Peru - Stephany Flores, 21, murdered in Lima hotel room, 30 May 2010 #19

Status
Not open for further replies.
He has 2 brothers.

Valentjin Van der Sloot is 2 years younger than Joran. He is attending Emerson college in Boston as an Undergraduate in Media Production: film. he is scheduled to graduate in 2012.

Less is known of Joran's youngest brother, Sebastian Van der Sloot.
Anita stated that young son is at home.

Snipped from Anita's telegraaf interview, paper version.

„Toen Paul overleed, zijn we samengekomen in Arnhem om hem te cremeren. Mijn twee jongste zoons vlogen in vanuit de VS, waar ze studeren. Ik kwam uit Aruba, en Joran kwam weer ergens anders vandaan.”

translation;
When Paul died, we all got together in Arnhem to cremate him.
My two youngest sons flew in from the US, where they are studying. I came from Aruba and Joran came from somewhere else.
 
john van den Heuvel, who interviewed both Anita and Joran, told Jean C. on last night's NG show that he didn't pay for either interview.

I believe that is correct for the verbal interviews as opposed to the TV one.
 
And it further states:
The lawyer stresses he does not intend to defend his client by denying facts or twisting evidence. He only wants his client’s rights to be respected.

BBM ... Well, all I have to say is AMEN to that! :rocker:

Since the gist of the conversation in the jail cell interview with the Dutch reporter was on the conditions at the prison, sounds like maybe he and Anita may have been in cahoots to get the ball rolling on the International rights path. The reporter did say he talked to JVS's lawyer.
 
I agree. I believe she has taken huge strides in beginning to see Joran for what he really is. But it must be devestating to begin to see your little boy as someone that preys on people. I can't imagine what she is going through and I hope I never find out. I can't imagine not visiting my son.

I really feel for her... It must have been extremely hard on her with PVDS and JVDS in one house and having suspicions that something is very wrong and not being able to truely express herself... I too think that now that Paulus and Joran cannot touch her she is probably struggling with many emotions.. Both relief and grief...yeah...that has to be hard... :(
 
Yes. It was my impression that he was sent to start the ball rolling about the FBI sting. He started into conspiracy but ended telling in an interview that he believes Joran is guilty of murder. That shoots down the FBI sting and somebody framing Joran with the murder. Well any honest sole would not be able to carry on with the story that gunmen were chasing Joran with posters of Natalee.

I am wondering if the "so called framing" only applies as to why Joran went to Peru in the first place. The invitation blah blah, all from Joran's unreliable mouth of course. The vicious murder of Stephany is entirely of his own doing.
In his own warped mind, he probably thinks, if I would not have gone to Peru, Stephany would still be alive. Let us blame the murder on the inviter. Yeah, right.
 
Yeah...bit of a stretch to be sure...I do have sympathy for Anita, and remember the northern europeans are very invested looking for medical reasons for human behaviour so the medical labelling of Joran is partly cultural for her.

I think I will feel much more secure in my support of Anita if she starts reporting on specific instances in Joran's life which add to our understanding of the progression of violence in him. She's skating around the edges at the mo IMO, not quite coming out and saying 'yes, he was violent, these are some of the signs he showed early on, these are things all parents should take seriously' etc, as I think Joran's story could be valuable in that way.

Also I would like to see her talk to someone (LE, not the media) about anything she saw during 2005 and afterwards in regards to the Natalee Holloway case. If she's sincere I want to see her use what knowledge she has to help the victims of her child.


BBM

Absolutely, she sure could and should redeem the should and could she didn't in the past. Be interesting to have her talk to a therapist or foresinic psychologist for them seeking answers also. JMO
 
From the money Anita made on her interview. (100,000). It's wrong to pay for a news item, but she probably held out for pay.

Anita did not make any money off of the interview. The article clearly stated that the $100,000.00 was not going to AVS or her son, but a portion of it was going to Joran's lawyer.

IMO, the reporter received the $100,000 and he is giving part of that money to the lawyer and the other part was going to the reporter to cover his expenses for air flight etc.
 
http://translate.google.com/transla...-der-sloot-ir%C3%A9-hasta-la-cidh&sl=es&tl=en

The two most interesting things in this article are the following, IMO.


MA: Habeas corpus means to return the body. Court applies that when it has violated the right person gets the resource, causing all return to the stage at the beginning of the violation of this right.

MA: It is a fundamental issue to achieve, because in this second statement he will say things as they have happened.


Joran wants a 'do-over'. He wants to keep trying out different scenarios - just like he did with Natalee - hoping something will stick.

He's not dealing with dirty Aruban cops or family to cover his tracks this time. I don't think the Peruvians are going to play his games.
 
I'm not exactly sure what the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is, but I don't think they have a lot of clout.
Example: A U.S. citizen, Lori Berenson, was incarcerated in Peru on charges that she was part of a terrorist group trying to overthrow Peru's government. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was engaged in the struggle to get her released, and her parents fought like tigers to get her out, but it took 14 years. She was just released this May.

http://www.freelori.org/

Thanks for your answer & the link. Sure hope you're right about them not having much clout.
 
I am uncertain about the Human Rights thing and just the entire legal system in Peru. All I know is, if it was me, I would want all the help I can get. I think the attorney Alvarez is just doing his job. Nobody likes the defense attorney in a murder case, but he has his job to do. If this is part of dotting i's and covering everything, then we will watch how it unfolds. This is such a different system from the U.S. system that it gets confusing. I am completely baffled about everything happening, but not that his defense attorney is filing all the motions he can, doing all that he is required by law to do.

Thanks to everyone trying to clarify the current events. The popcorn will not get cold here!
 
I stumbled upon this link in the wee hours of t'day. In this link you will find reference to some money being allocated to JVDS legal fees etc (re Mother's interview)

,,,(quote)
ABC and NBC are paying six figures this week for high-profile interviews, according to knowledgeable sources -- despite policies that usually forbid it....

(quote)

But it appears that a portion of the $100,000 fee will go to pay Joran's lawyers in Peru, where he is charged with murdering a young woman

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/abc_nbc_pay_for_talk_KiyWhyjwtqLonAm9J3n7HJ#ixzz0rnFUPIJa

Good find newone! Thanks!
So......do you or anyone else understand what they mean by "licensing the interview"? I noticed that ABC used that term last week when they referred to their possession of the diary of Melody on 20-20.
 
I'm not exactly sure what the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is, but I don't think they have a lot of clout.
Example: A U.S. citizen, Lori Berenson, was incarcerated in Peru on charges that she was part of a terrorist group trying to overthrow Peru's government. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was engaged in the struggle to get her released, and her parents fought like tigers to get her out, but it took 14 years. She was just released this May.

http://www.freelori.org/


Here are the rules of procedure for IACHR in English:

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/reglamento_eng.cfm
 
Good find newone! Thanks!
So......do you or anyone else understand what they mean by "licensing the interview"? I noticed that ABC used that term last week when they referred to their possession of the diary of Melody on 20-20.

The way I understand is , is because ABC did not actual do the interview but a Dutch TV station did. In order to broadcast it on American TV, they paid the Dutch TV station (the owner) a license fee.
 
Does anyone know the time of death? Has it been reported? tia

I think the first TOD I read was around 8:20 or 8:30 that morning.
 
They are. The woman is in a no win situation. Hated for supporting her son and then hated for abandoning him.

I don't hate ADVS for anything. I'm truly trying to find a way to forgive her for her non-action in the past, the choices she made in disciplining her child. Especially being a teacher and undoubtedly seeing her child's behavior in deep doo doo. I also pray her other children will seek counselling...they need it...having gone through all the upheaval in the family caused by their big brother.
 
The way I understand is , is because ABC did not actual do the interview but a Dutch TV station did. In order to broadcast it on American TV, they paid the Dutch TV station (the owner) a license fee.

So when the Dutch interviewer says that they did not pay Anita that's (technically) the truth but how does Anita get the money to pay for joran's lawyer? Did they forward the American networks payment OR - did the Dutch station pay the lawyer directly?:confused:

ABC directly interviewed Melody - but they're also saying that they licensed her diary.:confused:

Somehow I believe that Anita got this money. She has afterall, sent joran shirts and pants even though she's said she doesn't want anything to do with him anymore.
 
Anita did not make any money off of the interview. The article clearly stated that the $100,000.00 was not going to AVS or her son, but a portion of it was going to Joran's lawyer.

IMO, the reporter received the $100,000 and he is giving part of that money to the lawyer and the other part was going to the reporter to cover his expenses for air flight etc.

Clearly Anita IS making money off her recent media blitz (licensing fees from ABC News, etc.) Whether that money is being funneled to JVS's attorney is beside the point. (Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.) But to say AVS or her son is not making money from these interviews because the money is going directly to his attorney is misleading, IMO. Semantics.
 
http://translate.google.com/transla...-der-sloot-ir%C3%A9-hasta-la-cidh&sl=es&tl=en

The two most interesting things in this article are the following, IMO.


MA: Habeas corpus means to return the body. Court applies that when it has violated the right person gets the resource, causing all return to the stage at the beginning of the violation of this right.

MA: It is a fundamental issue to achieve, because in this second statement he will say things as they have happened.


Joran wants a 'do-over'. He wants to keep trying out different scenarios - just like he did with Natalee - hoping something will stick.

He's not dealing with dirty Aruban cops or family to cover his tracks this time. I don't think the Peruvians are going to play his games.

Maybe Cottages or someone with legal knowledge can come in and explain this, but to me, his rights are Primary. In other words, if he wins this or doesn't and they keep appealing, then they can't go forward in the trial. My question, can they go forward with the now investigation by the one judge? I am confused here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
2,920
Total visitors
2,998

Forum statistics

Threads
593,285
Messages
17,983,784
Members
229,075
Latest member
rodrickheffley
Back
Top