Text 11010, 124 rader
Skriven 2008-02-13 10:15:59 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Told ya so - Holloway ... again ...
===========================================
Hello Roy,

On Monday February 11 2008 12:40, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> Irrelevant. The whole 2 hour 20 min show was in Dutch.

 RW> And that's all you have to go on.

What makes you say that? I said I watched the entire show. I did not say that
was all I watched...

 RW> I have the English version of his American interview to go on. These
 RW> contain his explanation of every word that was relevant to the case in
 RW> that interview. deVries speaks very good English, probably better than
 RW> yours.

So all your information came through de Vries' mouth...

 MvdV>> The opinion of de Vries is just that: an opinion. Opinions are
 MvdV>> not facts.

 RW> You don't have the entire story, therefore, you don't have the facts.
 RW> Your opinion is based in the content of a 2hr TV show...there is more
 RW> to the story in the aftermath of that show.

And you think we had no "aftermath" here? Oh boy how wrong you are. The week
after the show every talk show, every "behind the news", every TV channel,
every news paper had an item on it. I have seen a phletoria of lawyers, shrinks
and rhabdomancers pass the screen and give their opinions.

The shrinks all agreed that Joran van der Sloot is a liar, the lawyers all
agreed that no new legal relevant facts had emerged and the rhabdomancers
disagreed on averything.

 MvdV>>>> vdS' medical education is irrelevant, that is the point.

 MvdV>> Qualified or not, she was dead, that was his statement.

 RW> So you were there when the medical examiner stated the date and time
 RW> of death. Are you saying that Vandesloot is a medical examiner?

Not at all. I am just saying that his statement was that she was dead. If the
prosecution wants to prove otherwise, the onus of proof is on them.

 RW> His actual statement was that he 'thought' she was dead. He couldn't
 RW> prove it and so stated that in the tape.

No, his actual statement was: "Ik wist het gewoon". (I just knew).

And then after an indeterminate time - there was a break in the recording,
during which anything could have been said - van der Eem kept suggesting she
could have been in coma, he finally said: hmmm mumble mumble... zou kunnen".
(could be)

Had this happened in a Hollywood court, we would have heard the famous:
"objection... leading the  witness"long before it came to that.

As it is, he claims he told what van der Eem wanted to hear.

 MvdV>> They do not have direct equivalents in the Dutch legal system.
 MvdV>> Death by negligence is not homicide under the Dutch legal system.

 RW> You'll have to state chapter and verse on that...I find it unlikely
 RW> that there is no such thing in Dutch law.

I did not say there is no such thing in Dutch law. I already told you about
"dood door schuld" (death by guilt). That is a punishable ofense. But.. it is
NOT homicide.

 MvdV>> Wrong? You think you know the Dutch legal system better than I
 MvdV>> do? LOL!

 RW> Apparently I do...yours isn't what I'd call truthful replys to what I
 RW> find in Dutch law. BTW, you may not know this, but there are several
 RW> places to find Dutch law written in English. Translated by Dutch
 RW> lawyers.

And when push comes to shove, it will be the Dutch version that is the only
legal one to be used in court.

 MvdV>> Nice rhetoric that may impress a jury in a US court. In the
 MvdV>> Dutch legal system there is no jury.

 RW> That would also apply to a court of judges. Three isn't it?
 RW> Since they're of a legal mindset, they will know all about Mens Rea
 RW> and apply the law accordingly.

Since they are of legal mindset, they - unlike you - will know the difference
between conjecture and legal and convincing evidence. The "confession" is
neither legal nor convincing.

And unlike juries, the judges won't be influenced by attempts at character
assassination by the media. They will judge by the proven facts and the proven
facts only.

 MvdV>> Without supporting evidence there is no case.

 MvdV>> And that is why Joran van der Sloot has not been arrested. Yet.

 RW> Yet...a few weeks ago, you said this case was closed, end, kaput...
 RW> :o)

And I stand by that. In the unlikely event that the "confession" will be
allowed as such in court, no court in the Kingdom of The Netherlands is going
to convict on a confession alone.

It may be possible in theory but there have been too many convictions - in
which the suspect confessed - that had to be repealed because new forensic
techniques proved the confessions to be false. No court is going to make that
mistake again. No way.

So if the prosecution is foolish enough to go for a murder charge on the basis
of the "confession", the inevitable outcome will be an acquittal by lack of
evidence. And of course the prosecution knows it.

So unless some *real* evidence turns up, there is no case. To satisfy the witch
hunting media they may keep up appearances for a while - even to the point of
arresting again -  but as it is, there is no case.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)