home

Joran Van der Sloot: His Chilean Version, The Sting and Unanswered Questions

According to El.commercio.pe, when Joran Van der Sloot was questioned by the Chilean police, he provided quite a different version of the events that transpired the night Stephany Flores accompanied him to his hotel room. (Google translation here.)

In the Chilean version, Joran and Stephany were stopped by two men in a white car as they were leaving the casino. The men were wearing police uniforms, put them in the white car and demanded money. When Joran and Stephany later got to his hotel and went inside, there was a man in the bed with a gun in his belt. A second man came out of the bathroom with a knife. One of the men hit Stephany in the face. The men were the same two men dressed as police that had stopped them earlier. [More...]

As to how he met Stephany: Joran allegedly told the Chilean police she sat at the table and started talking to him. She told him her father had money, she was a student and she wasn't interested in boys.

Anyone think the Chilean version is more credible than the Peruvian confession?

On a related note, here's a pictoral timeline of events. (Just click to enlarge, and although it's in Spanish, it's pretty easy to follow.)

What's still not known is why Stephany decided to go to the casino at 3:20 a.m., whether she was playing with both Elton Garcia and Joran or just Joran and why agreed to go to Joran's hotel room in the first place.

I can only think of two reasons she would have gone to Joran's room: Either they were going to get high, or one of them owed the other money after the poker game (even though that shouldn't happen at a casino where people play with pre-paid chips) and they went back to the room. If Joran owed her money, he probably told her it was back in his room. If she owed him money, she probably agreed to go to his room where his laptop was to engage in an online banking transaction and transfer money to him. It was early Sunday morning, and the banks wouldn't open until Monday.

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 he came back from getting coffee and she refused, or told him she forgot her password or the transaction wouldn't go through, and he snapped.

I'm sure the nice police and prosecutor interrogating him explained that if money was the motive, he's looking a life sentence, if sex is the motive, he's looking at 35 years, and if he just inexplicably lost it, and confesses right now, he's only looking at 12 to 20, and he'd get 1 day good time for every day served. Meaning he could be out in 6 years.

I don't believe whatever transpired in the room had anything to do with her googling him for information. The Holloway angle to the confession sounds like it was created by the police as a means of offering him a path to a lighter sentence, and after they described life in a Peruvian prison, he probably felt that was his best if not only option.

Maybe they also promised him that if he also finally confesses to Holloway's murder, they will agree to let him leave Peru to plead guilty in Aruba, and serve his sentence in Aruba before the sentence in Peru -- and when he was done in Aruba, they wouldn't extradite him back to serve the Peruvian sentence. Peru may prefer that because of the difficulty keeping Joran safe in their prison system. They don't need that headache, especially when they've been making strides towards reforming their system the past few years. A foreigner being killed in their prisons would be a black mark on their reform record.

Stephany Flores' father might have agreed. He's been linking his daughter's death to the Holloway case, and because the Holloways have suffered longer, he might be persuaded Stephany's death did not go unpunished if it results in Joran admitting guilt in the Holloway case and getting a long sentence in Aruba.

The Aruban Attorney General has confirmed he's talking to Peru and hoping their interrogation helps them solve Holloway's disappearance. My prediction: A Global plea agreement is coming.

Anyway, given the continued conflicting reports, that's my current best guess.

As to the FBI sting, which I called a sting the day it was reported, it's sounding more and more to me like the idea originated in the Holloway camp, and Joran took the bait. The FBI says private funds were used, not their money. I don't doubt that. But I do think the idea originated with the Holloways or their private investigators and attorneys, who thought after Joran's father died, he might need money and be willing to tell them what happened for money -- including whether his father had helped him hide the body.

Here's one version of how that went down. If Joran contacted Holloway's lawyers, I bet it was only after their private investigators put out feelers and got word to Joran that the Holloways were willing to pay and he should contact Kelly. (Kelly was his legal adversary, the lawyer who filed the civil suit in New York that the court dismissed.)

Peruvian authorities have announced a press conference for tomorrow. Presumably they will announce the filing of charges against Joran.

< The Flawed Strategy Of Dependence On A Political Party | PPP: Lincoln Is Toast >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    I really liked this post.

    Pretty non committal. Do you have an (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    opinion as to whether the Dutch playboy killed the young Peruvian woman and, if so, why?  

    Parent
    I think he did (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    But what the hell do I know?

    I liked this post because it brought forth an interesting part of the story to me - the noton that he was questioned by Chilean police and he answered their questions.

    Why did he do that, if he did?

    Parent

    Law of propinquity. Very long car ride. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    Also, he seems a tad cocky to me.  Probably thought it was a good idea.

    Parent
    Just a tad (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:30:31 PM EST
    And why wouldn't he be?

    Parent
    Jeralyn, here's another theory. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    Flores tells Van der Slott her father has money.  She is an FBI or Holloway family operative whose purpose is to get any information possible from him or his computer re the Holloway matter.  

    Don't think so (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    the FBI didn't know he was in Peru. They hadn't even figured out he left Aruba until after Flores was killed.

    I do think she had met him earlier, through Elton Garcia and the three of them had played together. Elton Garcia is one of the most puzzling pieces as I've written before.

    Parent

    I'm thinking she asked Elton Garcia to (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    watch her back, hence his concern.

    Parent
    I thought of that too. (none / 0) (#9)
    by JamesTX on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    Maybe Elton was her backup, but they didn't really expect anything to happen, and so they didn't really have a good plan. When something did go wrong, he didn't really know what to do.

    Parent
    Either that or (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    maybe Garcia had figured out who his poker buddy was and got worried.

    FWIW, from the Holloway case, it seems Joran was in the habit of making short-term friends at the casinos as soon as he sat down to play.  Maybe Kdog can throw some light on whether this is common in poker tournaments and casinos.

    Sorta like if you've ever been to a multi-day professional conference at a big hotel out of town.  People connect up very quickly and make dinner plans and the like.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#8)
    by JamesTX on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    I will withdraw my second degree murder plea and go back to doubt. It's a good thing I am not his lawyer!

    I had always thought there was a possible robbery motive in this somewhere (not necessarily Joran or Stephany robbing each other).

    The other thing that is still bothering me is Elton Garcia telling others that they were missing and might have been kidnapped. What did he know and how did he come to that conclusion? "Kidnapped" would mean there is somebody else involved here.

    I'm still interpreting Stephany's gait and demeanor in the lobby as "acting". She is on some kind of mission, or under some kind of stress. She is not behaving naturally. That is what brought me to my earlier conclusion she was doing some free-lance investigating.

    If he told the Chilean police that he knew she "wasn't interested in boys", he likely knew that before they got to the room, and I think that fairly well washes out the idea that he killed her because she wouldn't have sex with him.

    I'm not so sure he killed her at all anymore, thanks to Jeralyn making clear the relevance of these other things. I'm convinced by the way Jeralyn demonstrates why he would confess. Short of torture, that makes a whole lot of sense, and sort blows away my rage theory.

    Bear in mind, James (none / 0) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:15:42 PM EST
    that Joran has been long in the habit of talking his way into and out of things.  Telling stories worked very well for him in Aruba and afterwards.

    Also I disagree that telling the Chileans she wasn't interested in boys means he knew that ahead of time, or knew that she might fight him tooth and nail, if that's what happened.  Remember, her pants were off when she was found-- which proves nothing, but certainly suggests somebody expected to have sex, whether voluntarily or not.

    (Thought you were going to go cold turkey on this case, James!)

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Remember, her pants were off when she was found-- which proves nothing, but certainly suggests somebody expected to have sex, whether voluntarily or not.

    Would have been more comfortable to crash for a couple hours sans pants. Party friendships with the younger set can be kinda casual that way. Who knows how long they had been up before the 3AM poker game? They could have decided to crash at his place for multiple reasons and were planning on continuing hanging the next day, or he gave her permission to stay even after he left since the room was paid for . . .

    Parent

    OK, I guess that's barely (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:08:28 PM EST
    possible (no pun intended!)

    FYI, though, the room was not paid for at that point.  The fact that he hadn't paid is why the supervisor decided it was time to find out what was up in the room-- according to 'reports'.

    I've also heard from those ubiquitous "reports" that he was desperately broke, had lost big gambling and was emailing and calling friends asking for money, saying he couldn't even afford food.  Presumably, casino records would show whether he was losing a lot of money there, but if he's pleading guilty, I guess there won't be a trial and we may never find out a lot of these details!  <sound of teeth grinding>

    Parent

    This is where Vincent Buglois comes (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:18:30 PM EST
    into play.  Did you read "And the Sea Will Tell"?

    Parent
    I didn't, no (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    What case was that about?

    Parent
    A yacht owned by a wealthy couple, (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:34:02 PM EST
    who befriended a couple non-wealthy young people.  As I recall, the wealthy couple disappeared at sea and the non-wealthy people ended up with the yacht.  Buglosi tells the story from both sides.  After his book came out, the non-wealthy couple was tried and convicted of murder.  

    Parent
    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:42:45 PM EST
    I vaguely remember something about that, one of those cases the legal/tabloid shows did a couple programs on and then dropped when something more interesting came along and I never heard the end result.

    Good book?

    Parent

    Definitely a good read. When I was (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:51:07 PM EST
    reading it during a family get-together, all the teenages were trying to swipe it when I put it down. We were all intrigued.  He is an excellent writer.

    Parent
    Yes, the propensity (none / 0) (#13)
    by JamesTX on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    for making up stories is not going to help him now. In fact, it may have made him a target. Others would be aware that, even if he knows the truth, nobody will believe him. Such a person is easy to frame.

    Parent
    Easy to frame (none / 0) (#41)
    by Untold Story on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    It seems to have just gotten him $25,000!

    Parent
    Here's my try (none / 0) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    I still don't think there needs to be any reason for her to go back to his room other than to crash.  Long night, tired, don't feel like going home... so I go with the report that she didn't have her pants on as an indication that she partially undressed to get comfortable to sleep.

    Whether or not Van Der Sloot was googled is easily answerable.... they have his computer and can see if a search was done during the time he came back from getting the coffee and leaving the room.

    I don't see the father agreeing to Van Der Sloot going to Aruba.  My understanding is they do not have a prisoner exchange agreement so this would be a matter of trusting the Aruban system.  Also, why would the father agree to serving time in a more pleasant prison.  I imagine the father would want things as tough on VDS as possible.  No?

    Chilean version, not so good. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mitch Guthman on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    The Chilean story is interesting but silly.  If that's what he told the police in Chile then his current lawyers should seriously consider a plea of insanity.  If I have this correctly, two men dressed as police officers kidnapped him and Stephany.  The (possibly ersatz, possibly real) police officers demanded money.  When none was forthcoming, they apparently shrugged their shoulders, wished Joran and Stephany a pleasant evening and dropped them off somewhere so that the "police officers" could go home and change clothes.

    Later, having apparently decided to keep their kidnapping to themselves, they returned to the hotel.  Joran and Stephany went to his room where they found the same mysterious strangers.  They were no longer dressed as police officers (having apparently gone home and changed clothes).  Apparently, it hadn't occurred to the "policemen" to try and force Joran and Stephany to give them money whilst they were in the car.   Upon reflection, the "policemen" realized this was a mistake and went to Joran's hotel room to wait for the couple to return.   They beat Stephany and she hit her head and died.   Now, having murdered the daughter of a prominent local businessman, the "police officers" decided not to beat Joran until he gave them money and instead they left him---the only witness to their brutal killing--- unharmed and free to call the police, the hotel manager, the Dutch embassy, or his mother.  

    For purposes of this story, we won't question how blood got on his clothing (although it apparently did) or why he didn't summon help for his friend.  One should never demand an explanation from a professional gambler and international man of mystery.  Let's just accept that he gathers together his belongings and goes to Chile (where he decides that the best thing to do is just keep quiet about the whole murder thing).  No doubt his reason for staying silent once in the apparent safety of Chile was that the "policemen" told him they were from a powerful secret organization (maybe SMERSH or THRUSH or maybe they worked for the same Columbian drug dealers that actually murdered Nicole Simpson).  Anyway, he's absolutely terrified that they'll murder him or his family or his dog---again, as a professional gambler and international man of mystery he knows that the thing to do is to stay silent about the involvement of these men forever.  He will take the truth with him to his grave!  Or he will puke his guts out to the Chilean police, apparently the moment they arrest him.  It may be that there are some parts of this that he hasn't remembered yet----probably the part about his family being in danger---but I'm sure he will soon.

    For what's it worth, I find both the Chilean story and the current story about equally silly.   Since we're all wildly guessing anyway, here's mine:

    They meet playing poker.  Long hours and high stress.  They're both tired.  He suggests they go to his room to rest.  They talk.  They relax.  He thinks he's doing well, maybe going to get lucky.  He believes in his charming self.   He suggests that he get some coffee and bread from across the street.

    When he returns, they talk some more. His confidence grows, he is sure he's going to get lucky---after all, he knows that he is charming and irresistible to women. Always has been. He makes his move.  She laughs at him, tells him that not only does she prefer batting for the other team, she wouldn't screw him if he were the last man on Earth.  He's tired and stressed----the stress is tremendous, not only from the poker game but also because he knows that the FBI is closing in on him. Everything is falling apart.  He's on his own, nobody influential to protect him now.  

    He's always been high strung but now he's really on edge.  The one thing he's always known is that he's irresistible to women.  He can't take being laughed at by this lesbian.  He snaps.  He gives her what for.  But maybe he hits her too hard; maybe she hits her head as she falls.  From the time he returns with coffee to the time he kills Stephany is only a matter of a few minutes.  He panics and flees.

    That's the direction I think I'd be going in if I were the prosecuting attorney (or examining magistrate or whatever they've got down there).  Seems to account for most of the facts. Maybe some problems with the time-line but it's pretty clear and simple----doesn't require silly leaps of logic about what's on his computer, etc.  

    Works pretty good for me. What do y'all think?


    The problem now is (none / 0) (#17)
    by JamesTX on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    that everything requires some kind of silly leap. Stop to think about her behavior instead of his. If she is "batting for the other team", would she go to a hotel room with a strange male at 5:00 AM without laying any ground rules, or at least making sure everyone understands her motives? Would she just leave all this to chance? After all, is it perfectly normal for young women to accompany young men to hotel rooms in the middle of the night for casual conversation only? Even in today's very different world, is it not reasonable to assume that a woman going to a man's room at that hour is offering up some kind of hint? Granted, it is long way from consent, but most women wouldn't even think of doing that because it is surely going to be misinterpreted.

    I know it appears those of us who aren't true believers in the cover story are just taking flying leaps and grasping for straws, but that's not the case. A lot of things here don't make sense. If he really thought he was going to get lucky, let's just say she let him think that for some reason. If she did, why? This goes back to my original idea she may have done just that, and her motive was to get close enough to him to find something -- anything -- that would help the authorities put him away. I am not so naive to think she thought there was a true confession waiting for her on his computer, but she very well could have thought being in his good graces and trust would allow her to find something that could be used against him in some way -- possibly even get him arrested in Peru -- which would not be a good thing for anybody.

    The point is, it takes a flying leap to get anywhere with this as it currently stands. Simple serial killer explanations are as silly as the theories we are looking at.

    Parent

    That's pretty good. Kind of blends in (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:16:14 PM EST
    with my theory.  Did you see Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy"?  link

    P.S.  It's a good thing the Padres/Mets game was rained out!

    Parent

    please, enough quips (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:23:04 PM EST
    If you have something to contribute, please comment. If you just find this topic amusing, please refrain.

    Parent
    I'm with you on the first graph (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    but I'm an old-fashioned girl and everybody tells me young people aren't so fussy about things like that.

    I do think it likely, though not necessarily inevitable, that there was some more complicated reason for her going to his room at that hour, just based on his smirk and her totally contrary body language.

    I depart from your speculation after that, obviously.

    Parent

    regarding the (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:47:39 PM EST
    "younger set" - I'm no expert on this for sure, but I have to agree with your conclusion.

    It's one thing if they are close friends, then it would be 100% believable for me to think she was going there just to sleep, had undressed, etc...

    But she barely knew the guy.  Doesn't really add up.  It is possible that she would have done that I guess, but it's not very bright - to say the least.  Nor is it particularly common, in my experience.

    Parent

    although (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:52:29 PM EST
    reading the other post it seems like they were better friends than I had thought.  Still "new" friends though...

    So I guess I would say, possible, but if true, not very intelligent.

    Parent

    I still like murder during attempted rape. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:08:34 AM EST
    I don't disagree, although there is no evidence suggesting that she was playing detective. I assume that the cops have talked to all of her friends about that and nothing doing.  I agree that leaves the question of why she went up to his room at that hour but, again, proper inquiry among her friends may resolve that question. Also, under my "theory" it isn't necessary to explain why she went since we know unquestionably that she did, in fact, go there and die there.

    Obviously, I think much of the reason why we  we aren't able to create coherent narratives or theories of the case is because we aren't players in this investigation and don't have access to stuff like the autopsy, witness statements and police reports. (And can't order the kind of follow-up we might like in getting ready to charge).  We're getting everything second and third hand via leaks from people who might or might not actually know anything or who might have an ax (defense or prosecution) to grind.   For example, I don't know whether the victim actually did bat for the other team.  Maybe she was a switch hitter.  Maybe she was totally straight.   I simply took it as "true" because I'd read it here. Only a good investigation can resolve those questions.

    Another problem seems to be some astonishingly sloppy police work.  Again, we can't know because we're not on the inside, but many of the points that were discussed here should have been proved or eliminated when the witnesses were interviewed.  There seems to be a lot that hasn't been done on the body and the crime scene.  And what's with bringing the suspect back to the crime scene?   The last cop to believe in that crap was Joe Friday.  

    Two things really stand out to me:

    The first is that I agree with Jeralyn and some of the others that the police/prosecution theory of the case is really over elaborate and cumbersome.   Just based on what we're seeing in the media, why not go with a variation of murder during attempted rape?  They're in his hotel room, he misunderstands what's going on and maybe about what's being offered (just friendly talk but not sex) or understands perfectly but doesn't care.  He's insistent, won't take no for an answer.  They struggle. He kills her.  He runs (and his flight is evidence of his guilt). End of story.

    Yet, I see all that weird "evidence" being discussed by the prosecution (or its designated leakers?).  And I have to ask myself, why? I mean, if you can lay the case out the way I'm suggesting, why would the prosecution go into stuff about computers, or other murders or her sexual preferences?  Attempted rape fits all the (apparently) known facts and crime scene evidence----sometimes the simple explanation is the best and truest.  Anyway, that's the direction I'm leaning towards.

    The second thing is that if there's one person in this world (apart from Martha Stewart) who should understand the importance of keeping one's mouth shut, you'd think it would be this guy.  Think of all the guys who would have beaten the rap hands down if they'd just followed that one simple rule: "Keep your mouth shut."  


    Parent

    rape is unlikely (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:14:07 AM EST
    She's gay and he says he knew she wasn't interested in men.

    Keep your mouth shut works in the U.S. Peru doesn't have the right to remain silent. They have a new constitution with many improvements and more rights for the accused, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

    It's hard to stay quiet when the police are beating (physically or verbally through threats or repeated statements as to what will happen to you in prison if you don't cooperate) a confession out of you.

    He had no choice but to talk. He either went with what they told him would be best for him (the computer story) or that's the best he could come up with.

    After 18 hours in the car with the cops, driving from the Chile/Peru border to Lima, to two days in lockup in Lima and a full 8 hours of questioning, I'm not surprised he talked. He's 22 years old. I think he held out as long as he could. And I don't think any of the versions being put out there have much credibility.

    Parent

    Is their any evidence that, other than (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:33:57 AM EST
    the suspect being in the company and controlled by law enforcement during the lengthy car ride, and the extensive interrogation up to now, that law enforcement has physically abused/tortured, etc. the suspect to induce his confession(s)?

    Parent
    If this were anybody other than (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:43:30 AM EST
    Joran Van Der Sloot, I'd agree with you.  But he had no problem holding up under two multi-week stints of non-stop interrogation in custody in Aruba, which he managed to ace by spinning a whole variety of different stories.

    In a foreign country and without his father to help, he surely felt less invincible, but he is a guy who's always talked, talked, talked to get himself out of trouble.  This is not your ordinary 22-year-old.

    Parent

    Rape is unlikely only if he's telling the truth (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mitch Guthman on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 01:42:11 AM EST
    My observation about keep one's mouth shut had nothing to do with the US Constitution and everything to do with practicalities. Unlike most non-professional murder suspects, he's been through this before and he knows the drill.  He may only be 22 years old but, like I say, he's got considerable seasoning at being interrogated as the prime suspect in a high-profile murder case.  He knows what it's like to be worked on by cops who are under pressure to deliver a result and he knows the consequences if he talks.  As to the question of whether the confession was beaten out of him by either police force (Chilean or Peruvian) there's no evidence whatsoever to support such an accusation of physical coercion.  Sure, the cops may have used all of the psychological approaches you mention but, again, he's got experience and he knows that he's a tourist and he's still got some connections at home----it's only a matter of a few hours before the Dutch embassy starts making noises on his behalf and journalists start taking an interest.  And he knows his goose is cooked if he talks.

    I'm not saying that it would have been easy to spend two or three days demanding the Dutch consul and saying he's not talking without a lawyer and somebody from his embassy being present.   I'm just saying that if there is any non-pro who has been properly schooled about not talking to the cops, he is that person. I think his problem is that he's a talker and probably not very smart.

    As to his claimed exculpatory knowledge of the victim's sexual orientation, as you point out, he says he knew she was a lesbian in which case rape is unlikely.  Based on his track record, however, truth-telling by Joran seems even more unlikely.  As others (including yourself) have observed and documented, over the years this guy's said a great many things that were not true.  I think it's fair to say that he does not have a good reputation for telling the truth.

    It may not be fair, but at this point the burden would seem to be on him regarding his supposed knowledge of her sexual orientation.  If he learned that fact in the presence of others who can corroborate his having learned about her sexual preferences before the murder, well and good---an important point for his side.   If not, then he was the last person to see her alive, he had a possible motive (rape), her blood was found on his clothing, her dead body was found in his hotel room and he fled the murder scene.   All of which makes him look really, really good for this killing.  Anyway, that's how it's looking to me at the moment.


    Parent

    Yeah, the Chilean story is (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:20:32 PM EST
    pretty bizarre, but it's a mistake to parse it too closely (though your retelling is very entertaining!) because it's not official, I don't believe, and it's been run through both unverified reporting in Chile and Google auto-translation, which can majorly garble things.

    The rest of your suggested narrative seems to me very plausible, if we discount her posture in the video as tiredness or just personal style, and if we accept that it's perfectly ordinary for young people these days to crash in the cheap hotel rooms of people of the opposite sex they hardly know, with their pants off.  That part seems quite a stretch to me, but what do I know.  I'm an old fogey at this point.

    But your reading of Joran certainly accords closely with mine.

    Parent

    ms. holloway's remains (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    including whether his father had helped him hide the body.

    are long gone, carried out to sea and dumped, shortly after her death.

    apparently they don't think so (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    As the Holloway private investigator says in exchange for the money Joran told the emissary where she was buried and they went there and found no body. (Probably what caused the wire fraud charge, giving false information.)

    Remains don't disappear. No one knows whether she was buried or dropped at sea.

    Parent

    There's a report, don't know if it's true (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:28:00 PM EST
    that Joran actually took somebody, I think Kelly, to a house he said she was buried in or under or near, but that when he looked into it, it turned out the house hadn't been built at the time of Natalee's disappearance, confronted Joran about it and Joran admitted it was a phony story.

    I think I remember from the earlier coverage that the sea currents at the beach they supposedly went to head out to sea and don't wash back to the coast, as many do.  So if that's where her body ended up, it might as well have disappeared for all practical purposes.

    But Joran didn't have a boat that I ever heard, so if that's what happened, there has to be somebody out there who helped, without having been summoned by Joran's cell phone, and has kept his/her mouth shut ever since.

    What an extraordinary couple of cases!


    Parent

    yes, that's the story I was referring to (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:17:02 AM EST
    about him taking Kelly to where he said the body was buried. Problem is the story comes from Bo Deitl who in my opinion has zero credibility. And I can't imagine Kelly, the lawyer, putting himself in a position to be a witness. I think Dietl is angry at Kelly for bringing the FBI in (and not letting Deitl do it his way, whatever that would have been) and taking his revenge, throwing him under the bus.

    Parent
    Oh, I'll vote for that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:39:27 AM EST
    Dietl gives an astonishingly bad, chaotic impression when he's on TV at any rate.  I have to assume he's not so ridiculous in his professional life or nobody would hire him.  Would they?  He's a caricature out of a bad film, really.

    Parent
    Anyone think the Chilean version is more credible (none / 0) (#40)
    by observed on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    ---Um, no.
    Not one part of it is believable.