Discussion Thread 2007 (Part 3)

[Riviera]

---->Natalee Holloway II The disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba

[Chocoholic]

Dang, my reply is going to have to wait until later, but I know how everybody looks forward to my POV. Hang in there

[fairmaiden]

Originally Posted by Freshwater

Let's be clear

Calling Joran etc. murderers, rapists, criminals - It is very common for the last person to see a person who then goes missing to be considered a POI. That some have reached a conclusion of foul play by these POIs is fine. Just state it as YOUR OPINION. Whether you agree or not - it is equally logical to assume Natalee did not run away but meet with foul play. If she met with foul play it is logical to assume that those last in her company might well have done something to her. State opinions as such and there will be no issues here.

Talking about Natalee giving Joran a blow job - OK but so what? Even if I were to assume this is true it most certainly would not imply that if some thing tragic happened to Natalee (say rape) that even instigating a BJ would make raping her OK. Rape is an act of violence not sex and even if a woman is naked on a beach - no man has a right to rape her. period. Blaming the victim just doesn't fly - and no I am not saying that Natalee was a victim of foul play but if this is your position (no crime committed) then don't IMPLY that if there was a crime somehow she deserved it.

Natalee was secretly a prostitute - No way!!! Again this is baseless and victim bashing. I will not allow it.


Jug talking about Natalee's privates - OK let's say that Jug was sexually molesting his step daughter (this is a BIG IF by the way....) but so what... He wasn't in Aruba at the time of the disappearance. If you want to assume that an incestuous relationship existed and that Natalee planned to run away in Aruba because of it then I would think there would have been some planning on Natalee's part. Any additional evidence that she planned to leave? Do you all believe that Beth Twitty would not call JUG out in public if she even suspected any wrong doing on his part? For those that think BHT would go there with Joran et al. without "proof" you don't think she would go there with her ex husband if she even remotely suspected? How about Dave Holloway? Do you think he would remain silent if there was even a suspicion on his part? If you do then make your case and stated it as your opinion only.


Follow the Rules/Play Nice

Freshwater

Thank you for this, FW. I think it's unfortunate that every once in a while we "messageboard posters" need to be called upon to act like adults.

You are correct when you say the discussion becomes very unproductive. Those of us who have more or less followed this case from the beginning have formed opinions, and more or less stayed with them. This has been a long case, and because it happened in Aruba, we are not privy to a lot which might have taken place .... taking us to the point of so many unanswered questions. What we DO know however, is that we have a list of "suspects" ((POI's)) .... some of which have spent time in jail, presumably have been interrogated over a period of months .... then they were released. From what WE ((messageboard posters)) know, there is no evidence of any crimes. Again .... this could be something messageboard posters just don't know.

The problem I have is .... Beth became very involved in this case, from the beginning. Obviously, she WOULD, because her daughter is missing .... her involvement is understandable .... however, her ACTIONS are not, IMO .... for example, requesting a boycott of Aruba, being one . Calling people "criminals" before anything has been proven .... broadcasting to anyone who cares to listen that her daughter has been kidnapped, gangraped, and her life "taken" from her .... INVITES criticism, since NONE of that has been proven.

It's interesting to discuss that Natalee might have voluntarily left, and that she might have taken the opportunity to do so while she was in Aruba. IF this was being done very clandestinely on Natalee's part .... no one would really KNOW of any plans she might have made. She very well MAY have made them, and we just are not aware of them. After all, this could have been something she was going to do very secretly.

There is absolutely no doubt .... Joran et al seem to be the last KNOWN people Natalee was with. There is absolutely no doubt those three lied about the events of that night. There are approximately 6 - 7 other "suspects" though. Do we know that their statements are truthful ?? What has to be taken into consideration though, at least I think so, is that Natalee's mother has told different versions of the same occurrence. That, in itself, is odd to me. For the life of me, I can't understand why that would be necessary.

The latest venture of Beth's .... she has written a book, telling the "true story of the kidnapping in Aruba" ((may be para.)). My question is .... how does she KNOW the true story .... why hasn't she TOLD the "true story" until now .... who told HER the true story ?? We know she wasn't there. She has said, along with other members of her family, that they are not being filled in with every detail of the investigation .... how would she know the truth ??

Hopefully, come November .... this case will either be dropped, or brought to trial .

JMO

[HiLife]

I am sure Beth will NEVER allow this case "to be dropped, " just because some Aruban court thinks it should be dropped. No one would expect anything less from a mother who loves her child and wants those who disappeared her brought to justice.

The statements from J2K are a lesson in lying. Nothing is corroborated and there is STILL no final story as to how the main suspect, Joran, even arrived home. If the other suspects were dropped, then their statements must have rung true to both the ALE and KLPD (haven't they been lauded as a stellar police force?). IMO, it is not possible for so many others to achieve the level of lying produced by J2K.

J2K were last seen with Natalee. J2K derailed the investigation with their callous lies. How?

Who could be so cold-hearted as to send frantic parents on a wild goose chase to the Holiday Inn with their FIRST lie, thereby wasting what everyone knows are the most crucial opportunities to find any missing person?

Another huge product of their vile lying, was that precious time was lost, even to review film taken along Joran's supposed walking route home. It was noted that usually these places erase the tapes by the second day. Thanks to J2K lies, they ruined any chance of investigators conducting their investigation.

J2K's lying and several conflicting stories/statements/scenarios scream out that they are hiding something. Innocent people do not need to lie like this. Innocent people (or anyone with a conscience) do not purposefully hinder an investigation regarding a missing person. I can't even imagine what kind of black-hearted soul would do this.

It is my fervent wish that the monster(s) who harmed Natalee, whoever they may be, never know a moment of peace.

jmo

[Chocoholic]

Fairmaiden, thank you for your delightful and insightful response. KUDOS to you girl!

"Vile" lies?

Hmm Let's start here.

J2K were called criminals. They aren't. Not by anybody's standards, unless one wishes to go so low as to stoop to bht's level and even she had to publicly apologize for that lie.

Natalee is virginal and doesn't drink. Oh oops she drinks responsibly. Oh oops she doesn't drink responsibly. She was carried into her hotel room in at least once by one of the MB male students.

Natalee drank so responsibly she just started first thing in the morning and her fellow students told her to slow down.

Natalee was so virginal that she had a bet going with her friends as to whom she was going to hook up with.

Dave says he has a life insurance policy on Natalee, bht says it doesn't exist. Who is lying?

An eight year full ride scholarship for a supposedly bright student for a four year course of pre-med?

I could go on, but continuing to talk about the endless vile ies that bht has told becomes boring.

Why would the mother of a missing woman lie?

Links available at scrux and other internet sources.

[HiLife]

Beth could bathe in ice cream, walk across America on her hands or sit on a rock gazing out at the sea from sunup to sundown. Point here is that Beth's actions have no bearing on Natalee's disappearance. It is a FACT that Beth, or any other Holloway/Twitty parental sphere, has nothing to do with Natalee's disappearance. The family know things and experienced things we messageboard posters cannot possibly know.

Accusations of Beth lying is a concerted attempt to deflect from the real issue and suspects. I'll go one further. Even if Beth were found to be a pathological liar (like Joran), it STILL wouldn't matter a whit. Has no bearing on this case. Beth, Jug, Dave, Robin, Marcia et al were not on Aruba. It is common knowledge that LE looks at the last person(s) seen with the victim.

It is THEIR actions that must be scrutinized, focused on and examined under a microscope. THEIR lies that must be parsed and questioned. Instead of focusing on such a non-issue, as Natalee's family who were in Alabama at the moment J2K left with Natalee, it would be much more productive (if indeed, the hope is to find Natalee) to focus and examine the actual suspects and their myriad, as of this day, unexplained lies.

jmo

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Freshwater

Let's be clear

Calling Joran etc. murderers, rapists, criminals - It is very common for the last person to see a person who then goes missing to be considered a POI. That some have reached a conclusion of foul play by these POIs is fine. Just state it as YOUR OPINION. Whether you agree or not - it is equally logical to assume Natalee did not run away but meet with foul play. If she met with foul play it is logical to assume that those last in her company might well have done something to her. State opinions as such and there will be no issues here.

Talking about Natalee giving Joran a blow job - OK but so what? Even if I were to assume this is true it most certainly would not imply that if some thing tragic happened to Natalee (say rape) that even instigating a BJ would make raping her OK. Rape is an act of violence not sex and even if a woman is naked on a beach - no man has a right to rape her. period. Blaming the victim just doesn't fly - and no I am not saying that Natalee was a victim of foul play but if this is your position (no crime committed) then don't IMPLY that if there was a crime somehow she deserved it.

Natalee was secretly a prostitute - No way!!! Again this is baseless and victim bashing. I will not allow it.


Jug talking about Natalee's privates - OK let's say that Jug was sexually molesting his step daughter (this is a BIG IF by the way....) but so what... He wasn't in Aruba at the time of the disappearance. If you want to assume that an incestuous relationship existed and that Natalee planned to run away in Aruba because of it then I would think there would have been some planning on Natalee's part. Any additional evidence that she planned to leave? Do you all believe that Beth Twitty would not call JUG out in public if she even suspected any wrong doing on his part? For those that think BHT would go there with Joran et al. without "proof" you don't think she would go there with her ex husband if she even remotely suspected? How about Dave Holloway? Do you think he would remain silent if there was even a suspicion on his part? If you do then make your case and stated it as your opinion only.


Follow the Rules/Play Nice

Freshwater

Some good points and questions.

Although the point is often made that J2K lied, it doesn't make sense that they lied about everything and even ALE consent that since they were arrested, their stories have remained pretty much the same. Having seen people break under the pressure of only 12 hrs of interrogation, I state fairly confidently that Joran has said all that he could say about the case. I somebody lying? Yes but there are also a bunch of other suspects.

Since the comment about bht being HItler's sisters daughter, or whatever imagined relationship Natalee may have ascribed was told to more people than just Joran, it would make sense that apparently Nat wasn't that happy at home. This is normal for a teen. It is just as normal for said teen to have thoughts about running away or suicide. Since there is no evidence of a crime whatsoever, we can only go by what hasn't happened.

I doubt that three law enforcement agencies have conspired to cover up a crime/evidence just to protect a Dutch teen. It would mean that not only ALE, but also KLPD and the FBI are corrupt. Ok maybe that isn't a great leap of imagination. Where is Hoover?

I don't recall anybody calling Natalee a prostitute. I recall people stating that she was a normal teen and behaved in a fairly normal teenage way. She drank, she partied and whether or not she is a virgin IMO should have no impact on the case in as far as the investigation goes. The fact that it was stressed by bht that Natalee was a virgin, and is as naive as a small child flies directly in the face of Jug's statements of Natalee's rather personal grooming. It wasn't as though he was talking about Natalee shaving her legs.


Interesting question

How about Dave Holloway? Do you think he would remain silent if there was even a suspicion on his part?

Dave has been out of the loop since Natalee left his home. They rarely saw each other. Natalee had to beg and borrow to find a ticket for her father to attend her graduation. Dave was not consulted regarding the Aruba trip, he was simply told Natalee was going, he found it extravagant but gave her money to cover some of the costs anyway.

Dave was informed by his son that his daughter was missing. Dave has received most of his information from his ex wife who is not just misinformed but is on a campaign to distribute false information (kidnapping, murder and rape).

Dave I'm sure loves his daughter but is rather clueless. I doubt that if Jug was molesting Natalee he would have been informed. bht would have ensured that that little secret would have been kept behind closed doors. Next to running away being daddy's precious little girl would not have made a good impression on the wealthy neighbors.

All IMO of course.

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by HiLife

Beth could bathe in ice cream, walk across America on her hands or sit on a rock gazing out at the sea from sunup to sundown. Point here is that Beth's actions have no bearing on Natalee's disappearance.

bht didn't bathe in ice cream, she got a facelift instead. My point is that bht may have had every bearing on Natalee's disappearance. The references to her mother being "hitler's sister's daughter" and not wishing to return to Alabama are enough cause for concern.

imo

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

bht didn't bathe in ice cream, she got a facelift instead. My point is that bht may have had every bearing on Natalee's disappearance. The references to her mother being "hitler's sister's daughter" and not wishing to return to Alabama are enough cause for concern.

imo

Prove it.

jmo

[Heyes]

I felt that joran, deepak and satish were knee deep in Natalee's disappearance, but when this bit of news was released it removed all doubt in my mind. Clearly after hearing this I felt that paulus was involved and anita was working overtime at getting this covered up. IMO

Aruba's chief prosecutor Karin Janssen told CNN Wednesday the elder Van Der Sloot told his son that without a body police would have no case.

In addition, he and his wife, Anita, interfered in the case by asking a friend of their son what he had told police during questioning, Janssen said.

"That was not positive to the investigation," she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/ar...ref=newssearch

[Riviera]

Bumping Freshwater's message---->

Follow the Rules/Play Nice

Thank you
R

[Heyes]

When asked if Joran had ever been involved in drugs, Anita said: "A hundred percent, no.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160514,00.html




Jorans book transcripts
"August 11th 2005

Joran is woken at 7:00am for a drug test. He says, "Cell mates quickly provide me with a little bag of urine from someone who had never 'blowed' before. In front of the guard i need to pull the little bag out of my zipper and deposit the content into a small container. I'm very nervous, but i manage to do it. Results are negative. Only two people in the youth department of KIA recieved severe detention for the use of marihuana, the rest all tested negatively since they used the urine of the boy who had never 'blowed'."


Is anita a liar?????

[SukiJane]

Originally Posted by Heyes

When asked if Joran had ever been involved in drugs, Anita said: "A hundred percent, no.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160514,00.html




Jorans book transcripts
"August 11th 2005

Joran is woken at 7:00am for a drug test. He says, "Cell mates quickly provide me with a little bag of urine from someone who had never 'blowed' before. In front of the guard i need to pull the little bag out of my zipper and deposit the content into a small container. I'm very nervous, but i manage to do it. Results are negative. Only two people in the youth department of KIA recieved severe detention for the use of marihuana, the rest all tested negatively since they used the urine of the boy who had never 'blowed'."


Is anita a liar?????

Well Heyes, I suppose it can best be explained by saying suspects lie, and suspects mother cover for them, I guess...I don't know, but look at at what Anita says here, as the date on this article is June 24th 2005...

When asked if Joran had changed his initial story, she replied, "Joran changed his story only one time. I think he was scared because he sneaked out of the house that evening. I think he was scared and wanted to cover other people too. He changed his story once and added details."

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd.../suspect.shtml

[No Nic]

Originally Posted by Heyes

When asked if Joran had ever been involved in drugs, Anita said: "A hundred percent, no.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160514,00.html




Jorans book transcripts
"August 11th 2005

Joran is woken at 7:00am for a drug test. He says, "Cell mates quickly provide me with a little bag of urine from someone who had never 'blowed' before. In front of the guard i need to pull the little bag out of my zipper and deposit the content into a small container. I'm very nervous, but i manage to do it. Results are negative. Only two people in the youth department of KIA recieved severe detention for the use of marihuana, the rest all tested negatively since they used the urine of the boy who had never 'blowed'."


Is anita a liar?????

Such a "sporter".

Per Anita Van der Sloot:
Does Joran use drugs,, No (a lie)
Does Joran smoke, No (a lie)
Did Joran have anything to do with Natalee's disappearance, No (a lie)

Why would THIS mother LIE ? (oops....maybe she is just "covering-up a little bit )

ALL MY OPINION

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by Heyes

I felt that joran, deepak and satish were knee deep in Natalee's disappearance, but when this bit of news was released it removed all doubt in my mind. Clearly after hearing this I felt that paulus was involved and anita was working overtime at getting this covered up. IMO

Aruba's chief prosecutor Karin Janssen told CNN Wednesday the elder Van Der Sloot told his son that without a body police would have no case.

In addition, he and his wife, Anita, interfered in the case by asking a friend of their son what he had told police during questioning, Janssen said.

"That was not positive to the investigation," she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/ar...ref=newssearch

Anita asking the friend what he told police is proof of a coverup? That is a marvelous leap of logic that I am not willing to follow. What evidence did she coverup? What evidence did she destroy? The intention of asking questions, even inappropriate questions, is to uncover, to reveal, to shed light upon -- not to cover up.

As for the "no body, no case" statement. Big deal. That statement is not evidence of guilt, or evidence of a crime, or evidence of anything at all except a father who was applying his knowledge of the law to the situation at hand. Again, big deal.

JMO

[No Nic]

Originally Posted by pnavas

Anita asking the friend what he told police is proof of a coverup? That is a marvelous leap of logic that I am not willing to follow. What evidence did she coverup? What evidence did she destroy? The intention of asking questions, even inappropriate questions, is to uncover, to reveal, to shed light upon -- not to cover up. Every time Joran was caught in one of his lies, another was told. IMO, they needed to know what Joran's friend said in case they needed to change their current version of the lies. No leap there.

As for the "no body, no case" statement. Big deal. That statement is not evidence of guilt, or evidence of a crime, or evidence of anything at all except a father who was applying his knowledge of the law to the situation at hand. Again, big deal. It is big deal, why was Paulus even discussing a body, IIRC the day after Natalee was missing (girls go missing in Aruba ALL THE TIME and turn up, remember)? Again, IMO, because he knew there was a body and he knew where it was and that it would NEVER be found.

JMO

My OPINION in red.

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by SukiJane

Well Heyes, I suppose it can best be explained by saying suspects lie, and suspects mother cover for them, I guess...I don't know, but look at at what Anita says here, as the date on this article is June 24th 2005...

When asked if Joran had changed his initial story, she replied, "Joran changed his story only one time. I think he was scared because he sneaked out of the house that evening. I think he was scared and wanted to cover other people too. He changed his story once and added details."

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd.../suspect.shtml

The thought of Joran selflessly "covering other people".......!

The thought of Joran being "scared"........!

The thought of Joran only changing his story "one" time......!

This can only come from a mother in deep denial, IMO.

jmo

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by Heyes

When asked if Joran had ever been involved in drugs, Anita said: "A hundred percent, no.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160514,00.html

Jorans book transcripts
"August 11th 2005

Joran is woken at 7:00am for a drug test. He says, "Cell mates quickly provide me with a little bag of urine from someone who had never 'blowed' before. In front of the guard i need to pull the little bag out of my zipper and deposit the content into a small container. I'm very nervous, but i manage to do it. Results are negative. Only two people in the youth department of KIA recieved severe detention for the use of marihuana, the rest all tested negatively since they used the urine of the boy who had never 'blowed'."

Is anita a liar?????

Wow. Isn't that the height of fearlessness? Doing drugs in prison??

Pardon me, but I thought prison time serves as a time for reflection, redemption, repentance, remorse.

Reality check.

jmo

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by No Nic

My OPINION in red.

I'm not sure how to re-quote your amendments to my original post, so I'll just say this about "no body, no case":

Thank goodness Paulus was able to insert some reason and clarity into a hysterical situation. With that one statement Paulus revealed himself to be both a good father and a good lawyer. Bravo.

JMO

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by HiLife

Wow. Isn't that the height of fearlessness? Doing drugs in prison??

Pardon me, but I thought prison time serves as a time for reflection, redemption, repentance, remorse.

Reality check.

jmo

Reality check: he was not, and still is not accused of a crime, and there was no crime even proven to have taken place, repeat: still there is no crime proven to have taken place. No indictment, no body, no proof of wrongdoing, no proof of sexual assault, and of course no proof of kidnapping, gang rape or murder despite the immoral and obscene (IMO) and baseless accusations by the mother. No proof that Natalee did not choose to leave the life she had been living in Alabama, and, of course no proof whatsoever that she did not take a late night swim, under the influence, which ended her life.

So why should he focus on reflection, redemption, repentance, and remorse for something he obviously was not charged for and says he is innocent of?

I know it is difficult to understand, Arlene tried to explain it to Americans many times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8386278/
"ELLIS-SCHIPPER: Well, charge is the wrong legal term here.

In our system, we‘re dealing with reasonable suspicion of involvement in a criminal offense. And what makes this case difficult is because we are not knowing what the criminal offense is, that you just have a suspicion of a criminal offense. And then you have suspects to be suspected involved in a suspected criminal offense. So, it makes it very complicated, which makes your case hard against someone. And I think that is what makes it so difficult to understand here."

IMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by No Nic

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnavas
Anita asking the friend what he told police is proof of a coverup? That is a marvelous leap of logic that I am not willing to follow. What evidence did she coverup? What evidence did she destroy? The intention of asking questions, even inappropriate questions, is to uncover, to reveal, to shed light upon -- not to cover up. Every time Joran was caught in one of his lies, another was told. IMO, they needed to know what Joran's friend said in case they needed to change their current version of the lies. No leap there.

As for the "no body, no case" statement. Big deal. That statement is not evidence of guilt, or evidence of a crime, or evidence of anything at all except a father who was applying his knowledge of the law to the situation at hand. Again, big deal. It is big deal, why was Paulus even discussing a body, IIRC the day after Natalee was missing (girls go missing in Aruba ALL THE TIME and turn up, remember)? Again, IMO, because he knew there was a body and he knew where it was and that it would NEVER be found.

JMO

My OPINION in red.

Excellent logic, NN! Paulus seemed to be jumping the gun there about the dead body scenario. Too bad Paulus decided to act as an enabling father and a lawyer for his son, instead of "applying his knowledge" in searching for the truth from his son.

jmo

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

<snipped>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8386278/
"ELLIS-SCHIPPER: Well, charge is the wrong legal term here.

In our system, we‘re dealing with reasonable suspicion of involvement in a criminal offense. And what makes this case difficult is because we are not knowing what the criminal offense is, that you just have a suspicion of a criminal offense. And then you have suspects to be suspected involved in a suspected criminal offense. So, it makes it very complicated, which makes your case hard against someone. And I think that is what makes it so difficult to understand here."

IMO

LOL! I think SHE'S difficult to understand here! LOL! Arlene Ellis-Schipper, the Aruba Spin-meister. Even the talking heads on a Nancy Grace show were mocking her and how she never answers a question. Her agenda was to protect Aruba at all costs.

Haven't I seen that somewhere? Oh yeah.......great sig line, NN!

jmo

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by HiLife

LOL! I think SHE'S difficult to understand here! LOL! Arlene Ellis-Schipper, the Aruba Spin-meister. Even the talking heads on a Nancy Grace show were mocking her and how she never answers a question. Her agenda was to protect Aruba at all costs.

Haven't I seen that somewhere? Oh yeah.......great sig line, NN!

jmo

Yes, sometimes it is difficult for professionals, both foreigners and from the US, to reduce complex ideas to the sound bites required by the tabloid shows. I guess that's why, 2 years later, so many Americans that follow this case seem to be oblivious to the differences in law between Aruba and the US.

IMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

Yes, sometimes it is difficult for professionals, both foreigners and from the US, to reduce complex ideas to the sound bites required by the tabloid shows. I guess that's why, 2 years later, so many Americans that follow this case seem to be oblivious to the differences in law between Aruba and the US.

IMO

Actually, I think Arlene Schipper has an excellent grasp of the English language. It is her agenda that created the confusion.

I don't think any of us need to know Aruban law to understand that J2K are the main suspects because they were the last to be seen with the disappeared girl. This is a red flag for any LE, in any country. Oh, and they lied and lied and lied.

Nope, doesn't matter whether it happened in Aruba or Timbuktu.

jmo

[No Nic]

Originally Posted by HiLife

LOL! I think SHE'S difficult to understand here! LOL! Arlene Ellis-Schipper, the Aruba Spin-meister. Even the talking heads on a Nancy Grace show were mocking her and how she never answers a question. Her agenda was to protect Aruba at all costs.

Haven't I seen that somewhere? Oh yeah.......great sig line, NN!

jmo

Seems that I remember at one time she admitted that she was working for the tourism association (IIRC), nuff said.

imo

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by HiLife

LOL! I think SHE'S difficult to understand here! LOL! Arlene Ellis-Schipper, the Aruba Spin-meister. Even the talking heads on a Nancy Grace show were mocking her and how she never answers a question. Her agenda was to protect Aruba at all costs.

Haven't I seen that somewhere? Oh yeah.......great sig line, NN!

jmo

Is there something in her quote that is not true?

It makes complete sense that a case becomes entirely more difficult when we don't know the nature of the criminal offense. Sorry, I don't see evidence of the ever-elusive, ever-convenient "Agenda".

BTW I wonder if English is Arlene's first language. Imagine the difficulty of trying to explain the legalities of this complicated case using a language with which you are not entirely comfortable. Then imagine having to do it on TV. Then imagine being mocked because maybe you didn't use the proper word or craft the proper sentence. I feel for her.

JMO

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by pnavas

Is there something in her quote that is not true?

It makes complete sense that a case becomes entirely more difficult when we don't know the nature of the criminal offense. Sorry, I don't see evidence of the ever-elusive, ever-convenient "Agenda".

BTW I wonder if English is Arlene's first language. Imagine the difficulty of trying to explain the legalities of this complicated case using a language with which you are not entirely comfortable. Then imagine having to do it on TV. Then imagine being mocked because maybe you didn't use the proper word or craft the proper sentence. I feel for her.

JMO

"Agenda" is a very good example of a sound bite that results when complex, hard-to-understand concepts are brushed aside, or hastily summarized by those who have difficulty absorbing the details of any system they are not familiar with in America.

IMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by pnavas

Is there something in her quote that is not true?

It makes complete sense that a case becomes entirely more difficult when we don't know the nature of the criminal offense. Sorry, I don't see evidence of the ever-elusive, ever-convenient "Agenda".

BTW I wonder if English is Arlene's first language. Imagine the difficulty of trying to explain the legalities of this complicated case using a language with which you are not entirely comfortable. Then imagine having to do it on TV. Then imagine being mocked because maybe you didn't use the proper word or craft the proper sentence. I feel for her.

JMO

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Arlene was not being mocked for her English (which is excellent). She was being mocked due to her inability to answer a question in a straightfoward manner. If Arlene was worried about "sound bites" - it didn't show.....because instead of giving a direct, simple answer, she chose the runaround route. No one appreciates a BSer in such a serious case.

Oh, as for me, I reserve my sympathy for the Holloway/Twitty family, who having lost a child on that island, still could not get a straight or direct answer from Arlene Schipper or anyone else. No need to be a lawyer or understand Aruban law to understand that!

jmo

[Luke Davis]

Originally Posted by No Nic

Seems that I remember at one time she admitted that she was working for the tourism association (IIRC), nuff said.

imo

Was she working with Natalee's aunt?

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by ortiga

"Agenda" is a very good example of a sound bite that results when complex, hard to understand concepts are brushed aside, or hastily summarized by those who have difficulty absorbing the details of any system they are not familiar with in America.

IMO

You know....you are right. It's so much easier to simply tag her as "suspicious" than it is to read through her quotes carefully and with an open mind.

JMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

"Agenda" is a very good example of a sound bite that results when complex, hard-to-understand concepts are brushed aside, or hastily summarized by those who have difficulty absorbing the details of any system they are not familiar with in America.

IMO

Sorry if you misunderstood. See my post to pnavas. It is not about Law. It is about human nature. Trying to make it about "law" or "foreigners" is misconstruing the conversation.

imo

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by No Nic

Seems that I remember at one time she admitted that she was working for the tourism association (IIRC), nuff said.

imo

"Agenda" should be added to Arlene's, Jossy's, TiTo Lacle's, Steve Cohen's as a hyphenated last name. They were sent out nightly with one purpose - to protect Aruba's tourism industry (or in Jossy's case, protecting his self-interest). Laughable. That is, unless you're Natalee's family.

jmo

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by HiLife

"Agenda" should be added to Arlene's, Jossy's, TiTo Lacle's, Steve Cohen's as a hyphenated last name. They were sent out nightly with one purpose - to protect Aruba's tourism industry. Laughable. That is, unless you're Natalee's family.

jmo

Could you elaborate on the methodology used nightly by Jossy Mansur as he was sent out to protect Aruba's tourism industry? Who sent him out?

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

Could you elaborate on the methodology used nightly by Jossy Mansur as he was sent out to protect Aruba's tourism industry? Who sent him out?

Anticipating this question (scary, huh?) I amended my post to read: Jossy's protecting his self-interest.

jmo

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by HiLife

Anticipating this question (scary, huh?) I amended my post to read: Jossy's protecting his self-interest.

jmo

Then feel free to elaborate on the methodology of Tito, Arlene, and Steve, as they were sent out nightly. For instance, please explain how Arlene's explanations about the differences in law between the 2 countries served an agenda? Steve Cohen made several quite serious accusatory statements about JK2, did you not approve of those?

I had the opposite impression, that the tabloid shows were soliciting their presence.

IMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

Then feel free to elaborate on the methodology of Tito, Arlene, and Steve, as they were sent out nightly. For instance, please explain how Arlene's explanations about the differences in law between the 2 countries served an agenda?

I had the opposite impression, that the tabloid shows were soliciting their presence.

IMO

In that case, this may shock you: IMO, EVERYONE is usually out for their own self-interests. It's what makes the world go 'round (along with love sweet love). The library is filled with books regarding both these concepts.

We've been on this board long enough to know exactly what they did each night. There was a lot of blah, blah, blah, nightly with nothing to show for it. Talk is cheap.

jmo

eta - Answering your question about Arlene: Arlene's agenda was to go out and talk about LAW as to deflect from the tough questions about ALE and what was actually happening.

[ortiga]

Originally Posted by HiLife

In that case, this may shock you: IMO, EVERYONE is usually out for their own self-interests. It's what makes the world go 'round (along with love sweet love). The library is filled with books regarding both these concepts.

We've been on this board long enough to know exactly what they did each night. There was a lot of blah, blah, blah, nightly with nothing to show for it. Talk is cheap.

jmo

eta - Answering your question about Arlene: Arlene's agenda was to go out and talk about LAW as to deflect from the tough questions about ALE and what was actually happening.

If viewers had taken the time or used the mental power to try to understand her lessons on the differences in the legal systems then they would probably have understood why she was not able to answer tough questions about ALE and what was actually happening. That was the point.

IMO

[HiLife]

Originally Posted by ortiga

If viewers had taken the time or used the mental power to try to understand her lessons on the differences in the legal systems then they would probably have understood why she was not able to answer tough questions about ALE and what was actually happening. That was the point.

IMO

It is a simple case: Girl leaves with with J2K and is never seen again. J2K lie and lie and lie. It is not necessary to understand law, Aruban or any other. The posters here on CL are here because of their interest in criminal cases. Plenty of intelligence to go around here.

I think it unproductive to judge or underestimate "viewer's" "mental powers," or their "understanding" or all the other unhelpful words you are using in the past couple pages.

So I will take my leave for now. Later.

jmo

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by HiLife

In that case, this may shock you: IMO, EVERYONE is usually out for their own self-interests. It's what makes the world go 'round (along with love sweet love). The library is filled with books regarding both these concepts.

We've been on this board long enough to know exactly what they did each night. There was a lot of blah, blah, blah, nightly with nothing to show for it. Talk is cheap.

jmo

eta - Answering your question about Arlene: Arlene's agenda was to go out and talk about LAW as to deflect from the tough questions about ALE and what was actually happening.

Self-interest makes the world go 'round. That's interesting and sad, even if we can find it in the library.

I was hoping you would give us the methodology used by those you accused
of having an agenda. You know, something somehow bordering on specific.

I believe Arlene spoke about the law becauae she was asked about the law.
Arlene could only speak the truth according to the law. I'm impressed that she stuck to the facts, even when our media wanted something more sensational. I suppose she could've spun a juicy tale of kidnap, rape, and murder....but wait, someone else thought of that first.

JMO

[pnavas]

Originally Posted by HiLife

It is a simple case: Girl leaves with with J2K and is never seen again. J2K lie and lie and lie. It is not necessary to understand law, Aruban or any other. The posters here on CL are here because of their interest in criminal cases. Plenty of intelligence to go around here.

I think it unproductive to judge or underestimate "viewer's" "mental powers," or their "understanding" or all the other unhelpful words you are using in the past couple pages.

So I will take my leave for now. Later.

jmo

You just proved Ortiga's point.

JMO