For those who have yet to see Lifetime's Natalee Holloway Movie it will be shown again Saturday July 11, 2009 at 9 P.M. and 12 A.M. EST. This is on the Lifetime Movie Channel. It certainly is well worth watching. I have seen it now several times and intend to watch it again tomorrow night.
24)
Jan
Location: United States
Friday, July 10, 2009 12:55 AM
I feel fortunate to have someone that has found an excellent ABC News Video (from November 29, 2007) that has better, clearer views of the casino surveillance videos than previously were available from other ABC news shows. I have created a compilation from that video of the blackjack table interaction and you can see this unidentified man sitting next to Natalee. I have also included a couple of still images. This video and the stills should prove once and for all that the man is not Paul van der Sloot but he is the same man in the images provided earlier this week.
anonymousFriday, July 10, 2009 08:39 PM
Sorry to disagree here but I've always thought that man sitting next to Natalee was Paulus Vander sloot. So far I've got more questions than I've gotten answers. Why would a internet poster get pictures like this to begin with? Does ALE know about these photos? Who do the FBI think is sitting next to Natalee seems like they would want to know this person. If not Paulus then why has he not been identified. Why are the pictures so blurred? Where did this new video clip come from that is all of a sudden brighter? Are we supposed to think it is the same? Lots of questions but no answers just like this whole case. I always feel like there is a coverup. Sorry mean no offense.
PerspicaciousFriday, July 10, 2009 11:51 PM
To Anonymous-
Let me address those questions, not as an expert (or anyone who knows anything about these photos), but just from a position of reason.
1. Why an internet poster would get pictures: An "internet poster" is not a human condition or a limitation. People who post on the internet are individuals with many other interests, characteristics and varied talents. Often they actually do more than just post on forums and a few (and not just Jan on this case) start web sites and spend countless hours researching, creating and assembling content. Because of those efforts they get taken seriously (deserved or not) by others who would like to have a vehicle for information they want made public. Jan Brennan put together a virtual encyclopedia of this case (sure, in many ways it is a compilation, but it's a good one covering the range of media reports, internet discussions, essays, images and videos). She also made two extended trips to Aruba with interviews with many of the Aruban principle characters. So, she is a bit more than "just" an internet poster... she would actually qualify as a true-crime non-fiction "author." And once anyone puts together a 2000 page book with all those resources, people seek that person out with items they would like them to publish. I once hosted a website on a case involving a weird religious cult (with only a few writings) and I got dozens of "contributions" unsolicited. So, it is understandable how (or why) she would receive things.
2. What the police know: I don't think that Jan Brennan knows whether the OP (Oranjestad Polis) department knows anything about these images (and that's a question she probably wonders, too). Based on what she has written, they were submitted to her with the message that they came from a new ABC release and that this was all the info they would provide. According to what she has written, she was also told that the entire video wouldn't be made public until the case was over (and Jan said she didn't know what that obscure reason meant).
3. What the FBI thinks: I would imagine that if Jan had any information from the FBI, which would, of course, be public information, about what they think about the mystery man, she would have published it immediately... so I'm guessing she knows nothing about that.
4. Why pictures are blurred: There are three sets of pictures, all of various degrees of blurring. The first casino video images were from the ABC Chris Cuomo special and are the most blurred. Those are the ones everyone seemed to focus on for a long time (and those seemed to look a lot like Paul). The images from the ABC news program where defense attorneys were interviewed also has casino images and those are a lot clearer, but still blurry by good standards. The new still images which Jan published are the most clear (still not perfect). Why they are all degraded in different amounts probably no one has an answer (just guesses).
5. Why new video is brighter: The new "brighter" images were said to come from a new release from ABC to the anonymous person who sent them to Jan Brennan according to what she has written in her book and in this forum. No one gave an explanation about their brighter and better quality.
6. What we are supposed to think: My guess is that we aren't "supposed" to think anything. They appear to be from a video of the same event, just 3 minutes earlier than the earlier ABC releases.
7. About a cover-up: Probably there is no cover-up on Jan's part. She's just someone who had something sent to her and she put them out there for their newsworthy aspect and for general interest. But, that doesn't mean there hasn't been a cover-up by someone else. Why ABC would remain silent on this all this time is a mystery. Why the OP (Oranjestad Polis) have remained silent is a mystery. Maybe the explanation is that they sampled a few minutes of the tape (the ones which appeared on ABC shows) and the whole of it just got filed away. When it all got released to whomever gave it to Jan, perhaps they watched it all and their eyes lit up (the way mine did) when they saw that clearer image and it was obvious that it was not Paul.
And a final comment from me. Why don't you or one of the Forum webmasters contact ABC and see if you could get a copy of that whole video yourself? That would put the mystery to rest (for a while at least).
JanSaturday, July 11, 2009 01:00 PM
Thanks for the questions from "Anonymous." Your comments and questions are truly welcome. I also appreciate the response from Perspicacious. Much of what she (or he) said makes sense and are really the only logical conclusions you can reach. I could just leave it virtually alone by saying that what Perspicacious said covers it... but, I actually do have more to say about all of this.
1. Why would I get picture? I think the answer given was excellent. There really is nothing I could add to that. The only thing would be that certain people now trust me. And if anyone tells me something in confidence or in this case sends me pictures in confidence then I keep my word to them and keep that confidence. It is very much like how I would assume journalists get stories and then do not give up their sources.
2. Aruban Polis I have no idea exactly what the polis of Aruba know. Generally speaking people in Aruba have said the man was identified back in June 2005 as a tourist. I certainly hope this is true, that he was identified. I hope that they spoke with him because I would think that man might have been able to shed some light on what Natalee was saying at the blackjack table. Talking to anyone that was with her or near her would seem to me to be important.
3. FBI? I would also hope that the FBI would have seen these videos and would also know who that man is, but of course the FBI does not ever tell anyone what they are doing regarding a case. If this man was in fact an American tourist all the more reason to speak with him. And if that is true I hope they did.
4.Blurry Pictures? Pictures that are taken from a video are often blurry because of movement. In addition surveillance cameras are never the best quality as we all have seen watching television when they are trying to show us a suspect such as in a bank robbery and hoping someone might identify that person. The pictures that I posted this past Monday to me do match the ABC video from November 29, 2007. So for me the man being in the same position, with his Marlboros and that same hair falling forward almost to his eyebrows seems to indicate it being the same man.
Again regarding blurriness, I once got an email from someone who told me about a video they took regarding a news story which got used by CNN. They said that their own copy was bright and clear, but what CNN showed was dulled down, just like those casino shots. They said that CNN told them they do that to create a major contrast from what they produce with outside sources. I don't know if that's true, but it's one explanation.
5. Why is ABC brighter? The new video from ABC that I posted is something I just now found on line. I am sure it has been there since November of 2007 though. Maybe ABC since they were using the clip from the blackjack table in their new piece with Joe Tacopina managed to either acquire new footage or they were able to brighten and make the old surveillance footage of better quality.
6. What are you supposed to think? Good question and I think the answer to that would be an individual thing. If you are someone that believes that is Paul you probably will not change your mind. If you were on the fence then perhaps now you have changed your mind. This was never about proving anything it was just something interesting to present in my book. It is the same as other information that I have included, I present it and you the people decide.
7. Coverup involved? Hard to know what to think about a coverup. I have never been one to believe in all the many conspiracy theories in the old cases like John F Kennedy so I guess my instincts are that there has not been one in this case. There seems to be many things that we do not know. I have to hope that Aruba Law Enforcement did the best job they could at the time. And hopefully the case is still being worked on at this time. We all want to know what happened to Natalee. Again it is up to individual people to decide whether they think there was a coverup.
I 100% agree with Perspicacious on his final comment. There are some people that run several different forums on this case and have very close contacts with the family. Why not pick up the phone or have a family member pick up the phone and call ABC, even Chris Cuomo and find out if anyone there has more specific details about that man.
I will conclude by saying again this was just information that I was given and it was an interesting addition to my Chapter Three. It is not up to me to say what anyone believes about this information. I honestly have been just a vehicle for reporting on this and my role is very much much like that news channel slogan I have heard.... where they say, "We report, you decide." So, although I will give you my opinion (I think it's legit and that's not Paul) I really can't verify it and so I am just putting it out there as a report for you, the reader (viewer) to decide.
In closing ...
"If you have any more questions.... or feel I wasn't complete enough on anything, please come back and ask more and I will be happy to answer.
PolemicSaturday, July 11, 2009 03:14 PM
I just want to say that I am the guy who emailed Jan Brennan about the story of CNN making an "outside of CNN source" video degraded. Here is what happened. Many years ago I was friends with a New York based CNN reporter named Steve Young (who sadly died a few years later of lung cancer at age 61). Steve was doing a story from New York about a news event in a location where I happened to be at the time and he asked me if I could go get a video of what was happening and send it to him. So, I went over and shot it. Now, I had a professional level Sony BetaCam, the kind news guys used then. My video was bright and well focused and crystal clear. However, when the piece aired, the segment which I provided was faded and blurred and low-lighted almost exactly like what we have seen on those casino clips Chris Cuomo aired. I called up Steve and asked, "What's the deal?" He told me that CNN and other networks (like ABC, CBS, NBC) often will severely degrade footage that they didn't shoot to distinguish it from in-studio shots and on the scene video from their crews. He said they liked to contrast it to make the story better (crazy, but true).
So, when I saw the diminished images on these various videos and stills about the casino, and saw that one was "brighter," I was not the least bit surprised, because of my experience. I think that explains a lot. So, I wrote Jan on the email shown on her book and told my story. Hopefully, that will clear up why those video clips could have been such poor quality and others (like the stills) could be different.
HRV43Sunday, July 12, 2009 05:43 PM
Polemic that is a great story about why images are blurry sometimes that appear on the network news. And if I think back often these might just be pieces submitted by an outside source. Makes one wonder if something was submitted originally degraded I guess it might be worse. I never really thought to much about the surveillance videos, because they often are of poor quality. I still have not made up my mind about whether this is Paul, but I am getting a little closer.
23)
Jan
Location: United States
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 07:54 PM
Expert Analysis
I have had someone whom I consider an expert on comparing images take the one from ABC and find a close time stamp (three minutes apart) and similar positioning of the subject and compare it to the image I released this week.
Chesterfield77Thursday, July 9, 2009 08:05 AM
Occasionally, I visit a couple of the blogs about this case, as well as read this book. I joined those (with another nickname) way back when and really haven't looked at any of this about Natalee Holloway until a month or so ago when I discovered this excellent book and began studying it again (this book has it all). Well, I have been amused at how poorly the blog posters are able to analyze anything. Their analysis of these blow-away new still shots from the video has been so pathetic and even comical. These new side-by-sides that Jan is now showing are what they were trying to get, but they fumbled around and couldn't ever look at any where the subject was in a similar position as Jan shows. This does it so well. It ain't Paul.
KeenanThursday, July 9, 2009 04:14 PM
Not sure why I decided to visit the old haunts this week but I sure picked a good time because it seems the story that has been pushed for some reason on the Holloway boards that this was Paulus has finally come full circle and a little independent thinking is starting. Well not much but a few hopefully are beginning to think. I never thought it was Paulus from day 1 because when I watched the ABC taping it just did not look like him to me. These new shots that are side by side for comparison should prove it to even the strongest holdouts. That was an excellent comparison. Thanks Jan and great resource you have here.
22)
Jan
Location: United States
Monday, July 6, 2009 11:21 PM
Some people seemed to want a larger view of these new photos of the Black Jack Table. I have added two very large photos in my Wide Gallery. Here is the Link: [noevidenceofacrime.com]
I hope the larger view helps clear this up for some that still might be doubting that this is not Paul van der Sloot.
LindaVTuesday, July 7, 2009 01:46 PM
Thanks Jan. The larger pictures really help to see this even better. I have been thinking about this and came to a very good conclusion that makes more sense than anything. When ABC got this footage they knew who Paulus was and if that had been Paulus at that table it would indeed have been a real "smoking gun." If you remember they said there was no smoking gun when they showed their tape. All they were doing is showing when Natalee and Joran supposedly met. My goodness if that had been Paulus Van der Sloot sitting at the table don't you think that would have been the headline of their story? Wake up you people in denial it is not Paulus and never has been.
Bob in BuffaloTuesday, July 7, 2009 04:58 PM
What I really like is that Jan Brennan makes herself available here to discuss this with anyone who wishes to post. It is funny that on some of the other boards they have said that she is not discussing it... because she isn't on "their" board. Well, guess what? This book is where the pictures were revealed and, low and behold, here is a comments forum ready and open for discussion. I say, come on, one and all... quit your moanin' and slaggin' and talk to Jan right here. When they reveal anything, then their board will be the correct forum. Let's hear some questions.
PerspicaciousTuesday, July 7, 2009 05:32 PM
I don't know what the mystery is about where this came from... Jan told us in her post
That's pretty clear... it was from ABC.
JanTuesday, July 7, 2009 06:41 PM
Thanks Bob. I have tried to make it known that I would be happy to discuss things in the book right here. Hopefully if all those people that say they want to speak with me will come and ask their questions on this new comment board. If there are those "moanin and slaggin" as they say ... "come on down!"
Thanks too for all those that appreciate the work I have done on this book. Your compliments are very much appreciated.
21)
Jan
Location: United States
Sunday, July 5, 2009 05:12 PM
New Photos Emerge of Black Jack Table
It has long been one of the controversies in this case as to the identity of the man sitting next to Natalee at the Black Jack Table in the Excelsior Casino. ABC released a snippet of tape in order to show that Natalee was at the table with Joran. They had no idea the real controversy would be who the man sitting next to Natalee on the right was and many have been convinced it was Paul van der Sloot. Aruban Law Enforcement never thought this, as the man was identified immediately as a tourist. I recently obtained these other shots from the video which give a clearer picture of this man. I have included them in Chapter Three:
I personally find these photos looking nothing like Paul, but of course it is up to the reader to decide.
PolemicSunday, July 5, 2009 11:49 PM
This is a blow-away revelation (Jan Brennan's book has a bombshell). These video "captures" certainly do not look like Paul. The photos clearly show that they are of someone else. And what is stunning to me about all of this is that ABC obviously had these clear images all along, but for some reason they chose to be deceptive... they deliberately made the decision to show distorted blurred images which made the photo easily confused with a few carefully selected pictures of Paul. But, ABC knew all that was being whispered and posted and mentioned on the cable shows about the possibility that the person at the end of the table was Paul. ABC could have cleared up all of confusion right away.
I was pondering how ABC could have kept these exculpatory views away from public scrutiny and it would seem that they probably licensed the video from the Holiday Inn. It seems like I recall in the ABC special which first showed them, that these casino clips were "exclusive" videos obtained by ABC. If that's true then it would make sense they could have kept these clearer images a secret in order to fan the flames of a vicious rumor. The media is very corrupt, isn't it? It raises the question of why the police didn't clear everything up, because surely they had access to the same copies we are now seeing. Didn't they?
Only if all the other news services (like Greta) had access to just the fuzzy photos could ABC have keep the erroneous "story" alive. It's troubling. Like so many other situations involving news events, it appears there was some obvious press manipulation. The question is;"Why?" A deliberate suppression does seem so very apparent simply because that story (that it was Paul Van der Sloot at the casino) could have been stopped from circulating in ten minutes, way back then (just as Jan Brennan's book is doing now with her stunning exposure). But, evidently there were some sort of corrupt intentions (maybe it is just the way they work... to do anything to create a buzz). It would be great to know who did the ABC suppression and why.
If they did (as it seems) this distortion just to make a talked about story out of something which was totally fictional, Paul could sue ABC for some well deserved compensation.
SueMonday, July 6, 2009 02:41 PM
These photos are troubling to me for several reasons. I always thought it was possible that man could have been Paulus. I read the denials by friends but was not convinced. I agree why was it a blurry picture that was released initially that left so much speculation. Also it has been said that Paulus had two meetings with Natalie and that is why he was not given compensation for his arrest. This was supposed to have been the first of the two meetings between Natalie and Paulus. If this did not happen then what does it mean for the two meetings? I wonder how much of what is presented by the media is the truth anymore. I am having a difficult time thinking much of what has been posted on line and presented as theories can even be true at all. Seems those that claim there is a conspiracy might be part of an even bigger one, keeping important facts from the rest of us!!!
BrooklynMonday, July 6, 2009 10:41 PM
Polemic you have nailed it. This is actually the first real news that we have had about this case for a very long time. And where is it found in an online book, not from the media either Aruban or the States but an online book. I will say though that this book seems to be the best collection of facts on this case I have found yet, so perhaps not surprising. Why were only blurry photos released? Where has the clearer image been kept for the last couple years? The rumors about this being Paulus Van der sloot have been around forever and it is part of the master plan that he met Natalee that night in the casino and planned the whole thing? I am stunned after seeing these photos. Thank you so much Jan your book is quite a place for facts.
JamesTuesday, July 7, 2009 10:45 PM
I have read this book on and off for awhile now. It seems like a nice collection of the facts. This new information with the photos from the Casino that night are so much clearer than the images from ABC. Watching the ABC video again today on you tube I almost wondered if the quality was so poor because they were not even supposed to have that video. It seems like maybe it was taken out of Aruba without permission. What did they say a confidential source and done in a hurry. That was really bad for a major network as ABC to show and to leave us with so many questions. So the new pictures are appreciated and makes me wonder more about ABC and what they were up to. Anyways, thanks Jan for the effort you have put into this book and bringing these new photos to light.
EvangelineSunday, July 12, 2009 04:47 AM
According to Mos, the man has never been identified but, that's beside the point. What does it matter whether it was or wasn't Paul? There's no question that Paul was at the casino that night so what does it matter, other than as a diversion from the core questions of the case, what table he was at?
Natalee, Paul, Joran and most of Natalee's close friends were at the Casino that evening. What does that have to do with what happened to Natalee after she left C&C's with Joran, after 1:00am, unless you're trying to somehow connect the stranger with her disappearance? It's a non-issue. If it had been Paul, it still wouldn't have mattered.
BTW, with all these wonderful sources you have, could you find some surveillance tapes from the Poker Tournament? Those, at least, would give a time for Paul's departure from the Casino.
MoeySunday, July 12, 2009 01:59 PM
Any kind of photo or video of Paul earlier in the evening would certainly clear up this issue at least for the internet gang. Since it has been over 4 yrs I am thinking that is not going to happen.
Why is it important if that was Paul next to Natalee? If it was Paul then he lied on his police statement. That would seem to be important, no?
I think this is only a diversion as a discussion topic with posters. Hopefully ALE is focused and still looking into what happened. Although quite honestly, I have my doubts.
20)
Roberta
Sunday, July 5, 2009 03:33 PM
I would just like to say how very much I liked this book. It is the best resource that I have found on this case. It even has more than Wikipedia or any of the online news sites. I am not much for joining forums as I found them more about the posters agendas than the case. So this has been great. I am hoping to eventually follow a career in law enforcement, maybe someday even get my law degree so cases like this are fun to study and try and figure out what happened. So far, I admit I am still stumped and have no clue where Natalee went. She obviously must be dead, but how, where, and by whom I do not know. And apparently law enforcement in Aruba is not convinced either or I have to believe they would have brought charges on the three young men, or at least Joran. Such a great case though and thanks again for the effort you put forth here Jan.
19)
meg
Location: Austin
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 04:34 PM
Is there a cover up?
Something that has really bothered me is that Beth has mentioned that her and Jug's statements to Aruban cops (taken many weeks after Natalee disappeared) were later altered by the cops. For me that is very troubling. Why would the cops want to alter their statements when there is no way Beth or Jug could know anything about what happened and were only trying to help? To me this proves there has to be a cover up. I have heard many people say this, I have heard Greta allude to this on her show. I just do not understand if things like this happened that this does not mean that something very wrong went on with this investigation. Maybe there is a cover up after all!
bemudaThursday, July 2, 2009 08:31 AM
I have always felt that there is a cover up involved with this investigation. Those parents figured it all out from the very beginning and nothing was ever done about it. They did not even arrest the main 3 involved for over a week. Plenty of time I would think to get rid of evidence. No wonder many are outraged over this case.
18)
Bella
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:49 AM
Note from Moderator. The following post is highly speculative and makes assertions without substantiation or proof. It is merely represents the theory and opinions of the poster:
Beth needed the boys to be guilty of what she wanted them to be guilty of, the reasons 'why' she 'needed' this is not entirely clear to me whether financial gain, more fame, or what. So she hires that Peter defries dude to set Joran up to confessing to what she wanted him to be guilty of. Poof, we have a Beth twittyized confession from Joran. However, 3 years earlier or 2 whatever it was, Joran according to Beth had claimed endlessly that Joran had told 26 lies. So the normal person would assume he has no credibility and leave it at that. But wait!! She NEEDS him to be guilty. So she creates this tape and I am convinced she was a party to it much like she was party to the Skeeter tape b/c the new defries tape still left her with a 'dead Natalee on the beach.' Being a myopic thinker, she doesn't see that Joran's BS confession still leaves him and Natalee in exactly the same place on the beach as told to her by FBI on June 10, 2005. For in the tape, Joran brings in a new character whom he names Daury and Daury then takes over Natalee. Yet Beth made NO effort to contact this Daury or ask ALE top contact Daury so she could find out what finally happened to her daughter. Where IF she was dead, was her final resting place? But Beth was totally content with the story that Natalee expired on the beach and Joran went home once his friend arrived. Knowing Joran cannot defend himself publicly now, she does the trashloid circuit claiming Joran drugged her, raped her, and then drowned her at sea. But that is NOT what HE says on her setup tape.
So this begs the question of Beth KNEW Natalee was dead and dead by her OWN hand, so why did Beth need someone else to be responsible?
Moderator footnote: Posts representing speculation and unsubstantiated assertions should be stated as such.
JadeinUSAWednesday, July 1, 2009 06:17 PM
Indeed there is much speculation in what Bella has posted. In fact I honestly do not understand the logic behind anything she is saying. It is almost like she is implying that Beth herself is the guilty party. How in the world can that be? Talk about a leap, that Beth was behind the Devries job?? She certainly was not in the van making Joran confess now was she? The rest of your post leads to even more nonsense. Beth knew her daughter was dead and needs someone else to be responsible????? This is a crazy notion and makes the whole post just crazy. I am not a big fan of Beth as she can be annoying at times. But anyone that implies that she is the guilty party here is just making hateful assertions that are back up by no facts.
FosterThursday, July 2, 2009 02:11 PM
I do not even begin to understand what was said here by bella (looney) Sorry but that is just how I see this. Trying to make Beth or anyone in Natalee\'s family as part of what might have happened to her would be the most shocking thing maybe ever in any case. And I am not buying this for one minute. I cannot say that I was particularly taken by what that Dutch crime guy did with that whole taping. It seems it proved nothing and those type of stings are better done within the frame work of law enforcement agencies not some media person taking things into his own hands. Same thing happened when Dr. Phil went looking in the Caribbean for Natalee in a brothel. If she had been there in truth she might have been killed with that attention. So neither of these perhaps well intended people did the case any good. But still and my point is really this, no way could the mother be involved in any conspiracy it just would not make any sense at all.
denvermomSunday, July 5, 2009 11:50 AM
Sorry to disagree here with the 2 last posters but I think Bella has made some good points and I do not know why they have to be labeled as speculation. Everything that is posted anywhere about this case is pure speculation, isn't it? In most cases police usually look at the family of the victim. We are not even sure in this case that there is a victim as she could have run away or drowned accidentally. But looking at that family of Natalie's might have been a good thing to have done. I have never seen a mother respond so strangely to all the questions she was asked by reporters. It was like she had a script in front of her and no matter what was asked she had her own talking points prepared for that interview. Real emotion shown, never as far as I could see. So yes respectfully, I consider Bella's post right on, and find it so strange that others don't get at least some level of wonderment about whether that family might know why their daughter disappeared.
17)
Penny
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 07:33 PM
I have tried to keep up with this case for the last 4 yrs. And the more I read the more I think no one did anything to Natalee. How many countries have investigated this disappearance, three plus the FBI and the NFI and no real evidence to speak of. I know that there is circumstantial evidence for some. Mostly that would be the initial lies and why would those boys lie? I do not have an answer for that but some kids do lie because they have a hard time with answering simple questions by authority when they are in their teens. This the time period when they are cheating on their significant others or not being loyal to their friends, or taking money from mom's purse and of course cheating on tests and homework. The list at that age is plentiful. So perhaps the boys were just falling into a habit that they were used to.
But more importantly I believe that the case has not been solved because I honestly think Natalee wandered out into that Ocean after Joran left and after all the drinking and partying she just went under. I have never been to this area of the beach but I am told a person can go out pretty far but then at some point I am thinking it would just get too deep and too far out and well who knows what might happen to a girl then. Isn't it possible that she went far enough out and that was it for her? I do not exactly know what the chances of her floating back in would be, verses going out and becoming shark bait. But certainly there is as much of a chance of this than all the other scenarios that have been offered. And if this is what happened then no one will ever know and this crime would not have been solvable even day 2 or 10. For me it is the only answer that makes real sense.
JanWednesday, July 1, 2009 11:08 AM
Your thoughts on this are very interesting. One man who posted at some length on this case in the first two years, Roly Roper (Rolls) felt very much the same way. He did a whole website and included his findings there. I have included that website here in my book, with his permission. If by any chance you have not seen it here in the book, check it out in the Wide Gallery link in the drop down menu. Or click on the link provided here. I am sure you and others will find his ideas quite thought provoking.
angelThursday, July 2, 2009 05:11 PM
I stumbled on that website of the Aussie guy a couple years ago. It was so very interesting. He put a lot of work in that site. I found some of his findings quite the thing. Makes sense that she might have wondered out into that ocean never to return. If a kid drinks night and day for a week and with the sun and who knows what else, she could drowned I would think very easy. Who would know? How could any law enforcement ever solve a case like that?
16)
crimefollower
Monday, June 29, 2009 12:37 PM
There has been so much discussion about Joran in this story but what about the Kalpoes? I wonder where they fit into the picture. Are they completely off the hook? Either one of them are the ones that had access to a car and no one would have known. What do we really know about them? I understand they have been quiet and that might speak to their credibility but maybe not. Maybe they are just doing a brotherly smart thing of keeping silent because they know that no one but the other can implicate each other. Blood is thick they say. I guess because so little focus has been on them and it has all been on Joran, who knows maybe they are the ones that got away with, who knows what?????
PerspicaciousMonday, June 29, 2009 08:22 PM To Crimefollower- I'm with you on this one. If the Kalpoes had come public and begged the forgiveness of Natalee's parents for having misled the investigation for those ten days and worked to solve this case, then I would be more inclined to accept that they were just backing up their old buddy Joran, who sometimes I think likely is the real culprit in all this (at the very least in not reporting an accidental death). But, backing up a buddy for ten days while the victim's Mother and Dad are out there pleading for information? No. Only if you haven't a shred of decency. I think maybe they know all about it. Or maybe Deepak Kalpoe did it. What follows got me thinking:
Go look at this timeline in the book... it is on a special gallery page, I got there by clicking a link to it toward the end of Chapter Three. Here is that same link, which I have now copied here:
Timeline for May 30 2005 I think that link that will open that book gallery page in a new window.
That's the timeline for the one day that matters... the day she disappeared. I think when you read that, you can see that Deepak Kalpoe looks very suspicious because of motive (lust, never had success with girls) and opportunity (had a car, knew Natalee's location and drunken state, had all night to do his deed and dispose of the body). Maybe Deepak went out after Joran arrived home and called Deepak and told him what happened (Joran says he left her on the beach and walked home). So maybe Deepak (not being a guy who can get his own woman) made a trip back to where Natalee had been left drunk on the beach by Joran. Then, maybe he lures her to his car (saying, "I'll take you to the hotel") and then perhaps he drives out to the lighthouse and rapes her and kills her (she could ID him). He then might have moved the body out to some other more remote location on the island and buried her (or threw her out where the sharks feed on hotel garbage dumpings). Then, perhaps he got home at dawn. We know he slept until three pm in the next afternoon. Looks very strange.
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 11:02 AM
Perspicacious
Firstly, Natalee's family was begging in US on news channels which most of island doesn't get or did not get at the time. Thus, most locals were not AWARE of the pitiful begging by the parents.
Secondly, since Kalpoes know they did nothing to Natalee and believed Joran did nothing to Natalee, they had nothing to tell. It was way too common for girls Natalee's age to come to the all you can drink, drug and have sex island and end up missing their plane. None of the boys had ANY reason to believe she was NOT just one those typical teens. Leaving her on beach or at hotel becomes immaterial since they were located next to each other and they KNEW they had done nothing to harm the girl.
Lastly, their lie was immaterial in the first instance. In the second instance, let's put this on a level playing field. The 'friends' and family are the FIRST persons ALE would want to speak to after having spoken to JK2. They were not allowed and given lies and the runaround. The actions of the family and friends MUST raise a red flag to any Law Enforcement. Then Aruba Law Enforcement learn of lies the family are telling to America, they waste their time putting out needless fires created by family and friends. (I won't even mention it begs the question of why is the mother whining on tv stations not seen in the place Natalee is supposed to be hiding, passed out or dead? Beth Twitty might as well have been broadcasting in China for all it was doing to help search for her daughter in Aruba!) Meanwhile, you want the Kalpoes of whom have been unmercifully attacked and accused of heinous acts to come forward and say 'Mrs. Twitty, ok, we didn't drop Natalee at hotel, we dropped her at beach. But please carry on calling us rapists, kidnappers and murders. We shall forever, hang our heads in shame that you didn't teach your daughter how to drink and drug properly when on a girls gone wild weekend.' Give me a break! Why didn't the family and friends come forward and tell ALE and America, the girl was wiped out and drugged out of her mind. Please help us find her, she may be hurt somewhere or passed out somewhere? Why do YOU expect the locals to be responsible for this foreigner and her behavior??
p.s. do you think Deepak had a 'lust' thing for lesbians? What makes you come to that conclusion, particularly when Natalee allegedly told Joran she was a lesbian? You could insert young Tommy Twitty's name or Brian Riser or any of the Mt Brook boys on the trip wherever you see Deepak's name and come to the same conclusion if you so choose. It is a huge leap not based on any fact.
PerspicaciousTuesday, June 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Bella, when I have a moment I will come back and address some of your other points, but the "lesbian" remark deserves a quick response. First, of all, Natalee's dance on the bar top would have hardly communicated lesbian tendencies; it was not an attempt to attract girls. That was a "guy catcher." Look at that pic of that guy lustfully looking up her short skirt. Then after her dance, she had Joran taking jelly shots off of her bare tummy... it is not very lesbian to be conducting a flirtacious act like that with a guy.
And then, even if she had told Joran and the Kalpoes she was a lesbian... that might have actually increased her appeal. You might find it revealing to learn that in the porn world, girl-on-girl sex is one of the most preferred views by heterosexual men (lesbian girls are a turn on for many straight guys). Finally, there is a very quirky phenomenon with some psychologically impaired men (often men who haven't had much female success, like Deepak) regarding how they imagine that somehow they might "turn" lesbian girls "straight." These misfit guys actually are stimulated to (or they fantasise that they might) attempt to have forcible sex with lesbian girls (especially the "lipstick lesbians" or "girly girl" types, which Natalee would have been if she were one) in the mistaken notion that their actions can show a lesbian girl what they are missing, motivated from a distorted perception that their male prowess could "turn" them from their lesbian ways.
So, your point about Natalee representing that she was "lesbian" is actually a further argument that maybe Deepak is the perpetrator of the crime against Natalee.
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 01:14 PM
Fair enough to your first sentence.
So she was bi. What can I tell you? Not unusual for an 18yo lesbian to be confused about her sexuality.LOL
LOLOLOL to your second paragraph. For it to be relevant, then Deepak did NOT go back to hurt Natalee, rather he went back to be a voyeur of Natalee having lesbian sex with whom?? So that puts a GIRL, presumably a trip mate as the LAST person to be with Natalee NOT the boys!
PerspicaciousTuesday, June 30, 2009 03:16 PM
Bella -- Let me kindly tell you that it is hard to have a dialog with you, because you don't bother to read what I wrote. Notice that I didn't make the point that Deepak was wanting to or likely to be "a voyeur" with Natalee. Let me quote myself for clarity:
Perspicacious wrote:
These misfit guys actually are stimulated to (or they fantasise that they might) attempt to have forcible sex with lesbian girls (especially the "lipstick lesbians" or "girly girl" types, which Natalee would have been if she were one) in the mistaken notion that their actions can show a lesbian girl what they are missing, motivated from a distorted perception that their male prowess could "turn" them from their lesbian ways.
Notice the phrase, "attempt to have forcible sex." That's not voyeurism.
You also didn't read my original reply when you gave your first response. The begging apology I would have wanted was from Deepak to Natalee's family and not for he did anything to Natalee, but to everyone who was searching in the wrong places because of his lies (Natalee's family begging for help on US television is irrelevant to his need to apologize). My point was simple (which you missed); that had I heard an apology from him for having been so cruel that he let them "hang" for ten days with that Holiday Inn drop-off story, I wouldn't have been so inclined to have been suspicious of him.
Your posts are what are known as "non-sequiturs" or "straw man" arguments. You argue against positions which no one has taken. If you take a moment and re-read before you post... it will makes a discussion flow so much better.
Bob in BuffaloTuesday, June 30, 2009 06:17 PM @ Bella--- reading your post actually convinced me that maybe Deepak did do this. You see rape isn't usually about sex, it's about power. The women's liberation movement and Ms Magazine taught us all about that. It's about a man having disrespect for women. It's about malice and domination. Natalee asked Joran, "Are those your slaves?" Deepak probably simmered and stewed the whole time. Lesbian or hetero or sexy or repulsive, Deepak wouldn't care. She was a female who needed taking down. Showing who had the power? That would be the motivation. Deepak is not looking good in my opinion. Drive back there and show her who had the power. "I'm no slave. You are my slave!" You may have solved this case Bella.
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 07:25 PM
Sorry Perspicacious, doesn't wash. Go back to your original post wherein you stated your own assumptions as foregone conclusions, so please don't give me this non-sequitur bs. That started and ended with your first post.
Your statement of
"You might find it revealing to learn that in the porn world, girl-on-girl sex is one of the most preferred views by heterosexual men (lesbian girls are a turn on for many straight guys)."
was a superfluous or gratuitous comment then I take it? And no I don't find it revealing as I already knew many guys who are not even in the porn world find it a turn on. I take it you speak from your own experience as well.
However, I will give you I didn't read closely the whole preposterous assumption on your part. But there is no reason to believe Deepak was a misfit who got off on believing he could make a lesbian change teams! You can throw out those propensities and attribute them to anyone. Now that is a non-sequitur or strawman argument pal! Or are you merely projecting? Is this thread some sexual fantasy of yours?
My point regarding the apology was quite simple as well. He owed the family nothing! The lie was immaterial and did not change the investigation one iota. ALE were tailing the boys after 48 hours and knew the original story was a lie. So had the family not try to run the investigation and decide who was guilty and who was not, the investigation would have carried on precisely the same way with or w/o the lie. Hence, it was immaterial to the outcome. If you put this on a level playing field, in U.S. they would have lawyered up as the MB kids did and said nothing to police ever. I am quite confident their Aruban attorneys told them to have no contact whatsoever with the family or media. You will note, however, both families of the boys publicly offered empathy for Natalee and the family despite the ghastly disparaging words Natalee's family said about them.
If you are going to be suspicious of 3 teens telling what started as a stupid lie told by many 17yo olds around the world who get caught being out when they are not supposed to be and ignore all the other lies told by people who should NOT have any reason to tell them, then I suspect you share the same twisted logic as Beth Twitty.
I would suggest you go back and reread Jan's chapters on who exactly was cruel here. The boys saying they dropped her at hotel instead of beach which was how many yards away? Or the mother who lied everytime she opened her mouth and created a worldwide circus over her drunk teen and then proceeded to destroy the lives of 3 boys and their families when their hands were tied no less and they could not even defend themselves. (oh and btw- the mother didn't even have the common courtesy and decency to advise the father of the daughter what had happened and treated him like crap on the island. Of course she brought him out as a prop when she needed to use him). Not being satisfied with just those 3 boys, she then chose to attack a whole population, again who had no opportunity to give their side of story. This mother was loving the attention; she demeaned and humiliated her own daughter for $$$s, yet you want to focus on one stupid lie that ultimately was immaterial. Where is the justice in that??
Bob:
I think Joran said the Kalpoes did not hear her say that. They have not been quoted as saying Natalee made the comment.
I do agree rape is about power but there is no reason to think Deepak raped her. EVEN IF you believe he did, you are still back to square one with what happened to her after the rape.
JanWednesday, July 1, 2009 12:03 AM
I am fascinated by the discussion here particularly this topic about the Kalpoes. There have been some interesting points brought up by both sides and really Bob, Bella and certainly Perspicacious have presented some great support for their arguments on why either of the Kalpoes might or absolutely might not have gone back to the beach that night. No question they had the opportunity to do so. They really have no alibi as their mom was sleeping and with most parents of that age, it is not exactly like Nadira felt the need to "bed check."
The reason I have eliminated both Deepak and Satish from the suspect status is because of their lawsuit against Dr. Phil. That lawsuit has caused them a great deal of pain, much financial obligation and in a way it has caused them to not be able to put this case behind them as they really would prefer to do. Plus they had to submit many documents, lots of statements and have made themselves vulnerable down the road if and when this case might actually end up in a California court room. Why would they do that if they had something to hide? I just do not think they would. If there was any chance that they would have done anything to Natalee directly, or helped Joran do something I strongly believe they would not have filed this costly lawsuit and would have faded away into oblivion.
I also do not believe they know anything that Joran might have done to her either because they absolutely have no friendship with him at all and have not since the summer of 2005. The cops pretty much destroyed that by constantly playing head games with these boys about claiming each other was "ratting the other out." Two brothers verses one Van der Sloot caused the friendship to die and they certainly have no reason to cover at all for Joran. In addition Joran has made a few comments since then about the Kalpoes being stupid so that would further nail the friendship coffin shut.
So my personal conclusion, and of course it is just my opinion, is that both Deepak and Satish are innocent of everything but the first lie, during those first ten days. And whether they owed Natalee's family an apology, well perhaps that might have happened, but then they could be even on that score too because I feel strongly Beth owes Deepak an apology for saying the Skeeter Recordings were true. And of course that whole speel about her daughter being "kidnapped, gangraped and murdered," because of this recording. But that would be another topic. Suffice it to say that "may be," apologies are owed by both sides.
BellaWednesday, July 1, 2009 10:18 AM
I agree Jan, the lawsuit is very telling altho from a strictly legal viewpoint, the lawsuit is whether Deepak said what Dr Phil aired or whether Phil/SKeeters altered the tape with the intent to slander and malign the guy.
I think the fact the boys were released virtually immediately (by Dutch law standards) speaks volumes of their innocence. There was just NO evidence however scant to keep them; and as you know one hair out of place is enough to keep them incarcerated under their law.
I vehemently disagree with you Jan on the apology issue. The family and Dr Phil owe the Kalpoe family one HUGE apology. One stupid lie does NOT give the family ANY right to slander the boys as rapists, murderers or kidnappers. She can call them liars if she wanted but the buck stopped there!!!! Under NO circumstances did the family have ANY right to make such vicious public statements!
15)
Lacy
Location: U.S.
Saturday, June 27, 2009 09:23 AM
For me the chapter that grabbed my attention was the one about red bull. That hit home for sure because of a local girl dying from that combo at one of those underage parties. Needless to say the whole thing was hushed up pretty good being many were not legal but there was no question (I got some connections) that she died because of that mixture of booze and red bull. So when I saw in the contents this might be what happened to Natalee I was more than curious. The media sure kept her drinking a big secret and certainly no mention that I ever heard of the red fires. It is sad though because if this is what happened we are never going to know and that is a shame because it really might not be anyone's fault but her own.
Bob in BuffaloSaturday, June 27, 2009 05:58 PM
I had the same thoughts. Why wasn't the television and the media screaming this out about the Red Fires? This Red Fires Red Bull chapter is probably the best thing in the book. I was at a party once and saw a girl who had a very bizarre reaction to one drink of the Red Bull and vodka. This was her first drink of evening and I had seen her drink just orange juice and vodka on earlier weekends with no abnormal effect -- not Natalee Holloway, but that girl I saw do this. So anyway, the night that girl I knew had the Red Bull and vodka, she went into a sort of zombie trance and her body started twitching. You know like when you are getting ready to go sleep at night and maybe you will feel like your body just do one of those twitchy things? Or maybe a couple? Well, I looked that up... lots of people do that at night. But, for her it was just a whole series of those things over her whole body... those twitch, twitch,twich and getting worse every second. And her eyes were just frozen and nobody could get her to say anything. People got some blankets and after about ten minutes she was ok, but now I realize she could have died. She couldn't remember any of that. But, she never drank a Red Bull and alchohol again.
So, I'm thinking that this is probably what happened to Natalee Holloway and maybe she just died on the beach and Joran panicked. I am still reading the book, but that seems like that is something that might have happened. What did he say about her? Did he ever say she was doing that twitchy thing? That would be some kind of clue.
JanSaturday, June 27, 2009 10:20 PM Lacy & Bob "Chapter 11," was one of the more interesting chapters that I wrote for the book. I actually did research of my own, which you may have seen in the Chapter. Several bars along the beach where Red Bull is sold with alcohol I ordered quite a few possible Red Bull drinks. According to the bartenders there, it is a very popular drink, combined with alcohol, with the younger crowd. Now I wish that I could say the bartenders knew the term "Red Fires," but I was not able to put that one together. Of course I did this a year ago so no bartenders from May of 2005, probably would have still been there. No question though if Natalee was drinking Red Fires, in my humble opinion she would have been doing a lot of twitching. Heck, if she had been drinking that on and off for several days she could have been vulnerable for a very bad ending.
Did Joran say she was doing a "twitchy thing?" I guess that depends on if one is to believe what he told Patrick Van der Eem in the van ... he talked about seizures and that might mean exactly that. I will leave it up to the readers as to whether they believe what he said to Patrick. The story of Joran and Patrick can be found here:[noevidenceofacrime.com]
I am glad you both enjoyed the Red Fire Chapter!
oxfordSunday, June 28, 2009 12:03 AM
I admit that was an interesting chapter about the redbull and booze but sorry I still think she was given a date rape drug at that bar and that is what happened to her. That cop that talked to her father as much as admitted that date rape drugs happened at that place. That is what the newscasters like Geraldo kept saying too.
BoxerTuesday, June 30, 2009 06:24 AM
Everything I have seen about this by reading the message boards is most people think she was given this date rape type of drug. I never saw much about a red bull booze combo. I guess its possible but usually if guys want to get lucky that is what they do is slip something in a drink. Even her dad thinks thats what happened.
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 09:49 PM
It is an important point Lacy, if not THE important point ALE had to contend with. They knew Natalee was ###faced and what she was drinking. Why was the family and friends publicly (and privately to ALE) DENYING the truth? This was a major red flag to ALE, yet Beth Twitty continued to obstruct justice and the investigation; getting away it by lying to US trashloid shows. As flat-out dumb that most of the THs are, it is so irresponsible and unconscionable of someone like Greta who knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN Beth was lying a mile a minute and allowed Beth to make a complete fool of herself. I know Greta struggles for ratings but if anyone abused the family it is her and her ilk.
Jan- according to Natalee's friends' 302's Natalee was not drinking on and off, the redfires were nonstop and she then mixed other alcohols. Rule #1 in all night partying, do NOT mix your alcohols. I can state unequivocally that she had quite a bit of practice before Aruba. So that begs the next question of why Beth Twitty viciously attacked the VDS almost daily, as bad parents, b/c their son legally drinks beer; yet her daughter and some kids on the trip were not legal in Aruba and definitely not legal in AL. Her own daughter indulged in the same practices illegally in AL that Beth scorned and ridiculed the VDS's for allowing their son to do that which is legal in Aruba.
JanFriday, July 3, 2009 10:28 AM
I think it would have been helpful to have a clearer picture of all the young people involved in this story. That is why I began my book in Chapter One, accordingly. No question in my mind that Natalee's family tried to create the "Little Miss Perfect," Image of her. And that is unfortunate because Natalee was a real person, with good points and flaws just like any normal teen. If one of those flaws was an interest in drinking and on that vacation she was drinking nonstop, especially these "Redfires," I think that would have been important information for law enforcement to have had. It is not so much that I blame her mom because a mom usually wants to put out the best and more perfect information. Beth may have been advised that the media would only want to follow a perfect girl story. But someone with a conscience in that Mt. Brook group should have understood that every single thing Natalee said and did and with whom and that would include how much alcohol or maybe even drugs she consumed that week might have been important information for law enforcement to have had. Withholding any information was wrong, by anyone. It might have helped to have found her?
14)
Perspicacious
Location: Texas
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:53 PM
A Quick Summary -- I can summarize this case very easily. Joran lied about where he last saw Natalee and participated (with the Kalpoes) in a cover up lasting approximately ten days in order to keep authorities and her family from knowing anything about the location or circumstances concerning his actual last contact with her. There is no way that such a lie and continued cover up could be justified with an excuse that he was embarrassed because he left a drunk girl on the beach (and that excuse disappeared for good the moment he knew she was truly missing and not just a day late). Because of his persistence in keeping the authorities and search parties from having vital information about where she was last seen, we can conclude circumstantially (really, beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was a participant in her disappearance or that he caused it or that he was a witness to it. We also know that he had a strong reason not to report what he knew to the police (or emergency services) the night she disappeared because he feared the consequences to himself if he reported anything. Whether those feared consequences were punishment (prison) or repercussion (from others who might have caused her death) we don't know, but we can be certain that fear of what would happen to him was the motive for his lies.
I think we can reasonably conclude that he witnessed her death and that he knows about the body disposal. We can also conclude that Joran (and the Kalpoes) are bankrupt in character (no decent honorable person could have continued such a charade knowing someone was missing and possibly in danger unless they were involved or had no concern for their fellowman).
What are the next steps? I don't think that he will ever be confronted again by any authorities (laws designed for protection for the innocent also protect the guilty). And the Peter de Vries tapes were as close to a sting as we will see (he won't fall for that again). The only hope for a resolution comes from the possibility that his confederates in either her death (suppliers of drugs perhaps) or her disposal (they must have had a strong motivation to help in such a deed) come forward to explain it all.
Or perhaps some amateur crime solving zealot will capture Joran and give him a waterboarding inquisition. We can only hope.
ShelbyWednesday, June 24, 2009 04:15 PM
I agree completely with this post. If anyone has been paying attention over the last I guess 4 plus years there is no other conclusion that one can come to.
Maybe the Kalpoes are not as you say bankrupt of character but certainly Joran is. He has proved that time and time again. If he had been the so called true "boy next door," or real honorable young man his path since this happened would not have been sorted and very questionable, filled with sex, gambling and drugs.
He is either being protected by a cover up or the investigation was botched because I cannot believe that there is not really some evidence that would take this man to court and get a conviction, at the very least for body disposal.
BellaThursday, June 25, 2009 11:55 AM
While your summary of the facts are not in dispute, the conclusion you attach is VERY debatable. It is equally logical that a 17yo + K2 told their lies b/c Joran was not supposed to be out that night and they were all doing coke or even just smoking pot. It is most certain the lie would continue for guys of that age if you witness the same lies of the MB kids who were doing the same thing. Now why do you suppose they continued THEIR lies? Why should JK2 be held to a higher standard of truth telling than the nearest and dearest of Natalee who were her tripmates no less?
JK2 lies became immaterial once the family and the tripmates indulged in the same lies as the boys. It is perfectly logical AND plausible that JK2 feared drug arrests as much as the family and MB kids while KNOWING that Joran had truly left her on the beach passed out or in whatever state.
I don't know your background but it is quite common here in America for 'friends' of an inebriated kid or one on drugs to leave that person or to think they can just sleep it off when in fact the person is in desperate need of emergency medical help. Witness Robert Shapiro's son. His friends abandoned him and told him to sleep it off and he was 26yo college educated like all the friends.
JK2 had NO reason to BELIEVE she WASN'T just another passed out tourist. They didn't know her or anything about her except that she was a lesbian with a mother who is the sister of Hitler and she wanted to stay at the beach and get laid.
Your huge leap to the conclusion JK2 are morally bankrupt suggest you are looking at the few facts we know to be true thru the eyes of an older more mature person than a young teen.
Moreover, if you believe JK2 to be morally bankrupt, you are overlooking the obvious which is they hate each other enough to have reason to blame the outcome on the others. Without having the benefit of being seasoned criminals, NONE of the boys were able to make ANY case against the other b/c the facts don't exist to support any claim they may have. It is unreasonable to assume that these kids could be subjected to harsh interrogations (worse than gitmo) and come out the other side blameless. Far more hardened criminals have confessed to crimes they did NOT commit here in America b/c they cannot take the far less intense interrogations allowed here.
You have offered nothing in your conclusion to address the above which is the next logical conclusion.
I may be wrong, but it 'appears' your mind is fixated on JK2 being guilty; which begs the question isn't it just as possible she simply died on the beach AFTER Joran left her? OR, she passed out on the beach, perhaps dead and Joran panicked and went home? Nothing unusual there.
I'm at a loss to understand Beth's and even your position b/c the focus seems to be on "oh well, Natalee is dead, let's nail the boys for something that MAY have happened after the fact. It seems to me you need to have a body or at least a confirmed death before any 'after' actions become relevant. To me, if Natalee is indeed dead, does anything else much matter???? That would be my concern if she was my daughter. I'd be far more interested in an alive Natalee than what some scared kids may have done after the fact.
vickiThursday, June 25, 2009 09:04 PM
Perspicacious I respectfully disagree with your post.
Your conclusions are all drawn from the same tunnel vision that law enforcement in Aruba seemed to take from day one. They were unable I believe to get out from under the family of Natalee and their insistence that only Joran could have been the perpetrator of a crime. 4 years and that path has taken the investigation no where. I hope now that Mos is out of there that finally new paths can be followed and the real perpetrators, not Beth's original perpetrators will be brought to justice.
PerspicaciousFriday, June 26, 2009 10:43 AM
Well, I haven't any facts other than what I read in this book (which by the way, is an excellent compilation of every detail about this case... kudos to the author, Jan Brennan), so those are just my observations. And I also believe that people should be regarded as innocent until guilt is proven, but that's more of a courtroom reality (and legal right) than how reasonable people (like us) can have a conversation. So... my points are merely from the "it seems to me" standpoint. Along those lines, I have watched those DeVries videos and I have the advantage of understanding a bit of Dutch, so I can get a very good feeling of the sincerity and validity of Joran's comments (as opposed to just hearing an English overdub). Some of it, like about the boat, doesn't ring true, but the part of all that I can't disregard is when he tells about Natalee having the seizures... that seemed real to me (and even trying to impress DeVries as being a "playa," I don't think he would make that up). I think he saw that. That doesn't mean he caused her death, but if the two of them were doing drugs which he had acquired earlier that evening (kids have lots of spring break drug activities), then I could understand his panic and why he wouldn't want to report everything. After all, if she had died beyond his control, reporting it wouldn't bring her back, just get him in a lot of trouble. And honestly, if I were seventeen and it happened to me on a beach in Aruba, I might have been very tempted to do just what I assume he did, like call someone, like maybe the drug dealer, and say, "Help me please."
So, my thinking is that his crime is a minor charge of "not reporting" and of course, he would have shown a quite a bit of callousness in persisting in his tale while people were looking, but that's just insensitive, not criminal. All we can do is speculate and Joran has given us quite a bit (ten days of admitted lies, coupled with his marijuana fueled "confession") to push our conclusions in the direction I have described.
JanFriday, June 26, 2009 04:30 PM
First, let me say thank you to, Perspicacious, for some very thought provoking posts. Some of which I disagree with, but there is no question that what you have said is probably what most who have followed this case believe. Most people know that I am a huge believer in "innocent until proven guilty." In fact, my book title really comes from that strong belief. And as far as the three main suspects that still holds, in spite of any crazy van confessions by Joran or any of the other unusual escapades he has participated in since May 2005. I love the discussion though and hope it continues. I hope Bella and Vicki return and offer more thoughts too. It is nice to see healthy disagreements about the case.
And Perspicacious, I very much appreciate the compliment of my effort here in this online book. Thank you very much for the "kudos," and please continue everyone to read here and learn about this mysterious case. Where in the world is Natalee Holloway?
BellaSunday, June 28, 2009 06:26 PM
Perspicacious, in your original post you state There is no way that such a lie and continued cover up could be justified with an excuse that he was embarrassed because he left a drunk girl on the beach...\" and \"Because of his persistence in keeping the authorities and search parties from having vital information about where she was last seen, we can conclude circumstantially really, beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was a participant in her disappearance or that he caused it or that he was a witness to it. We also know that he had a strong reason not to report what he knew to the police (or emergency services) the night she disappeared because he feared the consequences to himself if he reported anything.\"
You state in the above bolded sentences an obvious conclusion or an absolute, whereas it is not obvious except to you. In order for your subsequent conclusions to have meaning, you MUST agree that K2 are unwitting participants in Nat\'s demise. But in order for Joran\'s public statements with the Dutch moron and the Greta moron to be true, K2 were not involved. (I may have to be corrected on his words to Greta but to the Dutch moron he did say K2 were innocent). So that leads back to your original premise of the initial lie told by the boys. All 3 kept the lie going, which if it is as you suggest impossible to be as simple as \'the excuse they originally gave,\" then your argument falls apart. Both conclusions are mutually exclusive.
Further, Joran or JK2 did NOT keep vital info from ALE. Firstly, the island is way too small and everyone knew Natalee was #@*%!faced at C&C. The beach area in front of Marriott as well as HI were searched by the posse upon arrival, so their lie in reality becomes immaterial; because IF Joran had witnessed and/or participated in her demise it still would have occurred in the same place they were all searching. NONE of these boys owed Natalee anything. She was a one night stand at best.
It is far more troubling that her family lied to ALE and kept vital info from them despite ALE having some knowledge from their own experience and investigation that the family and friends were lying. Moreover, the fact the MB kiddies ignored repeated requests from ALE for volunteer info and THEIR continued lies, becomes far more significant than the lies of JK2. (Joran\'s description of the seizure was one he had heard in his interrogations, so there was nothing new there. He merely repeated what people had told him.
I cannot defend his statements to either of the morons except he was a young kid out to get laid one night who woke up the next day to have his life maliciously and unconscionably destroyed by Beth Twitty. Was it callous? yes. But it is understandable why he would want to exact some revenge at least in his story to Greta. He needed money, she paid him for his best lie and he didn\'t let her down. It was brilliant actually b/c he singlehandedly turned Beth Twitty\'s position of rape, kidnap and murder on its head. The story to the Dutch dude was a result of knowing he was being setup, so why not throw the moron a bone? He was not callous there b/c he had no knowledge he was being taped and it would air to the world or her family. It was just another bull#@*%! day with the guys.
Your statement \"because he feared the consequences to himself if he reported anything\" could be applied to ALL of Natalee\'s friends and certainly to her mother. Why should JK2 be held to higher standard when they didn\'t even know the girl rather just a passing interest?
Vicki, I may to have to respectfully disagree with your post. While indeed they were continually sidetracked by the Twitty dog and pony attack show, they did have reason to hold/question the boys. I would imagine many MB children would have been cellmates of JK2 had they not fled the island before reporting her missing. I am open to ALE \'allowing\' the focus to stay on Joran or even JK2 in order to watch Beth and the MB kids lie. They would eventually trip themselves up and unwittingly offer more info to ALE which is precisely what Beth et al did.
Now exactly how ALE used this is unclear to me at this time. But I have seen it here in America where they will let the focus stay on one party in order to flush out the real perp. ALE also had the benefit of a non adversarial judicial system that allows them to freely do just that. ALE also, in many ways had no choice but to use he backdoor approach so to speak b/c those that SHOULD HAVE readily provided information, either flat out lied like her mother or hid in the US. It certainly would make the family and friends more suspect than any islanders b/c their behavior was so counter intuitive and begs the question of what were THEY so afraid of? And what role did THEY play in Natalee\'s disappearance? But then ALE had their hands were tied with conflicting bureaucracy and so much energy wasted putting out fires lit by Beth Twitty.
ALE had to question why the mother of all people would deter the investigation with the obvious and proper protocol or procedures away from REAL answers and deflect all blame on what appeared to be 3 innocent islander boys; with the \'white\' boy having the starring role. As I stated to Perspicacious, I believe the initial lies of the boys were immaterial certainly by daylight of May 31.
Jan- I agree with Perspicacious, you put an enormous effort into the book and its is reflected in the detail and articulate comments you made with each chapter. Excellent work!
13)
Jan Brennan
Location: Pittsburgh
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:35 PM
We have just recently created this new Comment Forum for my book. I have been accumulating quite a few comments that have been made at the end of the chapters. Tonight I moved all those here to the new board.
I hope any of you that have not taken the time to comment or perhaps did not want to register and post on the other message board, might take a few seconds and post here.
No need to register and you can post anonymously or with a name.
All thoughts and opinions are welcome.
Hope you are enjoying my book.
Jan Brennan
PolemicWednesday, June 24, 2009 09:02 AM
Just a reminder that all this is about a missing girl:
Although, as I think everyone would agree, this is an amateurish video and rather smaltzy, until there is a better one, a memorial like this is applicable to any discussion about a missing person.
Pray for NataleeWednesday, June 24, 2009 10:34 AM
That was a nice addition Polemic and it is important to remember that until Natalee is found or it is known what happened to her that keeping Natalee in people's thoughts and prayers is very important.
RaycoThursday, June 25, 2009 05:23 PM
For me some of this is a little over the top. I have seen the web sites with all the candles burning and the Natalie shrines and I really wonder what is wrong with these people. This video is nice but does the person that made it even know Natalie? Most of the people that pay homage hourly for this girl did not know her or her family. There are a lot of missing people and a lot of tragedies every minute and for me it is a mystery but some go way over the top with it all.
VickiSunday, June 28, 2009 09:55 AM
I think about this girl every day. I have a daughter her age and I don't know what I would do if I lost her this way. People scream about Beth's actions but I am sure I would have been much worse. I agree we should keep praying for Natalee
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 09:59 PM
Are you sure you would lie to the public and LE if your daughter went missing b/c you would be more worried about your own image and how you could capitalize on the disappearance than the wellbeing of your daughter? Are you sure that is what you mean Vicki? I don't think most mothers would give a wit about reputation if their daughter's life is at stake and I include you in that group unless you can say $$$$s are worth more to you than your daughter.
12)
Dan
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 09:17 PM
I can't believe after what Peter de Vries got Joran to say on tape that he is still walking free. His family must be very powerful in Aruba is all a can figure out.
FrannieThursday, June 25, 2009 09:05 AM
I agree I thought this case was wrapped up already and now I find out that nothing happened after that car ride. Aruba had someone actually solve this case and they just ignored all that. Heck he said he had her taken out to sea. What more do they need?
dutchladyThursday, June 25, 2009 11:19 AM
If you were from Netherlands you might not be so certain that Mr. Devries has any idea about solving crimes. He is much like 50 50 and many do not pay him any mind. I find him arrogant and into fame not accuracy.
charlieratThursday, June 25, 2009 12:57 PM
The only thing that Peter deVries got Joran to say on tape was that Natalee died of natural causes in his presence and that he conspired to dispose of her body. If the OM had decided to prosecute Joran for the illegal disposal of a body, he would have gotten off for time served and double jeopardy would have attahced; meaning that they could never prosecute him for anything more serious, if new evidence came to light later.
Still wonder why he is walking free?
11)
JoJo
Location: Ohio
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 09:04 PM
Somebody should follow the money trail of all that cash that Beth raked in. Not all of it could have been spent on her new face. Tom Cruise said "follow the $$$"
ConnieTuesday, June 23, 2009 10:04 PM
I thought the money was for the searches.
MoFriday, June 26, 2009 03:12 PM
How could the money be for the searches. There has been no searching for almost 4 yrs. The last search was really for oil exploration, a little known fact but sadly true. Any money that the Holloways collected did not go towards honorable intentions IMO.
BellaTuesday, June 30, 2009 09:55 PM
There is no where to go except her back pocket. But we already know that. Whether she bought herself a new face, car or house is irrelevant. The fact is she secured public funds under false pretenses and the FBI and IRS should be investigating for the criminal acts.
moeyWednesday, July 1, 2009 05:07 PM
Bella you have no proof for the accusations that you are making against Beth. I just do not see how you can make such preposterous claims against a grieving parent. There is no proof. It is just the Beth haters that say things like this trying to deflect all of the obvious guilt against Joran. There may not be forensic evidence in this case but the circumstantial evidence screams that Joran lied back in 2005 and is lying still today. Let us keep the focus on who is at fault here and leave Beth, the poor mom alone.
10)
Jasper
Location: U.S.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 09:01 PM
These boys are all guilty, just like Dompig said way back, they are all "guilty as hell!" Lock em up and throw the key away.
RoseanneTuesday, June 23, 2009 11:11 PM
Read the title of the book, No evidence of a crime. If they were guilty there would be evidence.
calebThursday, June 25, 2009 09:08 AM
Jasper, I have to agree with Roseanne on this one as far as I can see they do not really have any evidence of anything. They don't even have circumstantial evidence. Some times you have to look at what makes sense or even a motive. There is no motive for those boys to do anything.
9)
fuentes
Location: unknown
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 08:59 PM
It is an awesome book. I want to buy it so I can read it in bed and see the pictures and different views from the point of view of Natalee's family. I will search for the book. This will be the third book I read about this case. Thank you!
JanFriday, June 26, 2009 04:33 PM
Thank you fuentes for the nice compliment. Your thoughts are very welcome. Please continue to enjoy my book and watch for the updates.
LindaKFriday, June 26, 2009 10:57 PM
Fuentes I have to agree this book is unbelievable. I have had an ongoing interest in this case since the beginning but really do not like to get involved in message board posting so what I learned was mostly from television and news reports on line. I found this book in a google search and was so excited because it is so complete and fills in the gaps that I had. So I am often here reading various chapters. There is so much here I doubt I will ever finish. And if the case is ever in the news I know right where to come for the truth.
8)
Amy
Location: Texas
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 08:57 PM
Very eyeopening and shows just how things can be steered by the media and such i feel like such a leming????
marieTuesday, June 23, 2009 10:03 PM
Just like the news every night is all slanted and biased so was the reporting on this case. I stopped after the 50th breaking news and that was about 4 years ago.
JanFriday, June 26, 2009 04:35 PM
"Eyeopening," I like that. I hope it was. The media really has a very one sided approach to many stories and certainly the Holloway Case is one of them.
7)
Dryden
Location: Colorado
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 08:55 PM
All those interviews with Beth ... its interesting that when asked by different interviewers.....Beth
cannot seem to come up with
something nice to say about her own daughter!!!
carson56Friday, June 26, 2009 06:29 PM
I honestly do not think they were close. I suppose that Beth feels badly about that now. But I have never seen a mother of a missing child so unable to say anything meaningful about their child. She has never been able to recall one significant memory about anything when asked. Maybe that is why she tried so hard to do something, making up for all the lost years that she will never have. But a true grieving mom, not on your life.
AnonymousSaturday, June 27, 2009 12:58 PM
Rumors in Mt. Brook are that they were not close at all, quite the contrary. Lots of speculation about why this might have happened and it may have nothing to do with those Aruban boys.
BellaWednesday, July 1, 2009 09:23 AM
All so true. She seemed irritated if asked a personal question. Every other mother who publicly has a missing son or daughter light up when they can talk about their child.
But beth would scowl and try and change the subject either to how evil JK2 are or how wonderful Dr Phil is. I recall once she was on Rita Cosby and Dr Phil had done his 'she's a sex slave thing on Leno" and Rita asked her if it wouldn't be great if Natalee was still alive (no, Rita no that would horrible!. What a moronic question!) Anyway, beth was befuddled and was visibly uncomfortable with the question. So Rita then quickly changes gears and asks about her upcoming show with Dr Phil, I swear her face just lit up like a xmas tree. She was like a giggly schoolgirl with a crush! It was just appalling and reprehensible for a mother to behave that way.
6)
Jake
Location: Florida
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 08:53 PM
The chapter on Jossy was quite thought provoking. The US media made Jossy appear as a hero concerned, knowledgeable and trying to help. Reading this now I am not so sure how true that was. Lots of good information here for sure
RMGThursday, June 25, 2009 03:17 PM
Most everyone in Aruba that has any sense at all knows Jossy is a joke. His newspaper Diario is usually sitting right next to the dumpsters. That way they won't have to far to carry them when they are collecting the trash.
JanFriday, June 26, 2009 04:41 PM
I hope the chapter on Jossy was thought provoking. For me Jossy is a major player in the misinformation campaign. Sadly our cable news shows allowed him to offer opinions too often and the bias against certain people was not realized. It really was like having the National Enquirer of Aruba to report factual data and most people I know do not go to the National Enquirer for their news. I am glad you enjoyed the book Jake and RMG.
BellaWednesday, July 1, 2009 09:44 AM
I'm curious why you thought US media made Jossy appear a hero. From day one, I thought he was an a-hole who was a National Enquirer wannabe. To me, he was clearly making things up and contradicting himself. He later proved me right and had a hard-on for the VDSs.
The trashloid shows looked just as stupid as he did. I can't believe you would take that stuff seriously. Greta who claimed to own the case ended up making an utter fool of herself and killed any hope of having a legitimate career in news or journalism. I should add her law degree must have been obtained from a crackerjack box as she was clueless to the law either in US OR Aruba.
JanWednesday, July 1, 2009 03:02 PM
Most people can tell by reading my chapter how I personally feel about Jossy. It is one of the elements to this case and the media that has been very disturbing to me. Jossy has very strong political opinions on everything that happens in Aruba. Most everything that happens in Aruba Jossy looks at, as to how he can either make a buck off off it or how he can manipulate the news so the people he prefers will finally get into power. This was a very significant part of Jossy's positioning four years ago and that has not changed. Obviously Paul van der Sloot, and thus his family were apart of this for Jossy and he did whatever he could to manipulate the news any way that he could against them and certainly it seemed important to continue to make Joran guilty. Most of the Jossy history can be found here:
Total topics:
65 Topics shown per page: 20
Friday, July 10, 2009 11:56 PM
