home

Joran Van der Sloot's Extortion Case an FBI Sting

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:23:16 PM EST
Tags: Joran Van der Sloot (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The FBI set up Joran Van der Sloot to extort money from a representative of Beth Holloway in Aruba.

So it seems it wasn't Joran's idea to call Beth Holloway and offer details for cash, it was her and the FBI's idea. They probably hoped that if arrested on the extortion charge, they'd be able to get him to Alabama and the FBI could question him about Natalie's murder. Also likely in on the plot: the lawyer for Mrs. Holloway, John Q. Kelly, who was seen in Aruba that week. Question: Did the money wired to Joran belong to the F.B.I.?

So Joran took the bait and got a down payment, and gave or intended to give false information, just like he has before. Why would he do that? Maybe because he has no real information since he didn't kill Natalee Holloway or dispose of her body? Of course, no one wants to believe that. That requires the presumption of innocence, and only guilt sells in the American media.

[More...]

< The Public Debate On Constitutional Interpretation | Friday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Joran Van der Sloot's Extortion Case an FBI Sting | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So, did he sign a contract he would be providing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    true information or something? I don't see how it is a crime to give people information when they call me up and offer me money for it.

    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    If it is too good to be true, it probably is a con.

    Parent
    Yup. I understand the mother's desperation (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    but for the FBI to be setting up crimes is just maddening.

    Even more maddening is getting me to feel the least bit of sympathy for Joren Van der Sloot. Even if he did not intend to kill anyone, he does admit to leaving a defenseless drunk girl alone on a beach.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    By all descriptions, he sounds like a creep. But society's level of civilization is be measured as to how we treat the lowest among us, imo.

    Tolerance is a virtue. We can all use more of it.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    I don't see anything on Jeralyn's link (or anywhere else) that said the FBI set up a crime and made him do it.  It says they worked with the mother and Aruban authorities to capture the crime in progress on vieotape.  How would they know he would try and extort money?  Did someone just randomly walk up to him and say "Hey, I think you should try and get money from the Holloway family in exchange for details on Natalee's death!"

    Seems to me the only way they knew about this so they could tape it was that he maybe tried it before, hmmm?

    Parent

    JBinc, you are (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    becoming a chatterer and a bloghogger. I'm going to ban you from my threads if you don't stop your repetitive comments asserting he's guilty.

    Take it to another site where guilt sells. All points of view here are tolerated within limits, and you've surpassed mine.

    And by the way, check out what a sting is and how it works.

    Parent

    I don't see where (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    I said he was guilty. Facts not in evidence.

    I said there's nothing in your link to show that the FBI made him commit a crime - also known as entrapment.  They couldn't divine that he would call and try to extort money.  The Aruban government didn't dream it up and decide, at this time, to randomly get him on tape.

    I know what a sting is - something had to prompt them to want to set it up and involve the authorities in three countries.

    If you want me banned - fine.  

    Parent

    entrapment doesn't (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    require him to prove the FBI "made him do it." Only that they induced him to commit a crime he wasn't otherwise pre-disposed to commit.

    You don't know what Aruba did or did not do, or even who approached who... yet you continue to present your theories, based on snippets of news articles you agree with, as fact.

    I'm trying not to ban you but on every crime-based thread you come along to take an anti-defense position, cherry-picking the reports you agree with.

    I don't expect an echo chamber here, but I also don't intend to allow you to dominate threads with your speculations presented as fact, over and over again.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    When the government is BSing someone and acting like a criminal,  and someone takes the bait, also BSing, because they have neither any intention of following through, or have nothing really to offer, it seems incredibly unfair that the person who is essentially acting exactly like the government in every way, is the one who is determined to be a criminal.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:56:36 PM EST
    And without even the excuse of trying to stop some big bomb plot or something. Anyone they take a dislike to could be set up in this way.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    It seems to me that there is enough "work" for law enforcement, that they do not have to manufacture criminals, arrest them and jail them.

    I have read that there is often a fine line between criminal and law enforcer, both have similar tendencies, except one becomes law and one become criminal. Perhaps the creative sting or legal con game, is the manifestation of those criminal impulses.

    I guess it is more fun than routine police work which I assume can be rather tedious.

    Parent

    I'm going by what I read someplace else (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:51:59 PM EST
    I'll try to find it and link to it. It was my impression that the 'stingers' approached him, not the other way around. It was not a random person that suggested it, but someone working for the FBI.

    Parent
    The article only says ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    ... that this was a joint operation between Aruban authorities and the FBI.  Not sure how this establishes that Beth Holloway and/or the FBI are the ones who approached Joran, as opposed to the other way around.

    Spokesman for the US Attorney's office ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    ... maintains that van der Sloot initiated contact with the victim.

    The complaint does not name the person whom van der Sloot was trying to extort, by providing information about Holloway's death, but Sanford suggested, van der Sloot had initiated contact by approaching the alleged victim.


    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    I mean - would YOU go along with some random person who approached you with an idea like this?

    OF COURSE he initiated the contact - that's how they knew to tape him.

    I don't know why that isn't obvious to everyone else.

    Parent

    possibly because, (none / 0) (#54)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    unlike you apparently, the rest of us aren't mind readers.:

    I don't know why that isn't obvious to everyone else.

    the one constant about "conventional wisdom" is that it's normally wrong.

    i'll wait for actual facts, prior to rendering an opinion.

    Parent

    So are you saying that this is factually wrong? (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    So it seems it wasn't Joran's idea to call Beth Holloway and offer details for cash, it was her and the FBI's idea.


    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:37:45 PM EST
    I would say it doesn't match any of the facts reported anywhere.  If there is a place it is reported (that can be verified), then I'd like to see it.

    Parent
    Don't know, ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    ... but the original Fox News story doesn't seem to support that argument.  I haven't been able to find anything except the USA's spokesperson saying he (Joran) initiated the contact.

    Parent
    I had always assumed (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    that was happened to Natalee was an accident.

      She and he had been drinking heavily and went down to the beach.  That has accidental drowning written all over it.  Even with just a couple of beers, people should stay out of the water. It is so easy to be caught in a wave, or just trip and fall in the surf, and then drown.

    And it seemed to me that Joran and his dad then decided to get rid of the body in the ocean.....So I always thought.....It just seemed hard to believe that Joran would just out and kill Natalee for no reason....

    But this whole thing in Peru.....Maybe Joran just has bad Karma and things like this happen around him....Or maybe not.

    Jeralyn, your link doesn't say anything (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:31:45 PM EST
    about who made the offer to whom. He or his rep could have contacted her mother or her attorney first and then they called the FBI rather than the other way around. Is the down payment what makes it suspect? Would it be usual for the FBI to run a sting five years after the crime anyway? Seems unlikely to me but I know next to nothing about what they would do.

    Oops. Make that "supposed crime". (none / 0) (#29)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 06:38:00 PM EST


    Parent
    greta van sustern (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    isn't my first thought for "objective" reporting, or any reporting, for that matter. nor would FOX be the first (or any) place i would consider a factual reporter of news.

    i think i'll wait for the cliff's notes version.

    Greta van Susteren (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    when she was still doing crime and tabloid stories, was an absolute paragon of objective reporting.  Go look up the old transcripts or something.

    She did the Holloway story for a long, long time and developed trusting relationships with Holloway's parents and U.S. law enforcement involved in the case.  (Her relationship with the Holloway family is no doubt why she got the tidbit of info she's reporting tonight.)

    Even so, Greta herself has consistently said, particularly after doing an hour-long interview with Van Der Sloot, that she had major doubts about the case.

    Unfortunately, she has since followed the rest of the Fox News agenda and turned her show into GOP TV, all politics all the time.

    But when she was doing legal and crime stuff, she had a superb show and was utterly meticulous about getting the facts right.

    Parent

    Greta spin (none / 0) (#40)
    by robrecht on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 11:46:58 PM EST
    I don't watch Greta much, but I too thought I saw a decided shift in her work.  Even when she moved to Fox, it seemed to me for a while that she was avoiding their political slant.  But sometime around the '08 election I began to notice lots of Fox spin coming from her.

    Parent
    Wondering if others give or intend (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    to give false information in exchange for money when purportedly falsely accused of committing a crime. The man arrested re Atlanta Olympics bomb, for example.  Or the scientist suspected of sending the Anthrax letters after 9/11.  Or the Los Alamos scientist.  Very odd.  

    I would think so (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    Their lives have been ruined by the false accusations, why wouldn't they be bitter enough to make some money off it? Doesn't make it right, but it does make it understandable.

    Parent
    Good catch, Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:42:44 PM EST
    Joran may be an immature jerk, with a huge ego and sense of entitlement.  He might even be an extortionist, who knows?  But that doesn't necessarily make him guilty of murder.  I don't care how much the State thinks they are right, I don't like set-ups or stings.  They don't have a place in our (supposed) system of justice.  Go with the evidence, and go with what has been done.  (And while we're at it, I don't much care for "conspiracy" and RICO laws, either.  At least, I certainly don't like how they're used in far too many cases.)

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    These agents are trained in the arts of how to con, and specifically study their mark. Between the human greed of a selected mark, and persuasive con men and women who happen to work for the government, it is not so surprising that innocent's would fall into their traps.

    Parent
    Seems rather stupid (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    Considering he's still a suspect in Aruba.

    Only a fool would give incriminating evidence in a crime where he's the main suspect if he didn't do it.

    Parent

    He thinks he's smarter than everyone (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    If there is no proof other than his unsworn testimony, it is not incriminating. He must be pretty darn sure there is no proof.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, where does the info (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    come from that he was set up?  The post on Gretawire you linked to doesn't appear to say that.

    Parent
    Calling Vincent Bugliosi. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 04:56:12 PM EST


    Joran should have followed (none / 0) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    OJ's lead and just "wrote" a book about how it happened

    More details from Greta Van Susteren (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    on tonight's show both about the Peruvian murder and the extortion sting.

    First on the murder-- she wasn't beaten to a bloody pulp or stabbed or much of any of the stuff that's been reported.  She was whacked hard on the side of the head with something and died of a brain hemmorhage, according to what the ME told the people Greta sent down there to look into it.

    So no violent, mutilating, overkill, personal-type rage in the murder after all.

    About the extortion attempt-- that's still a little muddy to me because the always incoherent and not always believable Bo Dietl, who has been a PI for the Holloway people, was the guest who described it, but he was fairly clear that Van Der Sloot himself initiated it by contacting some intermediary connected to the family.  I don't even have a guess who that might be, certainly not Dietl himself and seems unlikely Van Der Sloot would have contacted John Q. Kelly.

    According to Dietl, Van Der Sloot told them that now that his father was dead (and couldn't be implicated), he wanted to tell them what had happened to Natalee and where he and his father had dumped her remains-- in return for a quarter million bucks.

    Dietl is furious because at some point, somebody (he didn't say who, but here I'd guess Kelly) decided to bring the FBI in on it, which apparently cut Dietl out of the action, and in his view, the FBI totally screwed it up by not arresting Van Der Sloot on the spot for the extortion since they had him on tape accepting the money.

    According to Dietl, the contact and coordination with the Aruban authorities had been accomplished (presumably by John Q. Kelly) before the FBI took over.

    One of Greta's terrific but no longer often seen one-time regular panel of attorneys, a former prosecutor, speculated the FBI may have thought if they followed Van Der Sloot for a little longer instead of arresting him, they might have been able to find out more incriminating stuff about Joran and Natalee.  Can't imagine what, frankly, but they may have had some reason to think that.

    Ugh! (none / 0) (#39)
    by robrecht on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    Mark Fuhrman (ugh!) was the guy Greta sent to Aruba.  Anyway, if you can get past the source, he was reporting that the ME had medical reasons for the time of death being consistent with van der Sloot still being on the scene.

    Parent
    Whatever you think about him (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 12:09:28 AM EST
    as a human being, he's a superb, fact-obsessed detective.  Greta used to use him a lot back in the days she was doing crime stories, and he was always able to cut right through to the chase on the facts of the case in question.  His opinions may be suspect, but he knows police work and knows how to dig out and verify information, especially from law enforcement sources.

    Parent
    I don't think much of his (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:57:40 AM EST
    detective or reporting. His agenda, like that the late Dominick Dunne and Bo Dietl,  are always guilt-premised. I wouldn't give credence to a word Fuhman or Dietl says. On anything.

    Of course Holloway's attorney wanted the FBI involved so he could be extradited to and tried in the U.S -- and hopefully interrogated about Natalee's disappearance. They got nothing from the Aruba courts, and they tried a civil lawsuit against Joran in New York and it got thrown out based on their frivolous claim of jurisdiction. Then they filed a lawsuit for wrongful death in LA against the Kalpoe brothers.

    "Natalee's parents' attempt to get justice in Aruba have been repeatedly frustrated -- which is why we welcome the opportunity to file this civil case in Los Angeles," New York attorney John Q. Kelly, who represents both Beth and Dave Holloway, said. "

    That case was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction as well.

    Aruba closed the murder investigation in 2008. This extortion sting sounds like another concoction designed to get Joran to the U.S. In a civil case, it would have been through depositions. With the extortion charge and an extradition request, the FBI would try to question him before he got a lawyer appointed. Like on the long flight back from wherever he was nabbed to Alabama.  

    Regardless of whose idea the extortion was initially (and I really doubt it originated with Joran as opposed to a private detective or someone working for the Holloways, arresting him when the wire transfer reached the Netherlands was never the goal. The goal was to get Joran back to the U.S. however they could. The extortion sting may well have been only a means towards that end.

    Parent

    Is it fair to keep calling it (none / 0) (#43)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:24:34 AM EST
    an FBI "extortion sting" just because you doubt it originated with Joran?  

    Parent
    that's what the news reported (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    it was. (Their "caps" not mine.

    bq. THE TAPING OCCURRED ON MAY 10 IN ARUBA AND ARUBAN AUTHORITIES WORKED WITH THE FBI TO DO THIS.
    THIS WAS A JOINT OPERATION [FBI AND ARUBA] CAREFULLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED.

    Parent

    We disagree on Furhman (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:29:33 AM EST
    On the cases I've followed, you're right, he's usually pro-guilt, but he's been pretty meticulous, under Greta's prodding and no doubt behind-the-scenes insistence, on separating fact from speculation and fairly presenting all the information he's dug up.

    Back when she was doing this kind of story regularly, Greta dispatched him a number of times in cases like this, when media reports were all over the place and full of unverified sensational claims, and he's sorted it out and brought the info back down to earth.

    Dietl is another story.  He's so incoherent, it's hard to understand what he's talking about anyway, and he freely mixes his opinions and propaganda in with what he says about what happened or didn't happen that it's often not possible to sort out the nuggets of actual information.

    In this case, the only thing I'd take for a certainty in what he said is that the FBI came into the extortion after the initial stages.  His whining and indignation about having been cut out of it seems quite genuine and entirely in character.

    Parent

    he sure was wrong about (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    the parents of JonBenet Ramsey.

    Parent
    That was his opinion (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    I discount his opinions utterly.

    And with respect, we still don't know who killed JonBenet.

    Parent

    Agree with you entirely (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    however, on the purpose of bringing the FBI into the extortion attempt.  Except that they decided not to arrest him and bring him back right away but let him go on about his business and presumably monitor or track him somehow.  Still a lot to be explained about the whole business.

    Parent
    I think your conclusion is probably right (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:12:24 AM EST
    I don't understand extortion law. If I have information you want and I offer it for money, why is that illegal? Sounds like my day job. Is it because his information is about a crime and should be offered up so as not to obstruct justice? Then why isn't the crime 'obstruction of justice'?

    Parent
    Another idea here... (none / 0) (#50)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    She had won a lot of money - public knowledge. He is suspected of murdering a woman and the public is angry about it -- public knowledge. Somebody local put this together, waited for the opportunity, whacked her for the money and left -- knowing he would be the primary suspect no matter what. He finds her body, and knowing he would be the primary suspect, panics and runs (and implements the cover up that is being forwarded as evidence of his guilt). This is a little better than a piano falling out of airplane, too!

    Parent
    Not much (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    There's a non-zero chance it could have happened that way, but only barely.

    Parent
    I was just reading (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    that Bo Dietel said last night on Greta (video here) that they only gave him $10k in cash and wired $15k just so that they would be able to make the wire fraud charge. I don't trust anything Dietel says but that makes sense, and if so, it's very much a sting.

    Bo Dietl: ... "he wanted a quarter million dollars. The agreement was give him $20,000 up front, $10,000 CASH (which was given to him and this was all videotaped with all his statements), $15,000 was wire transfer. Why the wire transfer? This is where we have him on wire transfer of money on extortion." ...
    Definition of "sting'? (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    As I understand the term, sure it was a sting.  The question is whether the contact was initiated by Joran or by somebody on the Holloway side.  Couldn't have been the FBI, as far as I can tell, since they didn't come into it until after it was in process-- I do accept Dietl's frustration over the FBI entrance into the case genuine since it's entirely in character.

    Parent
    ms. van sustern (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    is a veteran attorney, hardly a "babe in the woods", she gets zippo sympathy from me. she knows exactly what she's doing, and does it because it pays very well.

    Joran Van der Sloot's Extortion Case an FBI Sting | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment