QueenZone discussion #1078202
Natalie Holloway
| Rick 02.02.2008 04:59 |
Well, I think this would be an interesting topic now. I usually don't start any new topics, but since this is some hot news all over the world, then why not? Sunday, our crime journalist/reporter, Peter R. de Vries is going to explain everything on our channel SBS 6, 9.30 pm Dutch time. I reckon this programme will be broadcasted abroad also. Natalie's mom is already in Holland, so it must be something really serious... It is said that Joran confessed to a "friend" of his, which is recorded on tape. Latest news however: "I only joked, because he wanted to hear this. I know it was stupid, but my confession is false." Discuss. |
| BradJarre 02.02.2008 07:00 |
I think that joran van der sloot killed her. I mean it was pretty obvious because when peter r de vries asked him al these questions at pauw en witteman he threw wine in peters face. So that was enough for me. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.02.2008 07:33 |
1) A secretly taped 'confession' is not legal evidence, due to the high degree of manipulation possible. 2) Peter R. De Vries has been convicted of criminal defamation before: his "absolutely foolproof cracking of cases" turns out wrong far more often than right. 3) He was previously employed with De Telegraaf, noted as Holland's lowest-quality newspaper 4) Just because Joran van der Sloot is a complete asshole, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a murderer. 5) Peter R. De Vries is just scavenging for media-attention. They want to crack the case? Put REAL detectives on it, not some phoney media-horney scumbag. |
| Fopjeflauwmopje 02.02.2008 09:44 |
innuendo1990 wrote: I think that joran van der sloot killed her. I mean it was pretty obvious because when peter r de vries asked him al these questions at pauw en witteman he threw wine in peters face. So that was enough for me.yes to me too, when you are inocent, you dont do such a thing. |
| BradJarre 02.02.2008 11:09 |
Why are you doing this?If youre a girl thats cool.But im not gay!!!!!,So fuck off mopjeflauwmopje |
| Fopjeflauwmopje 02.02.2008 11:21 |
i dont get you! i only meant that i agree with wath you said, becaue if Joran van der sloot was innocent, he wouldnt do such a thing as throwing wine in peter r de vries his face. i dont understand how you come to talk about 'gay'? does that have anything to do with what i said? no |
| BradJarre 02.02.2008 11:22 |
Well,its kinda strange,You open topics about me and stuff like that,STOP IT. |
| Fopjeflauwmopje 02.02.2008 11:33 |
only one with the country dancing. i also opened a quiz and a topic for girls where i didnt say a word about you. the country dancing is just a joke but the kid has your hairstyle and glases too. im your friend. qz is ful of friends. we are al eachoters friends. i dont hate you..i m not a spammer and not gay. im bisexual see, i like woman and men. (see TOPIC FOR GIRLS i explaned it there.) i hope i can say im bisexual on this forum without being laughed at. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 02.02.2008 12:11 |
OK...breaking up the previous tangent that is better confined to MSN rather than on these boards (HINT HINT) I am going to return to the topic at hand. My own personal opinion is that Joran is guilty of the crime. He was the last person to see her alive, has been uncooperative with the police, and gets testy whenever he is questioned about the case. If he truly is innocent and just "Left her on the beach" as he claims, he has nothing to hide. He can be completely honest with the police (both in Aruba and in Holland) and they would quickly dismiss him from their suspicion. But every time the case is re-opened, they always re-arrest the same people...him and the two brothers he was with. To me, it seems like a case of they know that he did it, but they cannot prove it in a court of law. As far as this video confession goes....as Caspar pointed out, this is not going to be admissible in court. At least in the US, confessions of crimes are only valid when they are obtained by police, and even then only in strictly monitored situations, with a lot of attention to detail, because the results of confessing to a crime are so damaging. I'm sure it works the same way in The Netherlands. I don't know anything about this journalist who supposedly obtained the confession, but I am wary of all journalists who do this kind of work; at the end of the day these journalists need to get paid, and to do that they must get the story. This means there is no motivation for them to not spin the situation in such a way that it is better for them in the end. As for her mom being in The Netherlands...this doesn't surprise me. She's a grieving mother who still holds out hope that justice will be served in the case. She is on a crusade for justice for her daughter, and thus she will be willing to cling to anything at all, no matter how preposterous it is, if it gives her the hope she needs. It will indeed be an interesting TV show; but I don't think it will have an impact on the case itself. They need hard evidence that is admissible in court; Joran can tell whoever he wants that he killed her, but it doesn't mean anything if the court cannot use it as evidence in the case. And with his father working in the legal sector (he's a judge, isn't he?) he knows this. |
| The Mir@cle 04.02.2008 05:06 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 1) A secretly taped 'confession' is not legal evidence, due to the high degree of manipulation possible.It actually is legal evidence in this case... If the police would have done this, it wouldn't have been legal evidence. But if someone else makes a tape like this, it is legal evidence. Though just a confession isn't enough evidence to take someone in. No (other) proof is no case. You still can't be charged for hiding a body, if it's not sure if the person is dead or not. The good thing might be that this so called confession possibly might open the door to new evidence. Let's hope they find some new traces. <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 3) He was previously employed with De Telegraaf, noted as Holland's lowest-quality newspaperMy former boss wasn't really what I call a gentleman neither a good businessman... Now I shouldn't be taken seriously anymore in my proffesion? <b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 4) Just because Joran van der Sloot is a complete asshole, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a murderer.True... but after yesterday, no-one doubts anymore if he's able to do it or not. He just cares about himself and his money. If he's not the murderer, then he does belong in a mental hospital. For me it has always been clear that Joran knew more about this case. Like Maggie said, an innocent person doesn't need to lie. Joran did several times, even in this 'confession'. That Daury person - who according to Joran helped him to dump the body into the Ocean - wasn't even in Aruba back then. Joran knows more about this case... but I think he'll get away with it. Frustrating it is. HistoryGirl wrote: As far as this video confession goes....as Caspar pointed out, this is not going to be admissible in court. At least in the US, confessions of crimes are only valid when they are obtained by police, and even then only in strictly monitored situations, with a lot of attention to detail, because the results of confessing to a crime are so damaging. I'm sure it works the same way in The Netherlands. I don't know anything about this journalist who supposedly obtained the confession, but I am wary of all journalists who do this kind of work; at the end of the day these journalists need to get paid, and to do that they must get the story. This means there is no motivation for them to not spin the situation in such a way that it is better for them in the end.Peter R. de Vries likes to get attention.. that's for sure. But he solved a lot of cases in the past. And he might have made some mistakes in the past, he always gives cases new impulses. Casper says that he's just doing it for the money or attention (which might be partly true), but I do believe that he really wants to solve the case as well. |
| The Mir@cle 04.02.2008 05:44 |
For Maggie and all the others... two short pieces of the show yesterday: link Joran: "That's it.. Something happened there." Patrick: "Of course something happened.. she's gone." Joran: "Yes and... the ocean is huge you know." Patrick: "Man, of course the ocean is huge." Joran: "I think I've been lucky that no-one found her. Because if they find her, I'm doomed." Patrick: "Why?" Joran: "Well, it's just like that"...."When they have a body they can start a case."... "Then they still don't have any proof but I will be taken in again." Patrick: "I don't know... only if the traces point to you". Joran: "Yes but... she won't be found anymore....... I think" Patrick: "You did her into the ocean?" Joran: "Yes." Patrick: "With a boat?" Joran: "Yes." Patrick: "Then it's done Joran.. If you brought outside, nobody will find her again... Further than 2 mile and that body won't come back ever again." Joran: Well, we were at that beach together.. And then at once she stopped breathing. Patrick: "Damn man." Joran: "So I called a friend. Not with my mobile because they would have been able to trace that, but the pay-phone of the hotel and I said: Something happened, you need to help me. Please come here and help me. And don't call the police please. And he says: I'm coming.. and no, I won't call the police. Patrick: And he was there in any minute? He didn't ask anything? Joran: "Well, no.. he just said Shit"... "But she looked just normal you know. Like there was nothing wrong." ---------------------------- link Joran: "In one time Patrick.. She was doing what people do in movies..." Patrick: "Shaking?" Joran: "Yeah, heavily. So I was like.. damn what is this." Patrick: "How long has she been like that?" Joran: "You know what?... I don't know exactly." Patrick: "Man, it has been some kind of epileptic attack." Joran: "I don't know"... Patrick: "Did white stuff get out of her mouth?" Joran: "No white stuff.. I haven't seen that..... At that point I was in panic, you know." ----------------------- And here a subtitled part: link ----------------------- And this is how much Joran likes the reporter. ;-) link |
| The Fairy King 04.02.2008 06:28 |
What i found more sickening than Joran's attitude and lack of remorse is the way this documentary is released. I cringed when i saw the poor woman's(Natalee's mother) reaction and that horrible music. Like the matter wasn't serious enough, they fucking needed strings?? Besides the woman's reaction isn't something to show on tv!!! Horrible. |
| The Mir@cle 04.02.2008 06:59 |
That reply makes me sick Burak... I agree that the show was a bit "too American", but Joran's attitude is more than just disgusting. |
| The Fairy King 04.02.2008 07:35 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: That reply makes me sick Burak... I agree that the show was a bit "too American", but Joran's attitude is more than just disgusting.It's just my opinion. I'm not saying what he did wasn't awful...but the way they showed her mother is equally horrible. |
| The Mir@cle 04.02.2008 10:00 |
Another subtitled video: link |
| AspiringPhilosophe 04.02.2008 18:11 |
Of course Joran has an attitude about him...he's gotten away with it, hasn't he? The latest information confirms what I said before...because of the manner in which the video was taken, it is not admissible in court as a confession. It's not even strong enough evidence to re-arrest him, according to the prosecutors in Aruba. You cannot probe a person into confessing to a crime, secretly videotape it, and expect it to hold up in court. It is a violation of several of the rights that citizens of your country enjoy (just as it is a violation of the rights a citizen of my country would enjoy) and even if you could manage to over-look that, all the defense would have to do is plant doubt of the authenticity of the tape. Confessions to crimes must be entered into with the full knowledge of both parties, and the approval of both the confessor and the confessee. In this case, Joran didn't authorize that he knew he as being taped and didn't admit that the confession was real. Therefore it is not admissible. My point with DeVries is that he is a journalist; I studied journalism as an undergraduate (I was only 3 classes short of getting a Bachelors degree in it) and with special reporters like this the rules of "neutrality" and "let the evidence speak for itself" doesn't apply...he has no reason that he can't twist the story the way he wants to and do whatever he needs to get a "confession"...especially if he thinks Joran is guilty to start with. It doesn't even meet journalistic ethical standards. He may genuinely be trying to help solve the case, but it's not his place to do that...he has probably hindered the investigation more by doing this. It is the job for the police and investigators involved with the case. Plus now he's build up hope in Natalie's mother that charges can get pressed, and she flew all the way to The Netherlands to be there to see him arrested...and now they admit they can't do a damn thing with the evidence, not even call him in for more questioning. She's been put through all of that hell again for nothing. Joran did it, but he will, unfortunately, get away with it because there is not enough evidence to tie him to the crime. He was probably being honest about what happened to Natalie (at least about dumping her body) but he will still continue to have that smug attitude because now he knows that he can't be pinned to the crime. I've seen someone else with the exact same attitude: OJ Simpson. Thanks for the links and the translations, Tijn! I was hoping at some point someone would provide them so I could see it. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.02.2008 08:02 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 4) Just because Joran van der Sloot is a complete asshole, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a murderer.Up to the point where she was drunk to her skull and started having convulsions, he wasn't a murderer. What made him a murderer was conspiring to hide the body, and asking his buddy to dump it in the sea. |
| The Fairy King 05.02.2008 09:00 |
We still don't know he wasn't lying about the way she died. Different speculations circulate now on the web. I think Alcohol poisoning is the most believable story as she really had a lot of drinks that night. Even snorts of cocaine and shots with high alcoholo-prommilage. (something you conclude when you listen to the story) So he ain't a murderer in the sense that he went out to find a girl to kill...i believe this was indeed an accident and it was a panic reaction. But it doesn't make sense because of the fact that his dad is a well known attorny/ex-judge with i think a lot of influence on Aruba. He could get away with it if he told the truth and we would've forgotten about this matter a long time ago. So a few questions stay unanswered: Why didn't he call the police right away? Or the fucking ambulance? He didn't know she was dead or in a coma. Why did he throw away the shoes? etc |
| The Mir@cle 05.02.2008 09:08 |
Why does he keep lieing? Half of the confession he made in the show seems to be bullshit also. |
| The Fairy King 05.02.2008 09:26 |
Dunno dude... He said he knew they were tricking him...during the first talk he was cautious at some point. And perhaps he was suspicious and later on he talked with someone about it and he/she maybe said that was possibly being tricked in confessing. Later on that day he threw a glass in Peter's face during P&W. Why did he do that???? That could be an indication he knew and after that he suddenly wanted to talk about it, in great detail, proud and with lack of respect. Maybe it was a big fuck you, because he KNEW that even when he told the truth or said he knows what happened to her he can't be convicted. They got nothing on him. THAT'S the whole problem. |
| Erin 05.02.2008 09:35 |
They need to lock his ass up. Any NON-guilty person would have called an ambulance if someone started having seizures. He had to have killed her, otherwise dumping the body makes no sense, at all. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.02.2008 09:37 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Why didn't he call the police right away? Or the fucking ambulance? He didn't know she was dead or in a coma. Why did he throw away the shoes? etcAs you said before, he reacted out of panic. It still could be consider negligent homicide. He chose to rather dump the body not knowing if she could still be alive than facing reality and calling an ambulance. Sure, if Natalee died from her reaction to drugs or alcohol, all the fingers would be pointed at him, but he would have had much better chances of claiming innocence instead of getting rid of the body. |
| The Mir@cle 05.02.2008 10:38 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Depends what kind of innocence you mean. For the law, he's still innocent. But for the public, he lost the chance to prove his innocence forgood.<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Why didn't he call the police right away? Or the fucking ambulance? He didn't know she was dead or in a coma. Why did he throw away the shoes? etcAs you said before, he reacted out of panic. It still could be consider negligent homicide. He chose to rather dump the body not knowing if she could still be alive than facing reality and calling an ambulance. Sure, if Natalee died from her reaction to drugs or alcohol, all the fingers would be pointed at him, but he would have had much better chances of claiming innocence instead of getting rid of the body. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 05.02.2008 20:12 |
^^ That's likely to be the only justice he gets. The whole world knowing that he's guilty of at the very least being an asshole, at the worst murder. |
| Micrówave 06.02.2008 15:15 |
I seriously hope we aren't hanging this guy based on his own testimony. He's obviously an idiot. --but he was the last person (they've found) to have admitted being with her. --she allowed "jello shots" to be consumed from her navel. aside from that, we really don't know... we, being the public. And when we don't know, we always blame the cops, the press, all suspects, etc. Sometimes crimes just don't ever get solved and that's that. Suprisingly he's still walking around, with all the media coverage of him. And what if they find out it's someone else completely unconnected? All this because he thought the jello shot was a good idea. Who is Aruba is going to refuse that? |
| The Mir@cle 06.02.2008 17:05 |
But this crime is actually solved Micrówave... that guy lied about everything. About his shoes.. about how he got home.. and on and on. Innocent people don't lie. The thing is.. there is no hard proof. He might never get locked up. Still he made his life a living hell and he just has himself to blame for that. |
| The Mir@cle 07.02.2008 08:41 |
"Case Natalee Holloway is cover-up" link |
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.02.2008 09:41 |
^^ I would be careful trusting anything that comes out of FOX News there Tijn. I do agree with you that something is fishy about all of this, but of all of the news networks in the US the FOX news network is the one that is the least credible. I don't say that because they are ardent Republicans and ardent supporters of Bush. I say that because you can tell by the way they even present the "basic" news (as opposed to a show like this which is more opinion of the reporter and thus it is more acceptable if there is bias in it) that they have thrown the idea of journalistic neutrality out the window. CNN can be just as bad, but FOX is by far the worst for when it comes to being neutral. They have an axe to grind on whatever they report about, so trusting anything they present is something that I would only do VERY hesitantly |
| Micrówave 07.02.2008 10:50 |
Hey, I am not trying to defend this guy, really. I just think that you (and I) don't know all the facts. How do you know about the shoes? Was that information given to you from the Aruba Police Dept.? No. It came from the media. Somehow, that information was "leaked". Tijn, and every guy for that matter. Would you have passed on the jello shot? Would you have let your daughter go to Aruba unsupervised? OK that she's in a bar offering those jello shots? This Vandeer sloot also says SHE was using cocaine that was not provided by him. Since we are supposed to believe the bad things he claimed on that video, what about that? Where'd the coke come from? Were her friends that went with her to Aruba fully investigated? Why not? It wouldn't take much to find a former teen age friend willing to drop dime. There is a lot of "fishy" things to this case. That was a very grim Soprano-like pun, Maggie. I don't know if you intended that, but I thought it clever. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 07.02.2008 12:27 |
^^ Actually I had no idea when I wrote it. But if you thought it clever, I'll be more than happy to pretend I knew exactly what I was doing. LOL |
| ***Marial-B*** 15.02.2008 15:46 |
I just read this link Still he's suspect #1 |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.02.2008 18:23 |
Exactly as I suspected....I knew that confession wasn't going to hold up in a court of law. Of course he still remains prime suspect #1...but he's never going to be arrested for the crime. The case is so hopelessly tangled up now and there is no body. Unfortunately he's going to get away with it. |
| The Mir@cle 16.02.2008 12:57 |
It's a weird thing... Just because he lied several times, he can't be taken in. It should be the other way around. |
| Rick 16.02.2008 13:16 |
Just replace the word 'liar' with 'Joran' in the Queen song and you could make a immediate hit! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 16.02.2008 16:19 |
LOL At least those of us on this board know that Joran is not a poster example of all Dutch young men. You guys and my friend Jaap provide much better examples. :-) |