Text 9663, 156 rader
Skriven 2008-01-08 21:19:20 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Holloway
================
Hello Roy,

On Friday January 04 2008 09:19, you wrote to me:

 RW>>> Natalee Holloway wanted to go to Aruba, I never did, nor do I
 RW>>> want to go there now...

 MvdV>> Again: only your word for that..

 RW> My diary says otherwise.

We only have your word that your diary is accurate.

 MvdV>>>> I don't think that if any evidence against you turns up, you
 MvdV>>>> will be believed on your word.

 RW>>> But then, the burden of proof isn't upon me, it's upon the
 RW>>> accuser.

 MvdV>> Just as when evidence turns uo against me....

 RW> Of course.

Right. Keep that in mind and read on...

 MvdV>> Hmmm... that sounds like what Joram van der Sloot is saying
 MvdV>> now,

 RW> What could be called 'false arrest' here. That's why the collected
 RW> evidence against a suspect has to be provided to the prosecution
 RW> before any arrest is made here.

Same here. The evidence has to be presented to a judge. It is the judge that
issues the waarant for the arrest.

However, the judge issuing the warrant is not the same as the judge that will
eventually rule in court. The court may rule that the arrest was unwarranted
after all...

 MvdV>>>> Very few people know ofhand what they did or where they were
 MvdV>>>> on a random date over two years ago. "No idea"is the normal
 MvdV>>>> reaction of any one not involved.

 RW>>> OTH, I do because my wife makes it a point to keep a diary.

 MvdV>> That could have been fabricated after the fact...

 RW> It's in there now, which is/was before I MIGHT have been a suspect.

If you did it, you took into account that you might become a suspect some day.

 MvdV>> Same here. I have never been to Aruba. But that is merely a
 MvdV>> statement, not an alibi. You asked for my alibi and that means
 MvdV>> I will have to tell you were I was that night. And it should be
 MvdV>> verifyable. So that it proves I was not on Aruba.

 RW> Actually, if your legal system were that of a free nation, the
 RW> prosecution would have to prove you are lying. The burden of proof is
 RW> on the accuser.

Exactly. I do not have an alibi, but tat does not bother me as the burden of
proof is still on the prosecution. *They* have to prove I was there, not the
other way around.

 RW>>> Whiskey barrels are owned by the distiller here. They  have to
 RW>>> be returned to them when they're empty.

 MvdV>> People who kill people and put them in barrels tend not to be
 MvdV>> inhibited by rles like that.

 RW> Sure. And then they've given the investigators a clue as to who may
 RW> have murdered someone. They have to sign for the whiskey barrel

Sure. What if the signee is bonafide and the barrel was stolen from him?

 MvdV>> So you think it is not completetly impossible that she
 MvdV>> dispapperead to get away from her parents.

 RW> There's no proof that she would have wanted to.

There is no proof to the contrary either.

 RW>>>>> She certainly didn't deserve the treatment she got in Aruba.

 MvdV>>>> What treatment?

 RW>>> Her murder...

 MvdV>> There is no evidence that a murder took place.

 RW> There is no evidence that she ran off and hid from everyone either.

No, but the fact that she disappeared in undisputed. A run away is just as good
an explanation for het disappearence as foul play.

 MvdV>> They don't get F16s flown over to Aruba. Dutch F16 have been
 MvdV>> deployed to search for missing teenagers before, but only
 MvdV>> within the country. Never overseas. Why did the US air force no
 MvdV>> provuide for the F16s. They are much closer and probably have
 MvdV>> superior euqipmnet to boot..

 RW> Because then you would say that the American F-16s and their equipment
 RW> and pilots are inferior to yours...

I have no reason to say that. I was not the one demanding F16s be deployed in
the first place. Had I been asked I would have said: it is a waste of
resources.

 MvdV>> Complaing there would be no trial when you are in jail in the
 MvdV>> prelude for a trial, protesting there wil be no one is
 MvdV>> premature isn't it?

 RW> No...he knew that the prosecutor was hoping to get him to confess when
 RW> faced with the same old evidence, because his lawyer had already seen
 RW> it and told vd Sloot not to admit to anything. They concocted the
 RW> 'trial' bs to make it sound good.

A show to satisfy the (American) media.

 MvdV>>>> As it is, he considers going for compensation for unjust
 MvdV>>>> detention. I think he has a good leg to stand on....

 RW>>> Good idea, charge the dutch taxpayer twice for his crime.

 MvdV>> He did no say it would be the Dutch taxpayer he would sue.
 MvdV>> maybe he meant the Holloway family. The sued him before(and
 MvdV>> lost) , maybe he is thinking of a countersuit.

 RW> Wouldn't do him any good. Aruban and/or Dutch courts have no
 RW> jusrisdiction here.

He could sue Holloway's parents in a *US* court.

 RW>>> Dutch blood does run in my veins.

 MvdV>> Prove it.

 RW> I'm almost as stubborn as you are.

That's not proof of Ducth blood.

 RW> You're more stubborn than I, because your blood hasn't been mixed
 RW> with; German,

My grandmother (father's side) was of German descent.

 RW> English, Polish, Welsh or Black Foot Native American.

Only the Black foot is missing. For compensation there is French and Spanish
blood.


Cheers, Michiel

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