Discussion Thread .... Week of 10/1 [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by maljunulino

Boy are you out on a limb.....ha ha. I'll come out too. Nothing much new, except all the speculation about the Nov 1 hearings and whether or not Deepak is in negociations for damages from Dr. Phil or whether he's in negociations for an tv interview, or whether he's not in any at all, never sure how much credibility to assign to Dave's ramblings.

I sincerely hope it is negotiations with Dr Phil over Skeeter's tape. The silence from both Dr Phil and Skeeter's makes me think that is exactly what it is.

Twinky

10-02-2006, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by maljunulino

I'm sure if it happens it will include a hermetic zipper for Deepak's mouth, and of course on the other side too. Negociation completed, details not disclosed. Hope he gets a big fat new house, cars, and enough to retire for life from that internet shop, somewhere away from any twangs.

IMO

I don't see how Beth can avoid being named tho since she was right in the thick of it. I should think Deepak would like it that way.

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

I don't see how Beth can avoid being named tho since she was right in the thick of it. I should think Deepak would like it that way.

She hyped that tape as the case breaker but backed off fast when it was deemed manipulated.

Luke Davis

10-02-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden
Well .... I'm taking a chance on opening a thread for this week. I haven't seen anything not allowing it ....

We seem to be turning the "poll thread" into a discussion. Way to go FM#1. I was :chicken: until Freshy said it is okay. :hat:

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
That was her 'proof' of gang rape.

And it blew up in her face.

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I was ticked to see some people don't think the tape was altered. I recall the Dutch getting bad mouthed when the DFI findings were revealed.

If the negotiations are with Dr Phil and he settles that will end the issue once and for all.

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego

My bad, I meant tickled, NOT ticked!!

LOL

Gregor's Back

10-02-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

If the negotiations are with Dr Phil and he settles that will end the issue once and for all.
You'd think it would, but we're still hearing Joran and the Kalpoes fingered the security guards, Paulus said "no body, no case", Beth believed from the very beginning Natalee had been kidnapped, Joran confessed, but Aruba and the Netherlands are covering it up, and all the other nonsense.

The unfounded and disproved claims will never stop.

Gregor's Back

10-02-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Well now they are all in one document, compiled by Dave's internet investigators ready for the Dutch investigators to peruse.

LOL LOL LOL LOL
Did they include "swapping out the furniture"?

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
And it's not like Dr Phil is a stranger to settling law suits :tongue:

To the tune of 10.5 Million. :tongue:

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

If the negotiations are with Dr Phil and he settles that will end the issue once and for all.

:no: That only settles it once and for all with Dr Phil. Skeeters and Beth can be held accountable as well.

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
That was her 'proof' of gang rape.

I thought she reverted back to her 'confessions' for proof pf gangrape. I mean "why were they wasting so much time on 5 seconds of tape?"--Beth Twitty circa Oct 2005

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Well now they are all in one document, compiled by Dave's internet investigators ready for the Dutch investigators to peruse.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

It will certainly save them a trip to Aruba since Dave was kind enough to streamline the 'evidence' for them.

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

:no: That only settles it once and for all with Dr Phil. Skeeters and Beth can be held accountable as well.

I know that. I meant it ended it once and for all on the topic of whether the tape was manipulated. ;)

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

I know that. I meant it ended it once and for all on the topic of whether the tape was manipulated. ;)

Technically not true. Depending on how much Deepak would be asking for Dr Phil could settle as a nuisance suit without admitting guilt.

Besides it has been settled once and for all. The DFI has spoken. The same DFI the Dutch LE (that Beth "has wanted to take over the case for 1.5 years") would rely on.

Watership Down

10-02-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

Technically not true. Depending on how much Deepak would be asking for Dr Phil could settle as a nuisance suit without admitting guilt.

Besides it has been settled once and for all. The DFI has spoken. The same DFI the Dutch LE (that Beth "has wanted to take over the case for 1.5 years") would rely on.

But you have to remember the few claimed that it wasn't manipulated because Dr Phil didn't discuss it so if he settled a potential lawsuit they would have his answer.

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

But you have to remember the few claimed that it wasn't manipulated because Dr Phil didn't discuss it so if he settled a potential lawsuit they would have his answer.

The few who claimed it wasn't manipulated b/c Dr Phil didn't discuss don't understand the power of Paramount inhouse attorneys. They gagged him immediately and they could also knew the tape was manipulated from the show's editor depending on what he/she was given by Skeeters. But all 3, Phil., Skeeters and Beth are guilty of tampering with evidence whether they did the actual physical editing or not.

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
It was his internet investigators, not Dave, who produced that 'document' :no:

That maybe but Dave was director and appears to want executive producer credit as well.

Twinky

10-02-2006, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I thought she reverted back to a Journal Entry :shrug:

The quote I am referring to, she reverts to the 'confessions.'

Luke Davis

10-02-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
No, that would require plastering a picture into the document and I don't think they are savvy enough to know how to include visual aids. They can hire someone.

MOO

fairmaiden

10-02-2006, 11:46 PM

WOW .... I started the thread, then lost power .... lol. I thought it was a "sign" .... lol.

Talking about the "tape" .... I wonder how many people considered that some kind of "turning point"? I know I did. I wondered then, and I wonder now .... why would anyone need to "manufacture" evidence, OR "tamper" with it, like Twinky said??

JMO

Twinky

10-03-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
He can have it, the document quotes his book as if that is an authority on how the investigation was conducted. How would he know, by his own admission, he based all his knowledge on rumors and media reports!

Interesting how Natalee is referred to as the missing child as if she is nine or ten instead of the missing ADULT, which she was on Aruba.

Why was this child left unattended by her parents on a foreign island getting drunk for 5 days?

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
My question before the tape was even played was why didn't ALE have this tape instead of Dr Phil?

Now I know. I wondered that about Natalee's camera, cell phone, toothbrush, etc.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Interesting that those 'confessions' were not included in any of the statements she gave to BFN and the Monkeys. :tongue:

If you look at page 27 of 'the script", Twitty is quoted as pleading with "Dutch authorities to allow FBI to take over." She further goes on to say that the Hague is "protecting Joran."

Now some 14 months later we and the Dutch LE are supposed to believe she wanted the Dutch authorities to take over from the beginning? ?? If I were them I'd LMAO, throw a Jenever in her face and call it a day.

Someone ought to tell Mrs Twitty the meaning of too little, too late.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
He can have it, the document quotes his book as if that is an authority on how the investigation was conducted. How would he know, by his own admission, he based all his knowledge on rumors and media reports!

Interesting how Natalee is referred to as the missing child as if she is nine or ten instead of the missing ADULT, which she was on Aruba.

The guy talks to rocks or are those in his head? :shrug:

Heyes

10-03-2006, 01:01 AM

Just saw the interview with Beth in Holland. It was lovely. It seems as if the posters statement that the host is anti-twitty was wrong, completely wrong. He was serious and polite and seemed to care a great deal about this poor mothers plight.

I just read where joran ran back to aruba when Beth landed in Holland and now that she's gone, he's returned. lol I bet it's true the big :chicken: .
Also read about the on-line gambling, aruba is going down on many levels it seems.

Too bad, all they had to do was give the family justice. but they just couldn't manage that now could they?
:no:

No Nic

10-03-2006, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Heyes
Just saw the interview with Beth in Holland. It was lovely. It seems as if the posters statement that the host is anti-twitty was wrong, completely wrong. He was serious and polite and seemed to care a great deal about this poor mothers plight.

I just read where joran ran back to aruba when Beth landed in Holland and now that she's gone, he's returned. lol I bet it's true the big :chicken: .
Also read about the on-line gambling, aruba is going down on many levels it seems.

Too bad, all they had to do was give the family justice. but they just couldn't manage that now could they?
:no:

I just watched the video, Heyes, and yes, the host was wonderful to Beth. He never questioned her belief that Joran is responsible for Natalee's disappearance. Hmmmmmmmm, this from a Dutchman? No *hard* questions, no support for Joran at all, but plenty of support for Beth. I guess the Dutch don't *hate* Beth after all. I loved the interview, very well done and Beth looked lovely.

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

I just watched the video, Heyes, and yes, the host was wonderful to Beth. He never questioned her belief that Joran is responsible for Natalee's disappearance. Hmmmmmmmm, this from a Dutchman? No *hard* questions, no support for Joran at all, but plenty of support for Beth. I guess the Dutch don't *hate* Beth after all. I loved the interview, very well done and Beth looked lovely.
You and Heyes, and a few others, have a really difficult time understanding how television shows work, don't you?

julianella

10-03-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

I just watched the video, Heyes, and yes, the host was wonderful to Beth. He never questioned her belief that Joran is responsible for Natalee's disappearance. Hmmmmmmmm, this from a Dutchman? No *hard* questions, no support for Joran at all, but plenty of support for Beth. I guess the Dutch don't *hate* Beth after all. I loved the interview, very well done and Beth looked lovely.

I did not see this interview, can anyone tell me are there transcripts? OR can it be viewed online?

TIA

julianella

10-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Wonder why Beth claimed that she was concerned that Natalee would be of legal age to enter establishments where they're serving alcohol when she got the alcohol included package.:shrug:

Because there probably was not a choice of alcohol included or not. As explained eariler, when aplanning a trip with a large amount of people like this I highly doubt the trip planner is going to customize the trip for each and every person, all inclusive is the most realistic in a case like this, as everything including certain activities are included also. IMO

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Heyes
<SNIP>
I just read where joran ran back to aruba when Beth landed in Holland and now that she's gone, he's returned.
<SNIP>
I guess you think we all believe you have a link to a legitimate source, but you just forgot to post it.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

You and Heyes, and a few others, have a really difficult time understanding how television shows work, don't you?

LOL, you guys have been whining for over 16 months that cable news lets Beth get away with saying anything with no question.

Here we have a Dutch interviewer with a perfect opportunity to ask her those *hard* questions and not allow her to make her *unfounded* accusations...........but NOTHING is asked and the inerviewer is very sympathetic?

I would think you would be more outraged at him than the American media. :shrug:
imo

No Nic

10-03-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

<Shaking Head> Tsk, tsk, tsk, NN - when are you going to understand that out in the "real world" people don't accuse, blame and harass a victim's mother. ;)

imo.

<Hangin my head in shame> Forgive me, my bad. :D

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

LOL, you guys have been whining for over 16 months that cable news lets Beth get away with saying anything with no question.

Here we have a Dutch interviewer with a perfect opportunity to ask her those *hard* questions and not allow her to make her *unfounded* accusations...........but NOTHING is asked and the inerviewer is very sympathetic?

I would think you would be more outraged at him than the American media. :shrug:
imo
Like I said, you don't know how TV interviews are conducted.

They're taped. If the interviewer asks questions the subject doesn't want to answer, the subject leaves, and there's no show.

Like it or not, the person being interviewed controls the show.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

Like I said, you don't know how TV interviews are conducted.

They're taped. If the interviewer asks questions the subject doesn't want to answer, the subject leaves, and there's no show.

Like it or not, the person being interviewed controls the show.

Oh, so that's why Greta couldn't ask Joran the questions we all wanted the answers to, he was in control (his favorite position). Thanks for clearing that up.

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

Oh, so that's why Greta couldn't ask Joran the questions we all wanted the answers to, he was in control (his favorite position). Thanks for clearing that up.
Glad I could help.

You should make a point of trying to learn something every day.

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

Of course - you're too nice! :)

Yes, the interviewer was very accomodating and sensitive. I especially like how he took care in first asking Beth the proper way to address Natalee (past or present).

imo.

I didn't see or hear the interview .... what was her answer to that question??

cassidy

10-03-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by julianella

Because there probably was not a choice of alcohol included or not. As explained eariler, when aplanning a trip with a large amount of people like this I highly doubt the trip planner is going to customize the trip for each and every person, all inclusive is the most realistic in a case like this, as everything including certain activities are included also. IMO

So in other words, if there was a large group of AA members wishing to travel to Aruba on an all inclusive junket (as in hotel, food and activities), they would have to pay more for their trip without the alcohol?

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 12:50 PM

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 12:53 PM

cassidy

10-03-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

The trip could have been planned and purchased without the alcohol included. ;)

I have no doubt that it could have been :)

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

So in other words, if there was a large group of AA members wishing to travel to Aruba on an all inclusive junket (as in hotel, food and activities), they would have to pay more for their trip without the alcohol?

All inclusive means that airfare, hotel, transportation to and from airport, food, drinks, and some activities are included if you pay the money upfront for the all inclusive package. If AA members have the willpower to go to an island that encourages drinking and partying, but prefer to eat to their heart's content, and not have to worry about where they will put their money while in the pool, or around the beach area, then I'd say, go for the all inclusive. The temptation will be there to drink whether they pay for it upfront or not. If they desire to have a non-alcoholic mix drink, or a coke, or a cherry coke, or a vanilla coke, or whatever type of soda water concoction you can dream of, then it's available at the bar. jmo

No Nic

10-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
It was obvious this interviewer didn't know anything about the case. Wonder how many Dutch now know about it as I hear his show has very low ratings. Maybe he also broadcasts out of his mom's basement. :biggrin:

Isn't it funny how you negate anything positive towards Beth. Very telling, but you can't change it to suit you. The program sure seemed to have a rather large audience for having such low ratings, but then again, it is tv, the audience was probably not in this man's basement, it was only a clip they showed to fool us, I am sure. :rolleyes:

cassidy

10-03-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

All inclusive means that airfare, hotel, transportation to and from airport, food, drinks, and some activities are included if you pay the money upfront for the all inclusive package. If AA members have the willpower to go to an island that encourages drinking and partying, but prefer to eat to their heart's content, and not have to worry about where they will put their money while in the pool, or around the beach area, then I'd say, go for the all inclusive. The temptation will be there to drink whether they pay for it upfront or not. If they desire to have a non-alcoholic mix drink, or a coke, or a cherry coke, or a vanilla coke, or whatever type of soda water concoction you can dream of, then it's available at the bar. jmo

But if they purchased the same trip minus the alcohol it would cost them more, right?
And FYI, alcoholics do not restirct themselves to going to places that don't serve alcohol. The temptation to drink is everywhere, not just on exotic islands.

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

But if they purchased the same trip minus the alcohol it would cost them more, right?
And FYI, alcoholics do not restirct themselves to going to places that don't serve alcohol. The temptation to drink is everywhere, not just on exotic islands.

In my opinion, all inclusive is what it is, all inclusive. I don't think you can say I want the all inclusive package, but I don't want the food, or the alcohol, or the room, or the activities. To me, that would be like going to an all you can eat restaurant and wanting to know how much the buffet is without corn...lol

cassidy

10-03-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

In my opinion, all inclusive is what it is, all inclusive. I don't think you can say I want the all inclusive package, but I don't want the food, or the alcohol, or the room, or the activities. To me, that would be like going to an all you can eat restaurant and wanting to know how much the buffet is without corn...lol

I went googling and it seems you are correct. If you want the all-inclusive, it is with food and beverage (be they hard or soft). At least I couldn't find one that seperates the 2. Which brings us to the next question. Is it wise to send unaccompanied 17-18 year olds on such a vacation? There are some nice vacation areas in the USA (the keys and someone mentioned Hawaii). You don't have to worry about them driving in those places either as 17-18 year olds cannot rent vehicles. Fly them, plop them at a resort, let them snorkle and swim to their little hearts content and don't worry about them getting drunk.

Makes sense to me.

IMO

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

In my opinion, all inclusive is what it is, all inclusive. I don't think you can say I want the all inclusive package, but I don't want the food, or the alcohol, or the room, or the activities. To me, that would be like going to an all you can eat restaurant and wanting to know how much the buffet is without corn...lol
If you shop around you can find the same "all inclusive" tours with and without alcohol.

If you can't find a suitable one, you go to a reputable tourist agency, and they'll customize a package which includes everything you want, and only what you want. That's the function of a tourist agency.

If you have the time and temperament and don't mind spending a few bucks, you can contact a few hotels and airlines and act as your travel agent. Again you would include only the services you want.

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego

I just asked the same thing. Great minds do indeed think alike :D

LOL AE .... Indeed they do!!!

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

I went googling and it seems you are correct. If you want the all-inclusive, it is with food and beverage (be they hard or soft). At least I couldn't find one that seperates the 2. Which brings us to the next question. Is it wise to send unaccompanied 17-18 year olds on such a vacation? There are some nice vacation areas in the USA (the keys and someone mentioned Hawaii). You don't have to worry about them driving in those places either as 17-18 year olds cannot rent vehicles. Fly them, plop them at a resort, let them snorkle and swim to their little hearts content and don't worry about them getting drunk.

Makes sense to me.

IMO

I personally wouldn't have allowed my child to go on this trip. Now with that said, and knowing how most teenagers are, and how they will sneak around behind our back to do whatever they think they should with friends or whatever, maybe some felt that their kids would drink anyway, and felt that not only was it legal for most in Aruba, that it would be safe knowing they were at a resort, and with chaperones.

Do you honestly think these parents sent their kids off and said, go for it, have a ball, drink as much as you want, as a matter of fact drink to the point that you're so inebriated you can't make good judgements and you compromise your safety? I doubt it!

We can criticize these parents from now and until the end of time, and thank God for the fact that they all came back safe and sound, that is, except for one, poor Natalee, who left CnC's with J2k, and was never seen nor heard from again.

jmo

julianella

10-03-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

So in other words, if there was a large group of AA members wishing to travel to Aruba on an all inclusive junket (as in hotel, food and activities), they would have to pay more for their trip without the alcohol?

If the group was going on an all inclusive YES alcohol would be included. I have posted links before. I highly doubt a AA group would take an all inclusive! As alcohol is not omitted! All inclusive is as it states ALL inclusive! IF they were palnning a trip, then I am sure the trip planner would plan at their disgression! It is all about the trip planner!2 imo

julianella

10-03-2006, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Are you saying the 17 year olds going to Aruba illegally purchased alcohol included packages?

All inclusive ! Plaease look it up I posted several links before. Some directly from the hotel Natalee stayed at and how it was offered!

imo

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

LOL, you guys have been whining for over 16 months that cable news lets Beth get away with saying anything with no question.

Here we have a Dutch interviewer with a perfect opportunity to ask her those *hard* questions and not allow her to make her *unfounded* accusations...........but NOTHING is asked and the inerviewer is very sympathetic?

I would think you would be more outraged at him than the American media. :shrug:
imo I assume that the questions are set before Beth leaves the USA.

MOO

julianella

10-03-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

But if they purchased the same trip minus the alcohol it would cost them more, right?
And FYI, alcoholics do not restirct themselves to going to places that don't serve alcohol. The temptation to drink is everywhere, not just on exotic islands.

All inclusive is ALL INCLUSIVE! If they chose that package alcohol was included, if they did not choose that package it would no longer be an all inclusive! There is no sheet that says check all you want to drink, you either get the all inclusive, or you don't!

imo

julianella

10-03-2006, 02:01 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Are you saying the 17 year olds going to Aruba illegally purchased alcohol included packages? Everybody did!

MOO

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

I personally wouldn't have allowed my child to go on this trip. Now with that said, and knowing how most teenagers are, and how they will sneak around behind our back to do whatever they think they should with friends or whatever, maybe some felt that their kids would drink anyway, and felt that not only was it legal for most in Aruba, that it would be safe knowing they were at a resort, and with chaperones.

Do you honestly think these parents sent their kids off and said, go for it, have a ball, drink as much as you want, as a matter of fact drink to the point that you're so inebriated you can't make good judgements and you compromise your safety? I doubt it!

We can criticize these parents from now and until the end of time, and thank God for the fact that they all came back safe and sound, that is, except for one, poor Natalee, who left CnC's with J2k, and was never seen nor heard from again.

jmo

Well .... you see, there can be agreement between 2 "sides" here. I wouldn't have allowed my child to go either, Suki, for just the reasons you stated.

What I DO know is .... those parents sent their kids off KNOWING there was going to be absolutely NO supervision. You mention the "chaperones" .... almost as if you thought they were keeping watchful eyes on their "charges". I don't believe the parents sent their kids off to Aruba, giving them blessings to drink until they were inebriated .... but I DO think, it was not much of a concern, because they signed waivers ABSOLVING those "chaperones" of any responsibility.

JMO

cassidy

10-03-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by julianella

Price the differences between Hawaii, and Aruba, I think you will se why they went there ! imo

OK, did that, Hawaii is expensive. How about the Florida Keys, fairly comparable in price. Matter of fact, there are resorts all along the gulf and the southeastern seaboard. But they couldn't drink there legally and I believe that was the kicker to Aruba.

IMO

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by julianella

All inclusive is ALL INCLUSIVE! If they chose that package alcohol was included, if they did not choose that package it would no longer be an all inclusive! There is no sheet that says check all you want to drink, you either get the all inclusive, or you don't!

imo Have you seen the agreement they signed?

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by julianella

Price the differences between Hawaii, and Aruba, I think you will se why they went there ! imo :confused:

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

OK, did that, Hawaii is expensive. How about the Florida Keys, fairly comparable in price. Matter of fact, there are resorts all along the gulf and the southeastern seaboard. But they couldn't drink there legally and I believe that was the kicker to Aruba.

IMO

cassidy .... Despite the fact julia accused me of blowing Jodi's Bearman's quote way out of proportion, you are EXACTLY right. They "researched" this trip, KNOWING it was a place those kids COULD drink legally, without worrying about them driving. Alcohol WAS the kicker ....

JMO

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Well .... you see, there can be agreement between 2 "sides" here. I wouldn't have allowed my child to go either, Suki, for just the reasons you stated.

What I DO know is .... those parents sent their kids off KNOWING there was going to be absolutely NO supervision. You mention the "chaperones" .... almost as if you thought they were keeping watchful eyes on their "charges". I don't believe the parents sent their kids off to Aruba, giving them blessings to drink until they were inebriated .... but I DO think, it was not much of a concern, because they signed waivers ABSOLVING those "chaperones" of any responsibility.

JMO

formalities, in my opinion. What chaperone would go and say yeah I'll take full responsibility for your child. Heck, we can't even visit the zoo these days without seeing a sign that says we are not responsible for accidents, or look at the back of baseball ticket and it basically says if you get killed by a foul ball, we are not responsible. They don't use those words, but that's pretty much what it means. jmo

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

formalities, in my opinion. What chaperone would go and say yeah I'll take full responsibility for your child. Heck, we can't even visit the zoo these days without seeing a sign that says we are not responsible for accidents, or look at the back of baseball ticket and it basically says if you get killed by a foul ball, we are not responsible. They don't use those words, but that's pretty much what it means. jmo

"Formalities"????? I'm lost with this train of thought. A "chaperone", according to my dictionary is an "older person who supervises younger people". VERY simple. WHAT exactly was a "formality" here??

ETA .... I should add .... why would the parents ABSOLVE these "chaperones" from doing that??

No Nic

10-03-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

I personally wouldn't have allowed my child to go on this trip. Now with that said, and knowing how most teenagers are, and how they will sneak around behind our back to do whatever they think they should with friends or whatever, maybe some felt that their kids would drink anyway, and felt that not only was it legal for most in Aruba, that it would be safe knowing they were at a resort, and with chaperones.

Do you honestly think these parents sent their kids off and said, go for it, have a ball, drink as much as you want, as a matter of fact drink to the point that you're so inebriated you can't make good judgements and you compromise your safety? I doubt it!

We can criticize these parents from now and until the end of time, and thank God for the fact that they all came back safe and sound, that is, except for one, poor Natalee, who left CnC's with J2k, and was never seen nor heard from again.

jmo

Great post, Suki !! We can all agree perhaps the wrong choice of a trip was made, even tho I would presume thousands of young people go to Aruba each year with the same *all inclusive* package, participate in foolish, risky behavior, etc. but still come home safe and sound. Unfortunately, Natalee didn't. What was different about Natalee's situation and thousands of others ?? She left CnC's with JK2 !!! 'Nough said.

IMO

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

"Formalities"????? I'm lost with this train of thought. A "chaperone", according to my dictionary is an "older person who supervises younger people". VERY simple. WHAT exactly was a "formality" here??

True, but supervising doesn't necessarily mean you're taking responsibility if anything happens. jmo

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by julianella

All inclusive is ALL INCLUSIVE!
<snip>
You keep saying this, Julia, but it just isn't so.

This (http://www.allinclusiveexperts.com/) is one of many sites that will customize a tour package for you. Just click on "Request a Quote".

They'll give you the same package with or without alcohol and the people in your group can choose whichever they prefer.

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Great post, Suki !! We can all agree perhaps the wrong choice of a trip was made, even tho I would presume thousands of young people go to Aruba each year with the same *all inclusive* package, participate in foolish, risky behavior, etc. but still come home safe and sound. Unfortunately, Natalee didn't. What was different about Natalee's situation and thousands of others ?? She left CnC's with JK2 !!! 'Nough said.

IMO

Well, I'm not sure that IS 'Nough said!! Joran et al were arrested, questioned, detained for MONTHS, then released. The Prosecutor said there was no evidence of any crime .... I would say THAT would be 'Nough said!!

JMO

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Great post, Suki !! We can all agree perhaps the wrong choice of a trip was made, even tho I would presume thousands of young people go to Aruba each year with the same *all inclusive* package, participate in foolish, risky behavior, etc. but still come home safe and sound. Unfortunately, Natalee didn't. What was different about Natalee's situation and thousands of others ?? She left CnC's with JK2 !!! 'Nough said.

IMO
So you're saying if Joran hadn't let Natalee pick him up nothing would have happened?

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

True, but supervising doesn't necessarily mean you're taking responsibility if anything happens. jmo

Well, no, Suki .... you're right, they wouldn't be taking responsibility if something happened. Would you agree though, IF they supervised, there would be LESS of a chance of something like this happening?? That was my point, Suki .... the parents agreed that their kids didn't need "supervision". My question always was .... why were those "chaperones" THERE?? There's the obvious answer, of course .... it was a free vacation, without any "supervising responsibility" whatsoever.

JMO

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Well, I'm not sure that IS 'Nough said!! Joran et al were arrested, questioned, detained for MONTHS, then released. The Prosecutor said there was no evidence of any crime .... I would say THAT would be 'Nough said!!

JMO

Should be 'nough said' if only we could believe there was a proper investigation. jmo

SukiJane

10-03-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Well, no, Suki .... you're right, they wouldn't be taking responsibility if something happened. Would you agree though, IF they supervised, there would be LESS of a chance of something like this happening?? That was my point, Suki .... the parents agreed that their kids didn't need "supervision". My question always was .... why were those "chaperones" THERE?? There's the obvious answer, of course .... it was a free vacation, without any "supervising responsibility" whatsoever.

JMO

Speaking from a chaperone's standpoint, which is what I've been trying to do all along, I would not have gone on this trip without some disclaimer being signed by the parents of these young adults, stating I would not be held responsible if something happened.

Now, with that being said, I believe these Chaperones were a huge let down in this case, and I agree if they would have been there to supervise maybe there would been less of a chance of something happening to Natalee, and who knows with all those kids, that they didn't prevent other bad things from happening, and thank goodness they were there when it was discovered that Natalee was missing. I assume that they kept the students in order and made sure they boarded their flights. Can you imagine what it would have been like if they weren't there. Some teenagers scared to death, others wanting to stay and look for her...who knows what kind of chaotic mess they prevented. jmo

julianella

10-03-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

cassidy .... Despite the fact julia accused me of blowing Jodi's Bearman's quote way out of proportion, you are EXACTLY right. They "researched" this trip, KNOWING it was a place those kids COULD drink legally, without worrying about them driving. Alcohol WAS the kicker ....

JMO

They never said they didn't know the kids would drink, they acknowledged they could drink.

I have asked you many times really where would they have gone that was out of the US where they could not drink? And in the US you think they would not have drank? Ever heard of spring break in Florida?

julianella

10-03-2006, 03:51 PM

julianella

10-03-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

Speaking from a chaperone's standpoint, which is what I've been trying to do all along, I would not have gone on this trip without some disclaimer being signed by the parents of these young adults, stating I would not be held responsible if something happened.

Now, with that being said, I believe these Chaperones were a huge let down in this case, and I agree if they would have been there to supervise maybe there would been less of a chance of something happening to Natalee, and who knows with all those kids, that they didn't prevent other bad things from happening, and thank goodness they were there when it was discovered that Natalee was missing. I assume that they kept the students in order and made sure they boarded their flights. Can you imagine what it would have been like if they weren't there. Some teenagers scared to death, others wanting to stay and look for her...who knows what kind of chaotic mess they prevented. jmo

Great post!!

julianella

10-03-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

You keep saying this, Julia, but it just isn't so.

This (http://www.allinclusiveexperts.com/) is one of many sites that will customize a tour package for you. Just click on "Request a Quote".

They'll give you the same package with or without alcohol and the people in your group can choose whichever they prefer.

Here is the HI all inclusive package
http://www.beachdestinations.com/Aruba_Vacations/discount-hotel-pp10102-Holiday_Inn_SunSpree_Aruba_.aspx

"Highlights:
Holiday Inn SunSpree Resort is located in Aruba, Palm Beach in the Netherlands Antilles.

General Facility Description
Holiday Inn SunSpree Aruba Resort and Casino, brick paved driveway leads you to the front entrance where you will be greeted by the experienced staff and escorted to the new open air lobby, complete with chandeliers, an illuminated dome, soft island music and elegant wood beam ceiling. Your view of the Caribbean starts as you check in facing west towards the setting sun and the beauty of Aruba's best beach, Palm Beach.

ALL INCLUSIVE PACKAGE INCLUDE:

Accomodation as selected
Meals option include "a la carte" or buffet meal service (certain menu items, moderate surcharge apply and not included in AI package)
Beverages include: House brands as defined by the hotel
There is a full bar selection at all outlet and moderate surcharges apply to any iten not defined as a House Brand
Free use of all facilities, activities and children's programs as provided by the hotel
Use of non-motorized water sports (excluding floats) as provided by Pelican Water sports is included
Hotel taxes "

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by julianella

They never said they didn't know the kids would drink, they acknowledged they could drink.

I have asked you many times really where would they have gone that was out of the US where they could not drink? And in the US you think they would not have drank? Ever heard of spring break in Florida?

julia .... You keep skirting the issue. The point was .... THIS trip was arranged with the full knowledge the kids would be drinking. That's what Jodi Bearman's statement alluded to. In other words, they WOULD be able to drink, and NO ONE need worry about them driving.

I have no DOUBT they would have been drinking if this trip was arranged for somewhere in the U.S. After all, they DID drink at home .... and they were even minors in THEIR State.

JMO

No Nic

10-03-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

So you're saying if Joran hadn't let Natalee pick him up nothing would have happened?

I'm saying that if Natalee had not been Joran's choice this 21st time (the time *something bad* happened) she would be attending college in Alabama today.

imo

Twinky

10-03-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Great post, Suki !! We can all agree perhaps the wrong choice of a trip was made, even tho I would presume thousands of young people go to Aruba each year with the same *all inclusive* package, participate in foolish, risky behavior, etc. but still come home safe and sound. Unfortunately, Natalee didn't. What was different about Natalee's situation and thousands of others ?? She left CnC's with JK2 !!! 'Nough said.

IMO

You left out the most important part. Natalee CHOSE to ignore the buddy system rule and went off with strangers. Doesn't make the boys guilty but it does mean that Natalee made bad choices presumably b/c she was drunk and did not follow the rules. NOW nough said.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I too would LOVE to see the source claiming Joran VanderSloot left Holland because Beth Twitty was going there.

I would like to know why Beth Twitty lied to the Dutch audience when she pretended Joran would not meet with her. Her lying habit is becoming most disturbing. I should think the mental health assn should be concerned about having her around children.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
The hotel required it and that is the ONLY reason the nonchaperones even went. SOMEONE had to tell the unruly children to take it outside so the other hotel guests could get some peace and quiet and sleep.

Why would the hotel require chaperones? That is odd. Weren't the children adults in Aruba? Do they require chaperones for grandma and grandpa too?

Brattnt

10-03-2006, 05:45 PM

SSDD....:seeya:

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

I would like to know why Beth Twitty lied to the Dutch audience when she pretended Joran would not meet with her. Her lying habit is becoming most disturbing. I should think the mental health assn should be concerned about having her around children. Going without food or sleep for 128 hours does things to the mind. MOO

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

Why would the hotel require chaperones? That is odd. Weren't the children adults in Aruba? Do they require chaperones for grandma and grandpa too? If you go to the reservation link posted above it might help. Adults 18-20 are in a different category than adults over 21. MOO

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

I personally wouldn't have allowed my child to go on this trip. Now with that said, and knowing how most teenagers are, and how they will sneak around behind our back to do whatever they think they should with friends or whatever, maybe some felt that their kids would drink anyway, and felt that not only was it legal for most in Aruba, that it would be safe knowing they were at a resort, and with chaperones.

Do you honestly think these parents sent their kids off and said, go for it, have a ball, drink as much as you want, as a matter of fact drink to the point that you're so inebriated you can't make good judgements and you compromise your safety? I doubt it!

We can criticize these parents from now and until the end of time, and thank God for the fact that they all came back safe and sound, that is, except for one, poor Natalee, who left CnC's with J2k, and was never seen nor heard from again.

jmo

Interesting.......so teens will sneak around behind our backs? I totally agree.......

but it seems that the benefit of the doubt goes to the MB parents....but not the parents on Aruba.

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

Why would the hotel require chaperones? That is odd. Weren't the children adults in Aruba? Do they require chaperones for grandma and grandpa too? young adult law (http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/pdf/2006_penalities.pdf#search=%22adults%2018-20%22)

Example of different laws for under 18, 18-20 and over 21.

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

I'm saying that if Natalee had not been Joran's choice this 21st time (the time *something bad* happened) she would be attending college in Alabama today.

imo

No Nic .... What do you think happened 20 times?? Did Joran, in fact, say "something bad happened" 20 times?? .... or is your post just a LITTLE misleading ??

JMO

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 06:35 PM

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist15

Interesting.......so teens will sneak around behind our backs? I totally agree.......

but it seems that the benefit of the doubt goes to the MB parents....but not the parents on Aruba.

GREAT point, Narc.

JMO

feelings

10-03-2006, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

You left out the most important part. Natalee CHOSE to ignore the buddy system rule and went off with strangers. Doesn't make the boys guilty but it does mean that Natalee made bad choices presumably b/c she was drunk and did not follow the rules. NOW nough said.
IMO this is irrelevant. If what her mother thinks happened is true, would it matter in court whether she did that or not? If it´s not true, it wouldn´t matter either. It only matters for those that think this is important. It is only important for them.

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by feelings

IMO this is irrelevant. If what her mother thinks happened is true, would it matter in court whether she did that or not? If it´s not true, it wouldn´t matter either. It only matters for those that think this is important. It is only important for them.

It's not irrelevant.......

it's rather important if people want to learn from this incident......whether J2K are guilty of the crime or not.......

we can learn from the mistakes....and possibly someone in the future will be safer because of it....and avoid such a situation........

whether it be to drink responsibly or to always follow the buddy system......

IMO

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Who was it that said 'something bad happened' anyway :shrug: Rudy Croes.

MOO

feelings

10-03-2006, 06:58 PM

Natalee Holloway Story Used to Promote Horror Film ' Chaos'

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27268741.shtml

"The movie is so terrifying and horrific to a young girl, we don't think any young girls who see the movie would leave a bar with two strangers," says producer Steven Jay Bernheim."

Clarity in "Chaos"?

http://www.tmz.com/2006/09/30/clarity-in-chaos/

Twinky

10-03-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
If you go to the reservation link posted above it might help. Adults 18-20 are in a different category than adults over 21. MOO

If there was something of value as the quid pro quo for the designated chaperones, (and there was via a free trip), their 'contract' absolving them from liability is not worth the paper it is written on.

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 07:00 PM

Twinky

10-03-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by feelings

IMO this is irrelevant. If what her mother thinks happened is true, would it matter in court whether she did that or not? If it´s not true, it wouldn´t matter either. It only matters for those that think this is important. It is only important for them.

If you can write this, then you have learned absolutely nothing from this experience. For you Natalee may be dead in vain.

THIS is the message her mother should be trying to get out to kids, not her one woman show to bash Aruba.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

No Nic .... What do you think happened 20 times?? Did Joran, in fact, say "something bad happened" 20 times?? .... or is your post just a LITTLE misleading ??

JMO

I think you misread the post.

No, Joran picked up tourist girls 20 times before (his approx.) and nothing bad happened (his words), the 21st time something bad did happen and it happened to Natalee. The *where, how and why* are the only questions now.

imo

cassidy

10-03-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
The hotel required it and that is the ONLY reason the nonchaperones even went. SOMEONE had to tell the unruly children to take it outside so the other hotel guests could get some peace and quiet and sleep.
You know what really blows me away about these "chaperones"? Some of them were teachers at the high school. Now I don't know how it works in Alabama, but the state I live in will revoke a teacher's license if they are caught drinking with or supplying drinks to minors. These teachers knew about the all inclusive and the kids who were underage ( and there were some) and chose to participate because they got a free trip with NO responsibility? Some were even photographed with beer bongs drinking with the kids. Not a good image for Mountain Brook High School IMO.

cassidy

10-03-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I too would LOVE to see the source claiming Joran VanderSloot left Holland because Beth Twitty was going there.

Hmmmmm...and how do we know Mrs Twitty didn't plan this trip because she knew Joran would be out of the country? That road can go 2 ways.

IMO

feelings

10-03-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Didn't her mother think Deepak said they all had sex with Natalee? Does she still think that?
perhaps. Did you see anyone ask her directly lately?

Twinky

10-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
young adult law (http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/pdf/2006_penalities.pdf#search=%22adults%2018-20%22)

Example of different laws for under 18, 18-20 and over 21.

I am at a loss as to how Nevada law applies to Aruba.:shrug:

If the age of majority is 18 in Aruba, then the 18-20 age group doesn't exist separate and apart from the over 21 club.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Yes, too bad ALE foused soley on Joran and the Kalpoe brothers for so long, discounting all other leads. Sigh.

Actually, it is too bad ALE did not focus enough on JK2 at the very beginning when there may have been a chance to gather evidence and maybe recover a body. IMO

Twinky

10-03-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

Hmmmmm...and how do we know Mrs Twitty didn't plan this trip because she knew Joran would be out of the country? That road can go 2 ways.

IMO

Doesn't it strike you odd that when Mrs Twitty 'claims' she wants to speak to authrorities whether Aruban or Dutch, she seems to have a need to make her proclamation on entertainment tv?
Is she delusional enough to believe that LE sits around watching tv all day?

No Nic

10-03-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist15

It's all spin. :D

An Joran Van Der Sloot is the one SPINNING IT !!! NO doubt about that, from his mouth to our ears. :D

Twinky

10-03-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Actually, it is too bad ALE did not focus enough on JK2 at the very beginning when there may have been a chance to gather evidence and maybe recover a body. IMO

They did focus on the boys at the very beginning. They were just smart enough not to tell Mrs Twitty or she would have blabbed it all over tv. The boys were being watched from day one.

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by julianella

Here is the HI all inclusive package
http://www.beachdestinations.com/Aruba_Vacations/discount-hotel-pp10102-Holiday_Inn_SunSpree_Aruba_.aspx

"Highlights:
Holiday Inn SunSpree Resort is located in Aruba, Palm Beach in the Netherlands Antilles.

General Facility Description
Holiday Inn SunSpree Aruba Resort and Casino, brick paved driveway leads you to the front entrance where you will be greeted by the experienced staff and escorted to the new open air lobby, complete with chandeliers, an illuminated dome, soft island music and elegant wood beam ceiling. Your view of the Caribbean starts as you check in facing west towards the setting sun and the beauty of Aruba's best beach, Palm Beach.

ALL INCLUSIVE PACKAGE INCLUDE:

Accomodation as selected
Meals option include "a la carte" or buffet meal service (certain menu items, moderate surcharge apply and not included in AI package)
Beverages include: House brands as defined by the hotel
There is a full bar selection at all outlet and moderate surcharges apply to any iten not defined as a House Brand
Free use of all facilities, activities and children's programs as provided by the hotel
Use of non-motorized water sports (excluding floats) as provided by Pelican Water sports is included
Hotel taxes "
Call their toll free number and ask them if you have a group of 50 or 60 people can the non-drinkers get a reduced rate.

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

An Joran Van Der Sloot is the one SPINNING IT !!! NO doubt about that, from his mouth to our ears. :D

Nah......No Nic.....

it's pretty clear that the 20 times has been spun by those with an agenda to make everything Joran evil.

:D

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

I think you misread the post.

No, Joran picked up tourist girls 20 times before (his approx.) and nothing bad happened (his words), the 21st time something bad did happen and it happened to Natalee. The *where, how and why* are the only questions now.

imo *Who* is still wide open.

MOO

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
*Who* is still wide open.

MOO

Very wide open.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

They did focus on the boys at the very beginning. They were just smart enough not to tell Mrs Twitty or she would have blabbed it all over tv. The boys were being watched from day one.

And I believe that is another *misinformation campaign* out of Aruba.

imo

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by feelings

perhaps. Did you see anyone ask her directly lately? Not lately. Did she ever give her opinion of the tape altering?

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Actually, it is too bad ALE did not focus enough on JK2 at the very beginning when there may have been a chance to gather evidence and maybe recover a body. IMO

Beth Karas disagrees with you. She told Montel and his audience that while the first 24 to 48 hours may be important cases are solved even after years. That is why so many dept's have cold case units. The fact that the boys were investigated for so long and no evidence was found tells me they are innocent and ALE should have looked in other directions.

Narcissist15

10-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Not lately. Did she ever give her opinion of the tape altering?

Not that I heard......

only asking why people are focusing on a 20 seconds of tape (or something like that)

after the release that the tape was altered.

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 07:33 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

I am at a loss as to how Nevada law applies to Aruba.:shrug:

If the age of majority is 18 in Aruba, then the 18-20 age group doesn't exist separate and apart from the over 21 club. I just offered it as an example of how 18-20 might be treated differently. As far as applying it to Aruba, if you initiate a cruise there and are 18-20 you need a signed waiver from an adult to legally drink on the ship.

MOO

Gregor's Back

10-03-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
*Who* is still wide open.

MOO
What about "What happend?"

No Nic

10-03-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

What about "What happend?"

Something "BAD" !!!

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by feelings

IMO this is irrelevant. If what her mother thinks happened is true, would it matter in court whether she did that or not? If it´s not true, it wouldn´t matter either. It only matters for those that think this is important. It is only important for them.

It's irrelevant???!!! Well, my goodness, Mrs. Twitty has formed a Foundation based on some of the mistakes her daughter supposedly made .... INCLUDING the "buddy system". SHE seems to feel it's important. Perhaps her Foundation is "irrelevant" ....

JMO

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

If you can write this, then you have learned absolutely nothing from this experience. For you Natalee may be dead in vain.

THIS is the message her mother should be trying to get out to kids, not her one woman show to bash Aruba.

GREAT point, Twinky. I agree with you totally.

JMO

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

What about "What happend?"

That too is wide open, along with when, where and why.

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by cassidy

You know what really blows me away about these "chaperones"? Some of them were teachers at the high school. Now I don't know how it works in Alabama, but the state I live in will revoke a teacher's license if they are caught drinking with or supplying drinks to minors. These teachers knew about the all inclusive and the kids who were underage ( and there were some) and chose to participate because they got a free trip with NO responsibility? Some were even photographed with beer bongs drinking with the kids. Not a good image for Mountain Brook High School IMO.

ANOTHER great point, cassidy. Say what you will about the "chaperones" .... it's my belief they should hang their heads in shame!!!

JMO

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Yes 'we' do know what happened after they left CnC's. What 'we' don't know is what happened to Natalee after Joran left her on the beach at her request. Didn't GVC come along on his ATV?

fairmaiden

10-03-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Not lately. Did she ever give her opinion of the tape altering?

Nahhhh, Luke . She couldn't figure out why so many were focused on 10 seconds of tape. This was only supposed to be THEEEEEEEEEEEEE proof of gang rape, after all. She only HYPED it for weeks ....

Unbelievable ....

JMO

No Nic

10-03-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

That too is wide open, along with when, where and why.

LOL, you might want to confer with your buddy Alter, s/he knows what happened. Or are you not one of his/her "we"? :D

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Didn't she lamblast the Dutch who she now says were the ones she begged Aruba to give the case to since they could have solved it in 72 hours?

But they couldn't determine it's wasn't blood in Deepak's car and they couldn't tell the Skeeter tape was altered because, well, because they are the Dutch. :shrug:

Those pesky Dutch aided the Van Der Sloots cover up of Natalee's disappearance but she begged them to step in. I'd say that qualifies as talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Chocoholic

10-03-2006, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I too would LOVE to see the source claiming Joran VanderSloot left Holland because Beth Twitty was going there.

Telepathy... there is no link to it. These are "all knowing" posters.

Chocoholic

10-03-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Something "BAD" !!!

Running away from home and not wishing to return to the parental grasp is generally considered bad, unless you're the daughter trying to escape the "coachings".

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 09:03 PM

Greta (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=burqM-0isIQ)

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

And I believe that is another *misinformation campaign* out of Aruba.

imo

Yes, Beth's misinformation campaign did come out of Aruba.

No Nic

10-03-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

Yes, Beth's misinformation campaign did come out of Aruba.

Nice try, but we all know who the expert "misinformation campaigners" are and it was not Beth that made that phrase famous.

imo

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Nice try, but we all know who the expert "misinformation campaigners" are and it was not Beth that made that phrase famous.

imo

Her picture is beside those words in the dictionary.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Greta (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=burqM-0isIQ)

I guess Beth lied to the Judson students when it was said:

"The second lesson Twitty shared with the audience is to never lose hope, "saying sometimes we forget to embrace it."

Beth gave up hope less than 10 days after Natalee went missing when there was no evidence of a crime and no body. I would say Mrs Twitty's lesson #2 was one she will need to relearn if she ever learned it all.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I just offered it as an example of how 18-20 might be treated differently. As far as applying it to Aruba, if you initiate a cruise there and are 18-20 you need a signed waiver from an adult to legally drink on the ship.

MOO

I thought the issue was the 'children' needing a chaperone in Aruba per the hotel. Nothing about a ship. If the legal age of majority in Aruba is 18, then where is the need for a requirement of chaperones?

Seems to me the "chaperone" idea comes from MB not Aruba.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:33 PM

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist15

Not that I heard......

only asking why people are focusing on a 20 seconds of tape (or something like that)

after the release that the tape was altered.

I think she said something to the effect of WHY were ALE wasting time on 5 seconds of tape when they had the written confessions.

This following the heels of the 'dramactic', 'this is huge stuff" 'this tape proves all 3 gangraped Natalee ' from the lying trio Phil, skeeters and beth several weeks earlier.

Twinky

10-03-2006, 10:42 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 10:51 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

I thought the issue was the 'children' needing a chaperone in Aruba per the hotel. Nothing about a ship. If the legal age of majority in Aruba is 18, then where is the need for a requirement of chaperones?

Seems to me the "chaperone" idea comes from MB not Aruba. I believe the hotel requires adults over 21 with large groups of 18-20 year olds.

MOO

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Sometimes people are tortured with starvation and sleep deprivation, this can be the cause of halucinations. Beth by her own admisssion did not eat or sleep for 128 hours.

It wouldn't be surprising if she thought God talked to her, Joran confessed or Natalee waved goodbye.

MOO

That might be believable if Beth wasn't a known liar. We know she didn't go without sleep for 128 hours because she gave a statement and the ALE brought it to her in a restuarant to be signed on June 1 and was on tv daily after that. I doubt she went without food during that time either.

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 10:58 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

That might be believable if Beth wasn't a known liar. We know she didn't go without sleep for 128 hours because she gave a statement and the ALE brought it to her in a restuarant to be signed on June 1 and was on tv daily after that. I doubt she went without food during that time either. Do you know when the 128 hours begins?

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:04 PM

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
But a gut feeling is not absolute truth. Not for me.

MOO

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:09 PM

Was Beth hungry? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7732569518200138771&q=sleep+deprivation)

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Why does she lie?

That is what some of us have been asking for awhile now.

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

That is what some of us have been asking for awhile now. Yes but I have never gotten what I consider a reasonable answer.

MOO

Watership Down

10-03-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Yes but I have never gotten what I consider a reasonable answer.

MOO

None of us have.

Luke Davis

10-03-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Didn't she say it was 128 hours after she landed before she ate, slept or showered? Then it was 152 hours since she slept?

Twinky

10-04-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Didn't she say it was 128 hours after she landed before she ate, slept or showered?

128 hours of not showering in that heat and she wonders why no one wanted to talk to her????

Twinky

10-04-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I don't believe what she said about not sleeping, eating or showering for the first 128 (I thought it was 118?) hours any more than I believe her claim that it took 36 hours to find a polis station.

She lies all the time.

How can she claim it took her 36 hours to find a polis station when she met Charles Croes at Noord polis station before schlepping to the VDSs that firts night?

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Twinky

How can she claim it took her 36 hours to find a polis station when she met Charles Croes at Noord polis station before schlepping to the VDSs that firts night? Perhaps with the stress Beth was under, hours were like minutes and minutes like seconds and days like weeks and years like months and things were confusing.

MOO

Gregor's Back

10-04-2006, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Perhaps with the stress Beth was under, hours were like minutes and minutes like seconds and days like weeks and years like months and things were confusing.

MOO
I think you've got it backward. Minutes would have to be like hours, and hours would have to be like days to make it seem like time was standing still.

SukiJane

10-04-2006, 09:46 AM

Please tell me this isn't a conversation about what, or if Beth ate anything and how much, if any, she slept.

Tell me it isn't so, that any loving mother worried sick about her child is going without food or sleep. Goodness I lay awake plenty of times at night worried about my kids, and they are not even missing, just down the hall sleeping.

C'mon people let's put aside our hatred for Beth, and get in touch with our human side.

jmo

feelings

10-04-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by SukiJane
Please tell me this isn't a conversation about what, or if Beth ate anything and how much, if any, she slept.

Tell me it isn't so, that any loving mother worried sick about her child is going without food or sleep. Goodness I lay awake plenty of times at night worried about my kids, and they are not even missing, just down the hall sleeping.

C'mon people let's put aside our hatred for Beth, and get in touch with our human side.

jmo
I can´t really put that hatred aside since I don´t have any and those that do discount and twist everything I say. I think they do the same with Beth. Some people take advantage of others when something bad happens to them. The hatred is constructed for others to justify what they do and make it look o.k. IMO

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 10:43 AM

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Gregor's Back

I think you've got it backward. Minutes would have to be like hours, and hours would have to be like days to make it seem like time was standing still. If I haven't taken a bath in 128 hours, it seems like eons.

MOO

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane
<snip>

C'mon people let's put aside our hatred for Beth, and get in touch with our human side.

jmo :confused: What other side is there? Spiritual?

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 04:11 PM

Most of those who attended the prayer service at the church, which is on the former campus of Southeastern Bible College, said they couldn't say anything, including — in almost every case — their names. Nor would they provide the identities of the chaperones who accompanied them on the trip when asked.

One dark-haired teenager eating an apple as she walked away from the prayer service put an index finger over her lips in a "shush" motion when a reporter asked a group of women about what happened on the Caribbean island.

Their refusals to talk were polite, but firm.

"It's all in our best interest not to talk to the press right now," said one female attendee of the service. She wore big brown sunglasses and had a purse slung over a shoulder with a yellow ribbon affixed to the strap. She held the hand of another woman as a reporter walked beside her, asking questions. "But thank you, though."

The young woman who said the family had asked them not to talk to the media was part of a group of three. After the conversation ended and the reporter turned away, another woman in the group called back: "Sorry, it's just kind of hard to talk."

When asked if the family feared that negative publicity — like a story from The Associated Press on Thursday that reported Holloway had been drinking before her disappearance — might jeopardize the search for her, Twitty said Holloway's safe return is all that matters.

"Alcohol never plays a good role in anything," she said during a news conference Thursday. "That whole thing is part of this puzzle we'll answer later. Right now, we need to find Natalee."

Twitty, who said she had 23 years of experience in public relations and marketing, said after the prayer service that the story of what transpired on Aruba during the trip would come out eventually. After all this is over, she said, the students "can talk all they want." [QUOTE] Most of those who attended the prayer service at the church, which is on the former campus of Southeastern Bible College, said they couldn't say anything, including — in almost every case — their names. Nor would they provide the identities of the chaperones who accompanied them on the trip when asked.

Why the secrecy, even today?

cloak of silence (http://www.postherald.com/me061005.shtml)

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 08:23 PM

TWITTY: Oh, no. No, I mean, I think that any time that we can get Joran speaking, I think that he only incriminates himself every time. And you know, I've heard his offer that he is willing to sit down with myself or with Dave or the family, and absolutely, I would do it. I would go to Holland. I'd meet him wherever he would choose to. But you know, Greta, I would have to have one polygraph expert with me because, you know, just having Joran talk without any type of repercussions — I mean, I think those days are over for him. You know, I'd like to get to the bottom of where his lies are, and I think that a polygraph expert could help do that.

Greta (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188645,00.html)

I'd love to have a polygraph on both, then let them debate for an hour on Greta!

shells

10-04-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
It's interesting that some people claim Beth was just repeating what she was told by various authorities, yet Beth says the authorities were not giving her details, just general info and then no info at all.

So where exactly did Beth get her 'details' that have been proven to be LIES?

I was shocked when I popped in here to see what was happening with this case to read comments like this...

WTH would someone feel it's necessary to call the mother of a missing girl a liar.

What does that do to help bring Natalie home?

Gosh - the freaking nerve of some people.

Who cares what Beth ate, how she slept, what she said to who - A beautiful girl was taken from her friends and family some time ago - and perhaps all the energy you are wasting trash talking someone you don't even know would be better spent trying to come up with a plausible reason as to where Natalie is.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 08:38 PM

No Nic

10-04-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Beth has spent months lying about facts in this case. One has to wonder why the parent of a missing person is lying for any reason.

AND JK2 have spent the last 16+ months LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT , to this day, they are lying. How did Joran get home??? is but one obvious lie. THE SUSPECTS LIES ARE WHAT MATTERS , the mother was not on Aruba when they took her from CnCs NEVER to be seen again.

"One has to wonder" what is so lacking in your life that you feel the need to viciously focus on the parent of the missing and most likely dead girl rather than those that were directly involved in the fate of Natalee.

shells

10-04-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Beth has spent months lying about facts in this case. One has to wonder why the parent of a missing person is lying for any reason.

Why? Unless you are suggesting that Beth kidnapped Natalie herself it bears no relevance IMO.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by shells

Why? Unless you are suggesting that Beth kidnapped Natalie herself it bears no relevance IMO.

It does bear relevance. There is no reason for the parent of a missing person to lie yet Beth has lied many times.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

AND JK2 have spent the last 16+ months LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT , to this day, they are lying. How did Joran get home??? is but one obvious lie. THE SUSPECTS LIES ARE WHAT MATTERS , the mother was not on Aruba when they took her from CnCs NEVER to be seen again.

"One has to wonder" what is so lacking in your life that you feel the need to viciously focus on the parent of the missing and most likely dead girl rather than those that were directly involved in the fate of Natalee.

Joran has said how he got home. His attorney has said there is electronic evidence that supports Joran's version. Maybe you should ask Deepak and Satish why they are lying about how Joran got home.

Personal attacks? And you claim to be such a paragon of virtue. :rolleyes: :punch:

No Nic

10-04-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Joran has said how he got home. His attorney has said there is electronic evidence that supports Joran's version. Maybe you should ask Deepak and Satish why they are lying about how Joran got home.

Personal attacks? And you claim to be such a paragon of virtue. :rolleyes: :punch:

Yes, Joran said how he got home. Deepak and Satish dropped him off after he got Natalee's email address and they drove off with Natalee......no wait.....he left Natalee on the beach and his dad picked him up.......no wait.....he walked home.......no wait......Deepak picked him up.......no wait..........Satish picked him up. ??????????????????

I do not see how electronic evidence could prove how he got home unless it was video taped. If you are talking cell phone calls, all that proves is he called someone at a specific time, no way can it prove how he got home.

No attack could be more personal than your 24/7 attacks against Beth Twitty, the mother of the missing and presumed dead Natalee Holloway.

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Beth has spent months lying about facts in this case. One has to wonder why the parent of a missing person is lying for any reason. Strangely people who don't want Beth bashed can't explain why she tells so many untruths. Like Beth they just want to ignore what they don't like by saying it is not relevant.

MOO

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Yes, Joran said how he got home. Deepak and Satish dropped him off after he got Natalee's email address and they drove off with Natalee......no wait.....he left Natalee on the beach and his dad picked him up.......no wait.....he walked home.......no wait......Deepak picked him up.......no wait..........Satish picked him up. ??????????????????

I do not see how electronic evidence could prove how he got home unless it was video taped. If you are talking cell phone calls, all that proves is he called someone at a specific time, no way can it prove how he got home.

No attack could be more personal than your 24/7 attacks against Beth Twitty, the mother of the missing and presumed dead Natalee Holloway.

Telling the truth is not attacking. I have never said anything other than to point out her lies. Maybe one day you will learn the difference?

And the electronic evidence is Deepak admitting to a friend via the computer that Satish picked Joran up. I thought you claimed to follow this case? I guess you only follow Beth's lies.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Strangely people who don't want Beth bashed can't explain why she tells so many untruths. Like Beth they just want to ignore what they don't like by saying it is not relevant.

MOO

Very true.

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by shells

Why? Unless you are suggesting that Beth kidnapped Natalie herself it bears no relevance IMO. That's why we ask why. We just can't understand. Why?

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

It does bear relevance. There is no reason for the parent of a missing person to lie yet Beth has lied many times. Why would she lie unless she is protecting someone?

No Nic

10-04-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Telling the truth is not attacking. I have never said anything other than to point out her lies. Maybe one day you will learn the difference?

And the electronic evidence is Deepak admitting to a friend via the computer that Satish picked Joran up. I thought you claimed to follow this case? I guess you only follow Beth's lies.

Your viciousness IS attacking, especially when you give the MAIN SUSPECTS of the CASE a free pass, because he said he was "sorry, it was all Natalee's fault, not mine".

As for the evidence on how Joran got home, have you actually seen this evidence?? Has anyone else seen this evidence?? Has anyone else mentioned this evidence ?? Or did it all come solely from JoeT ?? I will simply consider the source.

I don't follow Beth's "lies", I support her and I understand her actions for what they are, something you apparently will never see or understand........not for what the Joran supporters twist and spin.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Your viciousness IS attacking, especially when you give the MAIN SUSPECTS of the CASE a free pass, because he said he was "sorry, it was all Natalee's fault, not mine".

As for the evidence on how Joran got home, have you actually seen this evidence?? Has anyone else seen this evidence?? Has anyone else mentioned this evidence ?? Or did it all come solely from JoeT ?? I will simply consider the source.

I don't follow Beth's "lies", I support her and I understand her actions for what they are, something you apparently will never see or understand........not for what the Joran supporters twist and spin.

Look in the mirror. You post more viciousness toward Anita than I ever have toward Beth. I post her lies.

You haven't seen any evidence that Joran kidnapped, raped or murdered Natalee but you post it as fact every day so that is just a tad hypocritical of you. :rolleyes:

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Do you happen to know when it was that Natalee Holloway was listed as presumed dead?

She hasn't been.

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Do you happen to know when it was that Natalee Holloway was listed as presumed dead? I think it was a few days by Beth. Then it was taken back. Then assumed again, then taken back. A week ago Beth said she was presumed dead again.

MOO

ebnrsg1

10-04-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by shells

I was shocked when I popped in here to see what was happening with this case to read comments like this...

WTH would someone feel it's necessary to call the mother of a missing girl a liar.

What does that do to help bring Natalie home?

Gosh - the freaking nerve of some people.

Who cares what Beth ate, how she slept, what she said to who - A beautiful girl was taken from her friends and family some time ago - and perhaps all the energy you are wasting trash talking someone you don't even know would be better spent trying to come up with a plausible reason as to where Natalie is.

Shells
I think with every case it is good to explore all angles. I have not formed an opinion as to what happened to Natalee if she is dead or missing per choice. I do know that I would take issue with your question as to why someone would question the motives of the mother of a missing girl? This is somewhat normal procedure that one would question the motives of family members and sometimes with good cause. Can you take issue with the police who took issue with some of the statements of Susan Smith for one example? Unless someone is ruled out totally there will always be questions? That is the point of a discussion board~ to examine things from all angles. I think you will find some pretty astute people here from both opinions. Sometimes you will not agree with what they say sometimes you will sometimes you might change your opinion. That is what I like about the board.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
In light of the fact that the Prosecutor Karin Janssen stated in a letter to the US Government that there is no evidence Joran committed a crime, how he got home and what he lied about are irrelevant.

Interesting that the truth that there is no evidence Joran committed a crime can't be handled by some who in turn resort to calling people vicious for simply stating the truth about Beth's lies.

And if you would stop quoting people I have on ignore, I wouldn't have to read their vicious posts ;)

Ooops...sorry. :tongue:

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Did you see the links I posted earlier....Beth told Greta on June15 that she still believed Natalee was alive and would think so until God told her otherwise.

But during a recent speech she said she knew when she was praying at the crosses in the cemetary in Aruba on Day2 that Natalee was with God.

:rolleyes: Yes, I saw your links and of course there are others. Dr. Phil comes to mind where Beth thought Natalee had called her.

MOO

shells

10-04-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Look in the mirror. You post more viciousness toward Anita than I ever have toward Beth. I post her lies.

You haven't seen any evidence that Joran kidnapped, raped or murdered Natalee but you post it as fact every day so that is just a tad hypocritical of you. :rolleyes:

Anita?
I have not made any vicious posts about Anita. And please show me once where I posted as fact that Joran kidnapped and raped and murdered Natalee?

Just like the rest of your posts I guess - you just make stuff up.

shells

10-04-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

Welcome, Shells :seeya: and so sorry you had to see these posts.

Just today I was wondering what posters from other boards would think if they happened in on the thread today.

The attacking of a victim's mother - any victim's mother - is reprehensible, yet it continues day after day here. The only thing that I can say is that hopefully you will post here and bring some much needed fresh views.

I do have to say - that those attacking my point of view lost all credibility when one poster said I said and did things I didn't even do. This is the first time I have ventured over here - What a surprise.
:eek:

fairmaiden

10-04-2006, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by shells

Anita?
I have not made any vicious posts about Anita. And please show me once where I posted as fact that Joran kidnapped and raped and murdered Natalee?

Just like the rest of your posts I guess - you just make stuff up.

Watership wasn't responding to you, shells. She quoted No Nic.

JMO

shells

10-04-2006, 11:21 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fairmaiden

Watership wasn't responding to you, shells. She quoted No Nic.

JMO [/QUOTE

Sorry, I just caught that. I was like WTH is going on here? I just freaking got here!!!

Sorry WSD - I got your posts mixed up.

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by shells

Anita?
I have not made any vicious posts about Anita. And please show me once where I posted as fact that Joran kidnapped and raped and murdered Natalee?

Just like the rest of your posts I guess - you just make stuff up.

Why don't you read who's post I quoted before you attack and make false claims? :punch:

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by shells

I do have to say - that those attacking my point of view lost all credibility when one poster said I said and did things I didn't even do. This is the first time I have ventured over here - What a surprise.
:eek: It's not about you, it is about a missing woman named Natalee.

MOO

Watership Down

10-04-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by shells
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fairmaiden

Watership wasn't responding to you, shells. She quoted No Nic.

JMO [/QUOTE

Sorry, I just caught that. I was like WTH is going on here? I just freaking got here!!!

Sorry WSD - I got your posts mixed up.

Thank you.

shells

10-04-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
It's not about you, it is about a missing woman named Natalee.

MOO

So then we are in agreement. It's not about me, it's not about what her mom eats...It's about Natalee...

Good. I am glad we got that all cleared up.

Luke Davis

10-04-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by shells

<snip>

What does that do to help bring Natalie home?

<snip> Do you really believe anything said on this board will bring Natalee home?

fairmaiden

10-04-2006, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Do you really believe anything said on this board will bring Natalee home?

It won't, Luke .... just as posting how much PVDS "sweats" won't bring Natalee home.

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
How does how Joran got home matter? :shrug:

Apparently it mattered a great deal to Joran, since he had to lie many many times regarding how he got home that night. Wonder why that is, a young whipper snapper such as Joran lying so much, incriminating his dispensible friends just to save his behind! Is this a sign of innocense or perhaps a sign that loverboy was trying to hide something?

Luke Davis

10-05-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by SukiJane

Apparently it mattered a great deal to Joran, since he had to lie many many times regarding how he got home that night. Wonder why that is, a young whipper snapper such as Joran lying so much, incriminating his dispensible friends just to save his behind! Is this a sign of innocense or perhaps a sign that loverboy was trying to hide something? That's your view and you may be right, on the other hand, it may have mattered not to Joran.

How can you weigh how much a lie matters? Does it matter the same to people you don't know? To people of a different faith? To people who are about to kill you?

Teens looking for sex often lie to make themselves more attractive. The only reason anyone is discussing Joran's lies is because Natalee missed her plane.

MOO

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
That's your view and you may be right, on the other hand, it may have mattered not to Joran.

How can you weigh how much a lie matters? Does it matter the same to people you don't know? To people of a different faith? To people who are about to kill you?

Teens looking for sex often lie to make themselves more attractive. The only reason anyone is discussing Joran's lies is because Natalee missed her plane.

MOO

Luke .... Joran "explained" his lies. We either accept his explanation, or we don't. Either way, his lies do not prove he was responsible for Natalee's disappearance. They don't prove he kidnapped her .... or raped her .... or murdered her.

JMO

Luke Davis

10-05-2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Luke .... Joran "explained" his lies. We either accept his explanation, or we don't. Either way, his lies do not prove he was responsible for Natalee's disappearance. They don't prove he kidnapped her .... or raped her .... or murdered her.

JMO Yes fairmaiden. I still haven't made up my mind. I don't trust Joran anymore than I would trust any youngster. My point was that, at the time, a lie might have not mattered much.

I don't think it was a big deal to anyone that Joran pretended to be 18, for instance. Teenagers do that. Not all but it isn't unusual.

MOO

shells

10-05-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Do you really believe anything said on this board will bring Natalee home?

Well I just thought people would have something better to do with thier minds on this forum than bash Natalee's parents. I seriously can not believe anyone would stoop that low. It is beyond words how brutally cruel, inhumane and low this is.

AlohaGal

10-05-2006, 12:59 AM

shells

10-05-2006, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
That's your view and you may be right, on the other hand, it may have mattered not to Joran.

How can you weigh how much a lie matters? Does it matter the same to people you don't know? To people of a different faith? To people who are about to kill you?

Teens looking for sex often lie to make themselves more attractive. The only reason anyone is discussing Joran's lies is because Natalee missed her plane.

MOO

I am certainly glad that you wrote MOO after that post as none of it was factual.

Natalee missed her plane in the same sense the Laci Peterson missed getting to the store to pick up some whipped cream. Someone horrible did something to prevent them from doing anything.

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Yes fairmaiden. I still haven't made up my mind. I don't trust Joran anymore than I would trust any youngster. My point was that, at the time, a lie might have not mattered much.

I don't think it was a big deal to anyone that Joran pretended to be 18, for instance. Teenagers do that. Not all but it isn't unusual.

MOO

I didn't reply to your post before this one because I didn't understand what you were trying to say, sorry.

So at what time do you not feel Joran's lies mattered much. The first night when Beth arrived, I can understand that one, I'll give him a break on that one. Did it matter 10 days later when he's arrested, in my opinion, yes, a great deal, especially since they were still trying to pass off the HI story. Did it matter in the days following when he's still lying, in my opinion, absolutely.

Joran's lies go beyond trying to make a good impression on someone. Who exactly was he trying to impress during the police interrogations?

No Nic

10-05-2006, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
<snipped>
The only reason anyone is discussing Joran's lies is because Natalee missed her plane.

MOO [/B]

And I dare say THAT is a very good reason to discuss his lies.

No Nic

10-05-2006, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Luke .... Joran "explained" his lies. We either accept his explanation, or we don't. Either way, his lies do not prove he was responsible for Natalee's disappearance. They don't prove he kidnapped her .... or raped her .... or murdered her.

JMO

Due to the numerous lies of Joran van der Sloot, his "explaination" of his lies are more than likely more lies. His lies do lead to a high level of suspicion of his guilt that he did something *bad* that night or he would not have had to lie AT ALL !!

Kidnap, rape, murder..........I don't know, but I totally believe he had something to do with her disappearance.

imo

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

Due to the numerous lies of Joran van der Sloot, his "explaination" of his lies are more than likely more lies. His lies do lead to a high level of suspicion of his guilt that he did something *bad* that night or he would not have had to lie AT ALL !!

Kidnap, rape, murder..........I don't know, but I totally believe he had something to do with her disappearance.

imo

Me too NN...

shells

10-05-2006, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

Me three, NN!

Me Four!

Gregor's Back

10-05-2006, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by shells

I am certainly glad that you wrote MOO after that post as none of it was factual.

Natalee missed her plane in the same sense the Laci Peterson missed getting to the store to pick up some whipped cream. Someone horrible did something to prevent them from doing anything.
And where, pray tell, is your "MOO"?

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Yes fairmaiden. I still haven't made up my mind. I don't trust Joran anymore than I would trust any youngster. My point was that, at the time, a lie might have not mattered much.

I don't think it was a big deal to anyone that Joran pretended to be 18, for instance. Teenagers do that. Not all but it isn't unusual.

MOO

Oh I agree with you, Luke. Although certainly not excusable, the lies might NOT have meant that much. Your example of Joran pretending to be older than he was, was a great example of that.

Natalee, on the other hand, is portrayed to be "perfection". Some have taken Beth's "characterization" of her daughter in the beginning and can't see Natalee any other way. I guess some just don't allow themselves to think Natalee MIGHT have used drugs on that trip, for example .... and COULD have gotten herself into a LOT of trouble. That's just an example .... but that thought does cross my mind.

This is where the MB kids could prove invaluable. They would be able to fill LE in on Natalee's time on the Island. Instead, they have remained strangely "silent" ....

JMO

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by shells

Well I just thought people would have something better to do with thier minds on this forum than bash Natalee's parents. I seriously can not believe anyone would stoop that low. It is beyond words how brutally cruel, inhumane and low this is.

shells .... You might consider it "bashing", I don't. To comment on the family's actions in this investigation are warranted, IMO. They have made themselves "central figures" here by their comments, their actions. We have Dave Holloway writing a book calling an Island "corrupt", based on rumors and speculation .... by his OWN admission. We have Beth Holloway, forming a "Safe Travels Foundation", based on "Natalee's Story" ((which is an UNPROVEN story)) .... collecting fees while she travels. We have Beth Holloway criticizing governments, INCLUDING the Dutch, who she is now looking to for help, ironically .... not to mention her calling for a boycott of an Island, which is dependent on tourism.

You can call it "bashing" .... I call it "criticizing" .... and I feel it IS warranted.

JMO

No Nic

10-05-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Oh I agree with you, Luke. Although certainly not excusable, the lies might NOT have meant that much. Your example of Joran pretending to be older than he was, was a great example of that.

Natalee, on the other hand, is portrayed to be "perfection". Some have taken Beth's "characterization" of her daughter in the beginning and can't see Natalee any other way. I guess some just don't allow themselves to think Natalee MIGHT have used drugs on that trip, for example .... and COULD have gotten herself into a LOT of trouble. That's just an example .... but that thought does cross my mind.

This is where the MB kids could prove invaluable. They would be able to fill LE in on Natalee's time on the Island. Instead, they have remained strangely "silent" ....

JMO

If his only lie was saying he was 18 , then no, it would not be a big deal, but when you couple that lie with "I am a tourist staying at the same hotel" it begins to matter. Then AFTER Natalee goes missing, you lie completely about where you were last with her/left her, it matters a lot. When you tell AT LEAST 3 different lies and a multitude of different variations of those lies, IMO, the lying becomes HUGE.

I do not see Natalee as perfection, that is silly, but I do see her as a lovely young woman who had the rest of her life ahead of her and did not deserve to have it all taken away. "COULD have gotten herself into a LOT of trouble" ?? How about DID get herself into a LOT of trouble, by making the mistake of trusting Joran van der Sloot and putting herself in his company!!!

How do you know the MBs have not given authorities Natalee's "timeline"?? Because they or JoeT haven't told you ?? I believe it would be invaluable and the case would be solved if we had the TRUE timeline, the TRUE actions and the TRUE location of JK2 and Natalee that night.

BOTTOM LINE............Joran's lies DO matter.

IMO

No Nic

10-05-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Why would she lie unless she is protecting someone?

Why would Joran lie unless he was protecting someone (HIMSELF!!)?

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

If his only lie was saying he was 18 , then no, it would not be a big deal, but when you couple that lie with "I am a tourist staying at the same hotel" it begins to matter. Then AFTER Natalee goes missing, you lie completely about where you were last with her/left her, it matters a lot. When you tell AT LEAST 3 different lies and a multitude of different variations of those lies, IMO, the lying becomes HUGE.

I do not see Natalee as perfection, that is silly, but I do see her as a lovely young woman who had the rest of her life ahead of her and did not deserve to have it all taken away. "COULD have gotten herself into a LOT of trouble" ?? How about DID get herself into a LOT of trouble, by making the mistake of trusting Joran van der Sloot and putting herself in his company!!!

How do you know the MBs have not given authorities Natalee's "timeline"?? Because they or JoeT haven't told you ?? I believe it would be invaluable and the case would be solved if we had the TRUE timeline, the TRUE actions and the TRUE location of JK2 and Natalee that night.

BOTTOM LINE............Joran's lies DO matter.

IMO

Great Post NN!!

No Nic

10-05-2006, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Watership Down

Look in the mirror. You post more viciousness toward Anita than I ever have toward Beth. I post her lies.

You haven't seen any evidence that Joran kidnapped, raped or murdered Natalee but you post it as fact every day so that is just a tad hypocritical of you. :rolleyes:

That is an outright LIE, I have made my feeling clear about Anita and nothing has ever been said about her with the venom posted towards Beth, and I DO NOT post 24/7 about her like you do about Beth.

Anyone that reads this thread can see that, so I don't know what your point is.

I am not on this board every day so your second paragraph is also an untruth.

imo

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

shells .... You might consider it "bashing", I don't. To comment on the family's actions in this investigation are warranted, IMO. They have made themselves "central figures" here by their comments, their actions. We have Dave Holloway writing a book calling an Island "corrupt", based on rumors and speculation .... by his OWN admission. We have Beth Holloway, forming a "Safe Travels Foundation", based on "Natalee's Story" ((which is an UNPROVEN story)) .... collecting fees while she travels. We have Beth Holloway criticizing governments, INCLUDING the Dutch, who she is now looking to for help, ironically .... not to mention her calling for a boycott of an Island, which is dependent on tourism.

You can call it "bashing" .... I call it "criticizing" .... and I feel it IS warranted.

JMO

I am so glad you feel this family is deserving of your criticism.

This page after page bashing, I mean criticism, is just an extremely poor attempt at trying to level the playing field. Since nothing can really be said in Joran's defense then a pathetic mission of trying to discredit the family comes into play, and it's so transparent that it's not even funny. Carry on, but I can guarantee you that Joran and his mountain of lies regarding Natalee will forever stand high above whatever claims anyone can make against this family. jmo

No Nic

10-05-2006, 11:12 AM

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

Those 3 (IMO) island predators, get a pass, while the victim's mother is trashed? Even if she lies from here to Kingdom come - what would it matter? That THEY explained their LIES - so it's OK? This excuses them?

Oh, ok, thanks, guys, for your "explanations" - now it all makes sense - you're innocent. :rolleyes:

I believe we nowhere near have the real story of what happened that night. There is only one fact here - that Natalee was last seen with these three liars.

imo.

Nope, too many things missing for us to know the real story.

Now I have to ask since so many people try to lower Beth to Joran's dispicable level.

Who would you trust more with your purse, Joran or Beth? Beth might ask for a donation (only saying that to humor the Beth critics) but Joran would most probably try to steal my money, just based on the fact that he stole from his parents, and you gotta have plenty of money to gamble. My answer: Definitely Beth.

Who would you trust more to go out on the town with, Joran or Beth? This is pretty dang easy in my opinion, definitely Beth, as fiesty as she is I'd always want her on my side. Joran, on the other hand I'd have to worry about watching my drink all night long and him sharing me with his friends. :eek:

jmo

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

I am so glad you feel this family is deserving of your criticism.

This page after page bashing, I mean criticism, is just an extremely poor attempt at trying to level the playing field. Since nothing can really be said in Joran's defense then a pathetic mission of trying to discredit the family comes into play, and it's so transparent that it's not even funny. Carry on, but I can guarantee you that Joran and his mountain of lies regarding Natalee will forever stand high above whatever claims anyone can make against this family. jmo

As I said, Suki .... feel free to call it "bashing", if that makes you feel better. I'm not sure when I've ever "defended" Joran, other than to say I have questions as to his responsibility in Natalee's disappearance. I trust you understand .... there ARE different opinions .... that's what the messageboard is about, Suki. There ARE messageboards out there where only ONE opinion is expressed. I LIKE to hear diverse opinions .... believe it or not, they make me THINK.

If you can justify traveling all over the country .... collecting fees .... telling a "story" with no basis in FACT .... writing a book ALSO with no basis in FACT .... what does that say about you??

Thank you so much for your permission to "carry on" though ....

JMO

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

I'm amazed by the attempts to "level the playing field" (PERFECT description, Suki) between the suspects and the victim's family. There is absolutely NO comparison.

Joran (the suspect) lies, so Beth (the victim's mother) lies?

J2K (the suspects) lie cover up and hide, so the MB Kids (the friends) lie, cover up and hide?

I cannot imagine being in the Holloway/Twitty's place. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to have people comparing me to my daughter's victimizers.

imo.

Who said anything about "comparing"?? Where in my post did I say anything about Beth "lying"?? What I DID say was, I have problems with her "Foundation". You have no problem whatsoever opining about their "guilt" .

"Leveling the playing field"???? Why do you think I SEE any viable reason to "level it"?? It seems to me that PROOF is required, then perhaps the Holloway/Twitty family will have THEIR chance at leveling it. The Prosecutor in this case saying there is no evidence of a crime here .... does MUCH more than LEVEL it.

JMO

No Nic

10-05-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Who said anything about "comparing"?? Where in my post did I say anything about Beth "lying"?? What I DID say was, I have problems with her "Foundation". You have no problem whatsoever opining about their "guilt" .

"Leveling the playing field"???? Why do you think I SEE any viable reason to "level it"?? It seems to me that PROOF is required, then perhaps the Holloway/Twitty family will have THEIR chance at leveling it. The Prosecutor in this case saying there is no evidence of a crime here .... does MUCH more than LEVEL it.

JMO

Before you can say there is "no evidence" and be sure that is a correct statement, you would have to have faith in the investigation, the investigators and the prosecutor.

In this particular case, I see absolutely no reason to have ANY faith in any of them. There are many more reasons for the "no evidence" than there ACTUALLY being "no evidence". If it wasn't collected, or was allowed to vanish.......then THERE is your reason for "no evidence". Does NOT mean a crime was not committed.

imo

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

Before you can say there is "no evidence" and be sure that is a correct statement, you would have to have faith in the investigation, the investigators and the prosecutor.

In this particular case, I see absolutely no reason to have ANY faith in any of them. There are many more reasons for the "no evidence" than there ACTUALLY being "no evidence". If it wasn't collected, or was allowed to vanish.......then THERE is your reason for "no evidence". Does NOT mean a crime was not committed.

imo

Well, this is where you get so far afield ((talking about playing fields)) , it just doesn't make any sense to me. This is where you get into your "coverup". If I were to take everything into consideration .... this would be the FARTHEST thing from my thought process. How many people do you think would have to be involved, in order for there to be a coverup?? It's not my opinion that PVDS had a lot of "pull".

What do you suggest they DID with this so-called "evidence"?? Did they do something with Natalee's body?? You say it was "allowed to vanish" .... where did it go?? Do you believe, with the eyes of the world on this little tiny Island, the Prosecutor KNOWS what happened here, and just chooses not to pursue it??

JMO

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

As I said, Suki .... feel free to call it "bashing", if that makes you feel better. I'm not sure when I've ever "defended" Joran, other than to say I have questions as to his responsibility in Natalee's disappearance. I trust you understand .... there ARE different opinions .... that's what the messageboard is about, Suki. There ARE messageboards out there where only ONE opinion is expressed. I LIKE to hear diverse opinions .... believe it or not, they make me THINK.

If you can justify traveling all over the country .... collecting fees .... telling a "story" with no basis in FACT .... writing a book ALSO with no basis in FACT .... what does that say about you??

Thank you so much for your permission to "carry on" though ....

JMO

That is my POINT no one can actually DEFEND Joran's actions, so, in MY OPINION, whether you acknowledge it or not, it is what it is, PEOPLE that have RESORTED to CRITICIZING the family in an effort to SUPPORT JORN. You've said yourself, TIME and TIME again, there is NO EVIDENCE, which makes me think YOU FEEL JORAN is innocent of any WRONG DOING based on that FACT, which is also a FORM of support for HIM...no EVIDENCE=INNOcent.

I like to hear DIVERSE opinions too, and NOT in regards to just one side or the OTHER. I would truly LOVE to HEAR some GOOD things said about JORAN, that would POSSIBLY change my OPINION of this YOUNG MAN. I haven't SEEN nor HEARD anything POSITIVE about him. Now from what I'VE READ from STATEMENTS, and INFORMATION provided to US from his FAMILY, I think that JORAN is a very SELFISH, ARROGANT, and MANIPULATIVE type PERSON. Does it mean he's CAPABLE of kidnapping, murder, and rape, WHO KNOWS?

Funny thing is If I wanted, I could CONSIDER Beth and Dave TO BE money HUNGRY liars, and STILL have enough INFORMATION to see that THIS CASE wasn't handled PROPERLY, and that JORAN is a low-life HUMAN BEING in my OPINION.

tHe aBoVe iS mY OpInIon!

No Nic

10-05-2006, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Well, this is where you get so far afield ((talking about playing fields)) , it just doesn't make any sense to me. This is where you get into your "coverup". If I were to take everything into consideration .... this would be the FARTHEST thing from my thought process. How many people do you think would have to be involved, in order for there to be a coverup?? It's not my opinion that PVDS had a lot of "pull".

What do you suggest they DID with this so-called "evidence"?? Did they do something with Natalee's body?? You say it was "allowed to vanish" .... where did it go?? Do you believe, with the eyes of the world on this little tiny Island, the Prosecutor KNOWS what happened here, and just chooses not to pursue it??

JMO

I don't pretend to "know" anything. I am just forming my opinion on what has been presented to us.

I believe the investigators were very unconcerned in the initial, VERY CRITICAL stage of this investigation, you know.......the 1st 48 to 72 hours, allowing evidence to disappear, allowing the last known to roam free and attempt to perfect their "story" (no, I do not believe they were tailed, watched or bugged).

We have heard constantly how tourism is Aruba's *life blood", THAT is what they were (at least initially) protecting, not JPVDS.
They thought it would *all go away* as it did when Willard "Bud" Larson's family arrived on the island attempting to find thier missing son. They did not count on Beth. By the time they realized it was NOT *going to go away* this time, too much time and damage to the investigation had transpired, the hole they dug was too deep and they started putting ALL the blame on Natalee herself and her family.

I know not all missing persons are found, but what has occurred in this case guaranteed THIS missing person would not be found.

MY OPINION ONLY

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

(snip) How many people do you think would have to be involved, in order for there to be a coverup?? (snip)

JMO

Now in my opinion it wouldn't be a question of how many people would have to be involved, but a question of what people in the right places were involved. jmo

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

(snip)

I know not all missing persons are found, but what has occurred in this case guaranteed THIS missing person would not be found.

MY OPINION ONLY

Even though I snipped your post, I totally agreed with what you had to say, but oh so wanted to emphasize this last sentence. EXCELLENT, and well said!!

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

That is my POINT no one can actually DEFEND Joran's actions, so, in MY OPINION, whether you acknowledge it or not, it is what it is, PEOPLE that have RESORTED to CRITICIZING the family in an effort to SUPPORT JORN. You've said yourself, TIME and TIME again, there is NO EVIDENCE, which makes me think YOU FEEL JORAN is innocent of any WRONG DOING based on that FACT, which is also a FORM of support for HIM...no EVIDENCE=INNOcent.

I like to hear DIVERSE opinions too, and NOT in regards to just one side or the OTHER. I would truly LOVE to HEAR some GOOD things said about JORAN, that would POSSIBLY change my OPINION of this YOUNG MAN. I haven't SEEN nor HEARD anything POSITIVE about him. Now from what I'VE READ from STATEMENTS, and INFORMATION provided to US from his FAMILY, I think that JORAN is a very SELFISH, ARROGANT, and MANIPULATIVE type PERSON. Does it mean he's CAPABLE of kidnapping, murder, and rape, WHO KNOWS?

Funny thing is If I wanted, I could CONSIDER Beth and Dave TO BE money HUNGRY liars, and STILL have enough INFORMATION to see that THIS CASE wasn't handled PROPERLY, and that JORAN is a low-life HUMAN BEING in my OPINION.

tHe aBoVe iS mY OpInIon!

You are free to think what you want. It's clear to me, however, from your previous response to me, you're really not remotely interested in my opinion.

What you fail to realize .... Joran can be ALL of those things you listed, and STILL not be responsible for Natalee's disappearance. I don't KNOW Joran, so how can I tell you any good OR bad things?? Just like you, I know what I've heard and read. He could be the worst teenager on earth, it doesn't make him a kidnapper, rapist or murderer.

I've had problems with Beth et al since the beginning of this case .... it's certainly not anything new I've just "resorted to. You call my criticisms "bashing". The only thing I can suggest, is you put me on ignore, or just not read my posts.

JMO

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

You are free to think what you want. It's clear to me, however, from your previous response to me, you're really not remotely interested in my opinion.

What you fail to realize .... Joran can be ALL of those things you listed, and STILL not be responsible for Natalee's disappearance. I don't KNOW Joran, so how can I tell you any good OR bad things?? Just like you, I know what I've heard and read. He could be the worst teenager on earth, it doesn't make him a kidnapper, rapist or murderer.

I've had problems with Beth et al since the beginning of this case .... it's certainly not anything new I've just "resorted to. You call my criticisms "bashing". The only thing I can suggest, is you put me on ignore, or just not read my posts.

JMO

now now fairmaiden, no hard feelings, we're just discussing our opinions!

I don't know Joran either, but it seems the lad has some serious character flaws. Ugh and his apparent lack of respect for women is appalling. jmo

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

now now fairmaiden, no hard feelings, we're just discussing our opinions!

I don't know Joran either, but it seems the lad has some serious character flaws. Ugh and his apparent lack of respect for women is appalling. jmo

Now now, Suki .... no need for condescension.

That's the problem .... you're NOT discussing opinions .... you are accusing me of "bashing" the family, because I can't "defend" Joran, in your words.

Here's what you posted ....

Originally posted by SukiJane

I am so glad you feel this family is deserving of your criticism.

This page after page bashing, I mean criticism, is just an extremely poor attempt at trying to level the playing field. Since nothing can really be said in Joran's defense then a pathetic mission of trying to discredit the family comes into play, and it's so transparent that it's not even funny. Carry on, but I can guarantee you that Joran and his mountain of lies regarding Natalee will forever stand high above whatever claims anyone can make against this family. jmo

*************************************************

This was an "accusatory" post .... it wasn't any discussion of opinions. Goodness, you even gave me permission to "carry on", as if it really WAS up to you.

It's difficult to know how you arrive at your conclusions about Joran. What DO you base them on?? I'm talking about his "character flaws" and his " appalling disrespect for women".

JMO

SukiJane

10-05-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

Now now, Suki .... no need for condescension.

That's the problem .... you're NOT discussing opinions .... you are accusing me of "bashing" the family, because I can't "defend" Joran, in your words.

Here's what you posted ....

Originally posted by SukiJane

I am so glad you feel this family is deserving of your criticism.

This page after page bashing, I mean criticism, is just an extremely poor attempt at trying to level the playing field. Since nothing can really be said in Joran's defense then a pathetic mission of trying to discredit the family comes into play, and it's so transparent that it's not even funny. Carry on, but I can guarantee you that Joran and his mountain of lies regarding Natalee will forever stand high above whatever claims anyone can make against this family. jmo

*************************************************

This was an "accusatory" post .... it wasn't any discussion of opinions. Goodness, you even gave me permission to "carry on", as if it really WAS up to you.

It's difficult to know how you arrive at your conclusions about Joran. What DO you base them on?? I'm talking about his "character flaws" and his " appalling disrespect for women".

JMO

Fairmaiden, you keep telling me you don't defend Joran, yet here you are trying to defend Joran. I base my OPINION on statements, interviews with Anita and Paulus, the actions Joran took during the investigation and watching him during his own interviews.

Luke Davis

10-05-2006, 03:53 PM

Aruba live (http://www.bucuticam.com/)

Watership Down

10-05-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

That is an outright LIE, I have made my feeling clear about Anita and nothing has ever been said about her with the venom posted towards Beth, and I DO NOT post 24/7 about her like you do about Beth.

Anyone that reads this thread can see that, so I don't know what your point is.

I am not on this board every day so your second paragraph is also an untruth.

imo

24/7? Now who is lying? Pot/kettle. :punch:

Watership Down

10-05-2006, 05:21 PM

feelings

10-05-2006, 05:29 PM

shells

10-05-2006, 05:53 PM

Luke Davis

10-05-2006, 07:01 PM

We Remember Natalee Bumper Stickers
here (http://home.earthlink.net/~signs-of-natalee/)

fairmaiden

10-05-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by SukiJane

Fairmaiden, you keep telling me you don't defend Joran, yet here you are trying to defend Joran. I base my OPINION on statements, interviews with Anita and Paulus, the actions Joran took during the investigation and watching him during his own interviews.

I question his guilt .... if that's "defending" then, so be it!!

cassidy

10-05-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

I question his guilt .... if that's "defending" then, so be it!!

That's where I get lost in the logic. Questioning Joran's guilt becomes defending and questioning Mrs Twitty's words or actions becomes bashing. In my mind, they are both the same...QUESTIONING. It's that simple to me :shrug:

Watership Down

10-05-2006, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
You get lost because it is not logic.

Nor is it inhuman to discuss Beth and her lies.

Sure it is AE....just in messageboardland. ;)

Twinky

10-05-2006, 09:41 PM

Twinky

10-05-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
I can honestly say that up until today (or was it yesterday?) I had never been called inhuman for talking about someone's LIES. Wonder what that makes those that call innocent people rapists, murderers and kidnappers :shrug:

I would imagine that depends from which planet one comeths.

Twinky

10-05-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

I question his guilt .... if that's "defending" then, so be it!!

And so shall it be.

Twinky

10-05-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Since there is no evidence Joran committed any crime against Natalee, how does how he got home matter?

It doesn't. Nor do his lies matter b/c they were in reality immaterial. Had they said Joran left her on the beach, the outcome would still be the same.

No Nic

10-05-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

<snipped>
Had they said Joran left her on the beach, the outcome would still be the same.

You are correct, because Joran did not leave her on the beach, that was but one of his mountain of lies.

imo

Twinky

10-05-2006, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by No Nic

You are correct, because Joran did not leave her on the beach, that was but one of his mountain of lies.

imo

You are incorrect for you have nothing to substantiate your statement except a wickedly vivid imagination.

Watership Down

10-05-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Twinky

You are incorrect for you have nothing to substantiate your statement except a wickedly vivid imagination.

They don't need anything to substantiate their claims. Just the ability to moo.

No Nic

10-05-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Watership Down

They don't need anything to substantiate their claims. Just the ability to moo.

Okay, put your credibility where your mouth is and show me something, anything to substanitate that Joran LEFT HER AT THE BEACH. And forget about "Joran told us", that is NOT proof of anything. IF you can't back up YOUR claims, then you are only MOOing also.

Get over yourselves already. Your condesending, rude posts are becoming a real bore, that is why you are mostly talking to yourselves.

shells

10-06-2006, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Twinky

It doesn't. Nor do his lies matter b/c they were in reality immaterial. Had they said Joran left her on the beach, the outcome would still be the same.

So from your standpoint, the last know person to see Natalalee alive lies and it is immaterial.

But her mother is fair game for things that are not relevant to this case ??

Ms. Twitty was not in Aruba. Joran was. Ms. Twitty was not the last person seen alive with Natalee - Joran was. His words are what should be the focus here.

shells

10-06-2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by No Nic

Okay, put your credibility where your mouth is and show me something, anything to substanitate that Joran LEFT HER AT THE BEACH. And forget about "Joran told us", that is NOT proof of anything. IF you can't back up YOUR claims, then you are only MOOing also.

Now that I would like to see...

(I am just going to get really comfy because I KNOW it is going to be a long wait). But that would be really helpful in sorting out all of the "evidence" if we could have anything that documents Jorans story at all -

No Nic

10-06-2006, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Cell phone triangulation puts him on the beach when he said he was there with Natalee.

Don't believe him if you don't want to, it doesn't really matter. You can't prove his statement is false therefore it's just wild speculation on your part as to where he did leave her.

Doesn't mean he LEFT her there, HE may have been there, but where else was he, where was Natalee??

You believe him if you want to, doesn't really matter. You can't prove his statement is true, therefore it is just wild speculation on your part as to where he left her.

Joran is a LIAR, I am sure he always has been and he always will be. He lies like he breathes.

imo

SlickLime

10-06-2006, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by MiamiNice1

Welcome, Shells :seeya: and so sorry you had to see these posts.

Just today I was wondering what posters from other boards would think if they happened in on the thread today.

The attacking of a victim's mother - any victim's mother - is reprehensible, yet it continues day after day here. The only thing that I can say is that hopefully you will post here and bring some much needed fresh views.

Beth/Jug were on tv night after night, hour after hour. Their story changed from interview to interview. Are we supposed to listen and blindly accept what they say?

In the beginning, some of the MB kids did the same thing.

The presumption of Joran's lies are based on wht we've heard/read in the media. NO ONE here has seen the official investigation file.

I can honestly say I saw/heard the lies of Beth/Jug/FEB and other MBers.

SlickLime

10-06-2006, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by shells

So from your standpoint, the last know person to see Natalalee alive lies and it is immaterial.

But her mother is fair game for things that are not relevant to this case ??

Ms. Twitty was not in Aruba. Joran was. Ms. Twitty was not the last person seen alive with Natalee - Joran was. His words are what should be the focus here. How do you know Joran is the last known person to see Natalee alive?

Is Natalee dead?

Where do you get this information?

fairmaiden

10-06-2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by shells

Now that I would like to see...

(I am just going to get really comfy because I KNOW it is going to be a long wait). But that would be really helpful in sorting out all of the "evidence" if we could have anything that documents Jorans story at all -

shells .... I think what needs to be done is to PROVE Natalee was kidnapped, raped, and probably murdered by Joran et al. This is "Natalee's Story", and it's what DRIVES Beth's Foundation.

When it comes to that .... the Prosecutor has said there IS no evidence. Do you think she's lying??

JMO

SukiJane

10-06-2006, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by fairmaiden

I question his guilt .... if that's "defending" then, so be it!!

Well, as far as I can see Joran hasn't been found guilty of anything, as a matter of fact he is a free man proclaiming his innocence. The bottom line is that you are defending his innocence, whereas I am questioning it. jmo

fairmaiden

10-06-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by SlickLime

Beth/Jug were on tv night after night, hour after hour. Their story changed from interview to interview. Are we supposed to listen and blindly accept what they say?

In the beginning, some of the MB kids did the same thing.

The presumption of Joran's lies are based on wht we've heard/read in the media. NO ONE here has seen the official investigation file.

I can honestly say I saw/heard the lies of Beth/Jug/FEB and other MBers.

Slick .... This all just doesn't matter, because Beth is the "victim's mother". How DARE we malign this woman. I really think posters who POST things like this, fancy themselves as being on some "moral high ground". You are absolutely correct when you talk about her "stories changing". Apparently we're supposed to EXCUSE that, simply BECAUSE she is the "victim's mother". Her actions ((like calling for a boycott)) are appropriate, because she is the "victim's mother".

Well .... I don't "accept" what Beth does and says, because she is the "victim's mother". In fact, I QUESTION her actions.

JMO

fairmaiden

10-06-2006, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by SukiJane

Well, as far as I can see Joran hasn't been found guilty of anything, as a matter of fact he is a free man proclaiming his innocence. The bottom line is that you are defending his innocence, whereas I am questioning it. jmo

Suki .... It's clear you will put any interpretation you want on something. It has been clear to ME, since the inception of this particular messageboard, posters have been spouting about Joran et al being responsible for Natalee's disappearance. In fact, some will frankly state Joran murdered Natalee.

Once more .... I am NOT "defending his innocence", simply because I don't KNOW whether he's innocent or not. I do know, that as far as the Prosecutor is concerned, there is no evidence!!! For that reason, I most assuredly DO question his guilt.

I have ALSO stated, many times ....IF any credible evidence is found implicating Joran et al in Natalee's disappearance .... they should be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and punished. Now I"m not sure how many ways YOU can interpret that . To me, and the average person, it's perfectly clear.

JMO

fairmaiden

10-06-2006, 10:03 AM

fairmaiden

10-06-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Interesting that proof he left her at the beach is screamed for yet there are no screams for proof of kidnapping, rape and murder.

Interesting indeed.

I should have added this to my post.

I always wonder about that, AE. We have Beth alluding to this kidnapping, rape and probably murder CONSTANTLY, and some actually believe it!! Why do they believe it ?? There's no evidence of it. MY opinion is, they actually believe it just because Beth says it!! It really does blow my mind how some can just accept this as the truth without any evidence at all!!

JMO

SukiJane

10-06-2006, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Alter Ego
Interesting that proof he left her at the beach is screamed for yet there are no screams for proof of kidnapping, rape and murder.

Interesting indeed.

Why would anybody be screaming for proof of kidnapping, rape and murder, when he hasn't been charged with these crimes. What Beth believes happened to her daughter has absolutely nothing to do with this investigation.

We are screaming for proof that Joran hasn't lied, yet again.

jmo