My bolding
This is nonsense. I have to question the intent behind continuing to misrepresent the facts.
Is the intent here to say that BH is the one that is responsible for JVDS going to Peru and murdering SF? Is the intent here to say that BH is responsible for whatever issue JVDS might have been going through?
Is the intent here to say that BH should have been more comncerned about the murderer of her child than this murderer extorting her?
ADVS claiming afterwards that they wanted JVDS to go to an institution was for his addictions, he refused to go, he was an adult, is that also the fault of BH? There is nothing to say that he wouldn't have found another way to still go to Peru aside from extorting his first victim's family.
I have more faith in Peru's justice system that they would never fall for any obvious attempt by the defense to blame his first victim when the evidence points to the contrary.
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. You suggest that my opinion is misrepresenting the facts. Let's look at the points individually:
I don't think it will help Ms Holloway if it comes out that Beth gave him $25k; that without that money Joran would never have been in Peru.
Joran was scheduled to go to the Netherlands for psychiatric treatment on the same day he went to Peru. He was broke and without the $25k, he could not go anywhere - except to the Netherlands for treatment (plane tickets and appointments had already been arranged by his mother and uncle)
If Joran can demonstrate that he was pushed to the edge of a mental breakdown because of anything related to Ms Holloway's family (like the visit in prison), he may be able to establish that the murder in Peru was a result of extreme mental stress.
I'm looking at legal arguments that may be presented.