| Jorans June 14 Statement - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
prolific
 Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| SavannahStar wrote: | | Obscuregawdess wrote: |
Either way, authentic, fake, signed, unsigned, I believe these would favor Joran in any court of law or public opinion if he wasn't already considered guilty by the mass media. |
I think this is truly the bottom line. |
Exactly!! Where in any of these statements do the boys say anything that Beth claimed?
Where are the confessions? Where do they say that they had sex with Natalee while she was going in and out of conciousness? In Joran's June 14th statement, Natalee was wide awake, can't really do what she was doing if you're not concious.
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why the boys were released from custody, nothing to prove that they harmed Natalee.
Last edited by prolific on Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 9110
Location: Living happily in my "clueless" little world.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| SavannahStar wrote: | | Obscuregawdess wrote: |
Either way, authentic, fake, signed, unsigned, I believe these would favor Joran in any court of law or public opinion if he wasn't already considered guilty by the mass media. |
I think this is truly the bottom line. |
As do I!
This is nothing but desperate tyrants blowing smoke.
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11966
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JD
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:25 am |
|
|
|
| Black-Tulip wrote: | Threaten people, intimidate people, beat people, exhaust people.
They confess everything you want. |
If that were the case, there would be a confession of a crime, rightly or wrongly. There clearly is not. Just the opposite, a lot of finger pointing at others.
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 7108
Location: Too Close for Comfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gagal_05
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:28 am |
|
|
|
That would be "alleged" finger pointing, as we do not really know if these statements are real or not. 
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| chillin
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:28 am |
|
|
|
| JD wrote: | | Black-Tulip wrote: | Threaten people, intimidate people, beat people, exhaust people.
They confess everything you want. |
If that were the case, there would be a confession of a crime, rightly or wrongly. There clearly is not. Just the opposite, a lot of finger pointing at others. |
 so many busy fingers in this case
|
|
On dE bUs.....
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 4092
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JD
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:28 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| prolific wrote: | | SavannahStar wrote: | | Obscuregawdess wrote: |
Either way, authentic, fake, signed, unsigned, I believe these would favor Joran in any court of law or public opinion if he wasn't already considered guilty by the mass media. |
I think this is truly the bottom line. |
Exactly!! Where in any of these statements do the boys say anything that Beth claimed?
Where are the confessions? Where do they say that they had sex with Natalee while she was going in and out of conciousness? In Joran's June 14th statement, Natalee was wide awake, can't really do what she was doing if you're not concious.
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why?
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 7108
Location: Too Close for Comfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gagal_05
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| prolific wrote: | | SavannahStar wrote: | | Obscuregawdess wrote: |
Either way, authentic, fake, signed, unsigned, I believe these would favor Joran in any court of law or public opinion if he wasn't already considered guilty by the mass media. |
I think this is truly the bottom line. |
Exactly!! Where in any of these statements do the boys say anything that Beth claimed?
Where are the confessions? Where do they say that they had sex with Natalee while she was going in and out of conciousness? In Joran's June 14th statement, Natalee was wide awake, can't really do what she was doing if you're not concious.
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Of course it is to most people!
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| justamom
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:30 am |
|
|
|
These statement really boggle my mind. The only reason though is because all this information has already been discussed for well over a year.
I do see alot of finger pointing in the documents when you c ompare. Overall though I think if anyone has anything to hide it is the Kalpoes more then Joran. Simply because they are brothers and anyone with children or siblings knows they stick together. Blood is thicker then water.
In the end the documents dont prove any crime was committed. So, wheres natalee?
|
|
justaMILF
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 6604
Location: in a cute farmhouse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: | | SavannahStar wrote: | | Obscuregawdess wrote: |
Either way, authentic, fake, signed, unsigned, I believe these would favor Joran in any court of law or public opinion if he wasn't already considered guilty by the mass media. |
I think this is truly the bottom line. |
Exactly!! Where in any of these statements do the boys say anything that Beth claimed?
Where are the confessions? Where do they say that they had sex with Natalee while she was going in and out of conciousness? In Joran's June 14th statement, Natalee was wide awake, can't really do what she was doing if you're not concious.
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why? |
Sorry, I know better than to play your game. If you can't see it that's your issue.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 9110
Location: Living happily in my "clueless" little world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JD
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:35 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| prolific wrote: | | JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: |
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why? |
Sorry, I know better than to play your game. If you can't see it that's your issue. |
I dont necessarily agree but it seems you're implying Joe T released them to show that there is nothing incriminating in the statements.
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 7108
Location: Too Close for Comfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:40 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: | | JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: |
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why? |
Sorry, I know better than to play your game. If you can't see it that's your issue. |
I dont necessarily agree but it seems you're implying Joe T released them to show that there is nothing incriminating in the statements. |
LOL, I'm talking about why the boys were released not the statements.
I'll go edit my post so it's clearer.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 9110
Location: Living happily in my "clueless" little world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: | | JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: |
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why? |
Sorry, I know better than to play your game. If you can't see it that's your issue. |
I dont necessarily agree but it seems you're implying Joe T released them to show that there is nothing incriminating in the statements. |
Well, I believe the BHT Camp released them so that all the followers would praise them for supplying them with so much info... getting carried away on a damn feather, not even stopping to realize that it isn't incriminating to Joran at all. Many of us see them as exonerating or, at the least, not helpful to prove any wrongdoing... but some folks will stop at nothing and make up whatever they can to make this match that, etc. I think Beth just trapped herself, but I believe Joe T is glad she did!
One thing I learned from my father who worked as a policemen-- city, county, state-- then politics-- and now in a federal crime lab, is this: Do not lead the evidence, let the evidence lead you. In other words, you don't find a suspect and make the story/details/facts fit with the suspect. You let the facts/details/story lead to a suspect and the truth. This was not done here. It was clearly a stakeout for a person before any grounds to do so. They created the grounds.
Last edited by Obscuregawdess on Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11966
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| woebegone
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| prolific wrote: | LOL, I'm talking about why the boys were released not the statements.
I'll go edit my post so it's clearer. |
Can't you just see Joe T calling up Red and saying...
"Look buddy, I know you and your members support the rape and killing of my client. I know you and your members are planning a trip to Aruba to stalk my client, but hey, do me a favor would you? Post these documents for me."
Somehow I think if the documents had come from the defense, they would have been given to either RU or FOB, not a Joran/Dutch hate site.
|
|
Resigned
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1243
Location: awaiting deactivation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| woebegone wrote: | | prolific wrote: | LOL, I'm talking about why the boys were released not the statements.
I'll go edit my post so it's clearer. |
Can't you just see Joe T calling up Red and saying...
"Look buddy, I know you and your members support the rape and killing of my client. I know you and your members are planning a trip to Aruba to stalk my client, but hey, do me a favor would you? Post these documents for me."
Somehow I think if the documents had come from the defense, they would have been given to either RU or FOB, not a Joran/Dutch hate site. |
LOL, exactly. I don't think BFN and SM are too high on Joe's credibilty list.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 9110
Location: Living happily in my "clueless" little world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| castlerocklives
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| iquitos wrote: | | maybe signed but are they authentic? still no word from the posters on procedence. these belong in the hands of a comptent journalist who can thoroughly anaylze them not on some biased blog. if they are actual case documents the case is thoroughly blown. not that they incriminate themselves but note joran probably admitted the fisherman's huts in the first interview so they already knew he might be lying about HI. Very interesting indeed. |
The only thing I have made up my mind about is that there is something not quite right in the Holloway/Twitty camp. I like to explre all ideas, so having said that:
If releasing "official" documents damages any chance of bringing criminal proceedings against J2K-why would anyone think the H/T family would be the ones releasing them? Makes more sense if it came from the J2K side.
CRL
|
|
The crown fits, NOW I am the Princess!
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Location: where IT lives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obscuregawdess
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:11 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| castlerocklives wrote: | | iquitos wrote: | | maybe signed but are they authentic? still no word from the posters on procedence. these belong in the hands of a comptent journalist who can thoroughly anaylze them not on some biased blog. if they are actual case documents the case is thoroughly blown. not that they incriminate themselves but note joran probably admitted the fisherman's huts in the first interview so they already knew he might be lying about HI. Very interesting indeed. |
The only thing I have made up my mind about is that there is something not quite right in the Holloway/Twitty camp. I like to explre all ideas, so having said that:
If releasing "official" documents damages any chance of bringing criminal proceedings against J2K-why would anyone think the H/T family would be the ones releasing them? Makes more sense if it came from the J2K side.
CRL |
I think this because I believe Beth's mission is to damage Joran and his family in a way that can not be proven. She wants this to stir a debate. She says it proves he is a liar, which therefore makes him a rapist, kidnapper, and murderer. i honestly don't think she thinks before she acts, which is what began this entire mess. I do not believe she stopped and thought it might jeopardize her credibility... She'll just say she knows Natalee and that Natalee did not consent to these things, etc. and play out the grieving momma drama.
On the other hand, someone a little more indirect like a certain PI... could have thrown these out like leftovers to a dog... just trying to trigger a response. If Beth and her clan's MO was to find Natalee, there wouldn't be this hooplah in the first place. If her goal was to find Natalee, it wouldn't make any sense. I think she prides herself on being the aggressor behind closed doors while starring on the sympathy channels to all who will listen. JMO.
|
|
"Bratty Mama Leci"
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 11966
Location: Kentucky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Hmm .. Do I read it right that this doc has Nat sleeping the last time Joran sees her? Could she have been surprised by an incoming tide?
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sensible
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:36 am |
|
|
|
I've been disgusted ever since Beth Twitty started flailing documents around during her TV appearances.
When is the last time you have seen or heard of someone getting working police interrogations and making them public -- before the investigation is ended.
These papers do not incriminate J2K. Beth's ploy has backfired. If these are all she has to go on and went on TV night after night accusing the three based on these, she is really ready to be committed or investigated herself.
I also don't see how a parent can let those documents be uploaded to the internet.
Greta stopped reading these on her show? WHY? What made Greta see the light??
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Black-Tulip
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:46 am |
|
|
|
| sensible wrote: | | These papers do not incriminate J2K. Beth's ploy has backfired. If these are all she has to go on and went on TV night after night accusing the three based on these, she is really ready to be committed or investigated herself. |
Isn't she already?
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5369
Location: onder de pannen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jenna
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:54 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | Hmm .. Do I read it right that this doc has Nat sleeping the last time Joran sees her? Could she have been surprised by an incoming tide? |
If this story is true, the more likely scenario is:
Natalee woke up and walked back to the Holiday Inn - 4-5 minutes to get back that's all. She went to the sliding doors of her room because she didn't have her key. Whoever was in the room let her in. She wanted to go back out so she changed into Ruth's aqua blue top that was sitting on a chair. Her own top was wet or sticky because of spilled bar drinks. Next she appears on the surveillance video of the front desk. She meets other guys who are going back downtown to the Soul Beach after party. Or perhaps Charlie's Bar in San Nicolas.
So now she was hanging with a party crowd. She has her freedom, she can drink, smoke, do drugs. She changed her appearance and is still in San Nicolas working as a private prostitute with a pimp.
Last edited by jenna on Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 3691
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FocusFactor
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| castlerocklives wrote: | | iquitos wrote: | | maybe signed but are they authentic? still no word from the posters on procedence. these belong in the hands of a comptent journalist who can thoroughly anaylze them not on some biased blog. if they are actual case documents the case is thoroughly blown. not that they incriminate themselves but note joran probably admitted the fisherman's huts in the first interview so they already knew he might be lying about HI. Very interesting indeed. |
The only thing I have made up my mind about is that there is something not quite right in the Holloway/Twitty camp. I like to explre all ideas, so having said that:
If releasing "official" documents damages any chance of bringing criminal proceedings against J2K-why would anyone think the H/T family would be the ones releasing them? Makes more sense if it came from the J2K side.
CRL |
CRL, you are exactly right and that is logical.
BUT... if ALE or someone in Aruba leaked these, they would not have sent them to BFN or SM, those are "family sites" and they check with "family" regarding what they post. They delete ANYTHING and EVERYONE that doesn't go along the "family" way of thinking. They do not allow alternate opinion.
So, it had to come from BETH. She claimed to have "documents" and claimed to have info that would "shock the world".
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gagal_05
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| FocusFactor wrote: | | castlerocklives wrote: | | iquitos wrote: | | maybe signed but are they authentic? still no word from the posters on procedence. these belong in the hands of a comptent journalist who can thoroughly anaylze them not on some biased blog. if they are actual case documents the case is thoroughly blown. not that they incriminate themselves but note joran probably admitted the fisherman's huts in the first interview so they already knew he might be lying about HI. Very interesting indeed. |
The only thing I have made up my mind about is that there is something not quite right in the Holloway/Twitty camp. I like to explre all ideas, so having said that:
If releasing "official" documents damages any chance of bringing criminal proceedings against J2K-why would anyone think the H/T family would be the ones releasing them? Makes more sense if it came from the J2K side.
CRL |
CRL, you are exactly right and that is logical.
BUT... if ALE or someone in Aruba leaked these, they would not have sent them to BFN or SM, those are "family sites" and they check with "family" regarding what they post. They delete ANYTHING and EVERYONE that doesn't go along the "family" way of thinking. They do not allow alternate opinion.
So, it had to come from BETH. She claimed to have "documents" and claimed to have info that would "shock the world". |
Oh yes, the long awaited "shock the world" news. What a joke!!!
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JD
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| prolific wrote: | | JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: | | JD wrote: | | prolific wrote: |
These statements do not incriminate the boys in any way shape or form. It is certainly obvious why they were released. |
Why? |
Sorry, I know better than to play your game. If you can't see it that's your issue. |
I dont necessarily agree but it seems you're implying Joe T released them to show that there is nothing incriminating in the statements. |
LOL, I'm talking about why the boys were released not the statements.
I'll go edit my post so it's clearer. |
LMAO!!
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 7108
Location: Too Close for Comfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Re: signed does not = authentic
| castlerocklives wrote: | If releasing "official" documents damages any chance of bringing criminal proceedings against J2K-why would anyone think the H/T family would be the ones releasing them? Makes more sense if it came from the J2K side.
CRL |
If they were leaked by another party than the defence at most it will lead to some sentence reduction, proceedings can go forward.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6007
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spngbobthebldr
Posted:
Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
| JD wrote: | Major questions I still have:
1. How did Joran get home? I have seen people say there is a signed statement from Satish that he took Joran home. So far, we havent seen that one.
2. Did they go to the lighthouse?
3. Did they go to Joran's house?
Unless I missed it, and that's more than possible, I dont see where Deepak and Satish ever came around to stating that they went to Joran's house. I didnt think that was disputed until I started reading these. Anyone know any more about that? |
Joe T has said several times that they have electronic evidence(email, text message, im) that Deepak told a friend of his that Satish picked Joran up from the beach that night.
|
|
It ain't easy wearing square pants!
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2945
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
