Text 11030, 155 rader
Skriven 2008-02-13 09:34:49 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 11010 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Told ya so - Holloway ... again ...
===========================================
13 Feb 08 10:15, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 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?

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

The fact is, when he was asked by the undercover reporter if he was
certain that she was dead, he said that he didn't know.

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

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

"I don't know."

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

Proving once and for all that he 'didn't know'...

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

Since the film would be entered into evidence by the prosecution, the
court couldn't object to it's content. The only time it can be objected to
is at the time it is offered as evidence. In a real court of law, the
evidence is presented to the defense for their perusal before or while
it's asked to be entered into the court record by the prosecution. This is
the only time the defense can object to it's content. Unless of course, it
was disallowed as evidence, which the defense would work very hard at. At
which time, the judge makes the decision to admit it or not.

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

So was he lying about it then, or after the film was made and he was
exposed as the killer?

 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.

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

Still no chapter and verse.

 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
 RW>> I find in Dutch law. BTW, you may not know this, but there are
 RW>> several places to find Dutch law written in English. Translated by
 RW>> Dutch lawyers.

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

According to the authors, there is no difference. But I'll give you the
'Dutch version' being used, since all parties, including the defendant,
speak fluent Dutch and not many of them actually can speak fluent English.
Only those who translate Dutch into English can do that, since they have
to be fluent in both languages. Not to mention that the translated version
wouldn't be in the Oxford Law Library if it was inaccurate.

 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.

 MvdV> Since they are of legal mindset, they - unlike you - will know the
 MvdV> difference between conjecture and legal and convincing evidence.

Unlike a really free society where those like you who're not familiar with
the ins and outs of the law, are instructed by a single judge in how to
use the law to determine how to judge on a jury of the defendant's peers.
If the judge is in error, either the defense or prosecution lawyers will
raise a point of order objection. That has to be ironed out before the
judge continues.

 MvdV> The "confession" is neither legal nor convincing.

That is yet to be determined.

 MvdV> And unlike juries, the judges won't be influenced by attempts at
 MvdV> character assassination by the media.

Which doesn't happen here either, as the jurists are sequestered and have
no access to the media outlets.

 MvdV> They will judge by the proven facts and the proven facts only.

As would any jury...who, when presented by false evidence or inadmissable
evidence, are instructed not to include it in their determination.

 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)

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

You can stand by it all you want. You've been wrong before in this case.
Remember that before deVries exposed this killer to the world, he was,
according to you, free from all suspicion and free as a bird.

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

That's interesting. The state uses prescious resources to prove someone
innocent. How very interesting.

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

Which is why another body search has been started. Presumably it started
at the beach vdS said they were on at the time of her demise, which he
confessed to being unsure of. Maybe he lied about that beach too.

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

I'm sure that if it is disposed of as you say, then deVries will find
another way to bring attention to vdS's guilt. vdS may be out of mind in
the legal system, but he'll never be out of the minds of the public.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)