monserrat dam, which had completely fallen dry by that time, was not long before that request completely searched by many people, for a completely different reason. And without any result.

This same witness is later – apparently…as we understood this… because we didn’t search the dam of Monserrat- by courtesy of Dave Holloway has undergone a lie detector test. And according to the minimal segments of that test that were provided to the OM, Tim Miller – you all know him- told me he would provide the complete test; I never received this. But according to that report this witness was considered to be reliable. From the OM’s point of view there was never really any doubt concerning the realibility of what the witness claimed to have seen. Yet, the value of his statement in the reconstruction of facts of that
night is very limited. With his sole statement this case will not be solved.

Police and the Prosecutor's Office are being accused of not following all leads in this investigation. Those allegations are unjust and unfounded. Of course it is true that we weigh the information and the
source on credibility and value before we start to investigate. But witnesses, who claim to have leads that find no ground in facts whatsoever and therefore are not being investigated by the Police, are
free to investigate those themselves. This - of course – within the limitations imposed by law.

I will give you three examples of what we have experienced the last 10 months in terms of leads given by people who claim to have special powers and know where Natalee would be.

The first one claimed that Natalee was in the hands of foreign criminals but could not give us any actual lead to follow. The second one recently claimed that the girl was buried on an Aruba
beach. After consulting my Office and the Police a private search was conducted, only facilitated by the Police. No result was reported. But the police were left to clean up the whole mess. The third person was very persistent and claimed he had witnesses he could not disclose to my Office. He claimed Natalee was buried under a hotel that was under construction at the time of her disappearance. He
requested that my Office would order a hole to be drilled in the hotel floor in order to conduct an endoscopic search underneath the hotel. When the prosecutor asked the man for the undisclosed witnesses and
kept asking for his sources, he finally admitted that his theory was based on a dream. I do want to mention that I was working on this for 2,5 months. (a ‘journalist’ is laughing loud now)

As you can see, this is just a part of what we have experienced over the past months. There is much more of these "leads" which take us an awful lot of time and distract us from the actual investigation. We do
not obstruct anyone, but when there is no concrete information or the information is unreliable we chose not to investigate that lead or that information. In that respect the Aruban Police is not different
from any other Police force in the world.

Concluding…this I can tell you: during the investigation of which you just received an overview, a series of investigative acts were conducted. I will not disclose the results of that investigation right NOW…you might find this a sad matter; that’s too bad (the tone of his voice isn’t meant to be offensive in any way…he says this as just a matter of speaking)….but I also CAN’T do that right because the investigation isn’t finished yet. And I want to be honest; we don’t want to inform the suspect through a press conference and confront him with research results he doesn’t know anything about. That wouldn’t be very clever. Only as soon as the investigation concerning Joran van der Sloot has been completely finalized, the suspect will be notified about the decision by the OM whether he will be charged or not. At that time the public also will be informed. If possible investigative results may be disclosed to the public. And your question will be, I will beat you to it, when will that investigation be finished Mos? At the moment the last open leads and clues are being checked and as I’ve said earlier…recently 2 more have come in and they deserve to be to be checked and investigated. Furthermore a few minor details need to be answered…no big things but to be complete they need to be investigated. The OM thinks to have finished the investigation within a few months but I won’t mention an exact date because otherwise you’ll all be calling me around that time; Mos what’s the deal? And I want to prevent this….you will hear from us.

Furthermore I would like to say this. Recently Fox broadcast an interview of Joran van der Sloot recorded by Greta van Susteren in the spring of 2008. In this interview Joran presents yet another new version of the facts. This time he claims he has sold Natalee Holloway on the beach for $ 10,000 to a person called `Adamovic´ after a prearranged agreement. This man had taken the girl from the beach on a boat and sailed away. Although Fox already had the possession of this information for nearly 6 months, it waited to disclose it to the public – I may say as Breaking News- by the end of November 2008. A request by the OM to provide this information to us digitally in July 2008; 4 months before was left unanswered.

Now suddenly Fox and a lawyer DEMAND that my Office shall conduct an intensive investigation into a story of which the anchor of the program herself already considered the possibility that it could be "a
wild goose chase". Furthermore it is a fact that Joran van der Sloot, quite quickly after have done the interview, denied that what he said was true. What’s new I would almost like to say. The Fox program also
showed an interview with Joran´s American lawyer, in which the program's anchor implicitly admitted that Joran was paid for the interview. Finally Fox broadcasts a so-called telephone conversation between Joran and his father. The contents of that phone call are supposed to corroborate Joran´s new story. We did the following…we’ve requested the police to download that conversation between Joran and “his father” from the internet…and we digitally handed it over to the independent Dutch Forensic Institute with a request to do a voice-comparing investigation. Within a few months it will be known from that investigation if the so called father is indeed Paul van der Sloot or not. It is more than remarkable to us that no longer than 5 months after Jorans’ so called confessions were taped on hidden cameras by Peter R. de Vries, statements both in the Netherlands and in the USA considered as "the solving of the case", the same Joran now comes forward with a completely different new story to the American media. And this story is immediately being considered as one that urgently has to be investigated. This while there are many indications that Joran simply pulled Fox's leg. To prove that we are dealing with "a wild goose chase", the Police on our request have checked some verifiable parts from Joran´s statement, which show that it is a wild goose chase.

That was one of the reasons why the Holloway family lawyer was told, who demanded the immediate arrest of suspects (it wasn’t one but more), was told that the OM, given the legal
requirements, couldn't find any ground in this interview to order an arrest.

Now I’m reaching my final remarks. Police and the OM on Aruba are still conducting an investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Yet it has to be honestly said we are reaching the end of the leads that can be investigated. Since we are still investigating I do would like to say the following: if you have relevant information, no matter how small or uninteresting it may seem, please notify the OM or the Police here on Aruba.

The purpose of the criminal investigation is to establish beyond reasonable doubt what has happened to Natalee Holloway on the night of May 30th 2005. Have crimes been committed against her and, if so,
which crimes and by whom? And if someone is responsible for crimes committed, that person, whoever he may be, should be held accountable for those crimes in a court of law. The result still has not been
met. And let’s be clear: it is the Police and the Prosecutor's Office that have, and should have, the primary responsibility for a criminal investigation. That is the way it is legally laid down in our judicial system. If
others want to help, we will applaud them doing so. Yet, when those activities start to get counter productive and under circumstances jeopardizes the investigation, we should address the public and make
them aware of these effects. In order to prevent that happening we thought it fit to inform you through this press conference.


Questions.

Q: can’t hear

Hans Mos: That has hardly been talked about. He has been given the answer I just gave to you as well. The lawyer requested to talk with us. We allowed that…mr. Richardson & I have talked with him. And at the end we looked into each others eyes (mr. Richardson and him he means) at the end of the investigation (I think Hans Mos means at the end of the meeting) and we both wondered why did he….(can’t hear…but think he says come here).

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: Police & OM are primary responsible for investigating. We will finish it and then WE will make our decision. And that’s what I want to say about that.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: I just told you that I’m not going to say anything about the results of the investigation right now…we will do that at the end of the investigation. If we have finished investigating all leads. I can’t foresee on ongoing investigating matters…they might contradict earlier findings. I want to have a complete picture; look at everything and than we will decide…and we will decide; hopefully within a few months…again I can’t tell you an exact date yet.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: this press conference is about the criminal investigation. The other investigation is not a criminal investigation and I won’t comment on that either right now. That is not an investigation conducted under the OM but under chief public prosecutor. If you have questions about that I suggest you address the chief public prosecutor.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: I just told you that the investigation against JORAN VAN DER SLOOT at the time, February 2008, was re-opened…based upon the new information we have gotten from Peter R. de Vries and he is the only suspect that is the object of a concrete investigation.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: Basically yes, an investigation must be finished and within a reasonable time a decision must be made and that is also the reason why we made that decision last year December…we were 2,5 years after the fact…and at THAT time we were finished with the investigation concerning these three suspects…and as I said not concerning the disappearance; that will continue. But we didn’t have enough to prosecute these suspects further. With the re-opening the investigation is opened again and we finish this when it’s done and against him no further investigation is possible.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: Let me be honest, I’m really not important in this case…the only important thing in this case is that is case must be solved. That we will get to a result that says: this is what happened on May 30, 2005. That’s what we want to determine. Who will determine that….I don’t find that interesting. I help with the investigation, like my predecessors have done….and we will making a decision based on facts. We hope that it will be a decision where it will be clear what happened…but we have to take into account with the fact that this never, at least at this time, will get clear. I won’t say anything about that now…but we do have to take this into account. Some cases get solved, others not…we’re striving to solve this case.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: I just told you that lots of information concerning this case that leads to counter productivity and derives from the core of the investigation…OF COURSE that’s harming for the investigation. Because when I’m busy with that man who tells me after 2,5 months of calling, writing and faxing and threatening to go the press- if we won’t do what he wants…that’s just about the tone how these things go- that this does derive me from other things I can do for 2,5 months…in this case but also in other cases. That is very aggravating. And that is also the reason why we have to consider the information we get…this isn’t information we can work with…we put that aside. That’s also our job. We have to make decisions based on the information we get. And we take action when we get valuable information….and you can trust us we do the research…thoroughly.

Q: can’t hear
Hans Mos: I gave you the three reasons. 1. 1 We had said we would make a decision on 31 December 2008...the end 2008..well it's the second workday of the new year...a good moment. 2 The recent developments with Fox where it has been said there is yet another version that needs to be thorougly investigated and 3 it gives us the oppurtinity to underline WHO should investigate...that's us...police & OM and nobody else. Help...yes please...but through us.

Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: No, the minister of Justice isn't beginning an investigation. The the chief public prosecutor has started an investigation concerning to what the minister of Justice has said. That's the only thing I want to say about it. You will have to addresss the chief public prosecutor with any other questions. He has the power to start such investigations; it's not an criminal investigation.

Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: well that motivation is there. You also heard mr. Richardson say last year that even that we formally close an judicial investigation against three suspects...that this doesn't say that the investigation concerning the disappearance of Natalee Holloway is ended with that. He still has detectives sitting in a project office who compare new information with the old information and are trying to research...and information is also still coming in. That's also something that makes this difficult....because at the moment you made a conclusion...well guys: now we're there. Then something new comes in. And l'll be honest...everytime we say we're almost going to close the investigation...there are people that say: BEFORE you end it; I would like you to research this. Fine. We estimate, research it and even that information from which we say....it's too crazy...but if people really want to investigate it themselves...they are welcome to do so. But within the law.

Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: no, we'll probably get a bill from the NFI. But that's the prize you pay for these kind of investigations. And yeah, we do want to know if it's correct yes or no. I HAVE an opinion about it...but as you've noticed frequently....abroad my opinion doesn't matter that much...so I'm thinking: I'm not important? I want this determined by experts...what the end result of that investigation is. And the NFI is an indepenent institute with an excellent name and reputation...let them investigate it...then I will get a report....and then I can show if it's correct yes or no.

Q: about Fox paying the bill for the NFI investigation
Hans Mos: I wish it would be possible. I would like it very much...because I think there are many reasons why they should pay...but I don't think they will do it. Maybe that mrs. Van Susteren can put it in her new book...because it seems she's busy with a book...where she will make a lot of money from. And I think that if the same kind of crap is in that book as in .....(broken off...commercial...doesn't continue)

Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: I hope it we won't be giving negative news...Not sure but I think this is what follows: because that's what we've done so far.
Q: Several questions and long talk...it ends with how long will we continue with this investigation?
Hans Mos: That's a good question. I agree with you that there are many unsolved cases with unknown perpetrators. Person asking the question is interrupting Hans Mos. Hans Mos: Let me answer please....I can't answer 3....Person asking the question is interrupting. Hans Mos gets frustrated a bit and says: Do you want an answer or not? Do you want an answer? Person asking question: Yes. Hans Mos: Then let me finish. It is true that there are many unsolved cases with unknown perpetrators....there must be leads that can be investigated in the file as well; let's be clear about that....because if you have a file with an unknown perpetrator but you have no clue who it could have been..then your research is quickly done. There are also files where that possible could be..yes. It has a lot to do with police capacity and I can't deny that this case takes a part of the police capacity. We want to give a reliable impression of police & OM..that we will investigate what we can investigate. And I don't have to tell you....I can say this now...can even joke about it...this case isn't just any case. It's a kind of case...a high profile case..you can do two things with that...you can deny it...ignore it..pretend it doesn't exist....or you can look if you can solve the case. We've told you last year...THAT's what we're trying to do. Inspite of what everything is saying....a cover up..that we're all corrupt...that I became rich...and that mr. Richardson became wealthy from it. Yesterday we told the lawyer of the Holloway family: Richardson and I could be the king and governour of Aruba if we solve this case. Why would we have any reason for not doing so? Jokingly: Well, maybe him even more so than me. You've made it when you've solved this case, Americans will be going to Aruba again...everything would be great....write a book...the sky is the limit. And why wouldn't I do that? That's why we're doing everything...not to become that..that's crazy of course (this quote is seriously meant...he's not doing everything to solve the case so he can write a book / become rich...he's just wants to solve the case)...but to solve that case. And to show...especially, I've said this last year as well and I will repeat it now, nothing would have been easier to close the case last year August....when the Dutch team was finished and we didn't couldn't do much more...to lay back and let it be....to say: ssshhh and it will be over eventually.....and you know the saying desperate cases require desperate remedies...we chose the road with the most counter pressure...not because we liked that...but because we wanted to show that it wasn't a cover up. We've been slandered because of it...you didn't have anything new...you didn't have new evidence. They can say it all but the judge looked at it and had the opinion that there was enough to re-arrest those suspects again. That can ONLY be done if there were enough new incriminating facts. That's why the judge agreed with us on that point. We didn't make it with it that the end but OUR opinion was that if we hadn't done it....I would have felt a jackass, professionally, If I hadn't done that....honestly so. I think that if you get the change one has to take it. That you don't succeed....that's part of the job. That's also a part of it.

Q: something about Richardson had become too relentless in this case (IMO as in: no matter what.....results have to come out).

Hans Mos: Never too relentless, I can tell you...but work is being done.

Q: something about another case Vicenco (?).
Hans Mos: a justified question...but that's another case...won't say that much about it...there is still an ongoing investigation.
Q: That's an Aruban...and then a comments about investigations need to be in balance or something like that.
Hans Mos: True, but one can't compare apples with oranges...that's the only thing I want to say right now....there is an ongoing investigation.

Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: Maybe it can be a bit quiet so I can hear the question?
Hans Mos: Costs? Good question. America gives the impression it's hardly anything.....I don't know the exact figures but I do dare to say that this might be one of the most expensive investigations ever concerning a suposed life offense...even if you compare it with America. One of the...I have to be careful...put a reservation there...but we (meaning mr. Richardson) took a guess, not even with a beer, just in Richardson's office...this investigation has cost more than 10 million dollars. And Holland has given a substantial contribution concerning this investigation...by sending people here, 10-12 detectives that were here for months, travel - staying expenses, remember the F16's who flew here...it's costing a lot of money. And we've been working on this case for 3,5 years...if you add everything then we get to more than 10 million dollars...and I would like to challenge the Americans to give one investigation that has invested as much money in a case concerning a life offense. I would love to hear it from them.

Q: how many detectives are working on the case?
Hans Mos: In principal as much as needed...that aren't many any more. 2 or 3 detectives. Mr. Richardson personally manages them, at the OM 2 or 3 people are involved...and of course it depends on the intensity of the acts that need to be done..if needed more people are added..if that's not the case than less people are working on it.

Hans Mos: Last question.
Q: can't hear
Hans Mos: If I understand you correctly you look at an interview as a witness statement. Yeah, okay...clear. You are thinking about, if I understand you correctly, the broadcast of mrs. Gielen from Curacao who looked into that subject. We do have that information. At the time there was an effort to question witnesses in America...this succeeded within limits....within limits...that's the case. And we would have liked a lot more information from America but we didn't succeed in that. And we can speculate a long time about why that is the case. I think you have to be very careful with speculating but it is a fact that little information came from there. That is certainly true. That was the last question. Thank you.

quote:

Op donderdag 9 april 2009 19:09 schreef yyentle het volgende:

[..]

Betekent dat, dat ze uit zichzelf naar justitie zijn gegaan?

Vermoedelijk wel he, nooit aan gedacht maar eigenlijk wel logisch.

quote:

HOLLOWAY TWITTY: Yes, it is. But you know what? But it's such a huge revelation, and it's great that we are learning this. So, it just proves—and what Paul will tell you—and that was just a few witnesses that I was able to get to in the short amount of time that I was in the United States. Just think of the countless witnesses that are still yet to be interviewed that we can get so much—so much more of a clearer picture of exactly what happened that night.

SCARBOROUGH: Beth, this is what I don't understand.

HOLLOWAY TWITTY: And lots of details.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, this is what I don't understand, Beth. As you know, I went to school at University of Alabama, have a lot of friends in Mountain Brook, a lot of friends in Birmingham.

And through contacts, I spoke with somebody that knew Natalee, that was with Natalee on that night, and I learned the story that Joran actually tried to approach her two times in the bar that night. Both times, she pushed him away. And then, the second time, Joran actually hit her with a closed fist. And I asked this young man, why aren't you getting this story out there? And he just kind of shrugged.

Why haven't the Aruban investigators gone after these students, gotten the information they needed to piece together what happened the night Natalee disappeared from Carlos 'n Charlie's?

HOLLOWAY TWITTY: You know, obviously, I can't answer that.

But I know one thing. If they will question these students, and not only those students, but if the witnesses here on the island, too—there are numerous here, but, you know, I don't—I don't have any idea why that has not been brought forward. But I know that it was a brief—a brief encounter that she was with him anyway. I just—I don't know why.

quote:

SCARBOROUGH: Why haven't the Aruban investigators gone after these students, gotten the information they needed to piece together what happened the night Natalee disappeared from Carlos 'n Charlie's?

quote:

HOLLOWAY TWITTY: You know, obviously, I can't answer that.

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 11:25 schreef bastibro het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 11:56 schreef johan555 het volgende:
[quote]Op vrijdag 10 april 2009 23:57 schreef OUWEFIETS het volgende:

[..]


je hebt er kunnen kijken dat weet ik dat was ook de bedoeling en alle gegevens zijn opgeslagen
Er is niks ranzings aan er staat gewoon foto's die overal te zien zijn .

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 11:25 schreef bastibro het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op het forum wordt discussie gevoerd over sociale problemen, politiek, nationalisme, nationaal-socialisme, de Dietse gedachte, vaderlandse geschiedenis, joden, immigratie, racisme, de vermeende superioriteit van het blanke ras ten opzichte van de niet-blanken, allochtonen, linkse terreur. Daarnaast wordt ook discussie gevoerd over het nieuws. Ook minder serieuze onderwerpen komen aan de orde die deel uitmaken van de alledaagse beslommeringen van de forumleden.

Na het posten van meer dan vijftig goedgekeurde berichten, wordt de gebruiker in staat gesteld rechtstreeks te posten.

quote:

Zij legden zich toe op terreur tegen zwarten, kleurlingen en strijders voor hun grondwettelijke rechten, maar waren ook antisemitisch, homofoob, anti-katholiek en anti-communistisch en keerden zich tegen nieuwe immigranten. De eerste KKK kreeg grote aanhang in de Zuidelijke staten van de VS als blanke reactie tegen de afschaffing van de slavernij aan het eind van de Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog.

quote:

To many of these people Beth's theory of drugged date-pack-rape and murder is a foregone conclusion. This is an assumption that presses many red hot emotional buttons, particularly in America, particularly in the South, and particularly in an affluent isolated enclave like Mountain Brook, Alabama, a suburb of Birmingham.

Yep, this is the same Birmingham Alabama of the grainy black and white footage of 'nig-rows' being fire hosed, trunchoned, and mauled by dogs during the Freedom Rides of the 1960's. Y'all know 'bout that, Martin Luther King “ah - have - a - DREAM!”, and all that. (is that a cheap shot, or history?) (see addenda)

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 11:56 schreef johan555 het volgende:
[quote]Op vrijdag 10 april 2009 23:57 schreef OUWEFIETS het volgende:

[..]


je hebt er kunnen kijken dat weet ik dat was ook de bedoeling en alle gegevens zijn opgeslagen
Er is niks ranzings aan er staat gewoon foto's die overal te zien zijn .

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 11:25 schreef bastibro het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 14:03 schreef JoBuster het volgende:

[..]

Zou mij niets verbazen yyentle, google maar eens op Debardeleben en McWane dat zijn families met een duistere reputatie in het oude zuiden.

quote:

SATISH - 6/11/2005 STATEMENT
Joran and the girl were talking in the back of the car. I could not hear what Joran and the girl were talking about. The music in the car was on so loud that we could not hear what the people in the back of the car were saying. During the drive I had at one point heard that the girl had said the word "hitler". I had turned down the music a little. I then heard the girl saying that she was related to "hitler" and that her mother was the sister of "hitler". I also heard the girl saying that she was from Alabama and that her parents owned a plantation there that had slaves working on the plantation. Joran had told me later that the girl had asked him if we were his slaves. But I had not heard that.

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 15:54 schreef yyentle het volgende:

[..]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,460125,00.html
[..]

Dat kon Satish toen toch allemaal nog niet weten?

De achtergrond van Beth Holloway zou in ieder geval verklaren waarom haar aanhang zo aan het beschuldigen en bedreigen is.

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 00:17 schreef mrBhimself het volgende:
Ik neem aan dat je wat screenprints hebt gemaakt OF?

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 16:38 schreef Daniane het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Advocaten Kalpoe bedreigd

Caribische redactie

22-12-2007
Jos de Roo in gesprek met advocaat Ronny Wix (3'48")

De advocaten van de broers Kalpoe zijn in het verleden overstelpt met bedreigingen. De broers zouden volgens het Openbaar Ministerie op Aruba betrokken zijn geweest bij de verdwijning van de Amerikaanse tiener Natalee Holloway in november 2005. Maar deze week kwam het OM met de mededeling dat de zaak werd geseponeerd. Dat leidde weer tot nieuwe bedreigingen aan het adres van de advocaten en hun cliënten.

Ronny Wix, een van de advocaten die de broers Kalpoe juridisch bijstaat, is bovendien boos op het Openbaar Ministerie. Het heeft de zaak tegen zijn cliënten weliswaar geseponeerd, maar blijft hen bij het verdere onderzoek toch als verdachten beschouwen. En dat mag niet, meent hij. "Volgens de wet mag Aruba zich niet meer over hun onschuld uitlaten nu de zaak is geseponeerd", stelt Wix. "Maar de waan blijft dat het nog verdachten zijn."

Nieuwe fase
Het OM zei op een persconferentie heel stellig dat de zaak-Holloway een nieuwe fase is ingegaan en niet is afgesloten. Zodra er aanknopingspunten zijn, worden die weer onderzocht en kunnen de oude verdachten onder wie Joran van der Sloot, weer worden opgepakt. Volgens Wix kan dat alleen bij zwaarwegend nieuw bewijs, "maar dan nog moeten ze met rust worden gelaten."

Advocaat Wix onderstreept verder dat het 'nieuwe' bewijsmateriaal dat het OM na het sepot heeft vrijgegeven, niet klopt. Een Surinaams meisje verhaalde in juni tegen Nederlandse rechercheurs over een gesprek dat ze in 2005 had gehad met een van de broers, vlak na de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway. "Dat kan nooit overtuigend zijn na twee jaar", meent Wix. "Ze zou hebben gezegd dat er iets aan de hand was, maar zover ik het begreep, merkte ze alleen maar dat hij verdrietig was." Ook met de andere getuigenis, die uit een oude chatsessie is gevist, heeft hij problemen.

Schadevergoeding
Advocaat Wix komt mogelijk samen met zijn confrères met een eis voor een schadevergoeding. Via de rechter wordt nu ook bekeken of de gemaakte kosten, onder meer voor het benaderen van advocaten in de VS, kunnen worden verhaald. Hoeveel wil hij niet zeggen

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 april 2009 20:25 schreef yyentle het volgende:

[..]


[..]

http://antilliaans.caribiana.nl/aruba/Car20071222_Kalpoe

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 12:05 schreef duikkie het volgende:

[..]

sommige mensen worden verdrietig en neerslachtig als ze schuldig zijn

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 12:19 schreef bastibro het volgende:

[..]

Reken maar duikkie, het brengt een zekere mate van dood in je leven.

@OpoeFiets: met de kruisjes wordt symbolisch aangegeven dat wij ze niet uit het oog verliezen

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 12:05 schreef duikkie het volgende:

[..]

sommige mensen worden verdrietig en neerslachtig als ze schuldig zijn

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 15:02 schreef JoBuster het volgende:

[..]

WIJ, als in jij, jochie en die vette viespeuk van CnG?
Nu de Kalpoes zullen vast wakker van liggen van een stelletje losers dat op de meeste fora wordt uitgekostst en uitgelachen

[ afbeelding ]

vrolijk pasen

AYO!!

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 15:50 schreef johan555 het volgende:

[..]

OT blijven !

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:19 schreef yyentle het volgende:
En Mrs. Holloway Twitty verzwijgt uiteraard dat ze niet volledig wil meewerken aan de verzoeken om medewerking, gedaan door officier van justitie Hans Mos.

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:22 schreef johan555 het volgende:
BAR Carlos' n Charlie's

Wat te denken van de bar Carlos' n Charlie's om een jongen van 17
jaar ( toegang te verstrekken, na middernacht, terwijl iedereen weet
dat je in de bar door het personeel gepushed wordt om tequila in
noodtempo op te drinken. Tussen de groep Amerikanen zullen ook nog wel
minderjarige meisjes gezeten hebben. Iedere Arubaanse jongen tussen 14
en 54 weet dit en weet ook dat er veel toeristen (meisjes) zijn die het
drinken niet aankunnen en een gemakkelijke prooi zijn voor de heren.
Immers de ideale formule voor snel seks is: 3Z
( Zon, Zand en Zuipen)

Carlos' n Charlie's bar/restaurant claimt op haar website dat
iedereen gecontroleerd wordt op zijn of haar minderjarigheid. Dit is
natuurlijk een pertinente leugen, een kind van twaalf kan zo binnen
lopen. Ook de overheid is hier in gebreke omdat ze nimmer controle
acties uitvoeren en ook geen beleid hebben.

En beleid is kijken naar het heden en verleden. Bar/restaurant Carlos'
n Charlie's heeft niet een echt een goede reputatie. Ook in het
verleden waren ze al onderwerp van discussie o.m. met de verdwijning
van het 23-jarige meisje Amy Bradley wiens verdwijning nog steeds niet
opgelost is na 6 jaar, al bestaat er wel een sterk vermoeden dat ze nu
in de prostitutie zit.

Heeft de minister van justitie nooit kunnen bedenken dat in
horecagelegenheden waar klanten echt geprest worden om dronken te
worden, rare zaken kunnen gebeuren?
Bij Carlos' n Charlie's worden klanten door het barpersoneel op de
tafel gezet en moeten drank naar binnen gieten. Het personeel is pas
tevreden als men lallend omvalt en veel tieners kunnen de druk niet
weerstaan van het geroutineerde horecapersoneel en willen niet
"afgaan" bij hun vrienden.
Op dit soort horecazaken moet beleid toegepast worden en dat heeft de
minister van justitie verzuimd. Laat hem niet zeggen dat hij het niet
weet. Een falend beleid dus.

Als ik de juridische adviseur was van de onderhavige familie(s) zou ik
(ongeacht de uitkomst van het politieonderzoek en de oplossing van de
story) nu alvast bewijzen gaan verzamelen in welke mate het meisje en
de minderjarige jongen gedronken hebben, waarbij het verstrekken van
teveel tequila -zeker onder een soort vorm van dwang- voldoende is
om de (mede)aansprakelijkheid van Carlos' n Charlie's en de
overheid (lees: de minister van justitie) vast te stellen.

Teveel drank verschaffen is naar Amerikaanse begrippen ongeveer moord
en zeker op de wijze waarop dit onder psychische dwang gebeurt zoals
bij Carlos' n Charlie's. In de meeste staten moet je zelfs tenminste
21 jaar zijn i.p.v. 18 om alcohol te mogen nuttigen.

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:09 schreef JoBuster het volgende:
Interview met die heks Beth Reynolds-Holloway-Twitty mbt de prachtfilm^tm gebaseerd op haar boekje.

Zoek de leugens HIER

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:27 schreef johan555 het volgende:
Was Paul vd Sloot in McDonald"s ? om 3 uur s'nachts !!!

Here are the "family member's" posts from Riehl:

Quote:
I'm in Mountain Brook and from the people who have recently returned from Aruba is that Van der Sloot's dad was seen at a McDonald's at 3 a.m. the night Natalee disappeared.

I don't think this has been reported in the mainstream media so hopefully this will help those of of you who are following this closely. This is my first post here and I'm posting something I think all of you might find significant.

Natalee goes missing at about 1 to 1:30 a.m. and the Van der Sloot's dad is seen at a McDonalds at 3a.m. I assume the dad has a job and would have to be at work the next day. There to me it is very suspicious

quote:

Time for Beth to harass somebody else?

After entities other than Beth have spent in excess of $20,000,000 in a fruitless effort to find Natalee - and prove Joran guilty of something, everything, "anything will do, Lord!" - there's still not a shred of evidence any crime occured relating to Natalee's 'disappearance'. There's even less evidence Joran had anything to do with Natalee's 'disappearance'.

Despite the obvious, despite the best efforts of three sovereign nations, despite the millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours expended by people around the globe to prove Joran caused Natalee's 'disappearance' - there's nothing to show for it. Nothing. Despite all these facts, Beth continues to squawk "KIDNAPPED!! "GANGRAPED!!" and "MURDERED!!" during her fear-for-a-fee speeches. I guess it plays well in Peoria.

Is it time for Beth to harass somebody else and time for the proper authorities to look in another direction? Both Beth and the authorities have been proven wrong 75% of the time so far (J2K and Paulus, now minus the 2 K's and Paulus), and that's a horrible track record. Actually, that track record sucks. It would get anybody employed in the private sector summarily fired.

"Those who continue to repeat their mistakes are doomed to failure."

quote:

[
Natalee Holloway: ... BLOOD WAS FOUND IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR. ... of the suspect's cars to see if it was Holloway's blood. ...ABC NEWS

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:23 schreef yyentle het volgende:
http://curanieuws.blogspo(...)nes-op-tv-aruba.html

quote:

Op zondag 12 april 2009 16:48 schreef yyentle het volgende:

[..]

Hier is Renee Gielen aan het woord en een stukje van the Unrevealed Time Lines.