Replies

You were saying ...

Bullpuckey! Peruvians are not going to believe anything this liar says and they are not going to believe it is a crime of passion! He didn’t even know this woman!!

LOL ... I've seen drunks commit "crimes of passion" and not even know who they were doing it to ... :-) It happens ...

As to whether that is the case here, what I'm saying is that if he says that and they don't have anything which shows it to be premeditated for a killing, then he's going to have the last word in the matter. Without anything to say it was pre-planned, I don't see how someone else, who wasn't there, is going to say differently.

It will come down to the evidence showing that -- or not.

The "rationale" for the anger has been "stated" by van der Sloot, and it's something that anyone can see could happen. I would not like someone snooping around in my computer -- but the difference is, I put a password on it to prevent "casual snoopers" (like friends, acquaintances and others) from doing so. And furthermore, I don't get mad to the point of killing someone. So, that's the difference for me, but I would not be too happy about it either.

So, that's the "rationale" for the argument and the anger. And it's not too hard to understand, especially with people drinking (or possibly on drugs) to get "overly angry" at the very slightest things. I've seen that, too, with many other people, so I know it happens very easily, and it's "plausible".

It's a "plausible explanation" for what happened -- but that doesn't mean it's an excuse -- it just means that this sort of thing can and does happen with people, far too many times, unfortunately.

AND..., if someone is already predisposed to abusing women, for one thing, and they have a "short fuse", for another thing, and they've been drinking -- no, it's "not a stretch" to see this sort of thing happening.