Joran Van der Sloot's Habeas Petition Denied

The 20th Criminal Court of Lima, in a decision by Judge Wilder Casique Alvizuri, rejected Joran Van der Sloot's habeas petition today. (Miserable google translation is here.)

Another spanish version is here, google translation here. A Dutch article on the ruling is here, translation here.

Joran's lawyer has said if the petition is rejected, he will appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Costa Rica. Here is the Court's website.

< Christopher "Dudus" Coke Waives Extradition, Arrives in New York | World Cup: USA v. Ghana Preview >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Denied? (none / 0) (#1)
    by kasey9 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:43:22 PM EST

    From day one, we have heard that Joran does not speak and/or read fluent Spanish, was there an "official" translator present or assigned for that matter. We saw the Peruvian  police open the lap top right on video and it has been played over and over... and it seems to be obvious that the police are under "pressure" from the Flores family as well as the Peruvian population & media to assure Joran is convicted. With this court decision and based on what we have seen...will there be a fair trial? Common sense would say that they pressured him to incriminate himself under interrogation, simply because of the above reasons.  

    What will the process be while they await appeal?  

    Will Joran remain where he is or will they transfer him to Lurigancho as the media is currently reporting.

    From what I am reading (none / 0) (#2)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    the appeal will have to be made within the next thirty days.

    Then I understand there is an oral hearing where both sides submit their cases. Judges can ask any question they deem necessary of either party.

    It takes sixty days before a response would be forthcoming.

    Maurice Steins who works for the Dutch Embassy was the translator present.

    However, the attorney present was the girlfriend of one of the investigators.  (Joran's attorney had adjourned for the day and as soon as she left, they brought in this girlfriend to play the role of Joran's defense attorney, along with the bucket of water.)

    Is it any surprise the confession was immediate?

    Since he filed a complaint against the head of homicide then his life will make hell itself look like a happy hunting ground.

    The Inter-American Court seem to make the states provide compensation to the wrongfully accused or the ones murdered by a state.  Sadly to say, I would imagine that will be the outcome in Joran's case.  He will never live long enough to see justice, but, in the end, his mother and brothers will be compensated.


    Yeah, that girlfriend (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    must have just scared the heck out of him.

    Lori Berenson was in custody in (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:58:50 PM EST
    Peru for 15 yrs.  She was recently released.  Why do you think Joran Van der Sloot will not survive in custody in Peru?

    To be fair (none / 0) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:08:21 PM EST
    Lori Berenson had the protection of the other Shining Path prisoners there.  VDS obviously will not.  That said, I think the idea that he "won't survive" is likely part of the conspiracy narrative.

    Lurigancho is reportedly an extremely unpleasant place, where the prisoners have weapons, there's a fair amount of violence, and according to CNN, there are only 100 guards for the 10,000 (not a typo) inmates, who are mostly allowed the freedom of the place.

    OTOH, VDS is extremely good at ingratiating himself with all kinds of people.  He has a very good chance of fitting right in wherever they put him, IMO.  If there's anything we know about JVDS it's that he's a survivor.


    In response to denial? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jjaks on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:41:37 PM EST
    I hope I can answer a few of ur qs. I've never responded to any of these boards so ur the 1st. First, jvds speaks 3 languages: Dutch, English and Spanish. He read what was placed b4 him, asked qs and signed it. He had an atty along w/the Dutch interpretor from the Dutch embassy who speaks Spanish.
    The Peruvian can show the evidence and/or release evidence w/o tainting any future jurors bc there is no jury trials in Peru. The police released the computer videeo due to a warrant to search the computer. I haven't seen any video of this yet so I'm not sure where you found this link. The peruvian police is not under pressure from the American gov't, the media  or the Flores family to indict and convict Joran van der Sloot. The evidence is there that shows he murdered Stephany Flores-Rameriez. No one else entered that room from 5/30 to 6/2. His detailed confession describes exactly how Stephany died and it matches the wounds. Only the murderer would know those detailed and exact facts.
    Jvds's atty told him not to speak to the police but to wait and speak to the judge. He chose to ignore her advice and then confessed b4 his atty, police and Dutch interpretator. Which was probably all videotaped.
    He will get a fair trial. No one pressured him to confessed but he believed he knew the law just bc his father was an atty. It doesn't work that way. One must go to law school and graduate in order to know and understand the law. Jvds believed that if he can manipulate the peruvian police with a few legal words that he would confuse them. But Peru isn't Aruba.  He miscalculated.  Badly.
    His habeas corpus was denied bc an internatl warrant was issued for his arrest thru Interpol, he had an atty present (didnt matter she wasn't of his choosing or the police asked her to be present) and Dutch embassy assistance.  Not once did he waived his right to be silent so to speak to the judge.  
    He was on his way to Argentina which has no extradiction treat w/Peru when he was apprended in Chile.  It took 17hrs to fly him back to the to Peru's border.
    Jvds will stay in Castro Castro pending trial and will be there even if his atty files motions. Chances r he'll be convicted for robbery and first degree murder or felony murder which is robbery and the killing committed during the robbery.

    some of your facts are wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:44:57 PM EST
    which makes me wonder why you think you have more expertise than anyone else.

    For example, he was not flown 17 hours to Peru. He was flown to the Peru border from Santiago in a military plane, and then told to walk across the border. He was then arrested by Peruvian authorities who drove from that point for many hours (17 by most accounts), to Lima. Peru's explanation was that all government planes were tied up with the OAS summit, and for security reasons, they didn't want to fly him commericially. I suspect they wanted the 17 hours to play good cop/bad cop and convince him to confess. But regardless, that fact of yours is wrong.

    Another wrong fact: He's not charged with robbery. He's charged with murder with special circumstances (neither of which are robbery) and simple theft (hurto simple). Here's the court's press release. I've printed the relevant statutes here. Article 108 of the Penal Code Sections 1 and 3, which defines the crime of murder and Article 185 which is simple theft.

    Whether Joran killed or didn't kill Stephany Flores is not an issue for me to decide. What I am following the is the process, to ensure it's as transparent as possible, and that he's treated fairly.

    If you'll take the time to read through all the posts (not the comments) on this case, you'll see most of the "facts" (such as Peru doesn't have jury trials) have been explained many times, with sources.

    The differences between the Peruvian system and the American system is also of interest. Since in this country we not only have the right to effective assistance of counsel, but counsel of choice (unless you are indigent), I find it hard to comprehend how the police can pick your lawyer. The public defender assigned to the case was not the attorney who accompanied him to the second interrogation where he "confessed." Another reason the court gave was that the confession was considered trustworthy because the prosecutor was there. Apparently in Peru, the prosecutors have more than an adversarial role, they are also supposed to ensure the police process is fair. In this country, a prosecutor would not be given that responsibility. Our system is more like a three legged stool: One leg is the prosecutor, one the defense and one the court. If one leg is weak, the whole system suffers. If one leg is removed, it topples. Peru's system is a little different.

    So to answer your question, this site is in favor of Joran Van der Sloot receiving every legal right to which he is entitled by law. It does not condone the murder of Stephany Flores. And since Peru's constitution has a provision guaranteeing the presumption of innocence, we ask people not to declare him guilty until and unless a Peruvian court has found him guilty.

    And you may not state your suppositions as fact. Much of your comment is your belief as to his motives for confessing, your belief he was going to Argentina because there is no treaty, etc. None of that has been established.

    But, since you think you have all the answers, perhaps you can fill us in on the curious statements of Elton Garcia.


    Some of media's facts (not mine) maybe wrong but (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jjaks on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    1st, I never posted that I was an expert on anything including what's happening w/this case or that I have more expertise or knowledge than anyone or everyone. I'm not for or against Joran van der Sloot. Like everyone else I've read practically everything out there. There r mistakes in the reporting and translating and I have to weed out what I believe r mistakes, bad journalism and bad translations from Spanish into English. I'm not in Peru to observe this case first-hand nor was I there in that room on May 30. Neither do I know anything about how those cameras were being monitored nor why they were exclusively monitored on his room if that is the case. Perhaps u have more information on that than I.
    Whether this site is an all pro Joran van der Sloot site is meaningless to me. I do not even care if this is a vigilante site dedicated to hang him high.  But a girl is dead and he gave a detailed and exact confession to what happened and how she died. The confession matches the forensics. It can't be argued against. Again, perhaps u know something that I don't.
    Like u, I believe he is entitled to all legal rights and representation under Peruvian law even though he is a foreigner in a foreign country and I am following the process with an unbiased mind. But if he did commit this heinous crime, then he deserves to be where he is, in a place described as Dante's Inferno. However, If he didn't do this then something hinkey is seriously going on. But I believe, in my opinion, from what I've gathered he committed this crime. How else could he  describe everything so detailed and accurate? Blood on the bed, the wounds to her face and neck, etc. No one else was privy to that information. This is my belief.  
    I know how the American legal system works. I graduated from law school. I'm not versed in criminal internatl law nor have I ever practiced internatl law or defended internatl criminal defendants. This is an area in which I have no expertise.  
    Second, I never said jvds was charged w/robbery. I said he could be convicted of it and murder or felony murder. I also said Peru does not have jury trials.  I know it's ur site but please read carefully and not take things out of context or attack.
    Third, I don't really care  whether this site is to promote Joran van der Sloot's innocence or to question the legalities of the Peruvian legal process or to advocate his guilt, but how can any visitor to this site engage in a non combative debate without you attacking the poster?
    I do not have any answers to this ongoing legal process or to Elton Garcia. I do not know whether it was coincidence that he was there at the same time as jvds playing poker or it was planned. Nor do I know anything about Garcia's statements as they r in Spanish. Again, perhaps you know more than I. I do not have enough knowledge about what's accurately bring reported out of Peru. So instead of being condescending, please enlighten me as to the true facts of this case or to what information you may have that I do not have.

    Fine, let's start again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    I think it was your first sentence that raised my antennas, since it began "I hope I can answer a few of ur qs" which led me to believe you were asserting you had answers.

    You clearly have followed the case in the media and some of what you write is well-reasoned.

    You seem more focused on whether he did it, which I don't believe will be a strategy for much longer, unless he gets new lawyers, which supposedly he going to get during July (With the money his Mom just got paid by the networks for her appearances.) I am in contact with his former U.S. lawyer Joe Tacopina, who as I've said before is a good friend of mine and who has no intention at present of going to Peru to defend him. But he is helping Joran find a good lawyer in Peru (I sent in two suggestions from reading hours of reports on prior Peru cases in similar situations and Joe said they were on their list. Joe does speak to Anita, she of course wants her son to be treated fairly.)

    If you type Elton Garcia in the Search Bar on TalkLeft you will come up with everything known about him in this case.

    I finally got a copy of his actual statement today, and was pretty shocked by what they didn't ask him.

    Now there's a real discrepancy: Elton says he met Joran in Peru, only knew him by sight and from playing poker when they both played at open tables. During Joran's interrogation, they asked him if he had any friends in Peru, and he answered "one. Elton Garcia." Joran says it was Elton who invited him to Peru to play in the tournament and suggested he stay at Hotel Tac, where Elton was staying. They were there for two weeks, Elton maybe a week longer. Here is Elton Garcia's statement in Spanish.

    When commenters state their opinions as facts, Google picks them up as TalkLeft statements and people think I wrote them. Since I am a practicing defense lawyers, it is extremely problematic when people write out their theories of guilt. The average reader, seeing it comes from TalkLeft, thinks I wrote it.

    So long as make clear, as you did in your second post, that you believe xxx based on a comparison of many articles, some of which are inconsistent, you'll be fine here. And you won't find a fairer place to discuss the case anywhere. Anyone who says "Feed him to the inmates" has their comment deleted. Anyone who suggests Stephany isn't really dead gets a warning not to post that kind of conspiracy nonsense here. Since you have a law degree, you are equally capable of reading a statute, a court opinion and an official press release, as well as the news, and sorting out the sources (official or not) and drawing conclusions from it. I hope you continue, I didn't mean to insult you or drive you away.


    Aloha Jeralyn (none / 0) (#27)
    by AlohaMade on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:43:27 AM EST
    I went through the entire confession(several times) Joran gave to the police in Peru, the original (google translated of course), and from what I interpret, he said he had met Elton Garcia in Peru and only had known him for the 2 weeks he had been there. It was after he was sent to Miguel Castro Castro, that he said Elton Garcia lured him to Peru. I could be wrong, and if I am can you link me to the confession that you read, so I can compare Also I am finding it hard to find the interview with EG, in english or translated? Like you I still find him questionable, and also agree about the 72 hours of video. The hotel employee claims she ran from the room, once she discoverd Stephany, I want to actually see this on video!
    Mahalo Nui Loa!

    it was in his statement to the Telegraah (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    the full version, not the abbreviated on line version, that he said Elton lured him to Peru. I wrote it up here. From the Telegraaf:

    In fact, Garcia has a more important role. He arrived eight days before Van der Sloot in the Peruvian capital Lima and took up residence there in Hotel Tac, a low budget hotel, which also can be booked per hour.

    He had met Van der Sloot as "a poker player" and asked him to come to Lima for a poker tournament. There would be a lot of money to be won. He also ensured that Van der Sloot moved into the Hotel Tac, where Garcia was staying already.

    Van der Sloot says about that: "That Garcia had arranged and paid everything for me. In retrospect I just want to hit myself in the head that I let him lure me. I barely knew the guy. It was just a setup. "

    His statement at Lima police headquarters (the long one) as you note, says he knew Elton for 2 weeks, meeting him in Peru at the casino. He says he met Stephany May 27 at the Casino.

    I'm not positive, but I think the statement where he was asked "Do you have any friends in Peru?" and his answer was "One, Elton Garcia" was from when he was first questioned in Peru after arriving from Chile. I'll look for it.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jjaks on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:32:46 PM EST
    You haven't driven me away. Thank you for the additional information. It will shed a lot of light concerning what is being reported by the media (which is one-sided and questionable). I don't care for being led in one direction and forced to accept what is being published when there's the possibility of another side not being explored or shared.

    one more non-fact (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    in your comment: No one has made all 72 hours of video camera footage from outside his room available. They've only shown the portions with Joran or Stephany. It is not a "fact" that no one entered the room shortly before them, or that no one else entered and left, between the time Joran left the last time and the time the body was discovered.

    Re: one more non fact (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jjaks on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:49:14 AM EST
    Again, ur taking things and twisting them to suit yourself. I never said the video footage was a fact. The media reported there was video footage and has televised it. Whether there are 16 days of video coverage or just 3 days, hopefully all of that will come out in the trial.
    If there is editing of that video to make look him appear guilty then something is seriously wrong. But that won't be known until all of the evidence is presented to the judges at the trial 6-18 months from now.  

    you said (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:57:50 AM EST
    "The evidence is there that shows he murdered Stephany Flores-Rameriez. No one else entered that room from 5/30 to 6/2."

    We can't say that until someone reputable says they've examined all the footage and there were no gaps.


    Re: Evidence (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jjaks on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    I should have clarified myself to say some of the evidence includes some of the bloody clothing which belonged to jvds. So far his current Peruvian atty hasn't disputed that the clothing isn't his (whether he had these on his person or left in the room). Not sure if this is to be admitted Or not admitted during trial process or if he's waiting to collect discovery, waiting on DNA forensics, etc.
    I will reserved my judgment on the surveillance tapes and not really consider it evidence until all footage is shown w/o interruption or tampering.
    If the FBI were indeed watching him due to the Holloway investigation it would make sense that there would exclusive surveillance on his movements. That should be about 19 days of tapes (May 14-June 2) at the casino and on his room.

    Good points (none / 0) (#83)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    Also have been wondering about his clothing - he gave to the taxi brothers his jeans and polo shirt (he is seen wearing both leaving the hotel).  He continued to wear the black hood, red tee, and khakis for almost a week.  (They are seen hanging on a nail in his cell, but no other clothes.)

    He left behind in the room two tees and two boxers.

    So what did he have in the duffle bag he is seen leaving with in addition to his backpack?

    How strange to leave one bood stained article of clothing in the room and take others (if there were other blood stained clothing)!?

    The only piece of blood stained clothing appears to be the white shirt placed over the body - but anyone could have placed it there as well as have soaked it in blood - so that cannot be considered evidence, imo, unless and until defense experts have full access to the testing.  (However, I don't think Joran has expert witnesses - )

    Besides, the white shirt seems to be transfer blood or smear blood and no direct blood splatter which one would expect.

    Luminol, according to the police report, showed blood in the room, hallway and bathroom.  Curious the blood wasn't visible without the use of luminol!

    Also, I cannot help but go back to the very beginning of this disaster.

    Since Tacopina represented Joran and Kelly represented the opposing side (or, initiating side) in the civil case - wouldn't it be an ethical call for Kelly to contact Tacopina before this exhortion plot went down?  Wouldn't Tacopina still be considered Joran's attorney?

    And, perhaps, since, in my opinion, the FBI couldn't really be involved until after the fact, why didn't Kelly arrange for this to be done in say, Puerto Rico (a short distance) where the FBI would have jurisdiction?  Joran, apparently, was without legal advice, a deer in the headlights one might say - so was an easy target to manipulate into going anywhere, imo.

    Then at the same time period all this is being arranged, there are critical problems in Peru with Flores and his best friend Rey - one would think something had to be done to change the headlines.

    Focus off the disregard for the poverty-stricken people's money so carelessly given - and onto to something more favorable, or more sympathic, to Flores and, thus, Rey.  Perhaps -- just a thought going through my head.

    Hard for me to even consider Joran left Aruba without being followed - knowing officials of Aruba said they did contact the FBI or Kelly of his departure to Peru the day he left!

    Joran tells his mother in a call from Peru, in a somewhat paranoid manner (she thought), that he felt he was being followed - again, perhaps, he was not being paranoid at all and was being followed.

    If he was being followed, he may well have been followed by private investigators and not necessarily the FBI.  

    What role did Elton have in all this?

    And, yes, what a great catch - who is this person in the green striped shirt who, obviously, knows Joran and Stephany.  His jacket appears to be on the chair so he has been there before Joran arrives.  He finishes his drink and seems to leave with them - but who is he?

    The confession - again, he has an appointed attorney - but the confession is done when the appointed attorney leaves.  It fits a crime scene that appears not to be the original crime scene, if the initial witnesses are to be believed, but a crime scene later constructed to increase charges to be filed.  Again, just my opinion.

    So much of America are sick to death of the original case which has been repeated over and over again for five years.  I am of the opinion tv sets are left on in the American home and are not continuously watched as what is given is pure nonsense - the same script day to day with lines changed here and there - repeated back footage.  It would drive the average person crazy to watch this night after night, imo, so, obviously no one is really watching.

    We do know there is available money of approx half million to be paid to someone - what we don't know is, has this money been paid to people other than Joran?


    Re: Untold's Good Points (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jjaks on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    Sorry but ur totally confusing me on this. The white shirt is shown in a photograph so it's pretty hard to tell about blood splatters unless there's a camera doing an hr long close up view. That would probably be for the prosec @trial.  Also there was no need to contact Tacopina as he wasn't jdvs atty. If one is trying to get a bad guy ur not going to call him or anyone associated w/him and say: hey we're going to get ur boy and this is how we're going to do it! it's all done on the sly. Plus I don't believe anyone else could have placed the shirt over Stephany's face. He admitted in his confessed how he killed Stephany including the use of the white shirt to asphxiate her. Details only the killer would know.
    As to the rest of his clothing, he'd said he'd paid the 2 two brothers and the other guy (2 r taxi drivers) with his jeans, $500 from the Atm and his $7000 Ferrari watch. Which could explain why he has just the clothes on his back or very few clothing w/him...perhaps he was trying to travel light. But he did leave w/a backpack and a duffle bag.
    What have Flores and Rey's political activities have to do w/Stephany Flores' murder?  
    Forgive me but I think ur theories may be too...I'm not sure how to say this....umm fantastical? Interesting theories that r a puzzle in a puzzle. But could it be ur way to far on this one?
    Depending on who contacted who, the boy was probably w/o money to go anywhere. But he did know of the Peru tournament. I believe he met Garcia in Columbia, if I'm not mistaken. If PRico was suggested perhaps he would have smelled something cooking in the air. I doubt jdvs would have asked for legal advice about an illegal act he was about to commit.
    Joran has been followed for the past 5 yrs i.e, Peter de Vries so if he'd suspected that he was being followed then his nemesis de Vries should have popped into his head.  
    If Garcia had any kind of role in keeping tabs on jvds there was nothing illegal or unethical about that. Perhaps Garcia's presence was nothing more than a coincidence. One poker player trying to be friendly w/an infamous person so he can perhaps get 15 mins of fame by saying he met the infamous Joran van der Sloot. And I doubt the green-stripped shirt guy has anything to do with anything but if he were also a look-out guy, he had nothing to do w/what happened in room 309. His name or appearance wasn't  mentioned in the full confession.  
    We don't know what the crime scene looked like. We won't until until the trial if the trial is televised live internationally.
    I think the witnesses r on par but the translations r getting lost. Which could also explain the luminol.  It could be that whoever is translating, English is not their first language.  
    As for the remainder of the money, that wasn't paid bc the information was a lie. If  jvds had told the truth and a body was found, I doubt the money would have been paid. That contract was illegal to begin with. Also, he would have been a seven day's fool to show a body that would have given about 50 yrs in Aruba'a prison.  
    Perhaps there is no half million dollars. Mayhaps that was a bluff to get him to tell the truth of what happened to NH and where she is. Lie to the guy enjoys lying.
    I look forward to read your comments bedunking my theories.  :^)

    Will try not to be confusing . . . (none / 0) (#91)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:48 AM EST
    Blood on shirt - it appears to be smeared, there appears to be no splatter, unless it so minute it is microscopic only.

    The shirt, from what I read, was placed on one side of the victim.  This is supported by the hotel girl stating she saw the victim's nose bleeding, so, obviously had to be seeing her face.  She also stated she recognized the body as a woman.  So my point is - anyone could have left the shirt there, perhaps the person who actually did asphxiate the victim.

    Lots depend on whether the confession is ruled as authentic on appeal due to the irregularities of not having Joran's own defense attorney present as well as whether details of the crime scene contained therein are made by Joran free and clear, or are details provided to him in front of a bucket of water.

    My thought was Tacopino was his US attorney and Kelly represented the opposing party - which seemed, to me, to continue into this extortion case as it is merely a continuation of the case, but in a different form.

    Obviously, I agree, if more clients did speak to their attorneys before and illegal action is done, it would prevent the horrors of after.

    Joran has been hunted by groupies of vigilante mentality and by now, as most people would be, must feel isolated and paranoid.  Not a shred of evidence has ever been discovered by three separate countries searching a small island, but yet, he has been targeted as a murderer for the past five years in a vicious manner.

    Interesting your breakdown of monies given to the taxi drivers and brother - $500 ATM, his watch (although since he was in Thailand it may well have been a knock-off). . . which means that he had no extra money that could possibly have come from Stephany - so, therefore, robbery should not be considered.

    Gracia is an interesting character.  When coincidences start to layer up, then they become concerning.  Gracia not being truthful initially with the police is a red flag that has not been investigated.

    Within an hour of Gracia calling the hotel from the casino, the Flores family called the casino.  Another coincidence!

    Who is the guy in the green striped shirt - perhaps if we knew, then we could better determine if he has other connections, or, coincidences in the case.

    The crime scene photos have been linked by Jeralyn, actually she has everything linked throughout the various articles she has written covering this case.

    What are your thoughts on the 25K being paid without any assurances of an immediate arrest?


    Re: Untold's will be confusing (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jjaks on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 03:10:26 AM EST
    Hmmm.....I'm going to go thru ur theories by paragragh.
    1. Blood on the shirt. He confessed he had elbowed Stephany in the nose while they were on the bed. That's a broken nose w/blood streaming down her face. Perhaps getting drops on clothes, shoe, etc. He used the shirt to suffocate her which explains the large masses on the front. No splatter. A broken nose produces a lot of blood so the shirt on face/nose absorbed the blood. He did say she was alive a few times so perhaps it took 1-2 times to suffocate since the strangling didn't kill her.  He threw her on the floor which could explain drops on bed. Perhaps whoever came-maid or receptionist stepped in blood & carried it into room's hallway. Perhaps maid or whoever lifted shirt off Stephany's face to see who it was. Maid said she thought it was Joran on floor until she saw long dark hair. She lifted the shirt, saw what she thought was a bleeding nose. As the blood had congealed from the nose to the chin and onto the floor. Remember, this employee had probably not seen a dead body up close and personal, especially one that has been lying there dead for 2-3 days. So it could appear to be a bleeding nose to an inexperienced ME.
    2. Confession- I believe the confession is the truth and will stand. I doubt very much the Human Rights Ct will throw the confession out. If Joran's rights were violated why didn't he tell attys 1&2 and the Dutch consulate? Why did he read, asked ques and signed the confession? I don't think he confessed on 6/3 when he was returned to Lima. I think it was a few days later if I'm not mistaken. But if he did confessed on 6/3 after that long trip back to Lima and no sleep, atty Alto would have said so and the judge would gave agreed to coerced confession. Since that wasn't mentioned, the confession was done after 6/3 but I'll gave to check the date of the form on another site.
    3)Attorney. From my understanding, atty 1 had quit. The police  had to get another atty on the fly as jvds was indigent. Jvds never said "I don't want this 2nd atty, find me another". Since he accepted her, he agreed to her representation however temporary or permanent it would be. Constructive acceptance. The Dutch consulate's presence was just for translation to safeguard the "I didn't understood or spoke Spanish. I didn't know what I signed as no one translated for me". So the PNP dotted their i's and crossdd their t's on that one.  
    1. Kelly. Kelly went down to Aruba as a friend & not in a legal way. If he went as an atty participating as a middleman in a sting op he could be sanctioned by the ABA. If he went as a friend then his participation is ethical and he didn't break any rules. As for clients, attys can't advise them on illegal crimes or provide assistance on any crime- present or future.
    2. Joran. Joran is not as innocent as he wants ppl to believe. He hasn't been hunted as you may believe. Yes, de Vries has been on him like a wet suit but it's only de Vries. Joran chose to say he killed Natalie Holloway and her remains r here, there or somewhere. Then he later recants like Peter in the wolf story. He doesn't have to keep a facebook page but he does so it will attract all types of crazies along w/the vigilante mentality. He spoke to the media. All fir attention I soppose. Since he has stated Natalie is dead and he pushed her To the ground and she hit head or she convulsed and his friend dumped her in the ocean, etc all of that says he killed her. He has himself to blame if the world labeled him a murderer. He never stuck to his story of leaving her on the beach alive. It kept changing to her death while he was present.
    3. Garcia. Garcia really has nothing to fo w/this. Joran confessed to what occurred in room 309. If Garcia was paid to keep close tabs on Joran and to report his movements then that's not illegal. Perhaps Garcia lost sight of jvds & called the hotel so not to make it obvious he was keeping an eye on him? Perhaps again, Garcia's friendship was just coincidence and nothing but. The greenstripped guy is probably a coincidence as joran never mentioned him by name or description in his confession.
    4. As for the monies/watch, it's detailed in the confession. He also said he had crashed at a stranger's house who had invited him to stay. The 2 brothers and the 3rd man r facing serious charges as they never reported the crime and they aided/abetted Joran. So Joran's naming of these 3 individuals led me to believe his confession is the truth. But in typical Joran fashion, once he tells the truth, he then becomes Peter and tries to lie and coverup the truth so as to confuse and manipulate.  
    Lastly, the $250k was a stupid idea, stupid blunder, stupid bluff. Giving $10k in cash to a known liar/gambler and wiring an additional $15k to his bank account makes sense from either a legal standpoint or a mother's loss but still bad advice bad judgment.  After 5 yrs of no answers to Natalie's whereabouts: whether she's dead or held captive by a sex ring and 5 yrs of lies, why did Beth Twitty believed jvds would incriminate himself and spend the rest of his life in jail? He can't spend the money in jail. I can understand she needs answers and closure but she hasn't gotten anything in 5 yrs so why would she believe jvds would have a change of heart? Did she ever consult it w/her ex?? They knew they weren't going to get answers which was why they went for extortion/wire fraud. I can neither blame her nor judge her. As for an immediate arrest not sure how it would have worked out. Perhaps Aruba & US doing a tug of war.  Or It probably would have taken a few months for arrest/jail and then the appeals, bail. If convicted only a few yrs for a white collar crime in exchange for not getting a murder confession. If no arrest, the boy probably would have been tailed by Peter de Vries, Bo Dietel or someone w/ high tech technology.
    Your turn.  :^)

    Wow! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:36:34 AM EST
    Its going to take me some time to digest and dissect all this -

    Joran's confession wherein he tells about staying at someone's home, etc. - do you have a link?


    Re: Untold's Wow (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jjaks on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    Hi Untold
    if it is permissible, u can go to radaronline.com. Joran's full and detailed confession is there: both Spanish and English. The English version takes a little to understand which is why I believed a Peruvian translated it into English from Spanish b4 handing it over to either CNN or radaronline. I don't know how to link sites as I use my mobile. The comments are vicous as to be expected so be warned. Also, the pix are graghic. So again, be warned if you haven't seen ALL the body pictures.

    confession (none / 0) (#6)
    by pac on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    The various quilty stories Joran told about the Holloway case, "sold her", "buried in foudation", "father helped", "she hit her head on a rock", or he "threw her in the ocean" all go back to what he hear or read he was accused or suspected at one time or another. Is it that he tends to go back and tell people whatever it is that he thinks they must want to hear? How can you be sure his confession in Peru isn't just another case of whatever is suggested Joran ends telling them whatever he thinks it is they want to hear in some kind of ? way.

    Odd to me that the various stories were the stories which had already been reported as someone thinking or saying rather than original.

    Early on there were stories about falling, thrown in the ocean, buried under foundation by the hotel, selling, etc.

    Joran appears to return with one story or another that has already been in print at one time or another and tries that one on them. At that point he is called a liar for telling what he was originally accused?

    Seems, Pac, to me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    he may have a place in politics :)

    odd proof (none / 0) (#7)
    by pac on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    Maybe Joran's attempt to prove none of the Holloway stories are true is to tell them it is and then be called a liar.

    Website curiosity (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jjaks on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    I'm curious bc I've been coming across this website for the past week or two and the comments have been curious, to say the least. Is this a pro website for Joran van der Sloot that some posters believe in his innonence? Or is this a site for all comments? Pro and con?

    Jeralyn runs the site (none / 0) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    She's a defense attorney.  Opinions are fine just don't say someone is 'guilty'.  That is for a court to decide.

    I guess you are noticing the VDS topic has attracted some new members who for some inexplicable reason seem quite smitten with VDS? :)


    Waldenpond.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jjaks on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:08:55 PM EST
    Thx for the response. I was unsure about the site and whether to put my two cents in. I don't understand the pro sentiment since the evidence points to him and he did confessed w/counsel and a Dutch interpretator present.
    I expect next week he will say Elton Garcia set him up and it was Garcia who murdered Stephany, Stephany is not truly dead but is being hidden away by the FBI or she ran away and refuses to return home bc her family does not accept her as a lesbian. I'm sort of looking forward to what he will concoct in the next few days.

    he's already said Elton Garcia set him up (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    He hasn't said Garcia murdered Stephany. See the interview Joran gave to the Dutch paper last week. It's been reported in earlier posts here. And it's unlikely he would claim Elton Garcia killed Stephany, since his lawyer has said he isn't arguing Joran didn't kill Stephany, but that it was a spontaneous act and he didn't intend to do it. He intends to contest some of the details of the confession.  

    He has not said Stephany isn't dead and no one with any credibility believes she isn't dead.

    There is an issue as to whether he was being monitored in Peru, and whether the cameras outside his room were place there by those monitors. While the Dutch paper speculated it was the FBI, if it's true, it could have been the operation of the Holloway investigators.


    It is a criminal defense site (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 09:58:44 PM EST
    See here.

    As to comments, see here. And no, you may not proclaim him guilty as if that is fact. Please read the comment rules.

    As to your other long comment stating purported facts: some of them are not accurate, I'm about to reply to that comment.


    Jjaks, hello (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    First, take Jeralyn's instructions seriously.  This is a defense-oriented site, and we have all seen too many cases of evidence being doctored and prosecutors and police behaving badly in this country to automatically give credibility to what they say until we see it.

    So for instance, until VDS's defense attorneys see the whole 72 hours or whatever of video and get an explanation for why his door was monitored and others seem not to have been, it can't be taken for granted entirely that the video shows no one else entering or leaving.

    That goes maybe double for media reports, which have been very sloppy on this, as on many other sensational cases.

    Al that said, you've run into a lot of comments here by people who have only just come to the site with this case and are engaged in constructing elaborate theories to explain why VDS didn't do it and somebody else did.

    If you click on the name of the commenter, you will get to a place on the site that will show you all of that poster's comments since he/she registered, and that will tell you who just came here for VDS and who has been around a while.


    Were you born into this site? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    Please, don't be coy - instead of writing two paragraphs as to how to find my name, be direct!

    Sorry you feel I inflitrated this site just for the JvDS case - there is always a beginning - my coming on this site happened to coincide with this case as I found it to be the only site that provided information on the case not found elsewhere.  In addition, Jeralyn has connections and is able to research and provide information not found elsewhere.

    Don't be intolerant of newcomers - every one of the tenured commenters were once a newcomer themselves is my guess.  Of course, there is the possibility many joined when it orginated.

    I will not post any further comments.  However, I will continue to read the informative information provided on so many topics of interest.


    don't be afraid to comment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    I enjoy reading your comments, they are kind of like a puzzle in themselves. This site is open to commenters and it's fine to comment on only one topic.

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    gryfalcon was recently warned not to assume that the defendant is guilty. Also she came to this site in 2008 along with many others who were campaigning for Hillary.

    And, if it makes you feel any more comfortable she does seem to write off commenters who do not share her view on crime issues, etc, which includes me. No loss, you are more than welcome here, as there will be many who find your comments interesting, including me.

    And, good point about how commenters become long time commenters. I came to the site because I was fascinated in the Valerie Plame case, and stuck around, just as many came here more recently to campaign for Hillary and stuck around. As you point out, single issues become an entry point for many who wind up staying at a blog. TL is one of the best blogs out there, so hope you find more things interesting here and that you stick around.


    No need to be defensive (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    It's a matter of fact that there are a half a dozen folks who arrived here just to comment on the VDS case, and a number of them, perhaps including you although I haven't been "taking names," have spun elaborate theories about VDS possibly having been set up by the FBI, Beth Twitty, all sorts of things.

    That's not characteristic of this site, and that's also just a matter of fact.  True, it's not to my taste, but there are lots of things in life that aren't to my taste.


    I'm glad the new commenters are here (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    so please don't try to make them feel unwelcome. They are seeking more details than the news provide, and a presentation less guilt-driven than that provided in the MSM and other sites, and that's exactly what I work so hard at to provide.

    Untold Story: (none / 0) (#44)
    by kasey9 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    I too, came upon this site from a Google search/link looking for updated - more accurate information on this specific case ....which I have definitely found here at TalkLeft as opposed to listening and reading what CNN and/or any other media outlets report and have reported.

    I appreciate the insight, the translations, updated links as well as the overall thoughts and comments of Jeralyn - as well as others.

    Although there are a few posters/comments, I don't agree with on particular subject matters such as "Beth Twitty" to name one, I still try and repect their opinion.

    I see many others have commented that they too, personally enjoy your posts (Untold Story)...Hang in there and ignore the criticism or people that cannot value someone else's opinion especially if it differs from theirs.

    I think the majority of people on this site are standing behind justice and although I don't think that things currently reflect that Joran will in deed get a fair trial, lets see what actual evidence and facts surface and hope that he will get a fair trial!  


    guilt (none / 0) (#18)
    by pac on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    Just in some kind of theory

    Juan probably had better access to Joran's hotel room than Elton Garcia. That doesn't mean Juan did anything.

    The bowl of water. Tired, really tired and no sleep so? So, what? Joran is so tired that a bowl of water is used to keep him awake? I have heard there is actually a point of being awake for so long that a person can hallucinate, much less finally agree to just about anything for some sleep.

    I haven't noticed anyone smitten with Joran, just people who examine all aspects. Otherwise, people can be labeled in such ways which could be inaccurate.

    Is the idea to determine guilt or just find Joran guilty?

    Stephany's family surely want to know who is actually responsible for her death. If Joran is guilty and there was something caused by another party which precipatated her death, such as professional liabilty, threat, confusion about her, the family should be able to sort those aspects also.


    nicely put pac (none / 0) (#26)
    by AlohaMade on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:27:06 AM EST
    I always look forward to reading your latest!

    bedsheets (none / 0) (#22)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:56:02 AM EST
    Sounds more likely that a maid would try to remove a body from a room in bedsheets than Joran.

    Doesn't her statement say (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:02:27 AM EST
    she found the body on the floor and at first thought it was a guy until she saw the long hair?  Why do you think she tried to remove it? I thought she left the room immediately to get her boss and call the police.

    quetion (none / 0) (#24)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:58:04 AM EST
    Will it come that eveyone is given a prescription for an antidepressant at birth along with their own personal po po. Or, could it be people have the right to pick their own antidepressant from television commercials?

    okay (none / 0) (#28)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:53:47 AM EST
    Jerelyn: Oh okay, my point was I doubt Joran would try to carry a body out in bedsheets.

    bedsheets (none / 0) (#29)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:55:32 AM EST
    plus, I don't know if the body was really in bedsheets having read a few versions. The fact is, removing a body at a hotel in bedsheets could possibly successfully be done by people other than Joran.

    more (none / 0) (#30)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:00:23 AM EST
    Yes, the maid left the room to get her boss after turning out the lights and the television.

    She has a key to the room and has herself placed in the area with someone named Juan at the time Joran went for coffee.

    On another thread, if you read, there was some theory kind of stuff going on so ended writing this on the wrong.

    A good point that the maid thought it was a guy!  

    She could have removed items or is that out of the question?  

    no (none / 0) (#31)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:03:10 AM EST
    I don't think a 19 year old female maid could kill Stephany is such a manner.

    site (none / 0) (#32)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:25:45 AM EST

    I didn't think this is a pro sentiment site. On here I have stated thinking it appeared like rage, meltdown and so on with no complaint.

    This site just had better thought out comments than the typical seen at other sources where there is a need to sort through a lot of garbage writing to get to the comments worth reading.

    Also, this site is informative without watching a lot of television, to get to the heart of the matter basically.

    news copy (none / 0) (#33)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:53:55 AM EST
    Peruvian officials are saying that Joran Van der Sloot's confession that he killed 21-year-old Stephany Flores will hold up in court and is an official confession.

    According to CBS news, Joran Van der Sloot tried to take back his confession saying he was coerced into making the confession and had been treated unfairly.  He tried to get out of a situation once again by changing his story, but Peruvian officials aren't buying it. He might have been able to trick other officials by twisting his story around until officials get dizzy, but Peruvian officals are staying straight on and keeping van der Sloot's first confession in play.

    Sorry van der sloot, you don't have a "Get Out Of Jail For Free Card" this time. He's not in the Netherlands or Aruba and is finding that he can't run like he used to be able when his Dad and big name friends would cover for him and get him out of trouble.

    Above copied from a news source.

    This is what I read on other sites. I get a dose of journalism where Joran's dad and his friends are without a doubt guilty of corrupt activity. Maybe so but?   somehow reporting such as a fact  banged into people's heads if they don't search for alternative news then? Also, note that it is assumed that this case is like the other but handled differently, maybe?, yet there are differences such as no body, no proof, etc. in the Holloway case.

    So, the reporting here appears more professional with no notice of restricting opinion.

    Paul Harvey, and "the rest of the story" kind of something or another here.

    Elton Garcia (none / 0) (#34)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:23:36 AM EST
    The fact that Elton Garcia didn't want to identify the body in person, if true, but did so by picture indicates he was smart enough not to put his dna at the crime scene. If he had gone in the room and killed Stephany, the option to identify her in person and in the room I presume?, he would have preferred to have a chance for reason to find his dna?

    Assuming set up might not mean someone else killed Stephany, or that Elton Garcia did it himself?  but set up in some other type way? Set up to kill? set up that led to death? The fact that there was a set up going on is clear, extortion, so that is not something imagined? Whether or not that set up extended to Peru or Joran was followed? To consider a set up of some kind is not exactly reading too much into a matter if it is known that a set up is in progress at the time? Also, what often is said about people guilty of something showing up at the crime scene?  Out here looking in, but lacking information, Elton Garcia does appear to become too included, identify body for instance, for someone who just happened to be staying at the same hotel or having played poker with Stephany and Joran. Other people played poker with them too. At the same time, I can't determine how much said about Elton Garcia is actual which leads to difficulty speculating.

    Untold Story (none / 0) (#41)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    I'm not understanding why Untold Story won't comment anymore?

    Some people appear to think that Joran's mother is ?  don't know how to word it. I think Joran's mother has a better clue about Joran and she must have noticed he was unstable and most likely, as she stated, wanted to have him checked out. No doubt she must have been confused about the multiple various confessions, etc.

    The reason I mention is somewhere I read that she said people want to murder Joran but it was unclear if she meant people on the outside or people in prison. Now, failure to realize where I read the info do any of you know her intent?  

    in response (none / 0) (#43)
    by AlohaMade on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    I agree pac, untold story should continue posting, I enjoy the insight he/she brings to the blogging table ; )
     As for Anita I read in one of her statements, that she wanted Joran to get help 5 years ago becuse of the duress he encountered during the Aruba case. Then again after Paulus died, she claims he felt it was all his fault, becuse he brought so much negative attention to his fathers life. Somehow, she convinced Joran in recent months, that he needed help, and this is why he apperently agreed to commit himself to that hospital, in the Netherlands; However, he chose to go to Peru and quote, "start his life over again, where nobody knows him." and also said " I should have listend to my Mother."
     Not sure about the murder statement, although, Joran did state to the Judge, he was in fear for his life, that he wanted to be in a secured place, for fear other prisoners might try to kill him. Maybe she is exaggerating on that quote?
    Mahalo Nui Loa!
    all posts are IMO opinion

    Re: Untold Story by pac (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jjaks on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    I believe Mrs van der Sloot was referring to the fact that Joran could be murdered in prison. You may have read it in the de Telegraaf interview or perhaps read it on one of the media sites?? Her interview may be uploaded on YouTube.
     I don't know if you've ever read Dr. Lillian Glass. But her blog is very interesting on both the mother and the son. If you wouldn't be too bothered by the blog and if it is permissible, the blog is www.drlillianglass.com/body-language-blog/

    they keep trying to promote (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    her post here (I've deleted a few comments from them directing people to it). Pyschobabble if you ask me.

    little goes a long way (none / 0) (#99)
    by pac on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    Untold Story:

    I will read the blog, having seen one like it but don't remember if it was the same.

    Body language, gee a little bit yes but reading too much into to it under some circumstances? don't know.


    a few words (none / 0) (#42)
    by AlohaMade on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    Aloha all. I was attracted to this site for the information and intellectual honesty. I was not aware, until like my third post, that this was a deffence only site. In reality, in any case criminal or other wise, we have a defence, a prosecution, and a judiciary entity. I have red many satements of defence lawyers whom feel that Joran is being advised improperly? I will not come right out and say if I think Joran is guilty or not. I like Jeralyn, enjoy putting the puzzle together. But while we talk about Jorans rights to a fair trial, I see no one mentioning the rights of the dececed victim. I still feel that each party of this case deserves the same respect, as to what is fair. I am sure some of my theories are questionable of the guilt or innocence of Joran, but I enjoy posting them, and reciving responces of my fellow bloggers. It brings new insight, and allows me another piece of the puzzle, that I am still trying to figure out. As a crime enthusiest, I think it is right to weigh both sides of the case, both Joran and Stephany rights deserve to be heard.
    Mahalo Nui Loa!
    everything I write is IMO opinion.
    Thanks Jeralyn for the response of my earlier post.

    you don't see much (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    about the victims of crime here because this is not a neutral site and I don't want it to become one. It is a site is dedicated to preserving the rights of those accused of crime. There are many victims' rights sites for discussing crime victims, and such discussions are better taken there.

    Ok, it's official (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    Untold Story back.

    You are not only brilliant, but also kind (none / 0) (#47)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    To be honest, I am addicted to your site!  So many articles on subjects not explored in the national media - the flow of language - the straight forward facts - truly commendable.

    If you can suffer through this foreigner with poor English - I will try to do better and not be so confusing!


    Don't Worry (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    Good english is not a pre requisite. I am native and, less than stellar regarding "good english"... lol

    Anyway, I agree with your assessment of TL, and Jeralyn, BTD is also great..

    nice to have you here.


    Buckle your seat belts (none / 0) (#50)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Been reading about this Rafael Rey Rey, Minister of Defense in Peru.  

    He is a very close friend of Flores.  Many ministers of defense in various countries have gone on to become presidents, prime ministers, what have you.  Peru is no different.  At this time Flores is not running for office of any kind but it is suspected that when Rafael Rey runs, Flores would be close behind and appointed to a ministry post.

    At this time, strangely enough - another coincidence if you will -

    this spring (late March, early April) Rafael Rey has come under lots of fire due to his purchasing of Chinese made tanks rather than the former ones from Russia.  However, a problem arose with delivery (he had made payment). The Ukraine made certain parts and would not give China permission to export so no delivery was made.  

    Then, some mix-up with Rafael Rey purchasing anti-tank missiles from Israel.  Again, paid for without testing which created a flap.  The first testing was a failure.  The US is involved in this also, but I don't know how exactly.

    Rafael wants this armory for counterinsurgency fighting against the remnants of the Shining Path guerrillas in western Peru (believe it is western?).

    So the point is, lots of politics, lots of mistakes, lots of enemies --

    Flores being a friend and a benefactor from Rafael Rey's possible rise up the political ladder puts both himself and his family up for scurtiny, including his daughter who was becoming known as a gambler (not acceptable of a minister-to-be's family).

    Now, please, I am not saying this is now a worldwide conspirary of any of that sort whatsoever.  

    However, I do find it interesting that so much behind the scenes politics is going on at this time involving the Flores family.

    One interesting item that caught my eye was the wearing of sunglasses at Stephany's family - all except for the brother that identified her body (for the family).  An analogy was made to a mafia hit wherein a family attacked would wear something identical to indicate they got the message.  In this case, they did not see the remains and, thus, would not retaliate.

    The bottom line here is that Flores has great influence in Peru.  My opinion of some unknown Dutchman getting a fair trial or not would not be of any significance.  Possibly not getting a fair just might be at number one if it were felt that such person committed the murder, or, if a more appropriate time is required for retaliation of the real murderers.

    Just thoughts, not facts of any sort, but interesting nonetheless, my opinion.


    Why? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    It wasn't a secret that Flores' father ran for office and has money and runs in those circles.  This is not a hidden item that is just coming out - this was known way before she was murdered.

    Maybe it will have an impact, but maybe it won't.  Van Der Sloot deserves a fair trial - but that means fair from both sides.  


    picture (none / 0) (#100)
    by pac on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    Untold Story:

    I saw the picture with the sunglasses and your story is interesting

    things could get sort of boring without you


    jbindc - Fair from both Sides? (none / 0) (#52)
    by kasey9 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    Fair from both sides (means what?)

    It certainly does not seem fair that The Flores family - The father especially - from his initial television appearance held up a photograph of Joran Van Der Sloot and called him a "murderer" simply because he was the last known person with his daughter.

    It honestly does not seem that Joran Van Der Sloot has been treated fairly from by the Peruvian Police either.  They have chosen to replay continuous clips of chosen video portrays him as entering the room with Flores and leaving alone...nobody has yet to see continuous non stop video non edited video and confirm that it is in fact an authentic video. We also know the maid or receptionist had entered the room, where is that clip? We saw the police opening his lap top on video (without a warrant), we hear the sketchy details about the coerced confession.

    Where is the presumption of innocence that is guaranteed under Perus constitution?

    Fair from both sides? The only unfair side, in my opinion is the side of Joran Van Der Sloot.

    Fair from both sides (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    As in any trial, means that all the evidence is looked at by the three judge panel and the case is adjudicated fairly.  You complain that you haven't seen the whole video - well, you aren't supposed to at this point.  You haven't seen other evidence either - no one has. Everyone here is making assumptions based on what they read on this blog, or what few reports are getting out and being filtered through translations.  No one here on this blog, or at CNN, or anywhere else, really knows all of what evidence there is, or isn't at this point.

    Do I know if JVDS is guilty?  No - because I haven't seen all the evidence.

    In the general sense, in American courts, a fair trial for both sides, for example, would be with a jury who could weigh both sides of the case and judge accordingly.  Not convicting someone just because they've been arrested, but also, not holding the prosecution to the impossible standard of "guilty beyond all doubt" (which is not the standard).  I only mention this because we have people here who have commented that they would have a hard time finding someone guilty if they were on a jury, because basically, they go in assuming the government hasn't played fair and the defendant is being railroaded.  The system can't work that way and it isn't fair.  

    Sorry - I just cringe when the first thing anyone assumes is that JVDS isn't going to get a fair trial.  I don't know that and you don't know that.  If you always assume someone won't get a fair trial, the system breaks down.

    My opinion - with the whole world watching this case and reporting on this case, JVDS will get the most fair trial in Peruvian history and many breaks will go the defense's way.


    jbindc: Many Breaks will go Defenses Way... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kasey9 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    Thats an odd statement considering Judge Wilder Casique Alvizuri rejected Joran Van der Sloot's habeas petition...I wouldn't call that a good start to what your opinion/statement of: "many breaks will go the defense's way".

    Of course the judge did (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 07:12:07 AM EST
    Did you really think otherwise?

    1. JVDS was never just going to be "let go".  It seems that there is enough other evidence to hold him and let this go to trial.  From the same reports that you are looking at and seeing conspiracy theories, there also seems to be enough evidence that tracks with his confession.

    2. JVDS has a Dutch passport.  If he was let go, do you think he'd stick around in Peru waiting for a trial?  I know I wouldn't.

    What do you think happens to JVDS if the judge throws out the confession and lets him go?  My guess is, since he is the prime suspect in both the Natalee Holloway case and the Stephany Flores murder, he ends up face down in a river with a bullet in his head.  If he is truly innocent - is that what you want to happen?

    habeas petition (none / 0) (#80)
    by kasey9 on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    If the judge approved the habeas petition, it would mean the confession gets thrown out, It does not mean that if it was approved that Joran would be let out of jail and free...You should go back through Jeralyns posts and read the inforamtion on the habeas petition

    I know what it is (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    But the judge did not find a legal reason to throw out the confession, especially as there were witnesses to the confession.

    Now, if someone here knows something more than the judge in the case and a legal reason that the judge did not take into consideration, I would love to hear that.


    Strange family statements (none / 0) (#54)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 08:54:31 PM EST
    and some are simply not true.  

    She is wearing her watch and ring in the crime scene photos, yet, the father keeps saying Joran stole her jewelry.  

    There is no evidence of drug rape wrappers in her car, which the father stated immediately were found.  No date rape drug was found in her system in the toxicology report.

    The father gave her $1,000 (he says) on Friday and expects her to have it on her when found, knowing she had been gambling most of the time since he last saw her on Friday.

    Strange, she lived at home - yet, it is Wednesday before they contact the casino.  They claim they knew she was playing in the poker tournament - so why not contact the casino earlier, say Friday night or Saturday, when she didn't return home instead of claiming they had called the police as they thought she was kidnapped and we are supposed to believe were just waiting for a phone call re ramson.

    According to the brother who went to identify the body, her face was not recognizable due to the severe beating, including one of her eyes being dislodged. No other family members viewed the body. Yet, Elton, who claims he has seen her three times, can identify her from her death photo!  

    We know the brother's statement isn't true and must have been done for inflamatory and sensational PR purposes.  Strange behavior when a loved one is dead.  

    There is also the fully clothed statement, done probably at the request of the father to protect her innocence, in my opinion.

    We have her mother making strange comments, such as she was not a prostitute, she was a good girl.

    It is a maze to me as to what the casino knew and who they told what when -

    Seems Blake advised the casino the night before that Joran, a murderer, was in their midst. He went to the head of the poker tables to give this alert.

    Then Elton asks the manager of the casino to call Joran at the hotel (a good point was made - why wouldn't he have called himself since it was the same hotel where he was staying and, therefore, would know the number).  He apparently speaks to the manager of the casino.  

    The Flores family also notified the casino (but when in sequence to Elton) and viewed the tapes to see Stephany leave with Joran.  They seem to have contact with the owner who is a family friend.

    The casino didn't seem that large a place in the photos.  Surprising all these inquiries were made, yet a connection didn't seem to be made among a small staff (one would think) within the casino.  

    The father said the first day, he didn't want the death penalty just life in prison.

    How can this possibly be a fair trial for JvDS?  He has one attorney - someone keeps referring to his attorneys.  There is only one brave soul to fight the good fight for justice.  His family is in hiding and his own life threatened.  He probably is a marked man.

    My opinion only.



    Right (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:02:18 PM EST
    We are getting bits and pieces of what is true , and what we are getting here in the US is compounded by being "lost in translation" and the lack of a nuanced view of the Peruvian justice system.  Contradictory statements, people rushing to release information they shouldn't, etc.  That's why we should be skeptical of everything we hear right now - including wild theories of how Natalee Holloway's mother somehow orchestrated this to other poker players "luring" him to Peru (that sounds so sinister, as opposed to say, "asking him to come play poker").

    We can speculate all we want, but we really know nothing and anyone who thinks they really know the whole story at this point (besides JVDS) is sorely mistaken.  


    jbindc: (none / 0) (#58)
    by kasey9 on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    We know that it was in fact Beth Twittys private funds that the FBI did the wire transfer with, we could see that in the affadavit that was released by the FBI.  (I believe Jeralyn or someone had posted the link for the affadavit on this site somewhere, if not search it online it should pop up).

    So, Beth Twitty was essentially setting Joran Van Der Slot up, with her extortion plot...and after that, nothing would surprise me!


    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:27:37 PM EST
    According to the FBI affidavit, and confirmed by the DOJ spokesman, it was JVDS that contacted the cooperating witness (presumably Kelly), offering to provide information and the location of NH's body in exchange for $250,000.

    It wasn't her extortion plot, ...

    ... it was his.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    Just like the Liberty City Seven who "initiated" contact with "Mohammed", in order to con him out of $50,000.

    I seriously doubt that the plan was initiated by Joran. Just because he took the bait does not mean he came up with the idea.


    doesn't mean that (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:05:00 PM EST
    Joran didn't contact Kelly after someone else (like a Holloway detective) reached out to Joran and told him to.

    If that's true (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 07:16:12 AM EST
    Then that person should also be charged in the extortion plot.

    Why? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    Is there any evidence ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 07:40:37 AM EST
    ... that someone initiated the contact with JVDS?  Anything is always possible, but I'd prefer to work from best available information.

    why (none / 0) (#60)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:08:47 PM EST
    do you think JvDS knows the whole story?

    Is it another coincidence (none / 0) (#56)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    that Eliot and the family are contacting the casino at about the same time to find Stephany?

    can't fathom (none / 0) (#59)
    by pac on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:59:32 PM EST
    Somehow it is easy for me to listen to what Mrs. VDS says, assume she will be less likely to over accuse ? probably anyway, and most likely to have a better grip on some of the other aspects.

    Yes, in theory it could be this or that or the other and go on all night. Or, it could be just what appears. The fact is reading news articles assuming guilt, such as the one posted earlier about Mr. VDS and others, is not how I was raised to think so? sort of shocked reading definite guilts about others without some kind of proof.

    One truth in the news article posted earlier, Joran can get people dizzy with the baffle!  

    Exactly what happened in Aruba is still unclear to me. The fact that Natalee's brother didn't move toward an intensified possibility, such as the recent, encouraging yet surprising.

    As for Mrs. Twitty, I never felt she was involved in anything to do with murder and don't remember reading much to indicate anyone else with a serious theory. It's difficult to rule out the possibility she might have felt like it at one time or another.

    Mrs. VDS "can't fathom" about covers the territory for me.

    Anita (none / 0) (#61)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:25:41 PM EST
    This mother is in emotional grief and what she is saying at this stage cannot be relied upon.

    Unfortunately, she may have had to give the tv interview in order to help pay for a somewhat better defense for Joran than what was being tossed at him by the state.

    Despite all the rumors to the contrary, the Van der Sloot family were never well-off.  They were average middle class.  Paulus was a lawyer training to be a judge.  Anita an art teacher.  They were well respected, but not rich.

    Hence, Anita can't fly off to Peru in a private jet and stay there for a couple of months gratis of some hotel.  She is still teaching and has two other children to take care of.  

    She seems to be a dedicated, but an emotionally distraught mother at this time and should be respectfully left to mourn the death of her husband and this present grief of her son Joran lost in a Peruvian prison.



    What I'd like to know is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    who is the guy in the green and white striped shirt playing poker at the table with Joran and Stephany. He enters and sits at the same time as Joran, he's talking to Joran and Stephany during the game, they get up to leave at the same time, but he stands around, Joran leaves and returns and shakes his hand goodbye. Surely the police would want to interview him, but there's no mention of it. He would know why they left the casino together and probably a lot more.

    It could be Elton Garcia, but I don't think so, he seems stockier and the shirt doesn't seem his style. It could also be Erick Cabrera, who supposedly was at the casino that night. (News article here, saying he was at the casino and had not been interviewed.) Here's another photo of Cabera at the tournament, and another. I don't think it's him, he's too stocky. Another one he resembles a little is Carlos Herrera. I think someone should be able to recognize him.

    The videos are here and here.

    Oh, and here's a photo of the opening reception at the restaurant that Elton said he missed seeing Stephany and Joran at. Seems pretty crowded.

    I was wondering the same thing? (none / 0) (#75)
    by AlohaMade on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 04:51:03 AM EST
    I mean if Joran told police he had one friend in Peru, Elton Garcia , he sure was chatty with him during the game. I have watched this video a hundred times, so I could isolate each persons actions. Not only does he seem to know this guy, but if you watch closely, he says something to Joran, and his tips up slightly, as Stephany approaches, thats when you see Joran turn around and gives her the handshake. Also while Stephany is cashing in her chips, that other guy with the black jacket walks up to Joran, talks briefly, and shakes his hand?

    I was wondering also, if EG was working for the FBI, or even as a private investigator, maybe he had the casino call the hotel, so that his cover wasn't revealed? maybe he was concerned for Stephany, that might explain his unusual interest in Joran? Roberto Blades mentioned Joran was asking poeople where he might meet some women. Who knows he may have had conversations with Elton about meeting women too? I had an idea, maybe EG made friends with JVDS, as a way to aquire his phone number, so he could follow him by cell phone tower pings. What I would be interested in, is when he actually checked out of the hotel? He was registered to play in the LAPT tounament June 2-5.Was he still registered at Tac hotel? I find it odd that he showed up at the hotel, the same day as police discovered Stephany. I cannot believe the police didn't detain him for more questioning, since his conversation with them was vague, but informative.
      If there was an entity inveolved with tracking Joran, for the extortion case, do you feel that Joran knew, and maybe he thought Stephany was involved, so this could have been a motive? I read that his mother said, she talked with Joran just before the murder, and he sounded paranoid, and even said people were following him. I would be curious of the exact date and time of that call.
      Also you being a defence attorny, do you feel Maximo Altez is advising his client well, or do you feel he needs to find other council. I am concerned, because at first he was getting death threats and said he was no longer representing him, then he changes his mind? To me, I fear he is getting paid to advise his client to look bad in the eyes of the court, which could damage Jorans right to a fair trial, what is your opinion?
    Mahalo Nui Loa!


    oops (none / 0) (#76)
    by AlohaMade on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 04:52:38 AM EST
    I didn't mean to imply that the guy at the table is EC

    Mr. Kelly (none / 0) (#68)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:06:16 AM EST
    Regardless of the other,

    As opposed to the police setting up a sting and that being another story, did Mr. Kelly live up to the lawyer's creed? The Lawyers Creed: To the opposing parties and their counsel, I offer fairness, integrity, and civility.

    Fairness, Mr. Kelly's approach was directed to a person sued civily rather than an attorney...

    Integrity? Mr. Kelly misrepresented his reason for the interview and hid his true motive which was based on trickery and deciet.

    Civility? Mr. Kelly labeled Joran as an obvious "ice cold psychopath" , reported by the press.

    oh (none / 0) (#69)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:41:56 AM EST
    Also meant to ask did Mr. Kelly go outside the scope of his profession diagnosing Joran and ....
    yet at the same time tamper with the emotions of someone who he "believed" was mentally abnormal?

    Yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by AlohaMade on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 04:58:28 AM EST
    very good question pac!

    believed (none / 0) (#70)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:44:46 AM EST
    excuse me  believed in quotation in my other post regarding Mr. Kelly is intended for emphasis and not quote.

    I should ask if Mr. Kelly tampered with the emotions of someone who he is reported as saying he 'believed' was mentally abnormal, regardless he isn't qualified to diagnois.

    ? blunder (none / 0) (#71)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:58:47 AM EST
    Do you think Mr. Kelly could have had any second thoughts about giving someone he considered an "ice cold psychopath" money, much less tampering with the emotional aspect?  Could the possibly unethical tampering by Mr. Kelly have been a blunder leading to a meltdown of someone he called an "ice cold psychopath" or? at least a contributing factor to some degree?

    I don't know all this about Mr. Garcia paying Joran's way and so on. No evidence.

    Re: ? bunder (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jjaks on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    I'm curious as to why you believe Joran van der Sloof had a meltdown?

    question (none / 0) (#72)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 01:30:55 AM EST
    I'm wondering if the FBI might have reported Kelly to the Bar Association in order to keep him from setting any other "psychopaths" loose with money?

    answers (none / 0) (#73)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 03:18:58 AM EST
    Okay, enough about Mr. Kelly but, with all due respect, his actions should be given scrutiny?

    Having enjoyed much time at the site recently!, I must attend to immediate needs but will check back for updates.

    Somehow I suspect that Jeralyn will get to the bottom of a lot! of what is unanswered at this time. Good luck!  A lot of people are hoping for  answers.

    awww (none / 0) (#74)
    by AlohaMade on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 04:09:30 AM EST
    I will miss you pac, hope everything is okay? I always look forward to your blog's. Please respond to my post's when you check in so I know you are ok. God Bless, and Aloha

    anyone a clue? (none / 0) (#85)
    by pac on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    Okay, here I am again.

    Although due to Joran's confession it appears to me that Stephany's murder is probably what it appears, and what his confession states, after a little searching there are some aspects that could lead to question otherwise.

    Please keep in mind that my knowledge is that people were present during the confession and that the answers that Joran gave were not a result of suggestions or by given a choice or??  In other words, I do not know how to evaluate why he would give a false confession, or if he really had his head shoved against an elevator, for example, or how specifics come about in a false confession? Also, the video...

    But, having always thought that Jossy Mansur almost appeared to have an agenda with reporting the disappearance of Natalee and that I now searched and found the Mansur name listed along with Chinese mafia in some respect, there is a curious element to all of this in spite of what appears obvious. Also, the fact that Jossy Mansur reputation online reading is not so good why he, out of character or not? wanted to be such an upfront helpful soul in some situations? but?

    While I do not buy into a conspiracy theory easily, the finding, which many of you probably already knew, just sort of an interesting notice considering the timing and other coincidences.

    With all of that said, reading Joran's confession and watching the video is convincing.

    There is an area of the confession which someone noted on a previous post about Stephany having her pants removed and having noticed that Joran somehow admitted taking them off? but couldn't remember why?  At other times I read that Stephany had all of her clothes on so?  

    Is it just that there is all of the drug mob looking surroundings which have nothing to do with the fact that what happened is Joran, who normally wouldn't look as criminal as the others, murdered Stephany. Plus, all of this taking place during Joran's need for various stories and confessions?

    Please excuse my lengthy question but I have followed this and would like to finish processing with need to travel soon for a while without internet time.


    Have safe travels (none / 0) (#86)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    Will miss you posts in your absence.

    Jossy Mansur - wow - what does he ever say of value?  He, imo, comes across as less than credible and seems to have his own agenda.

    Pants removed - don't think it has much merit other than, again, imo, perhaps honoring the father's wishes that his daughter's name not be twisted in a sexual encounter with Joran in his hotel room.

    She was found in her red panties - her jeans seem to be one drop or so of blood and only in one area.

    What difference does it make to anyone, other than the Flores family so politically connected, whether in fact she had sex with Joran or not?

    There seems to be too much detail on that front - the last is that she had her menses for the finale to her not having engaged in sex.  

    (Then there is strange comment by her mother that she is not a prostitute - who would ever think she was - does the mother think her having sex with Joran would make her a prostitute?  Again, I read the mother made this comment but cannot verify if, in fact, she actually made such a statement.)

    But, what about oral sex - and, again, it doesn't matter at all if she did or didn't engage in sex of any kind.

    So, my point is, I am not giving much value to the two stories of being fully clothed and found in red panties. My opinion is it is done out of respect.

    Which brings us to Joran's clothes - again.  What pants did Joran wear to the casino that night/morning - looks like his jeans to me - but don't know.  They are dark.

    He seems to have left the hotel in his jeans - had he removed them also - but such a small room -how would it be possible for them to be without blood if we are to believe the reconstructing of the crime as stated in his so-called confession?

    Again, all this is only my thoughts, questions, and opinons - do not know, do not have facts, but a strong feeling that things may well be not what they appear to be.


    Re: Have safe travels (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jjaks on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    In joran's 6/6 confession, he explains the bedsheets and said he took off Stephany's shoes and pants. He also says what he wore on 5/30 and what clothes he left in. He tossed away one of his bags, gave clothes/items in lieu of money payments to the men who assisted him in Peru and Chile.
    Why did he take her shoes and pants off? Was it instinctive? Was it to put her on the bed to make it appear as if she were sleeping as he'd told the desk not to bother her as she was sleeping? Was he looking for a hidden camera, mic or both? Hmmm........Very interesting as to why he took those particular item off.

    Re: Have safe travels (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jjaks on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    In joran's 6/6 confession, he explains the bedsheets and said he took off Stephany's shoes and pants. He also says what he wore on 5/30 and what clothes he left in. He tossed away one of his bags, gave clothes/items in lieu of money payments to the men who assisted him in Peru and Chile.
    Why did he take her shoes and pants off? Was it instinctive? Was it to put her on the bed to make it appear as if she were sleeping as he'd told the desk not to bother her as she was sleeping? Was he looking for a hidden camera, mic or both? Hmmm........Very interesting as to why he took those particular items off.

    John Q. Kelly (none / 0) (#87)
    by AlohaMade on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    Today I read the transcript on MSNBC that Chris Hansen has with John Q. Kelly, and found it very interesting. I just thought I would recomend it to those, whom had questions about him, I saw a few on earlier posts. Just an FYI.
    p.s. my Mother brought it to my attention, since I do not have cable. She said it aired lastnight.

    Untold Story good to see you posting again!

    He's the Holloway's lawyer (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 01:05:27 AM EST
    and anything he says is going to be slanted in their favor. And if the idea for Joran to contact Kelly did originate with the detectives, they may not have told him.

    I think there's a real possibility there's a much greater role of the Holloway detectives in all this that hasn't come out yet. This may all irrelevant to who killed Stephany Flores, but it's an interesting part of the bigger picture.

    Joran's lawyer is asking that Joran's confession be tossed because he wants to tell it again, from scratch. He's obviously got more details he wants them to hear, and I suspect that the role of the detectives, Elton Garcia and maybe even Stephany are part of it.