Affidavit Unsealed in Joran Van der Sloot FBI Sting Case

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 02:25:06 PM EST
Tags: Joran Van der Sloot (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The federal court in Alabama has unsealed the Affidavit in support of the complaint charging Joran Van der Sloot with extortion. You can read it here.

The Affidavit begins with Van der Sloot contacting a "cooperating witness" who from all accounts, seems to be Holloway's lawyer John Q. Kelly. What's not said is what prompted Van der Sloot to contact Kelly, and whether it was one of Hollway's private detectives or persons they knew to be in touch with Joran. In other words, just because Joran contacted Kelly before Kelly contacted him, doesn't mean the idea didn't originate with Team Holloway and Joran just took the bait. [More..]

I suspect the Affidavit was unsealed because it shows that the money was wired from Holloway's account and the FBI wants to show it wasn't their money that was given to Van der Sloot. Of course, the FBI could have provided Holloway with the funds to give to Joran.

The affidavit says as has been reported that Joran gave false information to Kelly (Hence the wire fraud charge, which was an add-on filed through an Amended complaint. Initially, the complaint was filed with just the extortion charge.)

It's clear to me the Holloways were still trying to make a murder case against Joran, that's why the FBI got involved. And why Joran wasn't arrested. The FBI had re-opened the investigation 6 weeks earlier, trying to prove murder, not extortion.

According to reports from the New York Post, Joran van der Sloot received the money as part of a sting operation as the FBI worked to build a murder case against the 22-year old Dutch national. (my emphasis)

I'm surprised John Q. Kelly got so involved. He went far outside the role of a lawyer and became a participant. Now he's a witness. His credibility will be called into question. What a mess. Why didn't he use an intermediary, like a detective?

< U.S. Arrests 429 People in Drug Sweep | The New Sally Quinns >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Affidavit Unsealed in Joran Van der Sloot FBI Sting Case | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Crazy (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 02:48:12 PM EST

Just nuts. The whole thing. Fiction couldn't touch this. As for Kelly, I would guess that his sympathies have been so overwhelmed by the case that they've affected his professional judgment. His personal feelings must be incomparably strong for whatever reason.

Mark Twain said (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 02:54:50 PM EST

it best:

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.

Few things "said best"... (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:15:53 PM EST

...have not be said by Mark Twain.


: OT (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:18:38 PM EST

In Nov. 100 years after his death, his autobiography will be released. He did not want it published until Nov 2010.

Keep it simple (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by robrecht on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 08:24:47 AM EST

But I did not say an email provoked him to commit murder. That's silly. I'm just looking for a simpler explanation for the coincidental dates than elaborate conspiracy theories floated here where people have even been willing to imagine that Stephany isn't really dead. It's also possible the date is just a bizarre coincidence. In general, simpler theories are better than flights of fantasy, especially when one has no evidence whatsoever.

would you like a big red "easy" button? (none / 0) (#62)
by thadjock on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 02:31:00 PM EST

I don't think any of the alternative theories posited here qualify as "wild conspiracies" truth is stranger than fiction, and life is never as simple as it appears at first glance. The only things "better" about simple theories are that they're easier for the masses to digest and process, and they make for tidier prepackaged tv news casts.

I also think you entirely underestimate BT's obsession in bringing vds to justice. She's done nothing else for 5 years (i'm not faluting her for that, no parent should ever have to lose a child), she's relentlessly recruited high ranking sympathetic civillian and law enforcement soldiers for her cause, and powned the media from the start.

I'm not suggesting BT has SF's blood on her hands at all, but if some party(s) emotionally invested in BT's plight felt the end justified the means, I wouldn't have any trouble believing one of her operatives went rogue and acted as the cleaner, with or without her knowledge. The sequence and execution of recent events definitely suggests someone had a "plan"


All too easy to speculate without any facts (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by robrecht on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 03:30:01 PM EST

Simple theories are better because they only rely on facts and statements available rather than creation of speculative scenarios and unknown "rogue operatives".

Where is your evidence for someone orchestrating and perpetrating this murder of Stephany to mark the 5th anniversary of Natalee Holloway's disappearance?

You say here that you don't mean to suggest that Beth has Stephany's blood on her hands, but you also said: "I think we may be witnessing Beth Twitty's revenge against Joran being served cold. Ice cold." Where is your evidence of this?

Who is the person that 'prompted or coached the prepackaged press conference using the Beth Twitty media playbook'?

Who is this rogque operative acting as a "cleaner, with or without her knowledge"?


Don't panic (none / 0) (#64)
by thadjock on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 06:22:14 PM EST

I have a feeling the peruvian authorities are going to oblige you with a very simple theory, a very simple trial, and a very simple verdict.

They don't seem like the sadistic type who would muddle a crisp, B&W morality play with alot of annoying investigative work and alternative suspects/theories.


: Insulting innuendo aside ... (none / 0) (#65)
by robrecht on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:50:20 AM EST

I notice you did not have any answers to my questions.

Since Kelly did not use an intermediary (none / 0) (#3)
by ruffian on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 02:57:33 PM EST

maybe it was Joran who made the first contact, without prompting. He would know Kelly's name.

Also I wonder what prompted the FBI to reopen the murder investigation 6 weeks earlier.

The timing of all these things is very suspicious to me.

Timing (none / 0) (#5)
by thadjock on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:15:35 PM EST

I agree, the timing and sequence of all these events is extremely curious.

The date of the murder alone raises so many questions. It's difficult not to believe someone intended this to mark the 5th anniversary of Natalie Halloway's disappearance. If it were Joran, that would necessitate a fair amount of forethought and preplanning on his part, which as the known facts stand now, doesn't even remotely seem to be the case.

Team Halloway however, has had a laser like focus on bringing Joran to "justice" since the very first day Beth Twitty landed in aruba 5 yrs ago. I feel for Beth's loss and I'm sure as a mother she needs to see someone hang for it. But she early on decided that person was vds and has never let go of that.

She's expertly managed the media to build a worldwide public opinion case against vds, and has the FBI wrapped around her little finger. Are we really expected to believe that neither the FBI or Beth knew the whereabouts of vds?

I think we may be witnessing Beth Twitty's revenge against Joran being served cold. Ice cold.

This whole thing smells like a set up.


And That's Fine, but... (none / 0) (#9)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:49:52 PM EST

Was this girl just a pawn to avenge her own girl's death, that would be sickening.

The thing that is really bothering me is the meddling by the FBI. It appears that the cash VdS used to go to Peru was from Beth Twitty with help of the US Government. And if he didn't go to Peru, there would not have been a murder in his hotel room.

If she was willing to send $25k internationally to her daughters supposed killer who has a history of lying, I wonder how much she was willing to send to ensure he got his ?

And as you mentioned, does the FBI not get manifestos of international flights and run them through their database. No way that kid flies off the island without someone noticing. And why Peru ?

The truth will never come out, because even if the truth is told, no one will buy it.


I'm sorry but (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:04:44 PM EST

floating the idea that Beth Twitty arranged somehow for Stephany Flores to be murdered and the blame put on Joran Van Der Sloot is just beyond vile.


In the world of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:10:39 PM EST

of high finance organized crime and espionage, deals are surely often put together like sausage -- in the same way its done on Wall Street. Money from various sources can be tied together resulting mergers of the strangest companies at the strangest times, simply because the timing is right. In organized crime, surely the same principles apply. Sometimes money comes together for some "perfect storm" of events, or a "perfect storm" can be arranged with a little manipulation. I don't think Twitty or anyone on her team actually schemed to kill Flores to get to vds, but someone working on her behalf could have had money on his head, and she may have had money on her head (gambling? Also, her dad surely has enemies). Put together, it could have been enough to spark a deal. For someone who could get them both together, whack her, and frame him, it probably would have been easy if they had the right connections in a place like Peru. I know this looks like a premeditated violation of the law of parsimony, but when the whole picture is taken, it is only these bizarre schemes that seem to make any sense.

Also, you have to consider the media aspect of this. This whole thing has become bigger than any of the actors. It is the stuff symbolic activism and political force is made of, because it has so many hot-button issues (as I have explained before - crime going unpunished, violence against women, and white male privilege). It is those hot-button issues that cause people that would normally not care about some obscure crime in Aruba five years ago to start screaming "scumbag" at a high pitch when they hear van der Sloot's name. Many people in the world would love get vds for personal satisfaction or a sense of justice for a cause. Obviously, he doesn't have any friends at the FBI, and it isn't even their jurisdiction.

So, taking the angle that Flores's murder was an instrumental act does not necessarily imply she was irrelevant and was sacrificed to get to him. She could have been the victim of someone else for some other reason, as much as vds.


: Brilliantly put (none / 0) (#24)
by thadjock on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:48:38 PM EST

You said it all much more succinctly than I managed to. I wasn't trying to suggest Beth Twitty killed SF or had her killed, so thanks for clarifying that, and expanding the idea I was attempting to put forth.
SF's father's high political profile/ambitions would certainly have drawn attention to her as well, from both admirers as well as more nefarious characters. If peruvian police wanted to make a real list of suspects, I'm certain it woulnd't have begun and ended with vds.
and what better place to perpetrate a murky, badly investigated crime, replete with Law enforcement charged with human rights violations, sketchy witnesses, conflicting hotel staff statements, and the victim's family using the Beth Twitty media playbook to name their daughters killer. That press conference just seemed too prepackaged, almost scripted, definitely prompted or coached.
For me the most convincing evidence he's been set up, is the date. There's no chance in hell that is a random coincidence. Somebody is making a point.

What if - (none / 0) (#17)
by Untold Story on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:40:01 PM EST

SF has not been murdered, or, a plan had not included murder?

Not suggesting, just asking?


The FBI didn't help her because she didn't (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 10:26:56 AM EST

need their help. She already had an intermediary. She reported him because he attempted to commit another(to Beth's mind) crime, whether it was his original idea or not, and she obviously wanted him arrested and questioned about her vanished daughter. Who wouldn't in the same situation? If my daughter disappeared, I would spend every cent I have to find out what happened to her and where she was. Her motive was not revenge. She could have just spent her money to have him taken out if that's what she was after and she's as depraved as is being suggested.

No one is responsible for how he used the payment except him. Stephany wasn't used by anyone and likely was in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether he did it or someone else did. It is bad enough for her family without wild speculation that she was sacrificed by another dead girl's mother with help from an agency of the US govt. Is it not possible that the date was weighing on HIS mind, if he committed the earlier deed, and that caused him to snap? Maybe he was looking at articles about himself on the five-year anniversary on the computer and she just happened to see what he had left open and made the mistake of asking him about what she read?

Why Peru can only be answered by vds.

Both Aruban authorities and the FBI knew he left Aruba but Aruba had no legal reason to stop him and the FBI has no jurisdiction to arrest a non-US citizen in a foreign country. They couldn't do anything in Peru for the same reasons. The only FBI agents who can act in a foreign country are the ones attached to an embassy and only at the request of the foreign country, an exception being if terrorism is involved, they don't have to wait to be asked.

I realize that TL is a defense-centric site and I appreciate the point of view here very much but I think it's repugnant to besmirch a woman who has lost her child even in defense. The facts should be his defense-not character assassination.


You're not suggesting ... (none / 0) (#21)
by Yman on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:34:47 PM EST

... Beth Twitty or the FBI is responsible for the death of this girl simply by virtue of the fact that they wired him this money, ...

... are you?


I'm Not Suggesting. (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:03:36 AM EST

I am saying they are indirectly responsible, without the money, VdS would still be in Aruba. If the mother had sent it herself, no big deal, but the FBI. That is what I have the problem with.

The Hollway's layer was on the Today show. He stated:

The $25k was a down payment on $250k, the rest to be paid when the body is found.
VdS personally showed the attorney where he and his dad buried the body, it was in a foundation of a house.
The above statement was a lie, no body was found

So after this VdS flees to Peru and ends up in the mess he is in. If the attorney is telling the truth, it means Beth Twitty had been burned by the man who she believes killed her daughter. She has $225k ready to go.

You tell me, I am not saying she arranged anything, but I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out she had.


: Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Yman on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:28:56 AM EST

To say that Beth Twitty and/or the FBI are responsible (directly or indirectly) for the death of Stephany Flores simply by virtue of the fact that they paid money to him is preposterous. If VDS had received the money in a paycheck, would his employer be "indirectly responsible" for her death merely because he paid him? Is the sports store where the tennis raquet was purchased responsible for her death? After all, if they hadn't sold the tennis raquet, she'd still be alive, right?
The rest of your argument is a little hard to decipher.

So after this VdS flees to Peru and ends up in the mess he is in. If the attorney is telling the truth, it means Beth Twitty had been burned by the man who she believes killed her daughter. She has $225k ready to go.
You're suggesting she may have "arranged something", without saying what it is you think she might have "arranged". Are you saying you "wouldn't be surprised" she arranged for the murder of Stephany Flores and the framing of vds because she was angry at being "burned" by him, and she had the money available to "arrange something"?
Stating that Beth Twitty is indirectly responsible (with or without the FBI's involvement) for the death of this girl merely because she sent money to vds, and then going even further to suggest she may have "arranged something" to make sure she got revenge, with zero evidence to support it, is beyond farcical.

: No responsibility (none / 0) (#48)
by waldenpond on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:25:58 AM EST

Statistically speaking.... the FBI was acting on an independent act.
He would have been in Peru in and event. VDS would have gotten the money by telling yet another story to yet another 'journalist' or his mother would have given him the money.

Simplist explanation for the coincidental date (none / 0) (#40)
by robrecht on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 06:48:29 AM EST

The simplist explanation for the coincidental 5/30 date may be that someone (from team Holloway or anyone else) emailed Joran on the anniversary of Holloway's disappearence. The email could be almost anything, eg, taunting him or begging him to disclose the location of Holloway's body for closure. If that were one of the emails that Stephany read on Joran's computer, that could help explain the anger, fight, and death of Stephany at Joran's hand.


What jurisdiction does FBI have (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 03:28:04 PM EST

regarding alleged murder of a U.S. citizen in Aruba?

FBI website, from FAQs: (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 05:45:31 PM EST

What authority do FBI Special Agents have to make arrests in the United States, its territories, or on foreign soil?
In the United States and its territories, FBI Special Agents may make arrests for any federal offense committed in their presence or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, a felony violation of U.S. laws. Concerning arrests on foreign soil, FBI Special Agents generally do not have authority outside the United States except in certain cases where, with the consent of the host country, Congress has granted the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction.

More, from Slate: (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:16:08 PM EST

Link is from June 6, 2005 (none / 0) (#15)
by Untold Story on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:36:29 PM EST

: So what. Answers my question. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:37:52 PM EST

Kelly (none / 0) (#8)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 04:20:36 PM EST

I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it, so this is very much FWIW, but I did read with some surprise that it's Kelly in the Holloway camp who's been in sporadic contact with Joran via email for some time before this came up and that it was Joran who initiated the contact for unspecified reasons.

If I were in Joran's position, Kelly is the last person on earth I'd have any contact with whatsoever that I didn't have to officially.

Although whatever I read didn't say so, if this little nugget came from Bo Dietl (who's been doing a lot of yakking to reporters), it's suspect by definition.

This is not meant as a criticism.... (none / 0) (#10)
by Key on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 05:15:10 PM EST

This is not meant as a criticism....

It's actually kind of interesting to read your posts on this topic. It definitely shows your defense attorney POV. So much of what you write "feels" like you're trying to find possible defenses for the alleged murderer's actions.

Certainly nothing wrong with that, and in a way it's kind of refreshing since so many other pundits you see on TV take the opposite approach to discussing this case.

But it is always interesting to read your take, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your POV....

Too many innocent people on Death Row (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by MKS on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:33:20 PM EST

Perhaps if people thought defendants really might be innocent and explore potential evidence of that, then maybe fewer innocent people would be wrongly convicted.


: Resources on DNA testing (none / 0) (#66)
by Untold Story on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 04:47:36 PM EST

rather than five years on the NH case may have brought justice to many more than one person.

I look at it as trying to see where (none / 0) (#19)
by ruffian on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:14:46 PM EST

reasonable doubt about a person's guilt might lie. As more pieces of the puzzle are filled in with facts, the alternative plausible scenarios should dry up. If they don't it's not a very strong case.

I like to think I start from an 'innocent until proven guilt' perspective, but I realize I really don't when I read a lot of Jeralyn's posts.


"innocent until proven guilty" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:13:33 PM EST

is a legal requirement, not a psychological/emotional one. It would be an impossible demand if it were. Maybe it's schizophrenic, but I have different standards for myself in terms of how I privately judge somebody and whether I think (as a layman, but who follows a lot of these things) the case has been proven legally.

In the Holloway case, I think it's more likely than not that VDS was responsible for her death in one way or another, but there's no evidence and no case. End of story unless something else is uncovered that definitively ties him to it. And even then, there is the possibility it really was an accident he wasn't directly responsible for.

In the Flores case, unless the cops are hiding video evidence that somebody else came into that room, to to me it's pretty open-and-shut and the only remaining questions have to do with what exactly happened that it came to that, and various minor details. I would want to see a trial, though, because presumably they'd have to produce that video at least for the defense to set technical experts on it for any evidence of tampering.

I believe passionately in making the prosecution have to prove its case, and I think all too often in this country, at least, that doesn't happen and people get convicted on flimsy evidence.


i dunno about flimsy (none / 0) (#33)
by thadjock on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:43:19 PM EST

but definitely on purely circumstantial.

somebody should check in with scott peterson and ask him how he thinks that whole "lack of physical evidence" thing worked out for him.

I like to believe that justice is attainable, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that there isn't one jury in the world where jurors can seperate the legal merits of the case from their own personal bias.


Peterson is a perfect example (none / 0) (#38)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:50:34 AM EST

He should never have been convicted, IMHO. Talk about prosecution not having to prove its case. Dunno whether he did the deed or not, but as has been pointed out here many times, being a jerk doesn't mean you're also a murderer.


: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#67)
by A Voice of Sanity on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:38:23 PM EST

Well, there was real evidence in the Peterson case. Unfortunately for the prosecution every piece favored Peterson. That is why they ran the case "inside out" - instead of proving their case they spent all of their time opposing the presumed defense. Sadly, the jury was so befuddled that they voted out of 'feelings' - not one of them can, to this day, offer any reason for the verdict except platitudes heard on TV or from the closing speech, and this despite their 'book'. So even evidence doesn't help if the media is sufficiently vitriolic and the case is sufficiently disorganized.

Me too (none / 0) (#47)
by ruffian on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:23:42 AM EST

I alternate my juror hat and my ordinary person making judgements hat. It is all just a mental exercise, since my opinion matters not a bit really.

I like to entertain both perspectives, which I know makes my commenting a bit schizophrenic!


Unfortunately, I don't (none / 0) (#20)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:26:02 PM EST

think there is going to be a lot more to be filled in from credible sources. IANAL, and I know there are formal theoretical differences like Napoleonic systems and such. In my layman's understanding of the differences, systems like Peru don't put out a lot of public information about such things. We aren't going to have a high-profile trial where facts are squeezed out under public scrutiny and checked against other facts. In my layman's terms, those governments work under the assumption of something like a benevolent dictator. The prosecutor is seen as an infallible authority free to work out all sorts of conclusions on their own. The government itself is seen as an infallible authority which has the right to dispose of such matters as it sees fit. Our system of viewing government as suspect and as a potential tool for injustice, and the requirement to protect individuals from its awesome power, is not at the forefront of their reasoning.


Very different (none / 0) (#22)
by waldenpond on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:35:24 PM EST

Listening to the description... judge panel, pleading, etc... it's very different. Some were saying today, they think VDS new attorney has made an error in withdrawing the plea. Their system rewards contrition... so if you plead guilty and give great detail, your sentence is less. He was looking at six years.

Now? The lawyer is withdrawing the plea because there wasn't 'proper' representation at the confession and the lawyer isn't happy with his statement that Stephanie had wanted to leave and he wouldn't let her. The lawyer is complaining about the evidence tampering (the body)... to a 3 judge panel? Why? That would make sense in front of a jury but not a system that is so interconnected.

It looks like this could get messed up. They are now looking at charging him with robbery motive which means it's premeditated and possibly tacking on kidnapping. 35 years.


He lied in confession (none / 0) (#23)
by Untold Story on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:32:50 PM EST

Which detectives found out when they compared his confession to the crime scene and evidence, therefor, he would not be eligible for a manslaughter charge; the detectives are charging him with murder one. (Manslaughter would have given him the lesser number of years.)


His confession didn't (none / 0) (#25)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 10:54:37 PM EST

match the crime scene because he didn't kill her! If he confessed to get manslaughter, then why would he lie about how he left the scene?


Hmmm? (none / 0) (#29)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:22:19 PM EST

That's something I hadn't heard. What do you mean he lied about how he left the scene?


: It was a reply to (none / 0) (#31)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:36:39 PM EST

Untold Story's comment to that effect. Obviously, every confession he has ever given so far has been a lie!

lying doesn't make you a murderer, (none / 0) (#30)
by thadjock on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31:18 PM EST

it just makes you look like one.

When you consider vds has been unable to reveal any verifiable truths about the halloway casefrom day 1, even when duped into a "confession" by hidden camera thug investigative reporters, or trying to sell his stories to the FBI for cash, it really makes me believe he doens't HAVE any information to sell because he wasn't there or involved.

I see his game as one of contempt for a nancy grace populated media who tried and convicted him without compunction, and without evidence. He jerks them around with false starts because he can.


Precisely... (none / 0) (#32)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:39:25 PM EST

I see his game as one of contempt for a nancy grace populated media who tried and convicted him without compunction, and without evidence. He jerks them around with false starts because he can.

I believe that is precisely what he does and why he does it.


Hey, if you guys want to make (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:45:19 AM EST

some kind of hero out of him, go for it. But forgive me if I suspect you haven't followed the Holloway case from the beginning.


not a hero, nor a victim (none / 0) (#42)
by thadjock on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 08:17:31 AM EST

but imagine for a second, if you had been the very last person seen with natalie halloway, and you didn't kill her or dump her body anywhere, but because you were a person of interest, you became the lightning rod for all the worlds hate, and the media began to systematically pick apart your life because it makes for great TV ratings, and no matter how you defended your innocence, nobody was listening....because that would leave a grieving mother without closure. so the world decided you were it.

what would you do?


I would have told the truth from the beginning (none / 0) (#43)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 08:22:57 AM EST

Simple. Next question?

(And if you don't know why I say that, you didn't follow the Holloway case at the time.)


maybe he did (none / 0) (#45)
by thadjock on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 08:41:22 AM EST

but nobody wanted that truth. the very first statement he ever gave to any authority concluded with : when he left her she was alive. why are you certain that wasn't the case?


: I'm not and (none / 0) (#57)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 11:51:23 AM EST

I've said that repeatedly. There is no evidence of anything.
But VDS told first Natalee's parents in the immediate aftermath, and then the cops in Aruba after he was arrested, multiple different stories about where he and Holloway went, who else was there or wasn't there, what they did, what happened to her, what he did next, etc. He also in various stories implicated other people, who were then arrested before he was, interrogated, and were able to supply iron-cast alibis.
Care to pick which version was "the truth"?
You really ought to look up the coverage of that story in the first couple weeks.

Not declare myself a murderer (none / 0) (#59)
by waldenpond on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 11:57:50 AM EST

There is something mentally wrong with a individual who would do multiple interviews, insisting on money mind you, and tell different stories of how someone died and their part in the events. There is something wrong with a person who tells people he meets in his personal life that he injured someone or that someone died and they disposed of the body. There is something seriously wrong with someone who states his deceased father helped him dispose of the body. If VDS thinks he is a 'lightening rod for all the worlds hate', he would also come across as a megalomaniac.

The Aruba/Peru incidents are separate to me, but I was absolutely stunned to find out he was discussing Aruba with Peru officials.


Natalee Holloway (none / 0) (#68)
by A Voice of Sanity on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:47:01 PM EST

Indeed. There are at least 4 explanations for her death, other than his involvement.

After he left she walked out on the rocks for a last look at the sea, tripped, fell, knocked herself out, rolled into the sea and drowned.
After he left she walked out on the rocks for a last look at the sea. A large wave took her off the rocks and she drowned.
After he left she decided on a swim and drowned. If she had left her skirt on the beach as has been suggested someone coming along could have found it, seen no one around, and taken it.
After he left, as she walked back she was offered a ride by others and was their victim, not his.

So far I see NO evidence to overcome any of these scenarios.


"Unable"? (none / 0) (#58)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 11:56:20 AM EST

Unable?? Oh, my goodness.

Gee. You mean like John Edwards was "unable" to admit to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, that kind of "unable"?


Info differs again (none / 0) (#50)
by waldenpond on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:34:12 AM EST

That one isn't backed up by info released though..... I just don't hear or read the info you do. The statements released by the police match the preliminary autopsy evidence released. So, I think you are saying again that the police are lying about the whole thing. That doesn't seem a reasonable defense strategy in Peru as this goes before a 3 judge panel not a jury.

Detectives don't charge. He is with the prosecutor and they don't have 'murder one' so I'm not sure where you got that info either.


Isn't it the confession(s), not a plea, (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:10:22 PM EST

the suspect's lawyer wants withdrawn/striken? Is there any information the suspect has entered a plea of guilty/nolo?


That may be true, but (none / 0) (#28)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:20:13 PM EST

I'm not sure it is. In the Napoleonic system, judges have enormously greater role and greater powers than in ours, for one thing. I certainly wouldn't want to trust the Peruvian system in particular on a doubtful case, but IMO this isn't one of those.

But of course, if one is determined to give zero credibility at all to law enforcement there, then anything at all is possible and nothing can be believed.

How they treat accused Shining Path revolutionaries and other genuine threats to the state is another matter, but at least Lori Berenson got an actual trial and a chance to speak to it, unlike what the good old US of A does to those folks down in Guantanamo or the "black" prisons overseas.


According to this link (can't vouch (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:44:04 PM EST

for reliability), there will be a three judge panel. link


You have a point (none / 0) (#35)
by JamesTX on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:58:09 PM EST

about Lori Berenson, but the judges were anonymous and masked, right?

I am willing to accept it is just a different system, and it isn't going to look like justice to people like me who grew up with something very different. As far as the similar activities by the U.S. during the Bush era, there was outcry -- because it is a violation of our values.


: Yes, the judges were masked (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:47:58 AM EST

I don't defend that, but I can certainly understand it since Shining Path had been making a bit of a hobby of assassinating them.
And please, it's not just the Bush era. His policies on "detainees" are continuing virtually unchanged, and the Obama administration is still fighting the various detainees' attempts to appeal to the courts for at least a trial.

because: (none / 0) (#39)
by cpinva on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 04:02:30 AM EST

Why didn't he use an intermediary, like a detective?

a. he got paid a boatload of cash by the holloway family. or,

b. he isn't as smart as everyone seems to think he is.

that's a swiss cheese affidavit; lots of holes in it.

at the moment, the whole case has lots of holes. holes i suspect will be filled in by defense counsel, leaving the whole looking like a lot less than the sum of the parts.

Joran van der Sloot jailed on murder and robbery c (none / 0) (#51)
by kasey9 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 09:53:28 AM EST

Breaking News: A Peruvian judge has ordered Joran van der Sloot jailed on murder and robbery charges in the killing of a 21-year-old Lima woman.

Judge Juan Buendia issued the order before dawn Friday, instructing penal authorities to place the Dutchman in a penitentiary pending trial.

Van der Sloot remains the lone suspect in the 2005 disappearance in Aruba of Alabama teen Natalee Holloway.

Reported from Wesh.com

http://www.wesh.com/news/23869427/detail.html?treets=orl&tml=orl_natlbreak&ts=T&tmi=orl_ natlbreak_1_09460106112010

Is it possible the (none / 0) (#52)
by ding7777 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13:21 AM EST

FBI were going to execute Joran's extortion warrant on the NH anniversary date for maximum media value but Stephany's death messed up the timing?

: FBI shouldn't have known until 6/2! (none / 0) (#55)
by Untold Story on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 10:49:17 AM EST

Update (none / 0) (#54)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 10:33:14 AM EST

Here

Joran van der Sloot has told Peruvian authorities that he'll confess to where he put the body of missing American teenager Natalee Holloway if officials from Aruba will come visit him.

SNIP

A Peruvian judge Friday ordered van der Sloot held in jail on charges of robbery and murder. In the week since his capture, while fleeing in Chile, grisly details have emerged about how he says he killed Flores.
"Joran, he said, struck Stephany repeatedly, strangled her, shook her, threw her on the ground," Gen. Cesear Guardia told "Good Morning America" in Spanish. "And, when he saw that she was still breathing, he used his own shirt to suffocate her."
Van der Sloot also told police, Guardia said, that when was captured on hotel surveillance video leaving his room to get coffee and pastries, Flores was already dead. Guardia said he believes van der Sloot ate his breakfast in the hotel room next to Flores' body.
His motive, Guardia said, was robbery.

The story goes on to tell you how bad Peruvian prisons are, and how step by step exactly (that we know so far) how the exctortion plot went down.

: An explanation (none / 0) (#60)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:23:06 PM EST

For the two coffees - and that he supposedly sat by her dead body, eating his breakfast.
Truly disturbing, if true.

Joran van der Sloot has told Peruvian authorities (none / 0) (#56)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 11:48:52 AM EST

Wow.

There's a new post on this (none / 0) (#61)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:26:34 PM EST

here to discuss the charges.