Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 29023
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
luvslalomPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:27 pm
Black-Tulip wrote:
What's the meaning of JOran instead of Joran?
Huge conspiracy.
I simply did not release the caps before hitting "o". Do you think it will hurt Joran's feelings? I do apologize.
**Deactivated**
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 4883
plhtx1Posted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:28 pm
Hannie wrote:
Guess a lot of people here have issues...
Could be, but Wang has never produced one thing that points to Tom Twitty except his/her assumptions. Maybe, if he/she could come up with something credible, it could take the heat of Joran.
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 4295
Location: The Vail Valley
yankee-in-francePosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:04 pm
Hannie wrote:
Wang isn't the only one here making assumptions, that's the core of this whole case, a lot of assumptions and theories. There are probably just a handful of people who come with credible things about this case, other than that it's fluff...
Hannie, I agree with you about assumptions, opinions, and theories but the Twitty connection appears to be more than an assumption, and you're right that it is not just Wang, but a few others as well. Suggesting that if Thomas Twitty was an Aruba citizen or somehow under Aruban law that he would be considered a suspect is IMO more than an assumption, opinion, or theory based on the limited information that we all have. It is more like an assertion and usually people make assertions with some knowledge connected to the assertion.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
luvslalomPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:13 pm
Let me guess where those assertions and assumptions began...StinkyPete's hideout.
They had an American/Aruban source.
**Deactivated**
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 4883
yankee-in-francePosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:14 pm
WangChung wrote:
Did I say that, yiffaroo (The Poster)? No. So let me understand this, are you attempting to put words in my mouth? TIA!
No, I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to understand the words that come out of your mouth. Is it an assumption, a theory, an opinion, or an assertion?
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
HeliPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:58 pm
Re: what is the dutch equivalent of miranda?
Hannie wrote:
It's called a 'caution' ( cautie ) here, iquitos, and it's the equivalent of the miranda warning.
It's the same in Canada. It's a caution and rights to counsel and anyone being DETAINED must be read their Charter rights. So, as soon as an officer establishes reasonable and probable grounds to detain a person, that caution and rights to counsel MUST be read to the individual.
There does NOT have to be an arrest. I suspect this is not entirely the same as what Miranda demands in the U.S. though.
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 24621
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
INKPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:14 pm
Re: i think in the us they would have concentrated on findin
WangChung wrote:
The drunken posse would have had their heads blown off with a 12 gauge shotgun if they'd pulled that stunt in a (U.S.) state that has a "home is castle" firearms law on the books. Loudmouth Jug, Lying Beth and Special FBI Agent Bearman would have also been in for a special surprise had they yelled "You Detroit assholes!!" ...... in the middle of downtown Detroit at two in the morning. As it was they just yelled "You Aruban assholes!"
Wang, that is so true. Even in gun-fearing NJ where I live, people have shot and killed intruders on their property and not been charged with a crime. In many states, Alabama likely being one of them, LE wouldn't think of charging a homeowner defending themselves. Not certain about defending one's property with deadly force, still okay in La? Perhaps, will look into it.
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 23
Linda in L.A.Posted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:24 pm
petals wrote:
Maybe you should re-read Prolific's earlier post (the one where she posted an internet definition of Miranda). It clearly and correctly states that there is no requirement that a person be arrested first before Miranda rights are read.
Just checked in. Petals...I don't need to real Pro's earlier post. I know what the definition of Miranda is. Your next sentence well...I thought what we were discussing was whether or not a statement made without having had Miranda read was inadmissible in court. Wasn't that it? My quote and link clearly stated that its not always the case. Whether or not a person needs to be arrested first before Miranda is read was not what my quote was about.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1813
iquitosPosted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:41 pm
hemchi wrote:
A "system" is only as strong as those running it. How is the investigation into v/d Straten progressing? I know the OM told us to be patient - but its been a while.
probably over with no irregularities encountered.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18711
Location: in my mind's eye
Linda in L.A.Posted:
Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:07 am
INK wrote:
Wang, that is so true. Even in gun-fearing NJ where I live, people have shot and killed intruders on their property and not been charged with a crime. In many states, Alabama likely being one of them, LE wouldn't think of charging a homeowner defending themselves. Not certain about defending one's property with deadly force, still okay in La? Perhaps, will look into it.
You think so?? Even with NJ Police accompanying them? I really doubt anyone would be so stupid as to try that as a defense if the police were right there.
An argument might be made that the police wouldn't have allowed it here in the U.S., but do me a favor...if someone should come to your home at 2 a.m. with police in tow...please don't shoot them and say you were protecting your property from an intruder. Would hate to be discussing your arrest here on RU for several years while it gets sorted out...lol
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1813
iquitosPosted:
Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:20 am
BIL?
in any case I wish nobody here ill, not even those i disagree with.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18711
Location: in my mind's eye
yankee-in-francePosted:
Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:49 am
OK, the thread has been split.
If it is the intention of certain posters on both sides to continuously inflame the board and derail threads with derisive photos and continued off-the-topic posts, perhaps it is time to rethink that conduct.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
iquitosPosted:
Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:41 pm
split?
where to?
p.s. i found it in HE.
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18711
Location: in my mind's eye
resignedPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:28 am
Black-Tulip wrote:
I don't agree, it does matter because the belief of the family and their supporters is that it's because of the Aruban laws that Joran is still a free person. That in the US he would be convicted.
It's clear their blaming of the Aruban justice system isn't justified.
"Trouble is..........."
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 35998
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
resignedPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:08 am
The point of the above is to show that Beth did not bring harm or ill will to Aruba - it was merely a sum of the parts of what happened on Aruba and how the entire case was handled. Much was said that was good by Beth and others who thought that the Arubans they came across everyday were kind and caring. But that is not what they write papers about.
Aruba officials are more at fault for the way their country's judicial system works than anyone else - WHO were these crazy island people runnng around picking up underwear and running up to reporters. Why is the police chief's son being taken in for questioning? Did the failed Judge in training really advise his son "no body No case" Why was everything supposedly top secret but items leak out like a sieve. Why was Ruben and Arlene brought out to "counter" any misinformation - if that is what they thought they doing. I thought it was a lame act - to take on the mother of a missing child - what could she do to them? Make them feel badly....and after all of those starts and stops - solved in 24 hours, we are at a critical stage, in two weeks.....pretty sad. No Aruba isn't the first missing person case to not be solved - but this was one that got the worlds attention and quite frankly - Aruba sucked right from the start. They showcased the island every night and seemed to have little to say about the case itself other that to say they work differently on Aruba. It would surprise me if they padded that budget bill they claimed they over exceeded.
I don't believe that the Country is rife with corruption and I don't believe it was that hard of a case for it to have been figured out and charged. But's that's just me - time has marched on . I think it was a perfect storm that collided on that May night/morning on Aruba that alterered any hope of a resolution to this case.
Sometimes Joran is right - "you get lucky..you just get lucky"
"Our Pat"
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 35998
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:08 am
Re: split?
iquitos wrote:
where to?
p.s. i found it in HE.
Where would you have expected to find it?
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
petalsPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:27 am
resigned wrote:
I don't believe that the Country is rife with corruption and I don't believe it was that hard of a case for it to have been figured out and charged. But's that's just me - time has marched on . I think it was a perfect storm that collided on that May night/morning on Aruba that alterered any hope of a resolution to this case.
Sometimes Joran is right - "you get lucky..you just get lucky"
All they would have needed would have been a single molecule of physical evidence but that was probably all out at the bottom of the ocean before anyone even knew that Natalee was missing.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 640
Linda in L.A.Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:47 am
petals wrote:
All they would have needed would have been a single molecule of physical evidence but that was probably all out at the bottom of the ocean before anyone even knew that Natalee was missing.
Maybe...but it depends on where Natalee actually died. We still don't know it was at the beach for a fact right? Skin, saliva, blood, etc. can't easily be cleaned away. Granted...if she died at the beach...not so easy.
Still begs the question though. If Natalee died on the beach...why would her body need to be disposed of?
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1813
plhtx1Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:07 am
Linda in L.A. wrote:
Maybe...but it depends on where Natalee actually died. We still don't know it was at the beach for a fact right? Skin, saliva, blood, etc. can't easily be cleaned away. Granted...if she died at the beach...not so easy.
Still begs the question though. If Natalee died on the beach...why would her body need to be disposed of?
Yes, if this was an accidental death, why the need to dispose of a body. Call 911. Happens everyday.
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 4295
Location: The Vail Valley
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:49 am
plhtx1 wrote:
Yes, if this was an accidental death, why the need to dispose of a body. Call 911. Happens everyday.
I think that it was an accidental death and believe that Joran did panic especially with his very descriptive words and body-language about Natalee's seizure and probably death. I don't think that it necessarily means that he harmed her other than disposing of her body but I realize that many people feel differently. It must have been very traumatic for him.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
Linda in L.A.Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:25 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
I think that it was an accidental death and believe that Joran did panic especially with his very descriptive words and body-language about Natalee's seizure and probably death. I don't think that it necessarily means that he harmed her other than disposing of her body but I realize that many people feel differently. It must have been very traumatic for him.
I could buy that YIF...except for a couple little problems with his story. Why did they keep talking about Natalee falling and hitting her head? Also, if he panicked and got rid of her body or had someone do it...I really don't believe he would later be able to talk about her the way he did and show how she was jerking, etc. My opinion...and I'm not expert or doctor...but I just don't think he could.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1813
plhtx1Posted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:34 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
I think that it was an accidental death and believe that Joran did panic especially with his very descriptive words and body-language about Natalee's seizure and probably death. I don't think that it necessarily means that he harmed her other than disposing of her body but I realize that many people feel differently. It must have been very traumatic for him.
This kid shows no feelings or remorse for anything, not even his own family. I doubt anything would traumatize Joran Van der Sloot.
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 4295
Location: The Vail Valley
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:19 pm
Linda in L.A. wrote:
I could buy that YIF...except for a couple little problems with his story. Why did they keep talking about Natalee falling and hitting her head? Also, if he panicked and got rid of her body or had someone do it...I really don't believe he would later be able to talk about her the way he did and show how she was jerking, etc. My opinion...and I'm not expert or doctor...but I just don't think he could.
I worked that part out. I think that he might have picked her up thinking that she had just passed out and he would get her walking and she'd be OK and perhaps she fell and hit her head enough that he knew that if her body was found there would be a bruise so he covered it with that lie.
I know that you don't usually bruise after death but I did read that it can happen and we're probably talking seconds after her death.
I don't know, Linda, just a thought.
Again, I don't think that he is a rapist or murderer. Whatever happened, I don't think that he willfully harmed her but I do believe that he well knows exactly what happened.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 10442
Location: France
Black-TulipPosted:
Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:23 pm
plhtx1 wrote:
This kid shows no feelings or remorse for anything, not even his own family. I doubt anything would traumatize Joran Van der Sloot.
Maybe the behavior is the result of a traumatic experience?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
