This Is What I Think Happened..... Part2

[Amraann]

Please continue here:)

[CherokeeKid]

I keep wondering how BHT or Jug Twitty "know" what was said that night when they arrived in Aruba: BHT was sitting in the car, at one point, Joran came up to her when she showed him Natalee's picture and said: "I want my daughter back! I want her back NOW!". While Jug Twitty was standing back, let his friends do the talking.

Now, both, BHT and Jug Twitty make public statements about things, supposedly said that night. For instance, the ALLEGED "sexual assault" Joran SUPPOSEDLY admitted! (And I'm even MORE wondering, WHAT would have been their reaction IF they really heard it?)

And BHT keeps claiming, Paul VDS SUPPOSEDLY said, he picked Joran up at 4 a.m.

HOW do BHT and Jug Twitty KNOW what was said that night?

[mic730]

I would guess they heard this from the people that were with them that night.
Just a guess.

[NewMom2003]

Does anyone know if the phone calls that are supposedly from NH were ever confirmed to be true or just rumor? The ones with the monkey in the background and the one where she says "I don't know these guys" or something like that.

I'm totally confused about these calls and I can't find a thread about them. Can someone update me or point me in the right direction pretty please????

[rollerbladr123]

Does anyone know if the phone calls that are supposedly from NH were ever confirmed to be true or just rumor? The ones with the monkey in the background and the one where she says "I don't know these guys" or something like that.

I'm totally confused about these calls and I can't find a thread about them. Can someone update me or point me in the right direction pretty please????

NM2003 as far as I know, the presence of those phone calls HAVE NEVER been confirmed anywhere in mainstream media; mostly blogland speculation

[CherokeeKid]

Does anyone know if the phone calls that are supposedly from NH were ever confirmed to be true or just rumor? The ones with the monkey in the background and the one where she says "I don't know these guys" or something like that.

I'm totally confused about these calls and I can't find a thread about them. Can someone update me or point me in the right direction pretty please????

CHARLES CROES, TALKED TO DUTCH SUSPECT: A major friend of mine called me up. He was working with Natalee's mom to help them find Natalee.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why would he call you? What is your occupation that would be a reason he would call you?

C. CROES: Well, I have a sail rental company. And there was apparently a phone call made. And he was calling me betting or hoping that the phone call was made from one of our phones, and so that's why he called me.

VAN SUSTEREN: About what time did he call you?

C. CROES: He called me at 11:30.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did he say to you?

C. CROES: He told me that he needed my help. And I asked him what it was about. And he told me that it had to do something with a cell phone. And I didn't relate it to anything but work at that point.

And then he said, "There is a possibility that a phone call was made using one of our phones." And I said, "OK." And he said, "It's very, very important." I said, "Fine," and I asked him to go into further details, and he did. And then I made arrangements to go see him.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you got to the gas station, did you talk to Beth?

C. CROES: Yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161233,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161233,00.html)

[mic730]

Croes says he was contacted about something to do with a cell phone call that could have been made. Does not say it was Natalee that made a call, does not say when or where. IMO all you can do from this article is speculate.
What it does say is they were betting or hoping a call was made. That does not sound like to me there is even confirmation of a call made much less who made a call.

[CherokeeKid]

Well, the cell phone is not only a rumer made by a blogger. That's my point.

And my guess: It "could" be evidence and is not made public.

[rollerbladr123]

Croes says he was contacted about something to do with a cell phone call that could have been made. Does not say it was Natalee that made a call, does not say when or where. IMO all you can do from this article is speculate.
What it does say is they were betting or hoping a call was made. That does not sound like to me there is even confirmation of a call made much less who made a call.

Thanks Mic; precisely right; that interview of Charles Croes is sometimes relevant for what it does not say as opposed to what it says;
there is NO RELIABLE confirmation of a phone call made by Natalee ANYWHERE around that time..

[girasole]

I keep wondering how BHT or Jug Twitty "know" what was said that night when they arrived in Aruba: BHT was sitting in the car, at one point, Joran came up to her when she showed him Natalee's picture and said: "I want my daughter back! I want her back NOW!". While Jug Twitty was standing back, let his friends do the talking.
Now, both, BHT and Jug Twitty make public statements about things, supposedly said that night. For instance, the ALLEGED "sexual assault" Joran SUPPOSEDLY admitted! (And I'm even MORE wondering, WHAT would have been their reaction IF they really heard it?)

And BHT keeps claiming, Paul VDS SUPPOSEDLY said, he picked Joran up at 4 a.m.

HOW do BHT and Jug Twitty KNOW what was said that night?

Standing back! What does that mean? The friends were doing the talking probably because Jug was a wreck with worry as was Beth. Standing back could mean 2 feet away. That's certainly within hearing distance, it doesn't mean he was 1/2 mi down the road. And this was the middle of the night, not much noise to compete with the sound of voices. It should have been pretty easy to hear well and clear what was being said. We're not talking standing on the shoulder of an interstate highway here. This is a quite unpaved suburban area, for crying out loud.

And as for the things that have been reportedly said that night, we have no real confirmation from anyone. Right now we have only the Twittys word for it and I doubt the VDS will come forward to comfirm or deny. Because of that it's pretty much a moot subject.

[flossie]

Hi, jumping in here - a n00b. Anyhow, I recall from the beginning it was stated that NH and JV were in the backseat having sex. There was discussion on the other thread about her innocence. People do things that they necessarily wouldn't do while sober when they've been drinking.

[CherokeeKid]

Standing back! What does that mean? The friends were doing the talking probably because Jug was a wreck with worry as was Beth. Standing back could mean 2 feet away. That's certainly within hearing distance, it doesn't mean he was 1/2 mi down the road. And this was the middle of the night, not much noise to compete with the sound of voices. It should have been pretty easy to hear well and clear what was being said. We're not talking standing on the shoulder of an interstate highway here. This is a quite unpaved suburban area, for crying out loud.

And as for the things that have been reportedly said that night, we have no real confirmation from anyone. Right now we have only the Twittys word for it and I doubt the VDS will come forward to comfirm or deny. Because of that it's pretty much a moot subject.
Do you KNOW for sure?

According to Jug Twitty, he was standing back, did not hear the conversation. There were AT LEAST 8 people there, many more. Charles Croes, who actually had a conversation with Joran, stepped also back and got only bits and pieces from the conversation with Paul VDS and the two police officers.

[WordsofWisdom]

From Part 1 closed thread:
girasole

A “conversation” does not require one to sit, nor does it require lengthy dialog. You either spoke to that person, or you didn’t, and that was what the question was.

How silly does this sound:

Greta: Did you have a conversation with Joran?
Beth: No.

Greta: Well did you ever speak with Joran?
Beth: Yes.

That is really stretching it if you ask me. Beth isn’t a stupid woman- the question was clear- why play semantics? I simply don’t buy it.

If she was not involved in the “conversation” then she should not “recall” it as a fact.
Her statements are made as if she, herself, heard it, and wrote it down verbatim.
The fact of the matter is that Beth neither had a conversation with this group, nor did she herself, hear or overhear a conversation with them. (Per Beth) This leaves one to wonder why she is so insistent about this timeframe.

I will agree that Beth has a different “perspective”. But I do not think it has anything to do with the facts of the matter. And yes, we have heard Beth repeat this 4:00am ‘discrepancy’. That proves nothing more than she is repeatedly harping on it. ‘WE’ are not questioning it- Beth is. That’s because 4:00am fits the timeframe- 11:00pm does not. Simple.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/30/earlyshow/main705342.shtml (PVDS Interview CBS
CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella reports that he told Dutch TV Nova, "I allegedly said that I had picked up Joran (his son, who is still in custody) at four in the morning. And someone else said that I supposedly picked up Joran and Natalee at four in the morning.

"But my story to the police was that I had picked up only Joran at 11 o'clock at McDonald's. It's, of course, very strange that the public prosecutor includes two witness statements of people who were in the back of the crowd that night, and not the testimony of the female police officer, to whom I was talking."

As for Jug:
He was clear on what he was implying. I am just not the idiot he wants me to be.
I pay attention.

And finally:
I see no one “who seem to think this harried family should limit their views and speech to accommodate the sensibilities of the Dutch/Aruban authorities.” I don’t know how that conclusion was arrived at but I can assure you that I haven’t seen any indications of such at all. All I see is a lot of people concerned about a missing woman in Aruba, and instinctively have tried to figure out what happened. But that is not easy when the facts are kept intentionally secret by the very family that is asking for help, and in addition those few facts that are released- keep changing.

[WordsofWisdom]

Hi, jumping in here - a n00b. Anyhow, I recall from the beginning it was stated that NH and JV were in the backseat having sex. There was discussion on the other thread about her innocence. People do things that they necessarily wouldn't do while sober when they've been drinking.

"having sex" was not the terminolgy used.
I believe it was more like "kissing and stuff".
I'll look for the quote.

[WordsofWisdom]

Do you KNOW for sure?

According to Jug Twitty, he was standing back, did not hear the conversation. There were AT LEAST 8 people there, many more. Charles Croes, who actually had a conversation with Joran, stepped also back and got only bits and pieces from the conversation with Paul VDS and the two police officers.

And Beth said she was in the car the whole time and didn't hear what was said.

[flossie]

I'll have to find it but very early on it was said that they were in the backseat having a sexual encounter. (probably oral) Regardless of whether she was a virgin or not - the innocence argument is lame. When you are drunk (as she apparently was) you have no inhibitions.

[AZ_Veteran]

I'll have to find it but very early on it was said that they were in the backseat having a sexual encounter. (probably oral) Regardless of whether she was a virgin or not - the innocence argument is lame. When you are drunk (as she apparently was) you have no inhibitions. I agree flossie. If there was anything sexual going on it that car, it was of that nature. Joran is 6' 5", the car was a Honda, and those two items alone place some limitations on activities. We'll never know of course, cause Joran isn't going to say anything, and unless NH turns up, we'll never hear her side either.

And welcome to the board flossie.

[flossie]

Thanks! I have lurked for a long time and finally decided to join. This was reported as I said very early on, and almost as immediately as it was reported it was not. Within the first few days of JVDS and the K boys being implicated. It was then not ever mentioned again.

[girasole]

From Part 1 closed thread:
girasole

A “conversation” does not require one to sit, nor does it require lengthy dialog. You either spoke to that person, or you didn’t, and that was what the question was.

How silly does this sound:

Greta: Did you have a conversation with Joran?
Beth: No.

Greta: Well did you ever speak with Joran?
Beth: Yes.

That is really stretching it if you ask me. Beth isn’t a stupid woman- the question was clear- why play semantics? I simply don’t buy it.

If she was not involved in the “conversation” then she should not “recall” it as a fact.
Her statements are made as if she, herself, heard it, and wrote it down verbatim.
The fact of the matter is that Beth neither had a conversation with this group, nor did she herself, hear or overhear a conversation with them. (Per Beth) This leaves one to wonder why she is so insistent about this timeframe.

I will agree that Beth has a different “perspective”. But I do not think it has anything to do with the facts of the matter. And yes, we have heard Beth repeat this 4:00am ‘discrepancy’. That proves nothing more than she is repeatedly harping on it. ‘WE’ are not questioning it- Beth is. That’s because 4:00am fits the timeframe- 11:00pm does not. Simple.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/30/earlyshow/main705342.shtml (PVDS Interview CBS


As for Jug:
He was clear on what he was implying. I am just not the idiot he wants me to be.
I pay attention.

And finally:
I see no one “who seem to think this harried family should limit their views and speech to accommodate the sensibilities of the Dutch/Aruban authorities.” I don’t know how that conclusion was arrived at but I can assure you that I haven’t seen any indications of such at all. All I see is a lot of people concerned about a missing woman in Aruba, and instinctively have tried to figure out what happened. But that is not easy when the facts are kept intentionally secret by the very family that is asking for help, and in addition those few facts that are released- keep changing.

Ok, I stand corrected on the fact that PVDS made a statement refuting the phone call remarks, however I don't believe him. Just as you chose to not believe Jug or Beth.

Conversation?

Greta: Did you have a conversation with Joran?
Beth: No.

Greta: Well did you ever speak with Joran?
Beth: Yes.

I see no contradiction in these statements.

If I go grocery shopping and the cashier says I get money back for using my own fabric bags rather than plastic and that I've saved $9.43 by using my Safeway card and is that credit or debit, do you want cash back, I say 'yes' and 'thank you', I consider that speaking with him/her but I certainly don't consider conversation.

If I sit down with a friend for lunch and we discuss current affairs, I consider that conversation.

And it has often occured to me that Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation (not thinking Jossy) and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.

No, she not a stupid woman, and that's the reason I have to give her credit. I has no meaning for the media to make out Joran as a monster when there is no jury to decide if he is or not. I do think sometimes she just can't contain her fears, sadness and frustration and I don't see why she should have to. Her daughter is missing, probably dead and she knows Joran, Paulus, Deepak and Satish have answers she needs to bring some resolve so she can go home to mourn her child.

ETA: We know she took notes, and that might suggest they all got together with the information of that night and wrote it down. We don't know that they didn't record the entire conversation/confrontation. That's always a possibility.

I find it admirable she hasn't killed one of the four by now. I might have. (figurative speech only)

[rollerbladr123]

Well, the cell phone is not only a rumer made by a blogger. That's my point.

And my guess: It "could" be evidence and is not made public.
And where in the much vaunted quote of Charles Croes' interview of Greta does it state that a phone call was made by Natalee from a cell phone? Do you have any other clarificastion of that? Did you read my original post-it was reference to cell phone calls by NH (in answer to NM2003's question)-there has NEVER been anything other than blogland speculation about that!!

[mic730]

I agree with you Girasole 100%!


Ok, I stand corrected on the fact that PVDS made a statement refuting the phone call remarks, however I don't believe him. Just as you chose to not believe Jug or Beth.

Conversation?

Greta: Did you have a conversation with Joran?
Beth: No.

Greta: Well did you ever speak with Joran?
Beth: Yes.

I see no contradiction in these statements.

If I go grocery shopping and the cashier says I get money back for using my own fabric bags rather than plastic and that I've saved $9.43 by using my Safeway card and is that credit or debit, do you want cash back, I say 'yes' and 'thank you', I consider that speaking with him/her but I certainly don't consider conversation.

If I sit down with a friend for lunch and we discuss current affairs, I consider that conversation.

And it has often occured to me that Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation (not thinking Jossy) and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.

No, she not a stupid woman, and that's the reason I have to give her credit. I has no meaning for the media to make out Joran as a monster when there is no jury to decide if he is or not. I do think sometimes she just can't contain her fears, sadness and frustration and I don't see why she should have to. Her daughter is missing, probably dead and she knows Joran, Paulus, Deepak and Satish have answers she needs to bring some resolve so she can go home to mourn her child.

ETA: We know she took notes, and that might suggest they all got together with the information of that night and wrote it down. We don't know that they didn't record the entire conversation/confrontation. That's always a possibility.

I find it admirable she hasn't killed one of the four by now. I might have. (figurative speech only)

[girasole]

I agree with you Girasole 100%!

Thank you, I like being agreed with. :D

[WordsofWisdom]

girasole, girasole, girasole.. <big sigh>


1. conversation n : the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc.
2. talk v: To speak of or discuss

Yes, we need to decide to agree to disagree.

Because I don’t believe that as you said: “Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.” And I don’t believe that because she continues to complain that they won’t talk to her. Can’t have it both ways. There is another reason for the secrecy and fumbling with her words. She is a speech therapist. Nuff said.

Joran is being made out to be a monster for a number of reasons, one of which is they are trying to put pressure on him to give up information they believe he has. I really don’t think they believe he harmed her, they do believe, however, that he knows what happened. The tactics they are using is just wrong in my book.

I would never deny that family the right to the sadness and frustration and I agree, she shouldn’t have to. Beth does have the right to answers about her daughter. But don’t tell the public you want their money, their sympathy, their prayers, their time, and then tell them it is none of their business, or change the facts, when they ask questions.

Your ETA is speculation.

[CherokeeKid]

And where in the much vaunted quote of Charles Croes' interview of Greta does it state that a phone call was made by Natalee from a cell phone? Do you have any other clarificastion of that? Did you read my original post-it was reference to cell phone calls by NH (in answer to NM2003's question)-there has NEVER been anything other than blogland speculation about that!!
Well, there was an interview with BHT and Greta regarding this phone call. Besides Charles Croes. NO DETAILS are revealed. But, it's a little bit more, IMO, than just a "blogland speculation".

There was also another mention but BHT speaks not in a very clear way. It was the interview with Greta, when she described the first 24 hours of Natalee's disappearance. She got stopped by a State Trooper when speeding, claimed "Natalee was kidnapped", let him listen to "something", she also refers to FBI, they have all "documented". I'm not sure IF this has to do with this "mysterious phone call". Just guessing.

Here is what Greta had to say about this cell phone call:

Is there any truth to the article in The National Enquirer about Natalee calling a friend on her cell phone that last night?
Virginia Van Delist

ANSWER: Here is what I know about a phone call: Apparently a friend of Natalee's received a call to his voice mail/answering machine. There was background noise and then someone said something like, "Are you calling home?" As far as I know the phones were then disconnected and nothing else was recorded. I do not know if that call was from Natalee or from her cell phone or one she may have used.

Incidentally, not all USA cell phone service works in Aruba. My AT&T cell phone works there, but my Verizon cell phone does not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162501,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162501,00.html)

[doublejack]

Joran is being made out to be a monster for a number of reasons, one of which is they are trying to put pressure on him to give up information they believe he has. I really don’t think they believe he harmed her, they do believe, however, that he knows what happened. The tactics they are using is just wrong in my book.

I would never deny that family the right to the sadness and frustration and I agree, she shouldn’t have to. Beth does have the right to answers about her daughter. But don’t tell the public you want their money, their sympathy, their prayers, their time, and then tell them it is none of their business, or change the facts, when they ask questions.


I agree that the H/T's believe Joran knows what happened to NH. But I also think they believe, or at the very least strongly suspect, that he harmed her. If you recall BHT blew a gasket when the K2 brothers were released. Just my guess, but she probably thinks all 3 boys are guilty of something bad in this incident.

As for BHT's tactics, what else can she do? I see her as a mother in utter hell right now just trying to do whatever she can to get info out of the boys. I'm not sure if her tactics are the best, but I don't fault her for doing what she feels will help.

[girasole]

girasole, girasole, girasole.. <big sigh>


1. conversation n : the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc.
2. talk v: To speak of or discuss

Yes, we need to decide to agree to disagree.

Because I don’t believe that as you said: “Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.” And I don’t believe that because she continues to complain that they won’t talk to her. Can’t have it both ways. There is another reason for the secrecy and fumbling with her words. She is a speech therapist. Nuff said.

Joran is being made out to be a monster for a number of reasons, one of which is they are trying to put pressure on him to give up information they believe he has. I really don’t think they believe he harmed her, they do believe, however, that he knows what happened. The tactics they are using is just wrong in my book.

I would never deny that family the right to the sadness and frustration and I agree, she shouldn’t have to. Beth does have the right to answers about her daughter. But don’t tell the public you want their money, their sympathy, their prayers, their time, and then tell them it is none of their business, or change the facts, when they ask questions.

Your ETA is speculation.

I am speaking of the common use and understanding of conversation, not some obliteration from the dictionary.

Yes, of course my ETA is speculation, other than the note taking which Beth clearly stated in an interview with GVS in Alabana and on several other occasions. That should be clear to all who read it.

[OrdinaryLife]

Ok, I stand corrected on the fact that PVDS made a statement refuting the phone call remarks, however I don't believe him. Just as you chose to not believe Jug or Beth.

Conversation?

Greta: Did you have a conversation with Joran?
Beth: No.

Greta: Well did you ever speak with Joran?
Beth: Yes.

I see no contradiction in these statements.

If I go grocery shopping and the cashier says I get money back for using my own fabric bags rather than plastic and that I've saved $9.43 by using my Safeway card and is that credit or debit, do you want cash back, I say 'yes' and 'thank you', I consider that speaking with him/her but I certainly don't consider conversation.

If I sit down with a friend for lunch and we discuss current affairs, I consider that conversation.

And it has often occured to me that Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation (not thinking Jossy) and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.

No, she not a stupid woman, and that's the reason I have to give her credit. I has no meaning for the media to make out Joran as a monster when there is no jury to decide if he is or not. I do think sometimes she just can't contain her fears, sadness and frustration and I don't see why she should have to. Her daughter is missing, probably dead and she knows Joran, Paulus, Deepak and Satish have answers she needs to bring some resolve so she can go home to mourn her child.

ETA: We know she took notes, and that might suggest they all got together with the information of that night and wrote it down. We don't know that they didn't record the entire conversation/confrontation. That's always a possibility.

I find it admirable she hasn't killed one of the four by now. I might have. (figurative speech only)

Hey Girasole, I gotta give you two thumbs up with your definition of "conversation" vs sharing basic "conversation". I certainly couldn't have explained it any better!

You're da bomb!!! :D

[OrdinaryLife]

girasole, girasole, girasole.. <big sigh>


1. conversation n : the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc.
2. talk v: To speak of or discuss

Yes, we need to decide to agree to disagree.

Because I don’t believe that as you said: “Beth chooses some of her words very carefully as she may have knowledge of information that has been entrusted to her by prosecution or someone else close to the investigation and must parse her words, which leaves us puzzled at times.” And I don’t believe that because she continues to complain that they won’t talk to her. Can’t have it both ways. There is another reason for the secrecy and fumbling with her words. She is a speech therapist. Nuff said.

Joran is being made out to be a monster for a number of reasons, one of which is they are trying to put pressure on him to give up information they believe he has. I really don’t think they believe he harmed her, they do believe, however, that he knows what happened. The tactics they are using is just wrong in my book.

I would never deny that family the right to the sadness and frustration and I agree, she shouldn’t have to. Beth does have the right to answers about her daughter. But don’t tell the public you want their money, their sympathy, their prayers, their time, and then tell them it is none of their business, or change the facts, when they ask questions.

Your ETA is speculation.

WoW, in my humble opinion, you can be the most professional person and yet fumble/trip when it comes to your own loved ones. BHT may be a speech therapist, but that does not mean that personally she speaks as a Mom with a missing daughter in "regular" life. Heck, I am embarrassed to think how I have verbally messed up under less stressful situations!

If BHT is complaining over not getting answers, it's because she has *none*. Zero. And she my **never** get them. I cannot even imagine such pain as not knowing where your beloved child is...just the thought brings a tears of a grief that I have been fortunate enough to never have felt. What if it was one of my daughters..my son??? Gawd, it isn't and yet the pain of just thinking of it is exquisite...

This family is always in my thoughts and prayers. There before the grace of "G" go I....

[girasole]

Hey Girasole, I gotta give you two thumbs up with your definition of "conversation" vs sharing basic "conversation". I certainly couldn't have explained it any better!

You're da bomb!!! :D

:blushing: Aw, Shucks, Irish.

[girasole]

WoW, in my humble opinion, you can be the most professional person and yet fumble/trip when it comes to your own loved ones. BHT may be a speech therapist, but that does not mean that personally she speaks as a Mom with a missing daughter in "regular" life. Heck, I am embarrassed to think how I have verbally messed up under less stressful situations!

If BHT is complaining over not getting answers, it's because she has *none*. Zero. And she my **never** get them. I cannot even imagine such pain as not knowing where your beloved child is...just the thought brings a tears of a grief that I have been fortunate enough to never have felt. What if it was one of my daughters..my son??? Gawd, it isn't and yet the pain of just thinking of it is exquisite...

This family is always in my thoughts and prayers. There before the grace of "G" go I....

And I have to agree with you that her profession has nothing to do with the way she speaks while addressing this heartbreaking issue. She's a mother 1st and foremost. She isn't there for a tutorial.

[OrdinaryLife]

:blushing: Aw, Shucks, Irish.

Awww, you're so cute when you do good!!!! :blowkiss:

[WordsofWisdom]

I agree that the H/T's believe Joran knows what happened to NH. But I also think they believe, or at the very least strongly suspect, that he harmed her. If you recall BHT blew a gasket when the K2 brothers were released. Just my guess, but she probably thinks all 3 boys are guilty of something bad in this incident.

As for BHT's tactics, what else can she do? I see her as a mother in utter hell right now just trying to do whatever she can to get info out of the boys. I'm not sure if her tactics are the best, but I don't fault her for doing what she feels will help.


Before I tell you "what else she can do".. I want to AGAIN put in a disclaimer- I feel a lot of sysmpathy for the parents, and family of this very beautiful young woman. I can not imagine the pain. I pray for them.

What else can she do?
She does not have the right to "do whatever she can to get info out of the boys", when that includes harrassment, and slander.
There are laws in Aruba and she needs to respect them.
These young men are innocent until proven guilty.
If this was in the USA, none of this would be happeneing.
From the arrests, to stalking the accused.

I understand what she is going through.
I pray for her.
But that does not give her rights over and above others.
That is all I am saying.
I am not being mean. I am being truthful.

[mic730]

Girasole as always you say it just right!
I don't get why every little thing said or done by BHT and Jug gets the negative repsonses. Sheesh I would think the lies that have come from Joran, and K2 along with the investigation problems in the first fews days are something to focus on.

And I have to agree with you that her profession has nothing to do with the way she speaks while addressing this heartbreaking issue. She's a mother 1st and foremost. She isn't there for a tutorial.

[WordsofWisdom]

If BHT is complaining over not getting answers, it's because she has *none*. Zero. And she my **never** get them. I cannot even imagine such pain as not knowing where your beloved child is...just the thought brings a tears of a grief that I have been fortunate enough to never have felt. What if it was one of my daughters..my son??? Gawd, it isn't and yet the pain of just thinking of it is exquisite......

You missed my point on that.

She can not complain that she isn't getting information from LE, and then turn around and say that she can't disclose information because she got it from LE! (Which she has implied as well as others here). Don't wash. :D

[mic730]

Talk about twisting words to fit an agenda.
1 visit to DK's work does not come anywhere near stalking in the US or Aruba.
I don't know what laws BHT has broken in Aruba.
As for slander - you don't know that what she is saying is not true.
Slander usually requires you to know what you are saying is not true and I don't think that is the case with BHT.
It's not the US - all know Aruba is a different country.

Before I tell you "what else she can do".. I want to AGAIN put in a disclaimer- I feel a lot of sysmpathy for the parents, and family of this very beautiful young woman. I can not imagine the pain. I pray for them.

What else can she do?
She does not have the right to "do whatever she can to get info out of the boys", when that includes harrassment, and slander.
There are laws in Aruba and she needs to respect them.
These young men are innocent until proven guilty.
If this was in the USA, none of this would be happeneing.
From the arrests, to stalking the accused.

I understand what she is going through.
I pray for her.
But that does not give her rights over and above others.
That is all I am saying.
I am not being mean. I am being truthful.

[CherokeeKid]

Before I tell you "what else she can do".. I want to AGAIN put in a disclaimer- I feel a lot of sysmpathy for the parents, and family of this very beautiful young woman. I can not imagine the pain. I pray for them.

What else can she do?
She does not have the right to "do whatever she can to get info out of the boys", when that includes harrassment, and slander.
There are laws in Aruba and she needs to respect them.
These young men are innocent until proven guilty.
If this was in the USA, none of this would be happeneing.
From the arrests, to stalking the accused.

I understand what she is going through.
I pray for her.
But that does not give her rights over and above others.
That is all I am saying.
I am not being mean. I am being truthful.
Great post, WordsofWisdom!

You truly spoke "Words of Wisdom"! :clap:

[mic730]

It perefeclty OK with me if Beth complains that she does not get info from LE and then respects LE when they do give her info by not disclosing it.
Works fine for me.

You missed my point on that.

She can not complain that she isn't getting information from LE, and then turn around and say that she can't disclose information because she got it from LE! (Which she has implied as well as others here). Don't wash. :D

[WordsofWisdom]

Girasole as always you say it just right!
I don't get why every little thing said or done by BHT and Jug gets the negative repsonses. Sheesh I would think the lies that have come from Joran, and K2 along with the investigation problems in the first fews days are something to focus on.

Because if there is no reason to lie, then why lie?
If you are lieing then your intent is to deceive.
If your intent is to deceive then you don't want the truth to be told.
If you don't want the truth to be told then you are hiding something (the truth)
If you are hiding something (the truth) then you don't want it to be known.
What possible reason could that be?
THAT is the million $$ question and many on the internet are actively contemplating it.

Me? I just want to understand.

[girasole]

Girasole as always you say it just right!
I don't get why every little thing said or done by BHT and Jug gets the negative repsonses. Sheesh I would think the lies that have come from Joran, and K2 along with the investigation problems in the first fews days are something to focus on.

I seem to be having a good day. Maybe I should head for Vegas.

I have to agree, too much focus on Beth and what she is or is not doing with absolute aplomb. The truth from Joran, his father, and the Kalpoes could end this for the Holloway/Twittys and let them go home to grieve. And Aruban could deal with the four suspects as they see fit.

I don't think Natalees family even care at this point if there is a prosecution in this case as long as the find out what happened. Nothing will bring Natalee back, if she's dead. If she's not it would lead them in another direction away from the VDS/Kalpoe suspects. (suspects is my term and not to be interpreted as a legal classification)

[mic730]

I don't think BHT is lying. I know Joran has lied.
But if others on the internet want to contemplate BHT then I would think Beth being on TV nightly will give them plenty to do and complain about because I don't she is going away anytime soon.

Originally Posted by WordsofWisdom

WoW these are excellent questions! I filled in my questions too!
Because if there is no reason to lie, then why lie?
Ask Joran why he is lying.
If you are lieing then your intent is to deceive.
What is Joran's intent to deceive?
If your intent is to deceive then you don't want the truth to be told.
Joran must have an intent to hide the truth.
If you don't want the truth to be told then you are hiding something (the truth)
Joran is hiding something.
If you are hiding something (the truth) then you don't want it to be known.
Joran harmed Natalee might be his reason for lying.
What possible reason could that be?

THAT is the million $$ question and many on the internet are actively contemplating it.
And the MILLION dollar answer or $250 K is where is Natalee?

Me? I just want to understand.
Me? I just want Natalee found.
Because if there is no reason to lie, then why lie?
If you are lieing then your intent is to deceive.
If your intent is to deceive then you don't want the truth to be told.
If you don't want the truth to be told then you are hiding something (the truth)
If you are hiding something (the truth) then you don't want it to be known.
What possible reason could that be?
THAT is the million $$ question and many on the internet are actively contemplating it.

Me? I just want to understand.

[girasole]

Talk about twisting words to fit an agenda.
1 visit to DK's work does not come anywhere near stalking in the US or Aruba.
I don't know what laws BHT has broken in Aruba.
As for slander - you don't know that what she is saying is not true.
Slander usually requires you to know what you are saying is not true and I don't think that is the case with BHT.
It's not the US - all know Aruba is a different country.

Excellent response! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[rollerbladr123]

It perefeclty OK with me if Beth complains that she does not get info from LE and then respects LE when they do give her info by not disclosing it.
Works fine for me.

Yes that is fine by me too and works just right; . She had every right to criticize when she did not get info from LE and keep quiet on confidential issues related to her by LE.

[girasole]

Me? I just want to understand.

That's precisely what we all want, even if our approaches are different.

[WordsofWisdom]

Talk about twisting words to fit an agenda.
1 visit to DK's work does not come anywhere near stalking in the US or Aruba.
I don't know what laws BHT has broken in Aruba.
As for slander - you don't know that what she is saying is not true.
Slander usually requires you to know what you are saying is not true and I don't think that is the case with BHT.
It's not the US - all know Aruba is a different country.

Perhaps you don't have the information that I have read.
So I will fill you in.
But first- please do not question my integrity- I am an honest person and I have no agenda except truth. That is the honest to god's truth.

Onward....
Beth went to the Internet Cafe WITH a cameraman in tow (hidden camera) AND 2 other people that stationed themselves outside the door to the Cafe. That is clear intimidation. She was there for 90 minutes. She was not a patron, she was there to confront DK. She was abrasive and used foul language (according to DK's complaint) That is stalking in my book. She attempted to deny DK's statement but unfortunately for Beth, the Cafe also had a surveillence video camera watching HER.

Slander- she said that these 2 boys were criminals (and other untrue, and inflammatory things).
Even Beth had to retract this statement-its obvious as to why. She clearly knew they were not criminals because they were released from Jail and sent on their way.

No it isn't the US, but in BOTH countries people have basic human and citizen rights.

[concernedperson]

I am going to be simplistic as hell. If it were my daughter I would be doing anything and everything to keep media focused on this case. That includes pulling my hair out my its roots. If I wasn't politically correct, so be it, the attention was needed after all. These cases go cold and remain cold for many years and sometimes there is never a resolve.

Just listen to some of the parents on the missing forums, the heartbreak is so palpable. The resolve to really get involved is sometimes years later after they see LE can't take care of everything. Then they know, it is up to me to be the spokesperson. A lot of times they are grasping for straws, hoping, praying and wishing for an opportunity.

Beth is seizing the opportunity. If she wants to stand on her head and show her butt....go for it! This is her only chance at finding out what happened to Natalee and that might not be good enough!!!!!

[WordsofWisdom]

Yes that is fine by me too and works just right; . She had every right to criticize when she did not get info from LE and keep quiet on confidential issues related to her by LE.

She said she wasn't getting ANY information.
ANY- as in not one word.

Does that mean "some"?
Or does that mean "none"?

[OrdinaryLife]

You missed my point on that.

She can not complain that she isn't getting information from LE, and then turn around and say that she can't disclose information because she got it from LE! (Which she has implied as well as others here). Don't wash. :D

Dear WoW (I hope you know I respect you *much!),

I do not see a contradiction at all. BHT is respecting what LE is telling in confidence and yet her questions are still not being answered by LE. She gets some stuff, must stay quiet over what LE is telling her, but *her* questions are not responded to. Frustration!!!!!

P.S.
I'm a nimnut...what did you mean by " Don't wash"???? Curious goofy minds want to know! :D

[WordsofWisdom]

I am going to be simplistic as hell. If it were my daughter I would be doing anything and everything to keep media focused on this case. That includes pulling my hair out my its roots. If I wasn't politically correct, so be it, the attention was needed after all. These cases go cold and remain cold for many years and sometimes there is never a resolve.

Just listen to some of the parents on the missing forums, the heartbreak is so palpable. The resolve to really get involved is sometimes years later after they see LE can't take care of everything. Then they know, it is up to me to be the spokesperson. A lot of times they are grasping for straws, hoping, praying and wishing for an opportunity.

Beth is seizing the opportunity. If she wants to stand on her head and show her butt....go for it! This is her only chance at finding out what happened to Natalee and that might not be good enough!!!!!

I agree.
What I am saying and what you are saying are not contradictory.
I would never, ever, deny a mother every single opportunity to find her daughter- except one- within the confines of the law. That's the only caveat that I have.

[WordsofWisdom]

Dear WoW (I hope you know I respect you *much!),

I do not see a contradiction at all. BHT is respecting what LE is telling in confidence and yet her questions are still not being answered by LE. She gets some stuff, must stay quiet over what LE is telling her, but *her* questions are not responded to. Frustration!!!!!

P.S.
I'm a nimnut...what did you mean by " Don't wash"???? Curious goofy minds want to know! :D

Thanks Irishrose.
I respect you as well.
Disagreeing isn't a bad thing- it makes us think. :)

LE can not tell her anything. Nothing...Nada..and if you do a search you will see that she, as well as Jug, David, Robin, the lawyers- everyone but Jossy (lol) has stated in interviews that it is against Aruba Law to do that. Therefore, my conclusions are related to why Beth won't (not 'can't) answer some direct questions put to her, and more importantly why the MB students were told to be quiet.

ETA: "Don't wash.. hmmm childhood saying, I don't remember the whole phrase but it is the same as "That dog don't hunt" translation: I don't buy it. :laugh:

[concernedperson]

I agree.
What I am saying and what you are saying are not contradictory.
I would never, ever, deny a mother every single opportunity to find her daughter- except one- within the confines of the law. That's the only caveat that I have.

I don't think she has broken any laws. I think from what I have read and heard there is much to be questioned about JVDS, PVDS and the Kalpoes. If and until they will qualify or quantify, my suspicions are just as much as Beth's.

In the case of Scott Peterson, we weren't told specifics but we were able to surmise the abject lack of compassion and the odd behaviors of his parents.We looked into every aspect and still do. He turned out to be very guilty and is now sentenced to death row.

[WordsofWisdom]

I don't think BHT is lying. I know Joran has lied.
But if others on the internet want to contemplate BHT then I would think Beth being on TV nightly will give them plenty to do and complain about because I don't she is going away anytime soon.

Originally Posted by WordsofWisdom
Because if there is no reason to lie, then why lie?
Ask Joran why he is lying.
If you are lieing then your intent is to deceive.
What is Joran's intent to deceive?
If your intent is to deceive then you don't want the truth to be told.
Joran must have an intent to hide the truth.
If you don't want the truth to be told then you are hiding something (the truth)
Joran is hiding something.
If you are hiding something (the truth) then you don't want it to be known.
Joran harmed Natalee might be his reason for lying.
What possible reason could that be?

THAT is the million $$ question and many on the internet are actively contemplating it.
And the MILLION dollar answer or $250 K is where is Natalee?

Me? I just want to understand.

Now see..you are doing exactly what Beth is doing.
You are not answering the question instead you are doing this:
"Hey! Look over there!"

How does that solve anything?

[girasole]

She said she wasn't getting ANY information.
ANY- as in not one word.

Does that mean "some"?
Or does that mean "none"?


Words, that may be a circumstance that changes from day to day. She may get some information from a source we know nothing about (not talking Jossy, but maybe) and yet get nothing from the prosecution. She has attorneys on her 'team' and maybe they are privy to information they pass on to her with the proviso she not speak about.

Things can change, and as such, so would her remarks.

[rollerbladr123]

She said she wasn't getting ANY information.
ANY- as in not one word.

Does that mean "some"?
Or does that mean "none"?

She may have said ANY initially and then once she got some info she decided not to speak about that-it may be an issue of semantics here.

[WordsofWisdom]

Great post, WordsofWisdom!

You truly spoke "Words of Wisdom"! :clap:

My Twin!
Howdy Doody! :blowkiss:

[WordsofWisdom]

She may have said ANY initially and then once she got some info she decided not to speak about that-it may be an issue of semantics here.

Speculation.
I am dealing with facts. (I really am paying attention)
She said 'ANY".
She still says "ANY".

[WordsofWisdom]

Words, that may be a circumstance that changes from day to day. She may get some information from a source we know nothing about (not talking Jossy, but maybe) and yet get nothing from the prosecution. She has attorneys on her 'team' and maybe they are privy to information they pass on to her with the proviso she not speak about.

Things can change, and as such, so would her remarks.

Beth, NOR ANYONE ELSE, is getting information from LE.
Otherwise this case can be thrown OUT.
No one wants that to happen- especially Beth.
They hired an attorney so that they can get the information, but not until this case is over.
They said it themselves.

Jossy? He makes stuff up.
You know that. MG should hire him!

[rollerbladr123]

Speculation.
I am dealing with facts. (I really am paying attention)
She said 'ANY".
She still says "ANY".

I disagree; show me the specific links where this has been said repeatedly and the time periods when they were said-I can wait

[mic730]

No need to fill me I have been following the case too.

Beth went to DK work with a camera crew - correct. From what I could see (although no audio) on the video she was not threatening him. According to DK's complaint - you take the work of a known liar in this case who will lie to LE about a missing girl over BHT's word about foul language?
Hardly falls under stalking in my book and she was not arrested or charged and filed a counter complaint that DK was... you guessed it LYING.
I consider lying to LE and letting 2 INNOCENT men sit in jail criminal so I don't think that is slander.


Perhaps you don't have the information that I have read.
So I will fill you in.
But first- please do not question my integrity- I am an honest person and I have no agenda except truth. That is the honest to god's truth.

Onward....
Beth went to the Internet Cafe WITH a cameraman in tow (hidden camera) AND 2 other people that stationed themselves outside the door to the Cafe. That is clear intimidation. She was there for 90 minutes. She was not a patron, she was there to confront DK. She was abrasive and used foul language (according to DK's complaint) That is stalking in my book. She attempted to deny DK's statement but unfortunately for Beth, the Cafe also had a surveillence video camera watching HER.

Slander- she said that these 2 boys were criminals (and other untrue, and inflammatory things).
Even Beth had to retract this statement-its obvious as to why. She clearly knew they were not criminals because they were released from Jail and sent on their way.

No it isn't the US, but in BOTH countries people have basic human and citizen rights.

[mic730]

The prosecutor meets with Beth. LE meets with Beth.
Vinda has a lot of info about the case too.


Beth, NOR ANYONE ELSE, is getting information from LE.
Otherwise this case can be thrown OUT.
No one wants that to happen- especially Beth.
They hired an attorney so that they can get the information, but not until this case is over.
They said it themselves.

Jossy? He makes stuff up.
You know that. MG should hire him!

[WordsofWisdom]

I disagree; show me the specific links where this has been said repeatedly and the time periods when they were said-I can wait

You want me to go back to June 1st?
No way, no how.
If you want it, it's there.

Don't have the time to research all of those news sites. Do You?
If you don't want to believe me, thats fine.
I heard it, I saw it, I listened for it. She, and others, said it.
In fact, like I said- they complain about it. Still.

[mic730]

That is right I am saying LOOK at the last known peope who lied about where the left NH. In case anyone has forgotten this case is about Natalee Holloway being missing - not BHT.
I am not out to solve anything about BHT - I want NH's case solved.


Now see..you are doing exactly what Beth is doing.
You are not answering the question instead you are doing this:
"Hey! Look over there!"

How does that solve anything?

[OrdinaryLife]

That is right I am saying LOOK at the last known peope who lied about where the left NH. In case anyone has forgotten this case is about Natalee Holloway being missing - not BHT.
I am not out to solve anything about BHT - I want NH's case solved.

Mic, with you on this one!!!

[rollerbladr123]

No need to fill me I have been following the case too.

Beth went to DK work with a camera crew - correct. From what I could see (although no audio) on the video she was not threatening him. According to DK's complaint - you take the work of a known liar in this case who will lie to LE about a missing girl over BHT's word about foul language?
Hardly falls under stalking in my book and she was not arrested or charged and filed a counter complaint that DK was... you guessed it LYING.
I consider lying to LE and letting 2 INNOCENT men sit in jail criminal so I don't think that is slander.


Yes Mic thanks for that post. I also dont think that one incident of going to Deepak's workplace constituted stalking either although I must opine that it would have been best if she had not gone there. In fact the precise reason why Deepak went to file a "complaint" was that you need more than one incident to even define stalking- Ricardo Yarzagaray, Arlene Ellis Schipper and BenVinda DeSousa all made these clear in their statements. And yes that counter-complaint by BHT was also duly filed denying that abrasive and loud behavior ensued between the two.

Oh by the way have you seen the complete footage of that store surveillance video with audio? I haven't..i dont think that has been made public.

[girasole]

Onward....
Beth went to the Internet Cafe WITH a cameraman in tow (hidden camera) AND 2 other people that stationed themselves outside the door to the Cafe. That is clear intimidation.
It's hardly intimidation if the camera is hidden and you don't know whose outside.

She was there for 90 minutes. She was not a patron, she was there to confront DK. She was abrasive and used foul language (according to DK's complaint)

Deepak is a known liar and possibly worse

That is stalking in my book. She attempted to deny DK's statement but unfortunately for Beth, the Cafe also had a surveillence video camera watching HER.

Good grief, that isn't stalking in anyones book. What statement would that be?

Slander- she said that these 2 boys were criminals (and other untrue, and inflammatory things).
Even Beth had to retract this statement-its obvious as to why. She clearly knew they were not criminals because they were released from Jail and sent on their way.

We don't know if they are criminals or not. You don't have to be proven a criminal to be one. There are thousands/millions of criminals out there who haven't been caught but it doesn't make them not criminals.

No it isn't the US, but in BOTH countries people have basic human and citizen rights.
True.

[WordsofWisdom]

No need to fill me I have been following the case too.

Beth went to DK work with a camera crew - correct. From what I could see (although no audio) on the video she was not threatening him. According to DK's complaint - you take the work of a known liar in this case who will lie to LE about a missing girl over BHT's word about foul language?
Hardly falls under stalking in my book and she was not arrested or charged and filed a counter complaint that DK was... you guessed it LYING.
I consider lying to LE and letting 2 INNOCENT men sit in jail criminal so I don't think that is slander.

It wasn't actually a complaint that DK filed (I mispoke)-
It was a warning that next time a complaint would be filed.


From what you could see?
What? 3 minutes of a 90 minute tape?
That is hardly representative of what happened.
No audio? hmmm <In my best Church Lady Voice- how convienent>.
Of course there is audio. Think about why we haven't heard it. (or seen only 3 minutes of it.)
The Cafe has it though, on their own camera.
Of course she files a counter complaint.
By filing a complaint, she is trying to establish (via legal documents) that he is a repetitive liar. But that is when she found out that there was a camera watching her in the cafe as well. (uh-oh!) and did some back peddling.


I consider lying to LE and letting 2 INNOCENT men sit in jail criminal so I don't think that is slander

HUH?

[mic730]

But see we know DK is a liar.
I am going to choose to believe BHT. You can believe DK.

Yes I believe it is wrong to lie to LE and let 2 innocent men sit in jail.
Remember DK did just that.



It wasn't actually a complaint that DK filed (I mispoke)-
It was a warning that next time a complaint would be filed.


From what you could see?
What? 3 minutes of a 90 minute tape?
That is hardly representative of what happened.
No audio? hmmm <In my best Church Lady Voice- how convienent>.
Of course there is audio. Think about why we haven't heard it. (or seen only 3 minutes of it.)
The Cafe has it though, on their own camera.
Of course she files a counter complaint.
By filing a complaint, she is trying to establish (via legal documents) that he is a repetitive liar. But that is when she found out that there was a camera watching her in the cafe as well. (uh-oh!) and did some back peddling.


HUH?

[T'sNana]

It's my understanding that BHT did NOT bring the camera crew with her when she visited Deepak...that they were either following her around or was waiting there. Does anyone know?

[mic730]

Yes thats what I heard too.

It's my understanding that BHT did NOT bring the camera crew with her when she visited Deepak...that they were either following her around or was waiting there. Does anyone know?

[rollerbladr123]

It wasn't actually a complaint that DK filed (I mispoke)-

Of course she files a counter complaint.
By filing a complaint, she is trying to establish (via legal documents) that he is a repetitive liar. But that is when she found out that there was a camera watching her in the cafe as well. (uh-oh!) and did some back peddling.


Oh really? So where is the link saying that she did some back-peddling after finding out there was a store camera? what did she say before back peddling and after? just one link would suffice...

[mic730]

I agree it was not the best of ideas to go to DK work.
No I have not seen the cafe footage or heard it.
If BHT acted as badly as it has been said I am surprised the owner of the cafe said she was welcome to back as long as it was not to talk to DK.



Yes Mic thanks for that post. I also dont think that one incident of going to Deepak's workplace constituted stalking either although I must opine that it would have been best if she had not gone there. In fact the precise reason why Deepak went to file a "complaint" was that you need more than one incident to even define stalking- Ricardo Yarzagaray, Arlene Ellis Schipper and BenVinda DeSousa all made these clear in their statements. And yes that counter-complaint by BHT was also duly filed denying that abrasive and loud behavior ensued between the two.

Oh by the way have you seen the complete footage of that store surveillance video with audio? I haven't..i dont think that has been made public.

[WordsofWisdom]

It's hardly intimidation if the camera is hidden and you don't know whose outside.

It is intimidation if there are 2 men stationed at the exit of your work place, one inside standing near you, and Beth in your face for 90 minutes!

Deepak is a known liar and possibly worse
OKAY- I don't deny that at all.

Good grief, that isn't stalking in anyones book. What statement would that be?

She attempted to deny that she was yelling at him and using foul language.

My point was only that this was the basis of his complaint. His camera backed him up

We don't know if they are criminals or not. You don't have to be proven a criminal to be one. There are thousands/millions of criminals out there who haven't been caught but it doesn't make them not criminals.

True.
However, we are not the judge and jury on that, and niether is Beth.
They have not been deemed criminals as she has stated.
In fact, there is no evidence that a crime was even comitted.

BTW: Beth retracted that statement.

[WordsofWisdom]

But see we know DK is a liar.
I am going to choose to believe BHT. You can believe DK.

Yes I believe it is wrong to lie to LE and let 2 innocent men sit in jail.
Remember DK did just that.

I don't "choose to believe DK".
I am simply stating the facts.

[WordsofWisdom]

Oh really? So where is the link saying that she did some back-peddling after finding out there was a store camera? what did she say before back peddling and after? just one link would suffice...

Compare her interview the day she went into the Cafe with the interview after she was served.
I call that backpeddling.

[badmix]

Beth went to the Internet Cafe WITH a cameraman in tow (hidden camera) AND 2 other people that stationed themselves outside the door to the Cafe. That is clear intimidation. She was there for 90 minutes. She was not a patron, she was there to confront DK.
BHT on greta's show that day or the next said she paid for pictures in the internet cafe either before or after she spoke to deepak - doesn't that make her a patron?

as for the people outside the cafe - from what jug said they were there to support beth and make sure she was safe.

[mic730]

I don't think it is a fact that BHT used foul language with DK. The only person to say that is DK that I know of. If you porvide a link then I will read it.



I don't "choose to believe DK".
I am simply stating the facts.

[WordsofWisdom]

BHT on greta's show that day or the next said she paid for pictures in the internet cafe either before or after she spoke to deepak - doesn't that make her a patron?

as for the people outside the cafe - from what jug said they were there to support beth and make sure she was safe.

The original story was she went in to develop her film in the store 3 doors down.
The next thing I heard her say was that she had the film developed in the cafe.
Do they develop film in the Internet Cafe?

As for what Jug said, even if I believed him, it doesn't matter, there were people stationed at the exit to his place of work. I am sure they didn't explain their presence to DK. It was intimidating- intentional or not.

[rollerbladr123]

The original story was she went in to develop her film in the store 3 doors down.
The next thing I heard her say was that she had the film developed in the cafe.
Do they develop film in the Internet Cafe?
.

You are wrong in some details; BHT originally said that she went to eat lunch at this restaurant 2 doors down from the Cyber cafe and then went to the cafe to develop films. She had mentioned about this restaurant to Greta even before the incident when Greta asked BHT if she (meaning BHT) sometimes thinks of dropping by the cafe to talk with Deepak. So NO SHE NEVER SAID she went in to develop film in the store 3 doors down; she always said she went in to develop film in the CyberZone Internet Cafe and yes the Internet Cafe does develop film.

[badmix]

i've only heard the one story from BHT. i don't know if the cafe developes film or not - i don't live there. it wouldn't surprise me if a little shop like that did several things to bring in visitors, let alone on the tiny island of aruba where there are tourists galore. the kroger grocery store here has lawn furniture on display for pete's sake! big tables and chairs and huge swings, not just the plastic chair stuff.

did deepak even know there were people standing outside the front door to think they were intimidating? or did he find out when she walked out and he saw the people walk away with her?

[kgeaux]

It's hardly intimidation if the camera is hidden and you don't know whose outside.



Deepak is a known liar and possibly worse



Good grief, that isn't stalking in anyones book. What statement would that be?



We don't know if they are criminals or not. You don't have to be proven a criminal to be one. There are thousands/millions of criminals out there who haven't been caught but it doesn't make them not criminals.


True.

girasole, Beth's lawyer told Beth to apologize after BOTH of these incidents. She had to apologize after she called the Kalpoe brothers criminals and she had to retract the claim that they were criminals. She pissed off the whole dang island by her reckless talk. Heck, Arubans were following her around with signs "Respect Aruba's Laws" and other more hurtful messages. Beth was told to apologize and swear she'd never approach Deepak again after the incident when she confronted him. If she did nothing wrong, why did her attorney tell her to make these public apologies?? Links to support both of these claims I'm making--that Beth was told to apologize and that she had retract her claim that the Kalpoe brothers are criminals are in the media thread and they've been there for a long time.


We (all WS posters) continually banter back and forth about goofy stuff, like did Beth tell the MB students to hush.....some say yes, some say no. There's a link up there. Beth told them not to discuss anything about what went on in Aruba so they wouldn't harm the case.

Beth saying she did not talk to Joran on the first night? Up there. Beth later claiming that Joran told HER on the first night that he sexually assaulted Natalee? Up there.

Some of those links are expiring, but they've been there, ample ammunition for all sides of this debate!

[badmix]

the lawyer could have told BHT to apologize so that the aruban people will continue to support BHT's efforts to find natalee or find out what happened to her, not because she did anything 'wrong'. BHT has no beef with the aruban people as a whole.

[kgeaux]

the lawyer could have told BHT to apologize so that the aruban people will continue to support BHT's efforts to find natalee or find out what happened to her, not because she did anything 'wrong'. BHT has no beef with the aruban people as a whole.


Could be. Or it could be because Satish's lawyer said he was going to have her charged with slander. LOL. Could be for many reasons, but the way I see it, the fact that she has now twice been forced to issue public apologies does seem to support the contention that Beth oversteps the line sometimes. Not placing blame, just acknowledging the overstep. My opinion, of course.

[CherokeeKid]

Snippet of Interview after BHT's "visit" at the Internet Cafe:


ABRAMS: Did this conversation make you angrier or was it somewhat cathartic?

TWITTY: You know it not only makes me angry, but it should make every citizen in Aruba angry and it should make everyone that has been watching this in the U.S. angry. Because they see that he is causing so much damage. These boys single-handedly are doing this and it's just a tragedy. So it's not only me that is angry. It's everyone involved in this. It's terrible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8883209/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8883209/)


BHT's action made many people angry.... just not always in her favor.

[concernedperson]

Snippet of Interview after BHT's "visit" at the Internet Cafe:


ABRAMS: Did this conversation make you angrier or was it somewhat cathartic?

TWITTY: You know it not only makes me angry, but it should make every citizen in Aruba angry and it should make everyone that has been watching this in the U.S. angry. Because they see that he is causing so much damage. These boys single-handedly are doing this and it's just a tragedy. So it's not only me that is angry. It's everyone involved in this. It's terrible.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8883209/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8883209/)


BHT's action made many people angry.... just not always in her favor.

She doesn't make me angry in the least. Especially in denial of her cause.I will stand behind a mom wanting to know what happened to her daughter anyday even if ugly things rise their heads .She deserves to know.Natalee deserves to be found and Beth needs to have a resolve.

[mic730]

CP BHT does not anger me either. It seems to me the only people she angers are those that think Joran and the Kalpoe brothers should be able to lie with no questions as to their lies.

[mic730]

Satish's lawyer said he would have her charged with slander?
I thought BHT visited Deepak. Please provide a link to this claim.
I find no reason to LOL at BHT plight.


Could be. Or it could be because Satish's lawyer said he was going to have her charged with slander. LOL. Could be for many reasons, but the way I see it, the fact that she has now twice been forced to issue public apologies does seem to support the contention that Beth oversteps the line sometimes. Not placing blame, just acknowledging the overstep. My opinion, of course.

[T'sNana]

I don't know of any parents who would be or who are angered by anything Beth has done so far. It frustrates me that she apologized for what she has said before (angering Aruban's and the suspects). I don't think SHE is the one who should be apologizing.

[dr dona]

She doesn't make me angry in the least. Especially in denial of her cause.I will stand behind a mom wanting to know what happened to her daughter anyday even if ugly things rise their heads .She deserves to know.Natalee deserves to be found and Beth needs to have a resolve.I must admit sometimes I feel BHT is over the top--but than I look at her anguished face and wonder what I, as a mother, would do If either of my two daughters were missing and I wasn't getting any answers. I'd be over the top also. I honestly don't care if either of these three are prosecuted- I just want Natalee found. She needs her "Sweet Home Alabama"!!

[CherokeeKid]

She doesn't make me angry in the least. Especially in denial of her cause.I will stand behind a mom wanting to know what happened to her daughter anyday even if ugly things rise their heads .She deserves to know.Natalee deserves to be found and Beth needs to have a resolve.

I think, everyone wants that BHT get the answers she is seeking for in the disappearance of her daughter. However, her actions/methods are not always ageeable. For instance, the public "plea" on July 4, calling the Kalpoe brothers "criminals" after they were released by three judges. Or her "visit" at the Internet Cafe. IMO, she went too far. She is a mother looking for her missing daugher. And people have sympathy for her. But that does not give her the right to do or to say what she wants. Other people have rights, too. JMO

[mic730]

JMO that she did not go too far. There is no way to gauge "too far" unless you have missing child.

I think, everyone wants that BHT get the answers she is seeking for in the disappearance of her daughter. However, her actions/methods are not always ageeable. For instance, the public "plea" on July 4, calling the Kalpoe brothers "criminals" after they were released by three judges. Or her "visit" at the Internet Cafe. IMO, she went too far. She is a mother looking for her missing daugher. And people have sympathy for her. But that does not give her the right to do or to say what she wants. Other people have rights, too. JMO

[T'sNana]

Some fans of Nancy Grace don't think SHE is over the top but they feel Beth is? :waitasec: Just kidding...don't hurt me! :chicken:

[GabbyG]

mic, roller, girasole...thank you. You all found the right words when I wasnt able to. Hats off to all of you... :blowkiss:

[girasole]

girasole, Beth's lawyer told Beth to apologize after BOTH of these incidents. She had to apologize after she called the Kalpoe brothers criminals and she had to retract the claim that they were criminals. She pissed off the whole dang island by her reckless talk. Heck, Arubans were following her around with signs "Respect Aruba's Laws" and other more hurtful messages. Beth was told to apologize and swear she'd never approach Deepak again after the incident when she confronted him. If she did nothing wrong, why did her attorney tell her to make these public apologies?? Links to support both of these claims I'm making--that Beth was told to apologize and that she had retract her claim that the Kalpoe brothers are criminals are in the media thread and they've been there for a long time.

I never suggested she did nothing 'wrong' nor did I suggest she wasn't 'advised' to apologize.

The 'wrong' she did is hardly a punishable offense and was no more than a breach of decorum. I thought she should have apologized in view of how some Arubans reacted. She didn't need to alienate them from her cause. Her attorney gave her sound advice.


We (all WS posters) continually banter back and forth about goofy stuff, like did Beth tell the MB students to hush.....some say yes, some say no. There's a link up there. Beth told them not to discuss anything about what went on in Aruba so they wouldn't harm the case.

Beth saying she did not talk to Joran on the first night? Up there. Beth later claiming that Joran told HER on the first night that he sexually assaulted Natalee? Up there.

Some of those links are expiring, but they've been there, ample ammunition for all sides of this debate!

I am as aware of those 'facts' as you. It isn't information some lack, it's a sense of compassion.

[rollerbladr123]

Could be. Or it could be because Satish's lawyer said he was going to have her charged with slander. LOL. Could be for many reasons, but the way I see it, the fact that she has now twice been forced to issue public apologies does seem to support the contention that Beth oversteps the line sometimes. Not placing blame, just acknowledging the overstep. My opinion, of course.When did Satish's lawyer say he was going to have charged her with slander? Anything to support that? The confrontation occurred between Deepak and BHT and all that Deepak's lawyer uttered publicly was "this sort of behavior could be harassment in the USA even ".
Another clarification: I know that Beth publicly apologized for her comments following the the release of the Kalpoes. However, neither she nor her lawyers apologized for that one encounter with Deepak Kalpoe. Her comment on Greta following Deepak's "complaint" with LE and after Greta asked her whether she was planning to go back to the cafe again was " No Greta on legal advice I am not going back to the Cyber Cafe again". Here is what BHT said on Abrams
ABRAMS: Have you been instructed not to go back?

TWITTY: You know, I have been advised of some things. You know I'm not choosing to go back to the Internet cafe right now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8908055/

Neither of the above statements sounds like a public apology to me. And there is no public statement that I could find of Benvinda DeSousa apologizing on Beth's behalf regarding this incident at the cafe with DK.

[WordsofWisdom]

I am as aware of those 'facts' as you. It isn't information some lack, it's a sense of compassion.

But girasole- I have seen posters being called out for this when all they were doing was being factual. One can be factual AND compassionate. One should not have to precede every post with "But I feel bad for the Twitty family" That is a 'gimme'- everyone feels compassion for the family- Everyone. But this is a sleuthing forum so people tend to use facts not emotions to make their point.

If I have criticism of anyone in that family for something they said or did, that does not mean that I don't have compassion for them- it only means that I do not agree with whatever it is they said or did. In other words, these heartbreaking circumstances (a missing family member) does not give one a free pass on civil behavior, and therefore are subject to opinions/criticism.

*IF* this young man is guilty as has been stated, then he should definetely be incarcerated.
With that said, there is no evidence that any crime has been committed.
There appears to be evidence that the LE was lied to, but there also appears to be an innocent reason for that. (He was embarrassed that he left her on the beach). No evidence has been released, so we don't KNOW anything.

If this was your son, how would you feel about the accusations that have been National news? The slanderous statements, the unkind things said about your family, etc?
Your inability to work and provide for your family?
There is no reason to believe that this young man sexually assaulted anyone.
Had consexual sex?- Yes. But that is all.
But he is characterized as a MAN, (he was 17, Natalee at 18, has been referred to as a child) a PREDATOR, a RAPIST. That is slanderous character assassination in my book, and it just isn't right. And if Natalee is found alive and well (I pray) then this family will have a whole lot to say in a court of law about these nasty, and unfounded, accusations.
Because, to date, there is NO evidence of this at all. None. Only accusations.
And the accusations are coming from this bereaved family, and their 'friend', Manseur.
Isn't it possible that they need answers so badly that they are willing to believe anything at all?

And for those that don't think there is an agenda from Manseur...read Dan's column:
Dan's Column (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/)
Excerpt:
"Lastly, it is believed that Paulus Van der Sloot participated on a panel which agreed to extradite two relatives of the Mansurs to the US under serious charges some years back. One cannot be fair and balanced without at least mentioning that your primary source of information in this case may well have an agenda against, not only the Dutch in a political sense, but also Paulus Van der Sloot directly."

I really do pray for this family and their daughter, and I hope they reach a resolution soon.
I can not imagine being in that state of mind, this long.

[kgeaux]

When did Satish's lawyer say he was going to have charged her with slander? Anything to support that? The confrontation occurred between Deepak and BHT and all that Deepak's lawyer uttered publicly was "this sort of behavior could be harassment in the USA even ".
Another clarification: I know that Beth publicly apologized for her comments following the the release of the Kalpoes. However, neither she nor her lawyers apologized for that one encounter with Deepak Kalpoe. Her comment on Greta following Deepak's "complaint" with LE and after Greta asked her whether she was planning to go back to the cafe again was " No Greta on legal advice I am not going back to the Cyber Cafe again". Here is what BHT said on Abrams
ABRAMS: Have you been instructed not to go back?

TWITTY: You know, I have been advised of some things. You know I'm not choosing to go back to the Internet cafe right now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8908055/

Neither of the above statements sounds like a public apology to me. And there is no public statement that I could find of Benvinda DeSousa apologizing on Beth's behalf regarding this incident at the cafe with DK.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/aruba.missing/index.html


Elgin Zeppenfeldt, an attorney for Satish Kalpoe, accused Beth Holloway Twitty of making "prejudicial, inflammatory, libelous and totally outrageous" statements.

"She called our client, Mr. Satish Kalpoe, a 'criminal,' 'involved in a violent crime against my daughter' and who is 'allowed to walk freely among the tourists and citizens,' " Zeppenfeldt said in a statement issued Wednesday afternoon. (Full story)

Twitty made the remarks at a news conference Tuesday amid increasing frustration that her 18-year-old daughter -- missing five weeks -- has not been found.

Zeppenfeldt said her statement was "uncalled for, especially since my client is maintaining his innocence."

"In the event that these unfounded public condemnations and allegations against Mr. Kalpoe are not immediately ceased, he will consider taking legal steps to ensure that the aforementioned will not be repeated," the lawyer said.

[girasole]

*If this was your son, how would you feel about the accusations that have been National news? The slanderous statements, the unkind things said about your family, etc?
Your inability to work and provide for your family?
There is no reason to believe that this young man sexually assaulted anyone.
Had consexual sex?- Yes. But that is all.

If this were my son, I would stand by him no matter what. I would encourage him to tell ALL he knows and to pay according to what the law perscribes for whatever his involvement in the disappearence of a young woman, be it cover-up of an accidental death or whatever happened.


But he is characterized as a MAN, (he was 17, Natalee at 18, has been referred to as a child) a PREDATOR, a RAPIST.

I don't think I have ever described Joran Van Der Sloot as a MAN. I think he is a spoiled and irresponsible and immature snot of a kid. He is being touted as a far more mature character by those who claim European kids are 'adults in trainning' and other mischaracterizations. I have referred to him as a man only when the other 3 parties are included in my posts, at least that I am aware of.
And for those that don't think there is an agenda from Manseur...read Dan's column:
Dan's Column (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/)
Excerpt:
"Lastly, it is believed that Paulus Van der Sloot participated on a panel which agreed to extradite two relatives of the Mansurs to the US under serious charges some years back. One cannot be fair and balanced without at least mentioning that your primary source of information in this case may well have an agenda against, not only the Dutch in a political sense, but also Paulus Van der Sloot directly."

I am aware of the unpleasant history between the Mansur family and PVDS. It's been out and about the internet and on this forum almost since the beginning.

I really do pray for this family and their daughter, and I hope they reach a resolution soon.
I can not imagine being in that state of mind, this long.

[WordsofWisdom]

If this were my son, I would stand by him no matter what. I would encourage him to tell ALL he knows and to pay according to what the law perscribes for whatever his involvement in the disappearence of a young woman, be it cover-up of an accidental death or whatever happened.


As would I.
But would you defend the missing girl's mother when she consistantly brought forth erroneous information? Or if she threw unproven accusations? I wouldn't.

[Boatswain'sMate]

As would I.
But would you defend the missing girl's mother when she consistantly brought forth erroneous information? Or if she threw unproven accusations? I wouldn't.
I'm sure the missing girl's mother would act differently if the family were cooperative in the investigation and showed any awareness of the son's responsibility to tell the truth about the circumstances.

[WordsofWisdom]

I'm sure the missing girl's mother would act differently if the family were cooperative in the investigation and showed any awareness of the son's responsibility to tell the truth about the circumstances.

I'm not sure of that at all.

[badmix]

I'm sure the missing girl's mother would act differently if the family were cooperative in the investigation and showed any awareness of the son's responsibility to tell the truth about the circumstances. i agree with this 2000%. if the VDS's were out there at the beginning with their son doing whatever they could to help find natalee, things would be different. but they weren't. they were busy saying what a wonderful young man joran is. didn't anita even use the word 'gentle' or something like it at one point? i remember thinking it was an odd choice of words. as was 'no body - no case'.

where's the evidence/proof of consensual sex? and between who?

[mic730]

:clap: :clap: :clap:
I'm sure the missing girl's mother would act differently if the family were cooperative in the investigation and showed any awareness of the son's responsibility to tell the truth about the circumstances.

[girasole]

As would I.
But would you defend the missing girl's mother when she consistantly brought forth erroneous information? Or if she threw unproven accusations? I wouldn't.

Well, as I see it, if he were to tell the truth from the outset, there would be no further reason for maligning him. Altho, if I were the girls mother I certainly wouldn't have words of praise for him if he confessed to hurting or covering up the death of my child.

[WordsofWisdom]

Altho, if I were the girls mother I certainly wouldn't have words of praise for him if he confessed to hurting or covering up the death of my child.

When did he do this?
Do you have a link?
Geesh if I had known that, it would be a different story, entirely.

[WordsofWisdom]

I am aware of the unpleasant history between the Mansur family and PVDS. It's been out and about the internet and on this forum almost since the beginning.

Unpleasant? That is a nice way of putting it fer sure! ;)
So then you know about the money laundering fiasco that exposed Mansur and AmSouth?

[girasole]

When did he do this?
Do you have a link?
Geesh if I had known that, it would be a different story, entirely.

For petes'sake words, you posed a hypothetical and that is what I was responding to. I don't link to hypotheticals.

Give it up.

[WordsofWisdom]

For petes'sake words, you posed a hypothetical and that is what I was responding to. I don't link to hypotheticals.

Give it up.

Be Nice- I didn't realize you were being hypothetical.
But if that was a real case scenario, I would indeed "give it up" and agree with everything that you have said. But at present, it isn't that way at all.

[nanandjim]

I don't care what Jossy has against the VDS's. IMO, he's not a one-man band manufacturing evidence that isn't there. If he can dig up the truth, more power to him.

[WordsofWisdom]

I don't care what Jossy has against the VDS's. IMO, he's not a one-man band manufacturing evidence that isn't there. If he can dig up the truth, more power to him.

The problem is that he HAS "manufacturing evidence that isn't there"
All of his 'witness' bit the dust in a big way. BIG way.

Remember this is the same guy in the helicopter following the van that had Natalee in it all around the island of Aruba! Giving up to the minute details as if he was doing a Traffic Update! It was hillarious! Surely he did not think we were that gullible! Geesh!

ETA:
And it isn't about what Mansuer has against PVDS - That is merely vindictiveness.
Its about the relationship between Mansuer and the folks from Alabama and Georgia.

[nanandjim]

... this is the same guy in the helicopter following the van that had Natalee in it all around the island of Aruba! Giving up to the minute details as if he was doing a Traffic Update!...
Okay, so maybe he is a little overly ambitious. :blushing: I also remember him showing that supposed picture of the shoes that Joran was wearing that night when that photo was actually taken much earlier. However, I do believe that Joran lost a shoe.

I personally don't care what connection (if any) Jossy has with the folks in Alabama. This case is about finding Natalee and punishing those responsible. I think the Twitty's/Holloway's should use whatever means are available to them.

God knows, the average person wouldn't have gotten this far. I think people will be looking to hire Beth as a consultant on how to find their missing loved ones. IMO, she, and the entire family, is absolutely amazing.

[rollerbladr123]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/aruba.missing/index.html

"In the event that these unfounded public condemnations and allegations against Mr. Kalpoe are not immediately ceased, he will consider taking legal steps to ensure that the aforementioned will not be repeated," the lawyer said.
Thanks for the link kgeaux-that does clarify that particular episode; however the link that you cite deals with the first incident-namely release of the Kalpoes and BHT's statement after that and the consequences thereafter. Additionally however, in your original post you also stated "the fact that she has now twice been forced to issue public apologies does seem to support the contention that Beth oversteps the line sometimes." And my point in my reply posting was that BHT was not forced to apologize TWICE-there was no apology by either her or her attorneys as per media reports following the incident where she went to accost Deepak at the Internet. This is not to quibble but to merely clarify some things. In view of the rather more significant events of the day viz. re-arrest of the Kalpoes this particular argument seems to be of lesser importance. Peace!

[concernedperson]

I am getting a picture now so bear with me a little. Suppose the authorities found semen (JVDS,K2's) and blood (Natalee's) in the car. Well, we know she was in the car so that leads me to the next thought. In one of the Kalpoe brothers statements it was said that Joran was assaulting her while she was in and out of consciousness and he didn't want that in his car. This is not hard evidence.

Enter the girls who describe the same date rape drug and assaults. The pattern is emerging and it is getting likely that this happened to Natalee.

Enter Freddy who knows this is something that frequently goes on with the pimps and discusses it. Maybe he knows some small pieces of evidence that fits in with all the above. Maybe he has knowledge of a serial type situation. Maybe he heard talk of body disposal after "something bad happened" to Natalee.

[CherokeeKid]

And there is still the male DNA on Natalee's toothbrush.

I wonder how that will fit into all the theories, speculation IF it turns out to be Joran's ...

[cazador]

hi everyone:

this is what i think happened..i change it all the time so i keep it in a blog.

:woohoo:
http://el-cazador.blogspot.com

thanks ..nice to be here

[NaNaRosebud]

I've been thinking a little bit back to ...... the arm.

Beth is now in Alabama. We don't know any info about the person connected to the arm. Maybe it is Natalee's arm and Beth has been told such. She leaves Aruba as she said she would when she found her daughter. BUT....she has to keep quiet about it until a specified time in order to keep the investigation ongoing. Maybe until Sept4? Notice that also there is the Vinda lawyer doing a lot of interviews now in Beth's place, as well as other lawyers for the family. Beth has not been so vocal as of this week.

The only problem I see with this theory is that I don't know how Beth could keep so calm about Natalee being shown to be dead. Unless she had alread resolved herself to believing that.

Maybe the arm was Natalee's, LE told Joran they found the arm and have confirmed it is hers and that he will be charged with her murder. Joran may be singing like a bird about the pimp group now.

[Moe]

Here's my two cents, for what little its worth. The boys drugged Natalie, went on to molest, rape whatever. Natalee had a bad reaction to the drug and died. The boys call Paulus, he gets rid of the body. Thus, the boys don't know where the body is, so they can't crack under interogation.

[mic730]

Hey Moe!
I thought about that too with PVDS but the boys could crack and say it happened that way.

Here's my two cents, for what little its worth. The boys drugged Natalie, went on to molest, rape whatever. Natalee had a bad reaction to the drug and died. The boys call Paulus, he gets rid of the body. Thus, the boys don't know where the body is, so they can't crack under interogation.

[mic730]

Welcome to WS!

hi everyone:

this is what i think happened..i change it all the time so i keep it in a blog.

:woohoo:
http://el-cazador.blogspot.com

thanks ..nice to be here

[nanandjim]

hi everyone:

this is what i think happened..i change it all the time so i keep it in a blog.

:woohoo:
http://el-cazador.blogspot.com

thanks ..nice to be here
I thought that Lorenzo and Jamie were two different people. The person that I have seen identified as Lorenzo is not the person that I have seen identified as Jamie (or Jaime).

[KatzHome]

This is what I wish would have happened:

That someone would have punched Deepak, the sniveling little worm, right in the face, while he was still walking the streets free...

Then he and Joran could compare noses in jail.