GUILTY Peru - Stephany Flores, 21, murdered in Lima hotel room, 30 May 2010 #24

[otto]

Thank you. This is where you and I disagree. I do not find Anita VanderSloot credible - at all. She's spent her life covering and making excuses for her son. Just because she doesn't have a criminal record and is an art teacher doesn't mean she's telling the truth.

Cindy Anthony doesn't have a criminal record either. She had a reputable career in the nursing field. Does that mean she's credible as well? She's also spent her life covering for her child. Two peas...

IMO

I think it's common for parents to want to see the good in their own children and to protect them. Families of convicted murderers always have difficulty accepting the truth. Without proof, Joran's family could not believe that their 17 year old son was capable of murder. When Joran was 22 and confessed to murder, his mother appeared to accept this, more or less stating that he made his bed and now he can lie in it.

 

[Hazel]

I guess I just don't understand your point, Hazel. What BH said or didn't say to JVS during her visit will have nothing to do with his current trial, IMO. Clearly she doesn't have the authority to promise him anything. She knows that, the authorities know it and certainly HE knew it.

I don't know why she would have any regrets. She didn't do anything illegal. She finally had the opportunity to confront him - face to face, one on one - after five long years and she took that opportunity since she finally had a captive audience, so to speak. She had her say at long last. So what if it wasn't rehearsed or scripted? She wanted to face him and let him know she wasn't going away - ever. She did that. It was important to her.

I guess I just don't understand what you find so incriminating about it.

It's very clear suzihawk. When I said 'regret' it's clear I am referring to what she ended up saying during the meeting. When she is asked later on, she is definitely satisfied with what she said, she had no regrets for what she said.

I had repeated over and over that her GOING into the prison is UNDERSTANDABLE, and in NO WAY I am judging that decision. I also have said a few times, that in her place, I might have done that exact same thing, meaning GOING to the meet. At no point in time I ever said anything regarding it being illegal, nor criticizing her decision to go talk to him.
Please go back and re-read ALL my posts, if in doubt.

Read that this was NOT the first time she met him face-to-face, it was actually the second time. This doesn't change anything, just that I like to keep all the facts straight.

My QUESTION is ONLY about the CONTENT of what she said, NOT anything else.

You say:
( 1 ) "She had her say, at long last" Excellent! and I am very happy for her to have had that chance of having her say

( 2 ) and her say was: ""she wasn't going away - ever" OK, if telling him that helps her cope with the pain, good for her!

suzihawk: in all honesty, is that all you hear her saying? Here is the link to the video....I took the trouble of making a transcript, so it's easy to comprehend:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7479151#post7479151"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7479151#post7479151[/ame]


You don't need to answer me that, it's for every person to come to their own conclusions.
I already got the answer to the QUESTION I originally had....that is ALL I wanted to know.

Cheers!

 

[otto]

Hazel, thanks for the transcript. I was researching to find out what sort of sentence Joran was actually looking at. It's my understanding that he is facing a maximum term of 30 years but he could be paroled in 10 years. Have you heard any different? If he is paroled, is he required to remain in Peru?

 

[otto]

This gives a good timeline of the events on the evening Stephany was murdered

http://pulitzerandthompson.com/exclusive-peruvian-timeline-and-documents/

 

[Hazel]

Since you understand the Dutch, then you also know that Peter was a little upset that Beth did not make better use of the opportunity she had to corner Joran, but he acknowledged that this was the difference between a reporter talking with Joran and a layperson talking with Joran. He wondered why Beth, when Joran said he would write her a letter, didn't fire back that she was sitting right there so there was no need for him to write a letter. I don't remember if that was in Dutch or English, but it's in the tapes.

They did later have the discussion about what one believes they will say in a given situation and what one actually says in that situation.

I really like that Dutch guy! he seems very natural and honest.

That was the conversation I was talking about, the one that took place after the meeting...it is in English. It is all there, very clear to understand.

by the way, I don't understand a word of Dutch, but know someone who does,

 

[suzihawk]

It's very clear suzihawk. When I said 'regret' it's clear I am referring to what she ended up saying during the meeting. When she is asked later on, she is definitely satisfied with what she said, she had no regrets for what she said.

I had repeated over and over that her GOING into the prison is UNDERSTANDABLE, and in NO WAY I am judging that decision. I also have said a few times, that in her place, I might have done that exact same thing, meaning GOING to the meet. At no point in time I ever said anything regarding it being illegal, nor criticizing her decision to go talk to him.
Please go back and re-read ALL my posts, if in doubt.

Read that this was NOT the first time she met him face-to-face, it was actually the second time. This doesn't change anything, just that I like to keep all the facts straight.

My QUESTION is ONLY about the CONTENT of what she said, NOT anything else.

You say:
( 1 ) "She had her say, at long last" Excellent! and I am very happy for her to have had that chance of having her say

( 2 ) and her say was: ""she wasn't going away - ever" OK, if telling him that helps her cope with the pain, good for her!

suzihawk: in all honesty, is that all you hear her saying? Here is the link to the video....I took the trouble of making a transcript, so it's easy to comprehend:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7479151#post7479151


You don't need to answer me that, it's for every person to come to their own conclusions.
I already got the answer to the QUESTION I originally had....that is ALL I wanted to know.

Cheers!

Thank you. I've seen the video several times - when it was originally posted and again when you posted it. Maybe I missed it but I just don't see or hear anything that she should regret. Nothing that puts his current trial in jeopardy or nothing that incriminates her in any way.

Anyway, I'm glad we agree that she's entitled to confront him in any way she chooses as long as she breaks no laws.

 

[otto]

I really like that Dutch guy! he seems very natural and honest.

That was the conversation I was talking about, the one that took place after the meeting...it is in English. It is all there, very clear to understand.

by the way, I don't understand a word of Dutch, but know someone who does,

Having someone tell you the gist of it is good enough ... plus ... much of it is in English. There is a commentary in Dutch that is not entirely translated.

 

[Hazel]

Hazel, thanks for the transcript. I was researching to find out what sort of sentence Joran was actually looking at. It's my understanding that he is facing a maximum term of 30 years but he could be paroled in 10 years. Have you heard any different? If he is paroled, is he required to remain in Peru?

If he is paroled, yes he is required to remain in Peru. Seems to me there is still a slight possibility for charges to be changed:

Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fperu.com%2Factualidad%2Fjoran-van-der-sloot-se-salvaria-cadena-perpetua-noticia-30779&act=url

original article: http://peru.com/actualidad/joran-van-der-sloot-se-salvaria-cadena-perpetua-noticia-30779

 

[Hazel]

Thank you. I've seen the video several times - when it was originally posted and again when you posted it. Maybe I missed it but I just don't see or hear anything that she should regret. Nothing that puts his current trial in jeopardy or nothing that incriminates her in any way.

Anyway, I'm glad we agree that she's entitled to confront him in any way she chooses as long as she breaks no laws.

I never said that she should regret what she said.

If you read back at some poster's answers, you will see some were trying to 'explain away WHY when she met him, she said the things she said (read transcript), those posters were suggesting that perhaps her emotions took over, and said things she didn't actually wanted to say, and other explanations as to why.
Again, IT WAS NOT me who suggested those things.

Other posters suggested that perhaps she lied to J. trying to trick him into believing ... they even said that he deserved to be lied because of all he's done, etc....
Again, IT WAS NOT me who suggested those things.

Please DO read back posts.

Based on those and other comments, which were in response to my QUESTION, I went and started watching the videos that were posted here, and other videos I found myself...that's when I came upon the one video where she is seen AFTER that meeting, and she is asked how she felt about why she said, etc. etc.,
and based on her answers it is clear she was satisfied with the whole thing. Had she thought at that moment, that what she said was NOT what she intended to say, that would have been the time to express those feelings, but she didn't, so that means she was content with what she said, and that's when I said she had no regrets she was content

so no backup for the arguments/comments of the posters trying to explain that what she said was something that she didn't actually wanted to say, that it must have been the emotions taking over, etc.,

So I guess we can ESTABLISH as fact that what we hear in that tape is what she wanted to tell him, or at least that she is quite happy about it.

That is all, quite simple actually.

suzihawk, why are you mentioning the word "incriminating"?

I also never said anything about "putting her trial in jeopardy"

I certainly never mentioned those words,....It would be a good idea to 'quote' posts when addressing these kind of 'words'

Those are hard words, and since I never said so, I feel it is not fair for me, that I have to keep defending myself for things I never said. Hope you agree

 

[otto]

If he is paroled, yes he is required to remain in Peru. Seems to me there is still a slight possibility for charges to be changed:

Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fperu.com%2Factualidad%2Fjoran-van-der-sloot-se-salvaria-cadena-perpetua-noticia-30779&act=url

original article: http://peru.com/actualidad/joran-van-der-sloot-se-salvaria-cadena-perpetua-noticia-30779

Thank you ... so it sounds like the evidence in the case could push it back up to a life imprisonment case. I would not want to see Joran free to prey on more women ... ever.

 

[suzihawk]

I never said that she should regret what she said.

If you read back at some poster's answers, you will see some were trying to 'explain away WHY when she met him, she said the things she said (read transcript), those posters were suggesting that perhaps her emotions took over, and said things she didn't actually wanted to say, and other explanations as to why.
Again, IT WAS NOT me who suggested those things.

Other posters suggested that perhaps she lied to J. trying to trick him into believing ... they even said that he deserved to be lied because of all he's done, etc....
Again, IT WAS NOT me who suggested those things.

Please DO read back posts.

Based on those and other comments, which were in response to my QUESTION, I went and started watching the videos that were posted here, and other videos I found myself...that's when I came upon the one video where she is seen AFTER that meeting, and she is asked how she felt about why she said, etc. etc.,
and based on her answers it is clear she was satisfied with the whole thing. Had she thought at that moment, that what she said was NOT what she intended to say, that would have been the time to express those feelings, but she didn't, so that means she was content with what she said, and that's when I said she had no regrets she was content

so no backup for the arguments/comments of the posters trying to explain that what she said was something that she didn't actually wanted to say, that it must have been the emotions taking over, etc.,

So I guess we can ESTABLISH as fact that what we hear in that tape is what she wanted to tell him, or at least that she is quite happy about it.

That is all, quite simple actually.

suzihawk, why are you mentioning the word "incriminating"?

I also never said anything about "putting her trial in jeopardy"

I certainly never mentioned those words,....It would be a good idea to 'quote' posts when addressing these kind of 'words'

Those are hard words, and since I never said so, I feel it is not fair for me, that I have to keep defending myself for things I never said. Hope you agree

I'm sorry, Hazel. I truly apologize.

I guess my misunderstanding stemmed from your original posts where you were questioning exactly what she was offering him. You said now people were going to wonder if the 'sting operation' was initiated from her end rather than the other way around and that it 'was just plain wrong". You said that she was desperate and desperate people made bad decisions. You also said you wondered what transpired after their meeting and that you hoped there would be no interference now that the trial was starting. Those things made me feel you thought she was guilty of some wrongdoing.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Peace

 

[Hazel]

I'm sorry, Hazel. I truly apologize.

I guess my misunderstanding stemmed from your original posts where you were questioning exactly what she was offering him. You said now people were going to wonder if the 'sting operation' was initiated from her end rather than the other way around and that it 'was just plain wrong". You said that she was desperate and desperate people made bad decisions. You also said you wondered what transpired after their meeting and that you hoped there would be no interference now that the trial was starting. Those things made me feel you thought she was guilty of some wrongdoing.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Peace

Apologies accepted

<modsnip>

Now that you mentioned it, I am now starting to wonder whatever happened of the exchange of emails? Do you know if BH contacted his lawyers or viceversa?
What came out of that?
Could you please point me in the direction where to read about that?
Thanks in advance.

PEACE

 

[Hazel]

FYI to members - There's also a thread just about BH's visit with JVDS at the Peru prison here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114558&highlight=joran+vander+sloot

Have a great day

OMG! Thank you so much vlpate for that link....am starting to read and your first reactions, theories, impressions, etc. are just soooooo interesting!

 

[vlpate]

i believe it's portrait of a monster: jvds, a murder in peru and the natalee holloway mystery by lisa pulitzer... the same author as who co-authored the book about the casey anthony trial with prosecutor jeff ashton.

both excellent books btw!

Yes, that's the one. I'm almost finished. It's very repetitive, but that's ok because sometimes you have to tell me a few times before I get it lol.

 

[annalia]

Yes, that's the one. I'm almost finished. It's very repetitive, but that's ok because sometimes you have to tell me a few times before I get it lol.

I read it too, I thought it was an excellent book as well and had a lot of good information in it. I haven't read the book about CA yet.

Question, I remember hearing that trials in Peru are open to the public, has anyone heard whether any US media, like HLN plan to be there?

 

[asiabrasil]

Question, I remember hearing that trials in Peru are open to the public, has anyone heard whether any US media, like HLN plan to be there?

LOL. That is what I just read 4 new pages of posts to try and find out, and IMHO is the most important thing right now.

 

[annalia]

LOL. That is what I just read 4 new pages of posts to try and find out, and IMHO is the most important thing right now.

I do hope someone from the US media is there to film it all. I especially want to see that smug smirk get wiped off his face for good after he's convicted and being carted away.

I thought Jean Casarez always did a great job reporting from Peru, I hope she is involved again reporting on the trial.

JMHO

 

[Salem]

Knock off the bickering - both sides of it! Anymore and TOs will be issued.

Final Word!

Salem

 

[asiabrasil]

I do hope someone from the US media is there to film it all. I especially want to see that smug smirk get wiped off his face for good after he's convicted and being carted away.

I thought Jean Casarez always did a great job reporting from Peru, I hope she is involved again reporting on the trial.

JMHO

Agreed on both.

 

[Hazel]

I believe this is it, there are many more on YouTube, about this series. It's in Dutch, just let it run and even if you don't understand the words, you can 'read' the 'reactions' .... there are a few parts in English, including that conversation I was talking about:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIPGNeSzFg&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIPGNeSzFg&feature=related[/ame]