Text 10953, 273 rader
Skriven 2008-02-11 12:40:59 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 10916 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Told ya so - Holloway ... again ...
===========================================
11 Feb 08 09:01, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:
MvdV>>> So he confirmed that de Vries confessed the murder? Wow!
RW>> I guess the English language is still not something you excel in.
Your question is irrelevant. Vries didn't make the confession, which is
what your question, badly stated as it is, alludes to.
MvdV> Irrelevant. The whole 2 hour 20 min show was in Dutch.
And that's all you have to go on.
I have the English version of his American interview to go on. These
contain his explanation of every word that was relevant to the case in
that interview. deVries speaks very good English, probably better than
yours.
What is even more relevant is your lack of information about that
interview.
MvdV>>> Your are making it up.
RW>> Nope, just repeating what de Vries said.
MvdV> The opinion of de Vries is just that: an opinion. Opinions are not
MvdV> facts.
You don't have the entire story, therefore, you don't have the facts.
Your opinion is based in the content of a 2hr TV show...there is more to
the story in the aftermath of that show.
MvdV>>> vdS' medical education is irrelevant, that is the point.
RW>> Since he isn't even a med student, he cannot know, nor is he
RW>> licensed to make the determination of whether she was dead or not.
RW>> Thanks for making my point easy.
MvdV> You have no point.
You're obviously wrong.
MvdV> Qualified or not, she was dead,
So you were there when the medical examiner stated the date and time of
death. Are you saying that Vandesloot is a medical examiner?
MvdV> that was his statement.
His actual statement was that he 'thought' she was dead. He couldn't prove
it and so stated that in the tape.
MvdV> For the prosecution to construe a murder case they will have to
MvdV> prove that his statement was false and that she was alive.
Hogwash.
MvdV> They will have to prove that without any reasonable doubt.
There is nothing to prove, he confessed.
MvdV> Merely throwing doubt by interjecting that vdS is not medically
MvdV> qualified is not good enough.
That has everything to do with it. A medical examiner can make that
determination, a layman cannot and will not be certified.
MvdV> "Beyond any reasonable doubt" are the keywords.
Confession is the key word. "I was lying." is not a defense.
RW>>>> Any prosecutor can take what he says in the film and turn it
RW>>>> into a charge of negligent homicide. Homicide is murder, even in
RW>>>> the Netherlands.
MvdV>>> Roy stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to be an
MvdV>>> expert on Dutch law. You are totally wrong. Death by negligence
MvdV>>> is *not* murder in the Netherlands.
RW>> The only fool in the debate is yourself. You're now claiming that
RW>> homicide is not murder, when it is. It is less than 2nd degree
RW>> murder, but more than manslaughter.
MvdV> "Homicide" and "2nd degree murder" are term in the US legal system.
No, homicide and murder are both terms in the English language that
anybody can find the definition of in any English dictionary...
MvdV> They do not have direct equivalents in the Dutch legal system.
MvdV> Death by negligence is not homicide under the Dutch legal system.
You'll have to state chapter and verse on that...I find it unlikely that
there is no such thing in Dutch law. You might also want to research the
EU laws that the Netherlands is bound to use. I find them to be quite
interesting.
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?
RW>> Wrong...
MvdV> Wrong? You think you know the Dutch legal system better than I do?
MvdV> LOL!
Apparently I do...yours isn't what I'd call truthful replys to what I find
in Dutch law. BTW, you may not know this, but there are several places to
find Dutch law written in English. Translated by Dutch lawyers.
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?
RW>> He interpreted the film and Sloot's words into English on the Fox
RW>> showing of the film...he also interpreted what the prosecution said
RW>> about Sloot being dangerous.
MvdV> So what you heard is the interpretation of de Vries. I heard the
MvdV> original. The lawyer did not say "dangerous".
Your lack of knowledge about what happened in the days after your only
source of information was played on TV, is noted.
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
MvdV>>> man who was on his way to meet a 50 year old police officer
MvdV>>> that he thought was a fourteen year old girl. He spend two
MvdV>>> years in jail because he *thought* it was 14 year old girl an
MvdV>>> dthought was what counted.
RW>> What he thought wasn't why he went to prison. It was what he did
RW>> that sent him there.
MvdV> He went to meet a 50 year old policeman in the lobby of a hotel. Is
MvdV> that a crime?
His actions prior to that meeting sets up what is known as Mens Rea. i.e.
a state of mind to carry out what he was thinking. His actions after that
were those that he was charged with, not his thoughts.
MvdV>>> But now thought does not count?
RW>> Thought (i.e. state of mind) does count. Mens Reas must be proved in
RW>> court by the prosecution. Sloots' actions will no doubt be shown by
RW>> the prosecution, showing that his state of mind (mens reas) was to
RW>> remove himself from suspicion.
MvdV> Nice rhetoric that may impress a jury in a US court. In the Dutch
MvdV> legal system there is no jury.
That would also apply to a court of judges. Three isn't it? Since they're
of a legal mindset, they will know all about Mens Rea and apply the law
accordingly.
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".
RW>> Negligent homicide, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.
MvdV> Not under Dutch law....
:O) http://www1.lexisnexis.co.uk/abouteutracker/
Read the part about 'Seamless Links' at the bottom of the page. Then look
up The Dutch Penal Code, revised ed. (English translation) NETH 050 N469
RW>>>> Thank you...btw, the reference to compensation will occur under
RW>>>> US law.
MvdV>>> Try collecting from a Dutch citizen residing in The
MvdV>>> Netherlands...
RW>> Who said anything about collecting it?
MvdV> What is the point of suing for compensation if there is no way to
MvdV> collect?
Let me spell it for you; C R E D I T S T A T U S ! When anybody who is
thinking of loaning money or vdS goes to rent a car, his credit status
will have a big black mark on it. This won't go away for a very long time.
MvdV>>> Wrong. They can put the cameras in. But they may not use them
MvdV>>> to secretly videotape people. That's the law here. Period.
RW>> That's not what de Vries says...he's not worried that.
MvdV> The opinions of de Vries do not make facts.
In that case, you would think the Dutch authorities would have arrested
and charged the person responsible for allowing it to happen and the
product of that 'crime' used to defame someone in public...I doubt that
the corporate lawyers are chewing on their fingernails about it.
MvdV>>> If they are charged, they will be charged in The Netherland as
MvdV>>> it was there that the interviews took place.
RW>> It seems that the Netherlands is more interested in what
RW>> Vandersloot had to say about the film, than what de Vries did to
RW>> obtain that confession. Sloot was detained for questioning Wednesday
RW>> or Thursday.
MvdV> Wrong. van der Sloot voluntarily submitted for an interview as a
MvdV> witness on Friday. The interview took two hours and took place in
MvdV> Rotterdam. He officially stated that everything he said on the tape
MvdV> was made up. And than he went home.
No doubt...but when was he lying, when he was on tape or when he was
questioned?
MvdV> That's it.
Not yet.
MvdV>>> You keep forgetting that it is Dutch law that applies....
RW>> Apparently nothing of consequence will come of it. Murder always has
RW>> priority over a misdemeanor.
MvdV> I would not count on that. Patrick van der Eem (the man who drove
MvdV> the car) is a known criminal. He was denied entry to the US when he
MvdV> accompanied de Vries last week. He was detained at New York airport
MvdV> for a couple of houes and send back to The Netherlands because of a
MvdV> 13 year old drug related conviction.
That's because of the new HLS laws...no foriegn druggies allowed here.
MvdV> de Vries knwe about the conviction but thought it had expired. So
MvdV> much for the legal expertise of de Vries....
de Vries doesn't need to know about the law, he can ask corporate lawyers
all day long. They probably didn't think anything of it either. Once
you're on the HLS list of undesirble people, you're not admitted.
RW>>>> course your next claim will be that the state can confiscate
RW>>>> that property because it was used in an alleged crime.
MvdV>>> Now that you mention it.. I think they actually can...
RW>> And it's still mounted in the vehicle as of today. Guess that's not
RW>> as important as getting to the bottom of the murder.
MvdV> There is no murder case.
That is yet to be determined.
MvdV> All there is are the later retracted ramblings of a stoned
MvdV> youngster who everyone agrees is a pathological liar.
LOL!
MvdV> Without supporting evidence there is no case.
MvdV> And that is why Joran van der Sloot has not been arrested. Yet.
Yet...a few weeks ago, you said this case was closed, end, kaput... :o)
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|