Peru Reports Joran Van der Sloot Has Confessed to Killing Stephany Flores

El Comercio.pe is reporting Joran Van Der Sloot has confessed to killing Stephany Flores. [Google translation here.] Keep in mind the Google translations are very poor.

The motive, according to the report: When he came back from getting coffee, she was examining his computer looking for information about Natalee Holloway, he got angry, snapped, grabbed her and killed her. The report says she died instantly.

The video is in Spanish, but it includes photos of the hotel room and what purports to be Stephany's body on the floor, fully dressed. (Would they show that, or is it a re-enactment?) She's fully dressed.

NBC now repeating the story here, which it says it got from La Republica here (Google translation here.) [More...]

Earlier today, the head of Peru's prison system said Joran would not be sent to Lurigancho or San Jorge prisons (Google translation here)as they were over-crowded. He said Miguel Castro Castro or, as we reported this morning, Piedras Gordas is more likely. Other possibilities: Carquín en Cañete o Aucayama en Huaral.

La Republica says he denied involvement until 5:30 pm today. Is anyone else skeptical about this confession?

Had robbery been the motive, he was looking at life. Without it, it was a maximum of 35. If it's manslaughter, like if he just snapped and lost it, it might only be 6 to 20 years, according to a Peruvian lawyer. They've had days to convince him that their justice system works differently and he'd get life unless he confessed and gave a "heat of passion" explanation, in which case he might get as little as 6 and up to 35, but not life. Sounds like they plea bargained with him and helped him come up with the best possible explanation. Who chose the Peruvian lawyer who was with him during todsy's questioning? The prosecutor. That's how their system works.

The prison director says they'll be sure to keep Joran safe. Sure they will, but for how long? A week, until everyone forgets about him and moves on to the next crime, and the world is no longer watching?

He never stood a chance in Peru, which is probably why I've been covering it so closely. If the process is not going to be fair, at least we can try to make it transparent.

All of coverage of the Peru case is accessible here.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Blagojevich Opening Arguemts to Begin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Now there's an explanation/motive (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 11:42:35 PM EST
    no one mentioned here, to my knowledge.

    I think this suspect looks kind of like Matt Damon in "The Amazing Mr. Ripley."  

    Didn't connect the dots (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:01:39 AM EST
    We had the computer, the angry outburst, the 'had to be quick if it was after the coffee', the 'she was looking for something', and of course the most obvious thing, Natalee Holloway.

    you're right, no one mentioned it (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:12:12 AM EST
    anywhere, it's out of left field. And the only person who could refute it is dead.

    She didn't need his computer to look up Natalee Holloway, she could have done that on any computer.

    And it doesn't explain why she went to his room in the first place. It wasn't for sex, so why? We still don't know, there's just a bunch of conflicting reports.


    My (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:14:56 AM EST
    impression is not that she was googling but that she was looking in his personal files on his computer for something about Natalee.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#31)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:53:53 AM EST
    (she was looking in his personal files on his computer for something about Natalee) was how I read it also.

    Alleged extortionist encounters (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:21:21 AM EST
    wannabe extortionist?  She was clearly a risk taker, comfortable in the world of high stakes poker.  

    Doesn't pass the laugh test (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 11:56:30 PM EST
    If she knew about Natalee Holloway, she wouldn't have gone to his room alone with him.

    Not to mention the idea that he had info about Natalee on a computer five years later is idiotic.

    If this story is accurate (and I'm dubious) it's another example of Joran's chronic inability/unwillingness to tell the truth.  But motive doesn't matter much here.  Also, a guy with as much imagination as he has could surely have come up with a more exculpatory story than this.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    I'm sure girls that know who he is have been alone with him in the last five years. Why she would have thought there would be anything on the computer, I have no idea. Maybe he told her he was selling fake information to the Holloways.

    I guess the speculation will continue....


    Hey (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    OJ continued to have girlfriends, women wrote (and even married!) at least one of the Menendez brothers, Scott Peterson has had women write to him and possibly visit him.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:51:08 AM EST
    There's still inconsistencies regarding Elton Garcia. He gambled with both Stephany and Joran. When questioned why he had Joran's number in his cell phone memory, he couldn't explain, said it was unintentional. Said he really didn't know Joran, only by sight, although he saw Stephany and Joran playing poker at the casino.

    It was Garcia who asked the casino manager either to review the tapes or to call the hotel and find out what happened to Joran when Joran failed to show for dinner. If he didn't know Joran, why did he have plans made 2 days in advance to meet him at a specific restaurant for dinner? He  told the police he got the casino manager involved because said he was afraid Joran and Stephany might have been kidnapped. He was staying at Joran's hotel, why couldn't he ask? Or did he suspect Joran because of Holloway and contact Stephany's family and tell them who Joran was?

    Even more inexplicable, when the prosecutor asked Joran during the interrogation if he had any friends in Peru, he replied "one" and named Elton Garcia. Why would he name someone he didn't know as a friend? The whole thing with Garcia makes no sense and I don't think we're getting the whole story.

    And when will they release video of Joran going out to get coffee that shows the clothes he's wearing?

    I find it distasteful to blame the murdered girl. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by mexboy on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 04:05:10 AM EST
    As a couple of posters have done here.

    The truth is nobody knows what happened, yet. It is just as likely that he did do it.

    The video report says when he came back from buying the coffee he caught her looking at information regarding Natalie on his computer. He slapped her around and broke her neck.

    If they were going to drink coffee then they were most likely going to stay up. Maybe waiting for the banks to open as Jeralyn suggests? But can't you do transactions online anytime? I do. They are processed the next day.

    I read her dad had given her money to buy a computer. Did she ever have one? If she saw his laying around wouldn't she be curious and maybe open it and turn it on. Could he have misinterpreted her actions and flown into a rage?

    People love technology, Just read how exited Jeralyn is with her new Ipad. I'm a total geek and love computers and anything apple.

    I respect the job defense attorneys do, but I am puzzled by some of the posts in this case. It seems that some posters are looking at anything to prove him innocent instead of finding the truth.

    This is my opinion and I don't know if he did do it or not.

    Amen brother. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    One thing I never understand about the law is why, instead of the two sides yelling 'obviously innocent no matter what and the victim brought it on and by the way these stupid advocates against abuse are always making stuff up' OR 'obviously guilty no matter what and cut their head off', people aren't actually interested in, well, truth.

    As an outsider to the law, it seems like a silly, non-reality-based charade to me and really turns me off to both sides.

    I don't see why either side can't be more circumspect and reality-based. While I certainly understand and support presumption of innocence, the lengths to which the truth is distorted and/or wild speculation is thrown out for distraction sometimes is a real turnoff to people like me.

    I just don't get the whole approach.


    Unfortunately, it is (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    the elephant in the living room that anyone familiar with the area has been thinking, but just haven't mentioned. This was his second day in interrogation at that place. He could have been tortured. This may have been just enough to stop the interrogation. Even if it didn't make sense, it's a confession they wanted and they would probably take it.

    It's also quite understandable if it is in any way true. If he has been duping the journalists because of the reason I suggested (he is enraged because they won't leave him alone and they won't believe he is innocent), then this makes sense. It was a double emotional whammy for him, and he lost it, like when he threw the drink in the journalist's face. She played him. She was doing some free-lance detective work like so many law-and-order types nowadays, and she played his emotions just to get into his things and play detective. That could very easily make him snap, especially if what he was expecting was friendship or romance, and especially if she was leading him on heavily. He was hoping for a human connection, and he got more of the same old crap that he must be so very tired of.

    This is sad. If this is true, I hope he gets every break allowed for it being a clearly understandable fit of passion -- maybe not justified, but certainly provoked. She violated him in a very personal way. Who wouldn't be devastated?

    Man, you really should (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:38:33 AM EST
    take up novel-writing (said in genuine admiration, as well as a teeny bit of exasperation...)

    I won't try to (none / 0) (#23)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:33:01 AM EST
    steal oculus's thunder, but I actually did think of a version of this explanation. My idea was that she teased him and then, just when he thought he was getting somewhere, she started in with the same old "where is Natalee you scumbag" stuff that he must be so tired of and probably enraged by. Of course, what doesn't fit with that is exactly what you mentioned -- she would have had backup somewhere close. It would be dangerous and she likely would have been prepared. If it happened the way it is explained currently, she probably didn't plan to get caught. She was just going to see what she could find, or what she could find out, before he caught on that she was manipulating him and simply spying.

    Again, this is speculation which is heavily qualified with the "IF" of how this actually happened. It is true that Stephany can't defend herself, and she is a crime victim no matter what. That deserves respect, as does her family's pain. What a nightmare. I can only think of my daughter the same age. I am in no way suggesting she deserved what she got. Nobody deserves that.

    At the same time, this all draws attention to an important perspective of crime and justice lost to us in today's media-driven attitudes. The conservative revolution with its myopic view of crime won't allow us to see bigger pictures. We are forced to think of criminals and victims as qualitatively different -- almost as different species. Criminals are bad through and through, and victims are infinitely innocent and angelic. It is like the caricatures that Bill Clinton complained about. Our current popular attitudes don't take into account that victims are sometimes not very nice people, and sometimes contribute to their own victimization with the cruel things they do to those who victimize them. Sometimes criminals are in understandable pain, and even their most despicable acts are somehow comprehensible and not outside the scope of humanity. What we have lost, in our current perspective, is the view that people commit crimes. We sometimes know why they do it, and sometimes we don't. But it is clear that to say that they commit crimes because they are criminals is begging the question, and violates good reasoning.

    I reiterate that this is sad. I think I want to leave the subject now. Thanks for the conversation, and thanks for sharing your thoughts with me through this story that bears all the elements of our tragic human condition. My thoughts and prayers are with Stephany's family. And with Joran's mother.


    Don't blame the victim (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 08:35:54 AM EST
    maybe not justified, but certainly provoked. She violated him in a very personal way.
    This would seem to support abusive behavior and date rape defenses. 'It was her fault she turned him on with her skimpy dressing'. In other words, no matter what she was doing, and I had previously said she was looking for something (I was thinking money)when he returned with the coffee, there was no excuse for someone ending up dead. He just went into a rage. That is why there are so many battered women's shelters. Of course, assuming all the current information is accurate.

    TLers personally offended (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    In some minds he's got to be innocent, he just has to be.  The personal offense that he isn't seems absurd.

    It's all society's fault.  It's a fake confession.   He's a liar when he says he did it, the police are corrupt, it was tortured out of him, blah, blah, blah.... but yeah, blaming the victime is particularly sad.


    A woman is dead (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    I don't care what she was doing, outside of holding a gun to his head or training it on him and he had to defend himself when confronted with his own probable death....there is no acceptable excuse for killing her.  

    I was serious about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    leaving the subject, and this will be my last comment, but it surely deserves a response because you have quoted me and you have made my argument.  And I will respond to the kind of rhetoric I was criticizing to begin with, taken up again without so much a acknowledging my point.  We are almost to the end of your type of reasoning in criminal justice, and it was this kind of exaggerated black-and-white thinking I was specifically talking about.  I never said -- in fact, I expressly denied -- that she deserved her fate.  And I am not "blaming the victim". You glossed over that like it wasn't there. "Blaming the victim" is a term that arose in social science to denote social attitudes toward oppressed groups in which the misfortune of those groups is attributed to their own moral degeneracy or other shortcomings. It usually doesn't apply to individual crimes, and it certainly doesn't apply here. I am not "blaming the victim".

    The only sense I can make of this is that our conspicuous "coincidence" of dates is due to Stephany to begin with. My suspicion -- and I think the meaning of the confession which has been lost in translation and will not be conveyed properly anyway -- is that Stephany did intentionally pretend to have a romantic or sexual interest in Joran for the purpose of getting close enough to him to find evidence that he killed Holloway or others.  This is different from "blaming the victim" where the victim is not doing anything to the victimizer -- where they are simply being who they are. She probably knew who he was, but he didn't know that. She may have done it under the rationale that she was supporting the cause of victimized women.  She may have intended to burn him, and used seduction to do it. That is different from the claim that violence or rape is justified by attraction, dress, or appearance. Much, much different. And I don't claim that her murder is justified, anyway, in any way.  I said it was wrong, but it made sense what enraged him.

    If what I suspect is what happened, then it shows the dangers of people playing police and taking justice into their own hands. We have too many people doing that nowadays. It shows the dangers of continuing to harass a person simply because you are convinced of his guilt, even if guilt hasn't been established. That is a job for professionals who are ostensibly detached and objective -- not for amateur social activists who have an interest and obsession with a case. If she was trying to find evidence on Holloway, or trying to find evidence that he had killed others, and she went to his room under the pretense of friendship or romance, then that is a dishonest and manipulative act -- an act in which Joran would have had an interest in and which would have been cruel to him. He was surely overly fatigued of the constant pestering about the Holloway case, and he wasn't thinking about it. He was thinking about what any typical 22 year-old would be thinking about. He was likely trying to make a human connection -- to establish some kind of intimacy with another person. Perhaps she used that vulnerability. Perhaps she turned out to be just another of the tens of thousands of anonymous people who hated him without knowing him, and he lost control.

    My summative point was that we have to start understanding that the line between victims and victimizers is not always so clear. Our view is artificial, and we portray victims as totally innocent and victimizers as totally guilty, without recognizing the specific facts that are very often more important.

    If what I suspect is true, Joran is guilty. He is guilty of second degree murder. He let rage get the better of his respect for human life. What I am saying is that he may have been helped along a little bit by someone who was doing something they really should not have been doing. If you want to paint me a victimizer or "victim blamer" for that, fine. But I am not. My point of view is not unreasonable. And I don't hate or blame victims. I just see most crimes as human tragedies where there are two stories, even if one of them is technically guilty. And I think we all should be able to see more of that.


    Please don't worry, James (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    No one is accusing you of anything.

    If I sounded like it before... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    It's just because there seemed to be an awful lot of embroidery  on very little data.

    There are a lot of ifs in your post (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by mexboy on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:14:46 PM EST
    "...He was likely trying to make a human connection -- to establish some kind of intimacy with another person. Perhaps she used that vulnerability. Perhaps she turned out to be just another of the tens of thousands of anonymous people who hated him without knowing him, and he lost control."

    And perhaps she was just an innocent victim who thought he was cool and friendly and they could hang out. And perhaps she was too tired to go home and he told her he would get some coffee so she wouldn't fall asleep at the wheel, and perhaps she saw the computer and was exited by it and wanted to play with it, and he saw her with it and flew into a rage and killed her.

    Or maybe he wanted sex and she didn't. He tried different approaches. Fist he sweet talked her but she didn't go for it, then he talked to her, tried to be charming, funny, playful and nothing. He finally tried the gentlemen approach, get her some coffee and get her to relax. When he came back, he tried to kiss her and she pushed him back and told him she was very clear about not being interested in sex with him, at which point he flew into a rage, feeling used and rejected, and slapped her around breaking her neck.

    You see, anyone can speculate about anything. We just don't know, so why the intense need to prove he's innocent before we know what happened? If you were the defense attorney on the case I'd completely understand and would say, bravo, good job.

    Again, I don't know if he did do it or not, and thank God people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But I think this is a bit lopsided.


    Here I come out of retirement again, (none / 0) (#112)
    by JamesTX on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    but you pose questions about my conjecture which I really should clarify. We have been sifting through a stream of bits and pieces of information on this for several days. My speculation follows a sort of cumulative interpretation of all those things. Granted, some interpretations could be wrong. But my picture is a picture that tries to force everything we know into one coherent picture.  No, I don't put much stock in the simple usual hypotheses like "she rejected him for sex and he got angry." There are many little facts that make that not very likely, although you are correct that I have no evidence. As far as the "intense need" to assume he is innocent, I believe my latest conclusion was that he is guilty. But yes, I do give him the benefit of the doubt. That is what I am doing here at Talk Left. I tend to side with the accused. Or maybe I just think he is cute! That is actually what has turned him into a media sensation and has half the world wanting him dead, and that isn't his fault either.

    You are very funny (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by mexboy on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:21:23 PM EST
    and gave me a genuine good laugh. (no snark)

    I am disheartened with the legal system being a game where most parties want to win, not necessary for the sake of justice, but for winning.  I think I saw a lot of it during the last few days and that bothered me.  A lot of my posts on this issue come from that unjust, in my opinion, angle.

    You did write you thought he was guilty on your last post and I'm with you that every accused person should be given the benefit of the doubt.

    You also make a good point about his good looks being a big part of why the world is so enthralled with him, especially in the "reality show" period we're going through.


    CNN Link - (none / 0) (#85)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    (CNN) -- Dutch media expressed concern Tuesday about the prospects of Joran van der Sloot getting a fair trial following his arrest in Peru over the death of a 21-year-old woman.

    Peruvian authorities say that Van der Sloot has already confessed to killing Stephany Flores Ramirez and could be charged on Tuesday. If convicted of murder he could face up to 35 years in jail.

    The case has attracted international attention because van der Sloot was twice arrested and released in connection with the disappearance of American teenager Natalee Holloway in Aruba in 2005.

    In a comment piece published on Tuesday morning before the alleged confession, Dutch newspaper Trouw warned that police and authorities in Peru were under "overwhelming pressure" from the media to condemn van der Sloot, as soon as possible, warning that his presumed guilt appeared to be a "foregone conclusion" which risked turning his case into a "show trial."

    "For Peru, Joran van der Sloot is principally a matter of prestige," the Web site said. "His rights and privacy are secondary to the country's desire to show off to the world with its handling of the Stephany Flores murder case."



    "He could have been tortured" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by LatinoDC on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    This is what I don't like about people who have no idea how the legal system works in other countries, but think (and argue it vocally) that since it is a developing country we are talking about, torture and other illegal practices anywhere in the world might take place.  You would never say this if this was all happening in the U.S.

    Disagree.. (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    we discuss terrorist suspects being tortured by US authorities all the time 'round here...we ain't picking on Peru, it's a reasonable question to raise....especially with reports he'd got a knot on his dome.

    Hitting your own head against a wall (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    Will tend to give you a bump on the head.

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    he didn't fall out of his bunk?...lol

    So does having your head (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    shoved against the wall of an elevator. Where's the video?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    Is it customary for the cops and prosecution (or the defense, in this case, if you are claiming a confession was coerced) to reveal it's entire case before he's arraigned?

    You mean like all of us here caught (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    up in this story, right?

    She was doing some free-lance detective work like so many law-and-order types nowadays

    She cannot defend herself. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:33:47 AM EST
    She violated him in a very personal way. Who wouldn't be devastated?

    I said, (none / 0) (#15)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:37:42 AM EST
    "If this is true..."

    It makes no sense. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:29:14 AM EST
    "I did not want to do it. The girl intruded into my private life," according to La Republica.

    This is getting kind of flakey. If he didn't want her intruding to his private life, he shouldn't have invited her into his room.

    According to others here, she seemed to be following him in reluctantly on the cameras. This doesn't sound like someone anxious to intrude.

    If she didn't know who he was, why would she go on his computer?

    If she did know who he was, she wouldn't even go to his room with him. And even if she had, she wouldn't go on his computer as soon as his back was turned. She would know that was dangerous.

    Why do it anyway, when you can get home to look stuff up in the privacy of your home?  Most people wouldn't want someone prowling on their computer, and most people wouldn't do it when there is even the tiniest chance they could get caught.

    There's no reason to do this, unless, as Jeralyn suggests, they were doing a bank transfer.


    I see all your points except for (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 05:46:51 AM EST
    I don't think she was necessarily using his computer to look on the Internet for information. You're right, why would she need to do thar? I think that, if the story is true at all, she was looking at his files on the computer.

    Why would SHE be on his computer then? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 07:31:58 AM EST
    The video shows that SHE won money in the casino that night - yet that money was missing.  Wouldn't HE have been the one on the computer making a bank transfer to HER??

    Huh? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    This is getting kind of flakey. If he didn't want her intruding to his private life, he shouldn't have invited her into his room.

    I think it has been well demonstrated that he is not a stable personality.


    Sounds like a plea deal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    and the cops came up with the story. According to a Peruvian lawyer, manslaughter carries only 6 to 20. Had they proved robbery as a motive, he was looking at life. Had it been a crime where he gained her confidence (like a date rape) it would have been a max of 35.

    I wonder if part of the deal is to plant stuff about Holloway on the computer, or force him to confess (credibly this time) to Holloway, so  Aruba can finally charge him with the Holloway disappearance and they'll agree to let him go serve that sentence at home. Stephany's father can continue talking about the new shared bond the families share and he's willing to let Aruba have him because the Holloways suffered longer.

    Sounds more plausible (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:35:16 AM EST
    but I think at least formal plea deals are impermissible under the Napoleonic code.  At least they were in the Netherlands/Aruba system, if Peru follows the same rules.

    But he surely knew he was cooked, and his Peruvian attorney surely told him about the different sentences.  He's a bright guy and is capable of figuring out the right story to tell if he has the info.  He went through a fair amount of this in Aruba with his dad coaching him.

    I'd be REAL surprised if the Peruvians would agree to letting him serve his sentence at home.  The public there is clearly in quite a frenzy about this murder.


    If they are planting stuff on the computer (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:14:28 AM EST
    I bet it is along the lines of evidence to support the extortion charges.

    Why on earth would they? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    Peru doesn't care about that.

    And the FBI got him good on the extortion anyway, on tape, so there's no need.


    a charge having no basis in fact or law: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 02:12:18 AM EST
    And the FBI got him good on the extortion anyway, on tape, so there's no need.

    unless i missed something, and he threatened the holloway family, no act of "extortion" occurred. so basically, the FBI has, well..................nothing, but a used bit of tape.


    The complaint is that he had threat control (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:12:05 AM EST
    of their property ie. Natalee's body and that he was using that to coerce payment. That is extortion under Alabama law. It is also, if true, disgusting and nothing to blow off so dismissively.

    um, yeah, good luck with that. (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    Natalee's body and that he was using that to coerce payment.

    out of curiousity, has anyone, in the entire history of alabama "law", ever actually been convicted under this statute? that aside, it is federal law that was the basis for the charge, not alabama law. the FBI agent cited the USC, not state law.

    were this actually extortion, everyone who's ever offered to provide their victim's location, in return for a plea bargain, should rightfully have been charged with extortion as well. they aren't.

    yes, if true, it would be disgusting, no argument there.

    the better charge would be fraud, offering to provide knowingly false information for pay.


    I wondered about that... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 07:02:44 AM EST
    Joran was blackmailing anyone so exactly how is selling his information "extortion"?  

    No threat needed (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    At least, no physical threat needed.  All you need is to induce fear - which, it could be argued, the feat that they wouldn't know what happened to Natalee by the one person in the world who knows.

    i believe (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    that the "fear" must be reasonable in nature, ie. that which any reasonable person, in similar circumstances, would feel.

    again, good luck with that. the charge, if it isn't withdrawn by the government, will be tossed by the judge.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:16:14 AM EST
    The police can be very convincing without a lawyer present. Not sure we will ever know what happened.

    Why did he refuse the Dutch lawyer? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    Or rather the lawyer the Dutch offered to provide (don't know if he was actually Dutch). I meant to ask that yesterday.

    I think the Dutch were only providing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:30:29 AM EST
    consular advice. There's a lot of conflicting reports, I think it went something like this: At first the Dutch said they wouldn't pay for a criminal defense attorney. Then they saw the perp walk and had second thoughts. By then, the public defender (who works in the prosecutor's office and is chosen by the prosecutor)and who can't stop the prosecutor from interrogating the suspect, was appointed and Joran said he wanted to get his own private Dutch (or Peruvian) lawyer, but before that could be done, by the end of the day, there's a confession.

    From the U.S. State Department report, March, 2010:

    The justice system is based on the Napoleonic Code. The prosecutor investigates cases and submits an opinion to a first instance judge, who determines if sufficient evidence exists to open legal proceedings. The judge conducts an investigation, evaluates facts, determines guilt or innocence, and issues a sentence. All defendants are presumed innocent; they have the right to be present at trial, to call witnesses, and to be represented by counsel, although in practice the public defender system often failed to provide indigent defendants with qualified attorneys. The Ministry of Justice provided indigent persons with access to an attorney at no cost, although these attorneys were often poorly trained.

    More here. I'm going to look for where I read the public defenders are appointed by the prosecutor and they work in the same office.


    If I remember right, he (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:37:11 AM EST
    wasn't satisfied with the Peruvian lawyer the Peruvians assigned to him, not the Dutch.  The Dutch so far have only said they would assist in finding him a Dutch lawyer, as he wanted.

    I could be behind, but that's what I remember.  I bet he's at least met with the Peruvian, though.


    The Dutch said (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 07:23:15 AM EST
    They would provide consular support for him, which means they'd have someone drop by every few days to check on him.  They said they were not paying for an attorney.

    So much for the vaunted socialist (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    safety net.  

    It doesn't explain (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:39:08 AM EST
    why she went to his room in the first place. Clearly, it wasn't for sex. I think the computer was intended to be used by one of them to engage in an online banking transaction. It was early Sunday morning, the banks wouldn't open until Monday.

    It sounds like one of them owed the other money after the poker game.

    In other words, it could be either she owed him money and promised to log onto her bank account back at his room and transfer some to him, or vice versa.  Maybe she refused and he lost it. Maybe he came back from coffee and she told him she forgot her password or the transaction wouldn't go through.

    I just don't believe it had anything to do with Natalee Holloway. The Holloway story sounds like a prelude to a global plea agreement where he gets out of Peru and back to Aruba, where he'd confess and be jailed. Peru may prefer that because it would take a lot of time, attention and money to keep him safe for a few decades. They don't need that. So they promise the Flores family Stephany's death did not go unpunished because it is resulting in him admitting Holloway and getting a long sentence in Aruba.

    Maybe I should save all this for a novel.

    She could have gone for the simple (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:57:12 AM EST
    reason of being tired and needing a place to crash. They had been playing poker etc together and it cold have been that simple. Where did she live in relation to where all this happened/they played poker?

    Seriously, crashing somewhere can just happen. Even on the loosest of knowing someone/relationship/time of knowing. Remember, they are in their wee 20's and hitting the gambling scene/late nights. Dawg knows I crashed in a few places back in the day, and my niece closer to their age has also. What happens after is all a roll of the dice.

    And yes, a novel would be nice. You might be able to get closer to the truth :) This is just too  "neat".


    What if she did not know him (none / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 07:24:03 AM EST
    as "Joran van der Sloot" until after she was in his room?  

    So she decided to do a little googling to find out about "Joran van der Sloot"


    Real people don't do that (none / 0) (#44)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    Nobody I know would ever, ever go on a near-stranger's computer without permission. It's just not done.

    If she had any idea who he was, she would have been especially uncomfortable doing anything to set such an unreliable person off.

    This just doesn't mesh with human nature.


    Why do you keep saying this? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    Clearly, it wasn't for sex.

    I mean, you might be right, but maybe she wanted to experiment.  Maybe she really was bi-sexual.  But we have no idea.  Maybe she wanted to try sex with a man, then changed her mind - maybe that's what really set him off.  Who knows?


    It sounds like one of them owed the other money after the poker game.
    As has been confirmed by kdog, by our resident TL gambling aficionado, it is highly unlikely that any party would extend credit to any other party in this type of casino gambling situation...

    There is a plausible... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    online transaction scenario, but a long shot...sometimes players will trade cash for a transfer of funds on an online poker site...like say one player is low on cash but has a flush bankroll on Pokerstars, another player flush with cash will do them a favor and trade cash for an equal or greater transfer of online funds to their Pokerstars account...it's a way for players to dodge atm or cc cash advance fees, or to load up their online account without fees.  

    More likely a sex, drugs, or simple "can I crash in your room?" type scenario brought the victim to Sloot's room.  Payment of a debt definitely just ain't plausible, imo.


    So on the anniversary of NH's death (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:45:52 AM EST
    he hooked up with a lesbian that cruised his computer for info about NH and killed her? And left a sloppy a** crime scene behind after leaving no trace of NH? Really?

    I'm sorry, I don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but this is just too pat . . . .

    Felony dumb. ("Alleged felon.") (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    from what i've read, (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 02:21:39 AM EST
    the crime scene was far from messy. it was, in fact, quite neat. no signs of struggle, no murder weapon, no blood spatter. in fact, nothing but a dead body to indicate that a crime may have been committed in that room. aside from that body, no forensic evidence of any kind, linking mr. van der sloot to the young lady.

    this is the "scott peterson" school of prosecution:

    throw in a lot of irrelevant items, and conclude that they inexorably lead to one person, who everyone already thinks is a scumbag. presto, conviction!

    Well said! (none / 0) (#29)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:12:43 AM EST
    the crime seen appears to be totally one hundred percent different then the media reported it to be.

    And (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 07:20:49 AM EST
    from what I've read and heard - it was the opposite.  Someone's head does not get bashed in where they are killed instantly and leave no trace.

    I don't buy his story either - it's too neat.  But I think he still killed her.  I think this is his weak attempt to look pitiful ("She was looking up bad stuff about me and I got mad!")  Uh huh.

    And the "Scott Peterson school of prosecution"? Really?  Funny that - he actually DID murder his wife and is probably a sociopath - so if that's supposed to be an insult, I'd say it's a job well done!


    Scott Peterson is (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    vigorously appealing his conviction. Yes, A jury found he killed his wife. As did the juries that convicted more than 200 people in this country who later were found factually innocent.

    to date, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    there is no physical or eyewitness evidence, entered into the official record, connecting scott peterson with the death of his wife. he was convicted of murder, not the same as being determined the actual perpetrator.

    go back, look at the record. then point to the evidence proving mr. peterson's guilt. being a scumbag isn't, by definition, mutually inclusive with being a murderer. unfortunately, his jury wasn't able to look at the facts and vote.

    that's not to say he isn't guilty, i have no idea, nor do you.


    Having followed that case (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    fairly closely, I was absolutely shocked at the verdict.  He may have done it, but I sure didn't see any convincing "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence at all.

    And you realize, of course (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    that  "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not, and never will be, "beyond ALL doubt".

    This wasn't even (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    close to beyond a reasonable doubt.  There was no evidence.

    Well (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    Since you or I or anyone else were not sitting in the jury box and only got the evidence presented second hand and filtered through the media, I would again respectfully disagree. 12 jurors thought so - you know how hard it is to convince 12 people to agree on lunch, let alone to convict someone of murder?  As much as people lament juries, for the most part, jurors take their jobs very seriously.

    So I guess you think that those 12 people were just dumb and couldn't figure out what had been before them - this trial and sentencing phase took 6 months.  Somehow I think they had a better view of the evidence than all of us sitting here on a blog, years removed.


    bear in mind, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    and this is critical: the medical examiner wasn't able to provide a cause of death, in the peterson case. unless you have some inside knowledge to the contrary, to date, no evidence that a murder even occurred has been presented by the state's own admission.

    the medical examiner works for the state, not the defendant. the state presented zero evidence proving either:

    a. mrs. peterson's death was a homocide., or

    b. that, if it was a homocide, mr. peterson had anything to do with it.

    the judge should never have allowed the case to go forward.

    again, if you have knowledge to the contrary, please do tell the rest of the class.


    You're right (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 04:05:48 PM EST
    ..no evidence that a murder even occurred has been presented by the state's own admission.

    She was found underwater, tied down with weights and her head was missing because the weight tied around her neck pulled it off.

    Must have been an accident or suicide.

    I'm not going to relitigate the Peterson case here, but I'd say that the Peterson jury was a much better one than some juries in high profile cases (cough...OJ...cough).

    And whether you like it or not, legally he is a murderer.  He can appeal all he wants, and until and only if it is overturned, he will still be a murderer.


    Wow (none / 0) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    You're amazingly certain for a guy who doesn't even have the basic facts straight.

    She was NOT found with weights. It was pure speculation she'd been tied down with weights.

    Why?  Because not only her head, but her limbs were missing.  There was speculation that that could have been because of weights, but there were plenty of forensic pathologists who spoke up and said a body that's been in the water as long as hers was often loses one or more limbs just from the decomposition, and pardon me for being graphic, and then large fish, snapping turtles, whatever is in there, tugs at them and they come off because the connective tissue has decomposed.

    Not to get too, too graphic, but I saw this myself with the corpse of an animal I found one spring that had died in my barn over the winter.


    The confession (none / 0) (#28)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:11:10 AM EST
    The confession makes no sense...Do we know what type of sentence he will get...and why not tell that the two had an argument, things got out of control and he accidently killed her...why confess and never mention it could and/or was accidental?  He obvious did not intend to kill her....she was alive with him for three hours...and as he left to get the coffee...

    Has anyone seen that video?

    how do you know (none / 0) (#38)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    she was alive for 3 hours after entering the room?

    Only Joran was seen after the check-in.  


    He confesses while on a suicide watch! (none / 0) (#49)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    Really, these stories out of Peru are pure nonsense.

    Torture while under a suicide watch, then, a confession at 5:30 a.m.?  

    Corruption and political incorrectness is the stable and cornerstone of law enforcement in Peru.

    This computer story is made-up crap.  The father wants his daughter as the innocent little girl that was taken and killed in this monster's room and wants the Holloway case connected as it puts Peru and his family in a much better light.  He is now world known, not only famous in his own country.  There is too much at stake for him to not use his political power and status to get false confessions and change the facts, is my opinion.

    Some of the father's statements so far lack merit:

    Giving her $1,000 cash for a laptop.

    She had credit cards.  

    She would have bought a laptop with a credit card not running around with $1,000 cash in any country in South America.  She is a Junior or Senior in Business Administration - why would she not go home and use the computer there if all was on the up and up with her?  Is she purchasing a laptop at the Casino?

    Also, no one wears jewelry in most countries outside United States, especially South America and the Caribbean.  So why would this girl be wearing jewelry, as her father says she was, to begin with?

    She may well have owed the other chap or someone else money and Joran was going to try and help her get money to repay her loans.  She may have shared with him she pawned her own computer and jewelry for gambling money.

    Perhaps he was paying her for sex.  

    Hence, her awkard walk of, perhaps, embarrassment, fear of her father, when they went into his hotel at 5:30 a.m.  Her body language speaks volumes of embarrassment and worry.

    This was not a romantic relationship.  Joran was not defeated looking going into that room while she was, in my opinion.

    While getting the coffee, perhaps the other chap, or, someone else, knowing there was access to the inner door, arrived for his money. Perhaps she was lying to them and they knew it and a fight broke out.  

    Gambling can get pretty seedy and many illegal things happen when it gets out of hand, which would seem to be the case here as Stephany had been gambling for weeks at this Casino, owned by her father's friend.

    And the father said they had a fight on Friday - was it over gambling and the lost of money, pawning of jewelry and her computer?

    If she knew enough about Natalee Holloway to look her up on the computer then she would have hightailed it out of that room when Joran went out to get coffee.  She would have gotten in her car and driven home or somewhere safe.  Afterall, she was the one born and raised in Lima.  She must have had other places to go?

    Didn't a cousin or sister-in-law say she had already looked up the Natalee story and was shocked some time prior to May of this year?

    They probably know he is not guilty of murder and are giving him a lesser sentence so there won't be a trial and they will look like the heros of the world, especially in America's eyes.  

    He will be dead within a week.  They are suggesting prisons to get imput from America's public opinion as to where America would like him to go.

    This is sad as it is not fair and no justice whatsoever has been done.

    Again, why did Beth Holloway send Van der Sloot $15,000 and then get the FBI involved?  Why send someone that you think killed your daughter $15,000 without any solid grounds for an immediate arrest?

    We need to know the whole story on this transfer of $15,000 as too much has been covered up by the Holloways already with regard to Natalee going missing.  

    They put a gag order on the so-called chaprones (who say they were merely escorting the girls to Aruba and not chaprones - the parents were invited to come as chaprones).  They also put a gag on the other girls that accompanied Natalee and they were never allowed to speak to the press.

    Only truth will get the wrongs righted in these cases.

    This puts Peru in a much less than a hero nation, it gives the world an insight into the political and police corruption in that country.

    While he may well be guilty, it is a great injustice to fabricate evidence against anyone.

    Just my opinion.

    Um (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    Again, why did Beth Holloway send Van der Sloot $15,000 and then get the FBI involved?  Why send someone that you think killed your daughter $15,000 without any solid grounds for an immediate arrest?

    Because that didn't happen?

    Van der Sloot allegedly contacted Beth Twitty (not Holloway) and demanded $250,000 and in return, he would tell her what happened to Natalee and where her body could be located.  Beth Twitty then contacted the FBI, who sent $15,000 as a "down payment" to a bank account in the Netherlands. She did not send him $15,000 of her own money.


    you don't know who contacted who (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    the affidavit in support of the complaint is still sealed and the Complaint does not say that.

    $15,000 (none / 0) (#59)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    The papers filed in Alabama on May 10th, weren't they after the fact?

    Didn't they indicate an individual paid, a nameless individal, not the FBI?

    And, I thought I had read somewhere that the FBI didn't have enough background information to do the arrest when the money was transferred?

    Also, there was a middle person between Holloway/Twitty and Van der Sloot, was my impression?

    Did the money go into Joran's account in The Netherlands or the middle person's account?

    Why was there no arrest upon receipt of the money as is always done when a crime is committed and the FBI has set it up?

    Sorry, thanks.  


    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    How could they file a complaint before the act happened?  

    The "individual" (Beth Twitty) paid with money given to her by the government - hence the "sting". It wasn't her money.

    They may not have arrested Van der Sloot when the $15,000 was paid because it may have been a "down payment" - i.e. he didn't tell them the whole story and wouldn't until all $250,000 was in the account. And at the time, the feds said they didn't have enough evidence (of course, since then, search warrants have been executed in his apartment in the Netherlands and some of his stuff has been seized). All speculation at this point, but no one would turn over that kind of money with no guarantee of anything in return.

    I think the "middleman" you are referring to is a Holloway family member who made the actual deposit in the account.

    The whole point of this exercise is that if he really attempted to extort money, then a)the family would want the closure of knowing what happened to Natalee and where her body is, and b) if he could produce any of this, then the Aruban officials could probably charge him with something.  

    Here's the actual complaint.


    Complaint filed re $15,000 (none / 0) (#65)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:08:51 AM EST
    Thanks for the enlightenment that helps.

    However, I have been unable to ever bring up the Attachment A.  Have you ever seen Attachment A?


    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    But it appears that Attachment A is an just an affadavit.

    just an affidavit? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    The affidavit contains the factual allegations the Government relies upon to provide probable cause for the Complaint. It's the most important document there is until the grand jury returns an indictment. It's under seal and we have no idea what it alleges. Or that it's allegations are true.

    FBI Complaint (none / 0) (#71)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    Thanks.  All your information helps.  Are you able to get Attachment A?

    I understand this is pretty useless at this juncture of the case, but it is always interesting and helpful to have a better understanding of the law and how it is applied.

    I appreciate your patience and your informative answers.


    Just for the record (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    and to pick only one point out of this garbled mess, the girls who were on the trip with Natalee most certainly did speak to the press.  I saw a number of them interviewed several different times on TV.

    Where do you get these ideas?

    Oh, and the idea that there was some "inner door" to the room has long since been corrected.  There is no "inner door."  It was a Google auto-translation error.


    Another just for the record (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    5:30 am..... uh, wrong.  Try 5:30 pm

    "He'll be dead within a week" ... oh brother, what a drama queen.


    This confession seems dubious (none / 0) (#63)
    by ks on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    While it seems reasonable to think he was, at least, involved in her killing, his supposed confession doesn't make much sense.  

    The big red flag is the direct Holloway connection.  Putting aside the sex or not or who owed who money or not angles, if this confession is accurate, it seems reasonable to think that she went to his room thinking he was a killer and searched his computer (either via the internet or personal files) to see if he had any Holloway related material on it.  That's an incredibly reckless move and I'm not sure I'm buying it.  The Holloway connection feels like a pr stunt or a back room machination.

    I think it's more personal (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    I think he's using the Holloway connection as justification (in a warped way).  "I've not been found guilty in the Holloway case and now she wanted to dig up information on me!  I'm being picked on and persecuted!"

    I think a) he either wanted to rob her, or b) he thought they were going to have sex and then she told him she was a lesbian and he got angry (since we know he has demonstrated out of control anger issues in the past).


    The sex part is kinda weak (none / 0) (#74)
    by ks on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    So he wants to have sex with her and finds out she's a lesbian, gets angry and kills her sometime within the 3 hr window, then goes out and gets two cups of coffee?  Did he go back to the room after he got the coffee?  

    The robbery idea seems better but the details are so muddy right now and I don't think we are going to get much more since he has confessed and made the connection to Holloway.


    Does he have a history (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    of physically abusing people?

    Come On, This has to be a Joke (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    This is a fairly tale from beginning to end.

    If he went out for coffee and she was there to get info, why not just grab the laptop and leave.  She's a National, the odds of getting caught for theft from a foreigner are practically zero.

    And for him to go into a rage it would mean that the data on his computer was accessible by anyone.  Sure, info on a murder he committed wasn't password protected even though he is famous going through international airports, aka screening.  Riiiiiight...

    This whole confession implies that he killed Holloway, kept a journal or was writing a book about the crime, and that some near strager scammed her way into his hotel room to read about it while he was out for coffee.

    I doubt there was anything on (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    his computer in Spanish or English. His native language is Dutch, which I haven't read that she speaks. It's unlikely she would even understand anything he put on his computer.

    I think the story will be she was googling him, but I think even that's doubtful. He'll probably say he showed her something on his computer, then turned it off and left to get coffee, and when he returned, she had turned it back on, which set him off.

    This is way too neat. It sounds like they are paving the way for a scenario along these lines: Stephany was googling Joran so he killed her. When Peru later examined the computer, they found a map showing where Natalie was buried. Peru sends the info to Aruba. Aruba digs up the body in the next few days, claiming they learned of the new place from the information on Joran's computer transmitted by Peru. Joran, scared to death by being told for 2 days straight how he will be killed in a Peruvian prison and they can't protect him) confesses to manslaughter or murder of Natalee so he can do his time in Aruba vs. Peru. The Flores family holds a press conference and says since the Holloway's have suffered longer, the Flores family will agree to have Joran go back to Aruba to face "justice" there rather than insist he serve his sentence in Peru.

    Joran gets a 6 to 20 year sentence in Peru for Manslaughter and for his prompt confession, which is allowed to run concurrent with the longer sentence he will get in Aruba for manslaughter or murder, and Peru returns him to Aruba. The U.S. dismisses the extortion case because of the lengthy sentence Joran will be serving in Aruba.

    Quite a nice and tidy package. And I don't buy it.

    If they dig up Natalie in the next few days, it's probably from information Joran provided during the extortion sting, and the computer and Stephany story is just a convenient way to connect the cases.


    What ??? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    You really think they are going to find Holloway's body, that seems like a stretch.  

    I never thought he killed her, I always assumed he knew more and didn't or couldn't tell because of what he knew, saw, or didn't do.  Everyone keeps acting like it's a fact that he killed her.

    If they find her body it can only be because he told them where it was/is, making him guilty of something fairly serious, most likely murder.  Then who cares, justice is served, he does his time here or there, not that relevant in terms of guilt.

    I am not saying he didn't do it, but I haven't read anything that says to me 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Just seems to me like they are railroading this kid, or worse, someone set him up.  

    Did some girl die for to avenge the murder of another ?  That would be a travesty.


    HLN reports (none / 0) (#78)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    HLN reports that Peru has a policy - For every 1 day served - a jailed individual receives 2 days cut off serviing time sentence with good behavior.

    Can Joran Survive the jail condidions or the abuse, torment and perhaps punishment he may receive by other inmates?


    wow (none / 0) (#80)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    Glad I'm not going to court with you as the attorney for the other side, Jeralyn.

    They didn't pick the May 30th date (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    the anniversary date is a connection

    jeralyn, i seriously doubt (none / 0) (#98)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    they'll be "digging up" ms. holloway's body anytime soon, unless they can find it in the ocean.

    you're on an island, you kill someone. why bury the body on land, when you can take it out 10 or 20 miles and dump it? mother nature takes care of the rest. problem solved.


    Who wouldn't snap? (none / 0) (#76)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    Its been five years since the Hollaway girls disappearance...Joran has been under media scrutiny and basically convicted in Everyone's eyes as simply  murderer, his father drops dead of a heart attack most likely from stress and the constant worry about his son and the conviction that did not happen in a courtroom, but only in public opinion.  

    Talk about pushing someone over the edge....

    Joran obviously cannot even travel any where without recognition and being referred to as a murderer...as described on Greta as she interviewed a man that met Joran at the casino and states he immediately notified the hotel manager who he was and that he killed a girl in Aruba (go to gretawire.com and read that transcript) its despicable that this boy ahs had a target on him since day one...no charges, no trial, no nothing and regardless of his good looks and arrogance people seem to forget that he should have been given the right to be considered innocent until he either confessed or FACTUAL evidence proved otherwise...this did not happed.  Since day breaking news, The girls father has plenty of air time to which he  stated Joran killed his daughter etc.  

    I also read Beth Twitty was behind the mastermind plot of the coercion scheme in which Joran entered into...I do not condone him snapping and killing the girl for any reason...but, perhaps if people moved on and didn't heckle or harass him about a crime that occurred five years ago in which he was never charged...perhaps the stress and pressure would not have caused his fathers heart attack nor him to act in a violent fashion...and Ms. Flores would still be alive.

    Why can't he plead temporary insanity?

    Perhaps accidental homicide...?

    Van Der Sloot sought out attention (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    Van Der Sloot wanted, probably needed extreme attention.  He sought out interviews. He sought out reporters.  He repeatedly gave public statements.  He sought out tv appearances.  He negotiated payment for his different stories.  Basically, he considered himself a reality show contestant and marketed himself based on the death of Halloway.

    Presumption of innocence is a legal mandate not a societal one.


    it's a requirement on this site (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    If that's not acceptable, you need to find another one.

    I understand your site policy (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    and have no disagreement with it.  I personally would never state that a someone is 'guilty' of anything (nor would I declare someone not guilty.)  I only consider info as to whether it looked 'good' or 'bad'

    Odd to see that since I have been here for years.


    Pushing someone over the edge (none / 0) (#88)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    If FBI didn't have enough evidence to arrest Van der Sloot on for extortion, wouldn't they, as an immediate consequence, have flagged his passport, if they couldn't actually hold it, so they would know his whereabouts?

    The Flores case has something to do with the computer which we are not being told about in a honest and reliable manner.  They say there is always a grain of truth in every story.

    And, because of the gambling involved prior to this incident, it would seem reasonable to assume it has something financial at its core.

    The Holloway case is getting in the mix for political and public relations reasons only.

    I understood that Van der Sloot did not want any further questioning until he got his own counsel?  Did he ever get his own counsel?


    He's not a US citizen (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    Not a US Citizen (none / 0) (#97)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    If the FBI could not do it directly, wouldn't they get it done indirectly through The Netherlands since there is where money was sent?

    He is known as someone who travels frequently.  He could have gone to a country that would not extradict him back to the US for a white collar crime.

    I understand that this was a means to an end, and that being the finding of Natalee Holloway and finding out what happened to her.  

    However, in the meantime, another girl has been murdered.  Whether, in fact, Joran did commit this murder we don't know, or, even the Holloway murder we don't know.  

    However, the two things suspect (to me) are that he did not collect his passport on his way out or officially check-out.  It appears to me from the video that he hasn't spoken with anyone, just walked by with his bags.  Am I missing something on the video?  Are there more videos that we are not seeing, and, if so, why aren't we seeing all videos?

    He must have intended at time of check-out in Lima to travel to Chile and officially checking and retrieving one's passport would seem in order. (Since it is a hostel and on a low budget, I would imagine it would not have automatic check-out system in place, and why would you use automatic if your passport is waiting on your check-out?)

    The other matter is the hair coloring.  Can't seem to fit that into something one does while on the road.

    However, more disturbing are the many conflicting stories and mistruths that seem to be coming out of the police and the Flores family.  

    Perhaps, and, hopefully, US journalist can get to the bottom of all that.

    Also, don't think it would be safe for Joran's mother to visit Peru.  Her life might well be in danger and she is likely advised against travel there at this time.

    Hopefully the Dutch officials will take a hand in preventing torture and cruelty.

    Today they were supposed to do a walk through of the hotel with Joran to recreate the crime as it took place.  I doubt we will see Joran today - he probably isn't in shape to be seen by reporters, which is why the Dutch need to get in there and report as to what is actually going on.



    The FBI can't take his passport (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    He isn't a US citizen.

    Not a US Citizen (none / 0) (#106)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    Got it, thanks.  

    Jeralyn - Question (none / 0) (#82)
    by kasey9 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    Is there a chance that Joran can retract his confession...?

    If the confession was gained with an incentive for reduced sentence...or some type of deal...can that be retracted as well, now thta they gained some type of confession?  

    No, I'm not. (none / 0) (#116)
    by dancingjane on Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 09:25:21 AM EST
    Sorry, you are wrong.