Natalee Holloway - Case Discussion Extended Thread 12

Various News Outlets | 8/2/05

[truthluva]

Thanks. This is great. I'll talk to you soon. Just a theory similar to what we discussed this weekend.

[justche]

While I don't believe in Karma, I have to believe you reap what you sow, so after thinking about this since last night (thanks :) ) And my own hoping someone get's his. If I had my daughter I could walk away from pursuing legal justice. I'd probably always want to be aware of what Joran was doing, where he was, and would be quite interested to know when he did finally get his.

[TexKat]

Thanks for the link dixiechick2. Yes I read Yuhas's thrash the other day. Not even worth pondering on. I don't believe I even read the entire piece of garbage.

[dixiechick2]

Steve wrote a reply to my email and told me that "None of my articles ever required correction – look at the corrections out of CNN and Court TV; they have no sources – I do. They’ve been wrong a lot – I’ve never been wrong."

This guy certainly has a grandiose personality, doesn't he?

[Rusty Roberts]

bookmark

[TAquinas]

"TA, I think that the Uncle was saying they didn't believe that that the statement, No body, no case was true. He thinks there is information out there to make a case. Thats what I believe he was trying to say...."

We are in agreement then. I'm only concetrating on the "no body, no case" statement, NOT on the subsequent statement that "there is information out there to make a case."

GRACE'S question: "Isn`t it true that Natalee`s family believes the judge told his son "no body, no case"?

REYNOLDS (Natalee's uncle) Response: "We certainly think that is the story that he told his son. We think that it is really not true. We do think that there is information there."

The two declarative statements by Reynolds are clear and unambiguous, but they contradict each other. Remember that these two statements are in response to GRACE's question. In his first statement, he say that (we) - meaning Holloway family and himself - believe that PVDS told Joran "no body, no case." So far no problem here. They think that's what PVDS told JVDS. But in the next statement, he states "We think that it is really not true," meaning that, YES, that is what we believe, but it is really not true that PVDS told Joran the "no body, no case" phrase.

Mr. Reynolds seems to contradict himself with those two statements. His second statement negates his first, as if he's correcting it and ultimately asserts, again in response to Greta's original question, that "We think that it is really not true." So, it is not true that "Natalee`s family believes the judge told his son 'no body, no case'"

We seem to be in agreement on the "no body, no case" phrase as believed not to be true by uncle Reynolds and the Holloway family. What you did was to bring forward the second statement "there is information out there to make a case," which I was not commenting on, but to which I DO agree. However, this statement is not directly related to the "no body, no case," rather I think this statement implies that there is information out there to solve the case and indict Jovan.

[TAquinas]

"I get both when I click on the play button."

I think the problem was/is at my end.

Thanks for the link, or as they say in Spanish, muchos grecias. I think I got it right, I think.

[Froufrou]

"But in the next statement, he states "We think that it is really not true," meaning that, YES, that is what we believe, but it is really not true that PVDS told Joran the "no body, no case" phrase."

No, he means "we think that's really not true" that without a body there's no case. He's referring to the fact that there was a case successfully prosecuted in The Netherlands without a body as evidence.

[RGVTx]

That makes sense to me. Thanks for sorting that out.
It was a bit confusing for me.

[yellowhammer]

As I said earlier, Jug has stated on many occasions that he heard the judge say _first hand_ "no body, no case". This is not in dispute that Jug has said this. The uncle may just be working a different angle here by downplaying it.

Now you can make up your own mind as to whether or not you believe Jug, but this is coming directly from what he has said about their meeting with van der Slut their first night on the island.

[cajungirl]

I don't think they do, at least that is what I read in the early days.

[Ditter]

I am still wondering why you care what the people interested in this case are doing with their time? If they aren't on your payroll, it's you who needs to get over it.

[hummingbird]

Unfortunately, I've heard stories of women being assaulted in their own rooms in some of these places.

I've only been on one cruise but I've heard of "incidents," too. I've also heard that if the perpetrator is caught, he/she is simply let go at the next port. No charges.

There was a program on cable re: "cruise crimes" in the past couple of years...wish I could recall the name. But, what they underscored was that a cruise is like any other small town...good people (mostly) and bad people.

They also said that crime was not limited to a few bad apples amongst the crew. Main point of show was not to let your guard down and feel like you are 100% safe from criminals amongst crew as well as fellow travelers.

The show I'm thinking about may have been on A&E and it might even have been a series. (Where did I leave my memory today...I just had it around here somewhere!)

[RGVTx]

See FrouFrou's post #588.

FrouFrou cleared the seeming contradiction in Reynold's statements. It now makse sense and is in agreement with your posts.

[theophilusscribe]

Jossy encouraged witness to come forward, now he says lots of land around pond hasn't been search, pond still has lots of water.........is it possible he is intentionally keeping authorities focused/busy on Aruba for a reason? Is she off the island? Just a thought.

Jossy? Who knows? Sometimes he seems kindof helpful (he was helping the family get a backhoe), but mostly it seems like he's into wild goose chases . . . I don't know what his agenda is . . .

[cajungirl]

I am beginning to see Jossy as trying desperately to serve up Joran so this will all go away and business can continue. I think he is having more difficulty doing that than he imagined and is very upset. I don't believe he is a kindly old guy doing a good deed. He is all about business. Just my opinion.

[theophilusscribe]

The Travel Channel often has on shows showing the extensive surveillance and security in Las Vegas casinos. You'd think it would be that secure in casinos outside of Vegas, too.

Exactamundo! Especially in places where the "high rollers" go.

[theophilusscribe]

What's your take on these posts?

Well, I think it is iinteresting that all of JVDS's rights change the moment he turns 18. I wonder if they would try him as an adult since the crime occured before he was officially an adult (if they ever try him, that is).

[cajungirl]

Your poem really has been iin my head today.

And finally, I thought, who is justice for? Is it for the Holloway/Twitty family, for Natalee or for society?

At first I thought it was for the Holloways and Natalee. But now I am thinking it is for society. And Joran, if he did this and I think he did, will continue to do whatever he wants with women, he will just be more careful. So I guess, justice ought to be served and not bargained away.

It is a hard call for a hypothetical question.

[hummingbird]

Thanks, TexKat...I've been wondering about that case as well!