| About Natalee and her mother: by Renee Gielen - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 37, 38, 39, 40 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
iquitos
 Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:17 am |
|
|
|
dumping someone's body in the ocean
"is not serious enough"? that is absurd. more likely they have not charged because they do not have the goods on him.
mos is a bluffer. he should keep his mouth shut until he has something to say in a trial.
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| all10suspects
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Re: dumping someone's body in the ocean
| iquitos wrote: | "is not serious enough"? that is absurd. more likely they have not charged because they do not have the goods on him.
mos is a bluffer. he should keep his mouth shut until he has something to say in a trial. |
If getting rid of a body is only a 6 months sentence then why bother. Joran has already served half that. The only thing this would do would prove to posters that is has always been Joran. If they did that then posters would have nothing to talk about!
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 6356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| minitess
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| WordsofWisdom wrote: |
You can say that all day long, but it doesn't make it true.
You have been saying it, as have others, but guess what....
It ain't true.  |
OMG!!! Now THIS is funny!!!!!!!
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| billybob
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| GBMW wrote: |
I thought Anita was in Holland that Sunday - Monday...so how could she even have noticed? |
She was in Holland it was made to sound like they had a body there for days afterwards.
Natalee was never there period.
|
|
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 2855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GBMW
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:20 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| billybob wrote: |
She was in Holland it was made to sound like they had a body there for days afterwards.
Natalee was never there period. |
Disposal of Natalee at sea, getting new furniture and no search for quite some time....different things. But I get how you could get confused. Thanks for clearing up.
You don't know if she was ever there or not.
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 1303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| billybob
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:24 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| GBMW wrote: |
Disposal of Natalee at sea, getting new furniture and no search for quite some time....different things. But I get how you could get confused. Thanks for clearing up.
You don't know if she was ever there or not. |
I am the one that is not confused here. Most of the above is internet rumor, initiated by those like you that are hell bent on making any and all of the VDS look bad.
The chances of Natalee being there are slim to none. If you would have ever been there you would be smart enough to know that too.
|
|
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 2855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| all10suspects
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:25 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| billybob wrote: |
She was in Holland it was made to sound like they had a body there for days afterwards.
Natalee was never there period. |
I do not think Anita never knew what Paul and Joran did that Monday.
Natalee was at the apartment at 1:40am according to j2k.
Did she get out of the car maybe not. Did Paul help Joran bring Natalee
back to the apartment. Maybe. Maybe that is where Natalee got off the
phone calls when Joran waas downloading movies. Paul and Joran
are confused that she woke up and they freaked. JMO! JMT!
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 6356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bongo
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:34 am |
|
|
|
Re: so did i get this right?
| iquitos wrote: | the prosecutor knows joran disposed of natalee's body but won't charge him because they can't prove there was a body? since when does the family decide what a "useful purpose is". if joran dumped her and they can prove it why not go to trial? i suspect they can't prove it and would be shot down in court just like they would if they went for murder without any proof of basic elements of a crime. this case is dead imo. because they can't prove natalee is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal) |
1/ According to GBMW, clinging to what he/ she heard from Mos 'personally' & via the media:
Because the family and Mos agreed [2007] that it 'serves no purpose' they decided not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
However, according to GBMW ''there must be evidence'' of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body. Besides, ''no charging doesn't equal with no evidence''. [= neglecting IUPG]
2/ According to Bongo's confidence in OM's ability of handling a proper, legal 'decision-making' proces [despite of Mos's blah-blah-blah-ing to much imo]:
Because Mos concluded that there was insufficient evidence he decided [2007] not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
So, no evidence of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body because 'no evidence -no court case/ no charging'. [= IUPG]
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:40 am |
|
|
|
yes, i too suspect lack of evidence is the reason.
"no useful purpose" is the excuse.
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Black-Tulip
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:47 am |
|
|
|
Re: yes, i too suspect lack of evidence is the reason.
| iquitos wrote: | | "no useful purpose" is the excuse. |
And that is a very lame one! Even if it's true.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5583
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bongo
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Re: dumping someone's body in the ocean
| all10suspects wrote: |
If getting rid of a body is only a 6 months sentence then why bother. Joran has already served half that. The only thing this would do would prove to posters that is has always been Joran. If they did that then posters would have nothing to talk about! |
Agreed. And that is why I would disagree.
OM putting the blame on JvdS without the guts to charge him..
'it isn't worth it' = false excuse for avoiding the true reason: lack of convincing evidence!
Poor Mos, clock is ticking... I'm getting curious!
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:52 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| all10suspects wrote: |
I do not think Anita never knew what Paul and Joran did that Monday.
Natalee was at the apartment at 1:40am according to j2k.
Did she get out of the car maybe not. Did Paul help Joran bring Natalee
back to the apartment. Maybe. Maybe that is where Natalee got off the
phone calls when Joran waas downloading movies. Paul and Joran
are confused that she woke up and they freaked. JMO! JMT! |
pray tell where do j2k say that? got a link?
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| minitess
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Re: so did i get this right?
| Bongo wrote: |
1/ According to GBMW, clinging to what he/ she heard from Mos 'personally' & via the media:
Because the family and Mos agreed [2007] that it 'serves no purpose' they decided not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
However, according to GBMW ''there must be evidence'' of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body. Besides, ''no charging doesn't equal with no evidence''. [= neglecting IUPG]
2/ According to Bongo's confidence in OM's ability of handling a proper, legal 'decision-making' proces [despite of Mos's blah-blah-blah-ing to much imo]:
Because Mos concluded that there was insufficient evidence he decided [2007] not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
So, no evidence of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body because 'no evidence -no court case/ no charging'. [= IUPG]
|
I think you've got a few things confused here.
It was the JUDGE who said there was evidence enough to convict for obstruction, up to and including hiding evidence, ie - disposing of a body.
And it wasn't Joran the judge said there was enough evidence against for those crimes - it was the Kalpoe brothers.
What astounds me is the apparent inability for some to put two and two together here. The JUDGE admits there was a BODY.
That the Kalpoe brothers were in posession of this BODY.
The next logical question of course is - how did Natalee become a BODY while still in the company of the K bros (and possibly Joran)?
Followed by the next logical question of - WHY did they feel the need to dispose of her BODY? What evidence would have/could have been found to make them feel they were in danger if they did not dispose of the BODY?
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| billybob
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:02 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| iquitos wrote: |
pray tell where do j2k say that? got a link? |
All10's tale is getting better and better
|
|
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 2855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| minitess
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:08 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| iquitos wrote: |
pray tell where do j2k say that? got a link? |
Here you go:
PROCES-VERBAAL (sixth statement of suspect)
We, Dennis Domenico JACOBS and Luigi Angelo Giovanni CROES, head officer and officer first class of the Aruban Police Force, first mentioned attached to the Robbery Project Team (Atraco Team) and last mentioned attached to the section often occurring crime District 2, state the following.
On June 14th, at approximately 10.00 hours, we the reporting officers, interviewed the suspect Joran Andreas Petrus van der SLOOT born in Arnhem, the Netherlands on August 6th 1987, without occupation student (International School of Aruba) and living Montanja 19 in Aruba, for further information.
His statement was made in dutch and was transcribed by me, CROES and goes as follows,
Before we, the reporting officers, started the interview, I , CROES, notified the suspect that he was not obliged to make a statement. I also informed him that this statement was being recorded on tape.
You have just old me that you wanted to ask me about times. I can state the following.
When we, on May 30th, stopped in Deepak's car in front of my house, it was about 01.40 am. At that moment in time Deepak, Satish, Natalee and myself were in Deepak's car.
And here's the whole thing in Dutch, in case anyone wishes to question the translation.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-1.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-2.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-3.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-4.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-5.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-6.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-7.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-8.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-9.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-10.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-11.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-12.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-13.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-14.jpg
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| minitess
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:09 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| billybob wrote: |
All10's tale is getting better and better |
I think your memory is getting shorter and shorter. 
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GBMW
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| billybob wrote: |
I am the one that is not confused here. Most of the above is internet rumor, initiated by those like you that are hell bent on making any and all of the VDS look bad.
The chances of Natalee being there are slim to none. If you would have ever been there you would be smart enough to know that too. |
That Natalee was possibly at the house that Sunday or sometime after that isn't that unlikely.
Making 'VD Sloot' look bad is something they do all by themselves. Joran at top and Paulus & Anita follow him. But granted...Joran is high and migh on the top of that list. Too bad his last interview hasn't aired. Full of wonderful words about a certain VD Sloot. Who is making VD Sloot look bad again?
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 1303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| minitess
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:22 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| iquitos wrote: |
pray tell where do j2k say that? got a link? |
Oh - and there was another time he placed all of them, including Natalee, at his house. That was the time he told ALE that they all dropped him at home, he got Natalee's email addy, and then 2K and Natalee drove off.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GBMW
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Re: so did i get this right?
| Bongo wrote: |
1/ According to GBMW, clinging to what he/ she heard from Mos 'personally' & via the media:
Because the family and Mos agreed [2007] that it 'serves no purpose' they decided not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
However, according to GBMW ''there must be evidence'' of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body. Besides, ''no charging doesn't equal with no evidence''. [= neglecting IUPG]
2/ According to Bongo's confidence in OM's ability of handling a proper, legal 'decision-making' proces [despite of Mos's blah-blah-blah-ing to much imo]:
Because Mos concluded that there was insufficient evidence he decided [2007] not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
So, no evidence of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body because 'no evidence -no court case/ no charging'. [= IUPG]
|
As you do so many times: you're assuming things that aren't correct about my opinion. The ALE look at it as a criminal case and probably for a reason, no charge doesn't equal no evidence, they won't go for body disposal when it comes to a trial....
If you want to assume things based on that...go ahead but please stop putting words in my mouth that aren't there. TIA
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 1303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bongo
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:34 am |
|
|
|
Re: so did i get this right?
| minitess wrote: | | Bongo wrote: |
1/ According to GBMW, clinging to what he/ she heard from Mos 'personally' & via the media:
Because the family and Mos agreed [2007] that it 'serves no purpose' they decided not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
However, according to GBMW ''there must be evidence'' of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body. Besides, ''no charging doesn't equal with no evidence''. [= neglecting IUPG]
2/ According to Bongo's confidence in OM's ability of handling a proper, legal 'decision-making' proces [despite of Mos's blah-blah-blah-ing to much imo]:
Because Mos concluded that there was insufficient evidence he decided [2007] not to charge JvdS for making a body disappear cq disposal of her body.
So, no evidence of JvdS involved in making her disappear/ disposing of the body because 'no evidence -no court case/ no charging'. [= IUPG]
|
I think you've got a few things confused here.
It was the JUDGE who said there was evidence enough to convict for obstruction, up to and including hiding evidence, ie - disposing of a body.
And it wasn't Joran the judge said there was enough evidence against for those crimes - it was the Kalpoe brothers.
What astounds me is the apparent inability for some to put two and two together here. The JUDGE admits there was a BODY.
That the Kalpoe brothers were in posession of this BODY.
The next logical question of course is - how did Natalee become a BODY while still in the company of the K bros (and possibly Joran)?
Followed by the next logical question of - WHY did they feel the need to dispose of her BODY? What evidence would have/could have been found to make them feel they were in danger if they did not dispose of the BODY? |
Pardon me?
quote:
''What astounds me is the apparent inability for some to put two and two together here.'': actually this is where GBMW referred to [twice]:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/08/aruba.holloway.ap/
that, in fact, was being discussed and that is where my comment is based upon.
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| minitess wrote: |
I think your memory is getting shorter and shorter. |
it doesn't say they were in the apartment. it says they were in the car. they then rod on to the beach. nobody ever said natalee was in the apartment. her mother made that up along with the gang rape scene. what a fertile imagination!
just the facts, ma'am. 
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| all10suspects wrote: |
I do not think Anita never knew what Paul and Joran did that Monday.
Natalee was at the apartment at 1:40am according to j2k.
Did she get out of the car maybe not. Did Paul help Joran bring Natalee
back to the apartment. Maybe. Maybe that is where Natalee got off the
phone calls when Joran waas downloading movies. Paul and Joran
are confused that she woke up and they freaked. JMO! JMT! |
this is what all10 said. where did she get that? they did a drive by and then went on to the beach (in one version).
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Re: i don't have it either
| minitess wrote: | | iquitos wrote: |
pray tell where do j2k say that? got a link? |
Here you go:
PROCES-VERBAAL (sixth statement of suspect)
We, Dennis Domenico JACOBS and Luigi Angelo Giovanni CROES, head officer and officer first class of the Aruban Police Force, first mentioned attached to the Robbery Project Team (Atraco Team) and last mentioned attached to the section often occurring crime District 2, state the following.
On June 14th, at approximately 10.00 hours, we the reporting officers, interviewed the suspect Joran Andreas Petrus van der SLOOT born in Arnhem, the Netherlands on August 6th 1987, without occupation student (International School of Aruba) and living Montanja 19 in Aruba, for further information.
His statement was made in dutch and was transcribed by me, CROES and goes as follows,
Before we, the reporting officers, started the interview, I , CROES, notified the suspect that he was not obliged to make a statement. I also informed him that this statement was being recorded on tape.
You have just old me that you wanted to ask me about times. I can state the following.
When we, on May 30th, stopped in Deepak's car in front of my house, it was about 01.40 am. At that moment in time Deepak, Satish, Natalee and myself were in Deepak's car.
And here's the whole thing in Dutch, in case anyone wishes to question the translation.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-1.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-2.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-3.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-4.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-5.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-6.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-7.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-8.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-9.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-10.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-11.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-12.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-13.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a306/klaasend/SM%20Property/JV0614-14.jpg |
it says they dropped her at the hotel at 1:50. were they in two places at the same time?
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 15076
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| all10suspects
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:48 am |
|
|
|
1:40am apartment
1:50am Joran and Natalee at the beach
2am Deepak and Satish home
Why did Deepak have to see Joran again 11pm the dame day?
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 6356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bongo
Posted:
Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Re: so did i get this right?
| GBMW wrote: |
As you do so many times: you're assuming things that aren't correct about my opinion. The ALE look at it as a criminal case and probably for a reason, no charge doesn't equal no evidence, they won't go for body disposal when it comes to a trial....
If you want to assume things based on that...go ahead but please stop putting words in my mouth that aren't there. TIA |
Putting words in your mouth? No need to, you made yourself very clear.
I just disagree your suggestion: there must be evidence but, nah, that is not the reason why they don't charge JvdS
Honeslty, you sound like PrdV too much by now. Tenenkrommend.
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1153
Location: The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
