Text 10818, 219 rader
Skriven 2008-02-09 15:07:28 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 10754 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Told ya so - Holloway ... again ...
===========================================
08 Feb 08 00:08, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:
MvdV>>> I did not see a confession of murder. Mind you it was all in
MvdV>>> Dutch. Maybe your Babelfish barfed?
RW>> Actually, Vries was there to opine the coverage. I think his Dutch
RW>> and English is very good. But I also contacted my Dutch friend, Max
RW>> Altman, in San Diego and got his opinion of what was said. Max, born
RW>> and raised in the South Pacific Dutch island of Papua, New Guinea
RW>> and of Dutch parantage (his father worked for Dutch Shell) has
RW>> several language skills, all uropeon. He varified what Vries said.
MvdV> So he confirmed that de Vries confessed the murder? Wow!
I guess the English language is still not something you excel in.
MvdV>>> Credibility and admissibility are two different things.
RW>> That's what the judge said when he admitted the film into evidence.
MvdV> Your are making it up.
Nope, just repeating what de Vries said.
MvdV>>> What you heard was probably the wishful thinking of the
MvdV>>> prosecutor.
RW>> I heard the prosecutor talk during his interview, but he wasn't the
RW>> one who mentioned what the judge said.
MvdV> So you did not hear the judge himself. Hearsay....
Semantics and your usual bullshit.
MvdV>>> You keep forgetting that the onus of proof is on the
MvdV>>> prosecution.
RW>> What does this have to do with Sloot being educated in the medical
RW>> field?
MvdV> vdS' medical education is irrelevant, that is the point.
Since he isn't even a med student, he cannot know, nor is he licensed to
make the determination of whether she was dead or not. Thanks for making
my point easy.
MvdV>>> It is the prosecution that will have to prove she was alive
MvdV>>> when she hit the water.
RW>> Any prosecutor can take what he says in the film and turn it into a
RW>> charge of negligent homicide. Homicide is murder, even in the
RW>> Netherlands.
MvdV> Roy stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to be an expert on
MvdV> Dutch law. You are totally wrong. Death by negligence is *not*
MvdV> murder in the Netherlands.
The only fool in the debate is yourself. You're now claiming that homicide
is not murder, when it is. It is less than 2nd degree murder, but more
than manslaughter.
MvdV> Death by negligence is a punishable offence (one year) but legally
MvdV> it is *not* murder.
I said that's the least he could be charged with...you take it to mean
that negligent homicide is something akin to murder. Negligent homicide is
a charge brought against people, who by inaction (as in this case), allow
others under their care to die. NH is considered less serious than first
and second degree murder, in the sense that someone guilty of this offense
can expect a more lenient sentence, as in manslaughter, but it is still a
homicide.
MvdV>>> whatever the charge is: the onus of proof is on the
MvdV>>> prosecution....
RW>> Of course. But a confession is all the proof they need.
MvdV> Wrong! How many times do I have to tell you that by Dutch law a
MvdV> confession alone is *not* enough for a conviction?
Wrong...
MvdV>>> he did not say "dangerous". The translator at Fox nust have
MvdV>>> made that up.
RW>> Vries speaks fluent Dutch, does he not?
MvdV> What does de Vries have to do with it?
He interpreted the film and Sloot's words into English on the Fox showing
of the film...he also interpreted what the prosecution said about Sloot
being dangerous.
MvdV> I heard the lawyer, he did not say "dangerous".
You heard the defense lawyer...he stated that Sloot was and angry young
mand and a liar. He couldn't even determine what were lies and what, if
any, were truths coming from Sloot. Vandersloot is like Bill Clinton, when
he opens his mouth to speak, he's either lying or he's not telling the
truth.
RW>>>> He is the instigator of that crime. He won't be charged as the
RW>>>> assessory.
MvdV>>> You keep forgetting that it is *Dutch* law that applies.....
RW>> You keep forgetting that he is the prime suspect...
MvdV> When the man with the boat turns up and it can be proven that he
MvdV> was the one who dumped her into the sea, he will become the prime
MvdV> suspect.
He will be the accessory after the fact. That is, if Daury is ever found.
He's probably no more than an imaginary character thought up by Sloot to
take the heat off of himself.
MvdV>>> At the time he thought she was dead. Are you saying that does
MvdV>>> not count?
RW>> Right, it doesn't count.
MvdV> That's odd. Not so long ago we discussed the case of a young man
MvdV> who was on his way to meet a 50 year old police officer that he
MvdV> thought was a fourteen year old girl. He spend two years in jail
MvdV> because he *thought* it was 14 year old girl an dthought was what
MvdV> counted.
What he thought wasn't why he went to prison. It was what he did that sent
him there. I've shown you the US Statues that apply, yet you deny that
they had jurisdiction over the dutchman, even though he violated the
statues while in US territory.
MvdV> But now thought does not count?
Thought (i.e. state of mind) does count. Mens Reas must be proved in court
by the prosecution. Sloots' actions will no doubt be shown by the
prosecution, showing that his state of mind (mens reas) was to remove
himself from suspicion.
RW>> His duty would have been to take her to a medical facility.
MvdV> He didn't. The associated crime would be: "verlating van
MvdV> hulpbehoevenden".
Negligent homicide, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.
RW>> He didn't because he either murdered her
MvdV> Conjecture...
RW>> and this latest BS is just that, BS - or he's lying again.
MvdV> Lying is not a crime.
Lying won't help his defense when he's charged. It'll make him look even
more guilty.
RW>>>> But he probably won't forget the compensation he'll be forced to
RW>>>> pay for a wrongful death.
MvdV>>> You keep forgetting it is Dutch law... Ah well never mind.
RW>> Thank you...btw, the reference to compensation will occur under US
RW>> law.
MvdV> Try collecting from a Dutch citizen residing in The Netherlands...
Who said anything about collecting it?
MvdV>>> The inside of the car was not n area accessible to the general
MvdV>>> public and hence it is "private property" in the legal sense.
RW>> That's right, the private property of the people who put the camaras
RW>> in it...their perogative.
MvdV> Wrong. They can put the cameras in. But they may not use them to
MvdV> secretly videotape people. That's the law here. Period.
That's not what de Vries says...he's not worried that.
MvdV>>> By secretly videotaping the conversation with Joran van der
MvdV>>> Sloot, Peter R. de Vries and his accomplice committed a crime
MvdV>>> for which the maximum penalty is nine month in prison....
RW>> They have yet to be charged...I guess that means they probably won't
RW>> be charged with that crime in the name of justice in Aruba.
MvdV> If they are charged, they will be charged in The Netherland as it
MvdV> was there that the interviews took place.
It seems that the Netherlands is more interested in what Vandersloot had
to say about the film, than what de Vries did to obtain that confession.
Sloot was detained for questioning Wednesday or Thursday.
RW>>>> They can do what they want with their own property.
MvdV>>> You keep forgetting...
RW>> You keep forgetting that it's their property...
MvdV> You keep forgetting that it is Dutch law that applies....
Apparently nothing of consequence will come of it. Murder always has
priority over a misdemeanor.
RW>> course your next claim will be that the state can confiscate that
RW>> property because it was used in an alleged crime.
MvdV> Now that you mention it.. I think they actually can...
And it's still mounted in the vehicle as of today. Guess that's not as
important as getting to the bottom of the murder.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|