| JQK response to motion to dismiss - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Linny1125
 Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:38 pm |
|
|
|
How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward?
|
|
Cleeking On Ploberdees
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 943
Location: Texas
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| victims cry
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:50 pm |
|
|
|
| Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved.
|
|
On Vacation!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 9299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spuds
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
| victims cry wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved. |
But those students have nothing of anything value to testify to other than she went to Aruba with them (some of them didn't even go to Aruba as far as I know). What else could they add to this lawsuit?
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| victims cry
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
| Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved. |
But those students have nothing of anything value to testify to other than she went to Aruba with them (some of them didn't even go to Aruba as far as I know). What else could they add to this lawsuit? |
From what I can tell, they are to help prove by preponderance of the evidence that Natalee and Beth had a close relationship, thereby dealing with the alienation of affection, and the damages section of the suit. just my take on the reasons in the filing
|
|
On Vacation!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 9299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spuds
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:33 pm |
|
|
|
| victims cry wrote: | | Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved. |
But those students have nothing of anything value to testify to other than she went to Aruba with them (some of them didn't even go to Aruba as far as I know). What else could they add to this lawsuit? |
From what I can tell, they are to help prove by preponderance of the evidence that Natalee and Beth had a close relationship, thereby dealing with the alienation of affection, and the damages section of the suit. just my take on the reasons in the filing |
I would think the most important part of the lawsuit is proving their allegations not the alienation of affection.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| victims cry
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
| Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved. |
But those students have nothing of anything value to testify to other than she went to Aruba with them (some of them didn't even go to Aruba as far as I know). What else could they add to this lawsuit? |
From what I can tell, they are to help prove by preponderance of the evidence that Natalee and Beth had a close relationship, thereby dealing with the alienation of affection, and the damages section of the suit. just my take on the reasons in the filing |
I would think the most important part of the lawsuit is proving their allegations not the alienation of affection. |
Of course it is, but this filing was to respond to the merits of the jurisdiction not the allegations per se, and they needed these students to say that NY was convenient and that they would be witnesses. Only part of the suit that they could be witnesses for is that and attesting to Natalee's character. They had to have NY area witnesses in this filing to buttress the argument of forum.
|
|
On Vacation!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 9299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spuds
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
| victims cry wrote: | | Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Spuds wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How is it that only a handful of students gave affadavits, and nearly all of them are conveeeeeniently in NY area? Why are the rest of them not coming forward? |
Linny, because this response was only to address the legal point of inconvenient forum for the case to be heard in.
Therefore they wanted the students from the NY area to say they are conveniently located to NY and secondly would not go to aruba if that was the alternative forum, to argue against Joe T saying that aruba was more convenient to the people involved. |
But those students have nothing of anything value to testify to other than she went to Aruba with them (some of them didn't even go to Aruba as far as I know). What else could they add to this lawsuit? |
From what I can tell, they are to help prove by preponderance of the evidence that Natalee and Beth had a close relationship, thereby dealing with the alienation of affection, and the damages section of the suit. just my take on the reasons in the filing |
I would think the most important part of the lawsuit is proving their allegations not the alienation of affection. |
Of course it is, but this filing was to respond to the merits of the jurisdiction not the allegations per se, and they needed these students to say that NY was convenient and that they would be witnesses. Only part of the suit that they could be witnesses for is that and attesting to Natalee's character. They had to have NY area witnesses in this filing to buttress the argument of forum. |
Well I still say THIS SUIT DOES NOT BELONG IN MY STATE under any circumstances.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pausebreak
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:50 pm |
|
|
|
As I pointed out on FOB, Dewi has been wanting to leave NYC for another school, and she has been doing that well before she signed that affidavit.
I also am appalled that a prosecutor would make any type of response to a civil suit especially as the criminal investigation is supposed to be on going.
It appears to me that Karin J is not interested in the truth, but rather just wants the media attention to die down. I guess now we know why JQK called her a "good girl" 
|
|
Soopa Soopa Bitch !!
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 5550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| writergal
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:51 pm |
|
|
|
| charlierat wrote: | And one more thing about the Affidavits from the former classmates. Many of them state that they want to set the record straight about Natalee's character and/or her relationship with her mother. They state that they want to do this because these issues have been raised by the Defendants in their defense of this lawsuit.
Sorry but I don't see where these issues were raised in any of the pleadings. The only issues raised by the defense have been technical issues regarding proper forum and jurisdiction. |
Charlie, I wonder too if some of those "character" affidavits were intended to neutralize Joran's statement that Natalee referred to Beth as "Hitler's sister's daughter."
|
|
Satirical Siren
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| charlierat
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:56 pm |
|
|
|
| writergal wrote: | | charlierat wrote: | And one more thing about the Affidavits from the former classmates. Many of them state that they want to set the record straight about Natalee's character and/or her relationship with her mother. They state that they want to do this because these issues have been raised by the Defendants in their defense of this lawsuit.
Sorry but I don't see where these issues were raised in any of the pleadings. The only issues raised by the defense have been technical issues regarding proper forum and jurisdiction. |
Charlie, I wonder too if some of those "character" affidavits were intended to neutralize Joran's statement that Natalee referred to Beth as "Hitler's sister's daughter." |
I don't doubt that the affidavits have a dual purpose. They are barely relevant for the purposes of the pending Motion. And that is construing everything in the light most favorable to the Plaintffs.
But they also have the effect of 'ringing the bell' for the benefit of supporters so they can hear attestations that justify additional donations.
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 6970
Location: If you don't know by now, don't mess with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| reddog
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:00 pm |
|
|
|
ty, jenny.
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 13981
Location: manning THE No-Bullshit Gang's bullshit detector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BhamMom
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Most of the students stated they had been acquaintances for________years, not close friends. Only one mentioned being "close" friends. I would dare say these kids probably don't know the truth and Beth knows it. They could not get caught for perjury and Beth doesn't want to be guilty of causing one of the kids to get caught in a lie.
Beth didn't want FEB, William or the twins to testify because they know the truth. I found it interesting that most stated it would be an inconvenience to go to Aruba, not they would never return to Aruba. Beth got the students closest to NY that "knew" Natalee but not the truth.
Was it Katherine Brown that stated she went back to the hotel with another student because they were sick? Who could that have been? Has anyone here heard that before? Wouldn't it be interesting if Natalee was the one sick and Joran left with someone else?
I just wish the Refugees had been mentioned in the answer. 
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 13086
Location: Posting with bitter people
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nena
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
yeah I saw that part of Katherine Whatley's affadavit..
Gee....I wonder why the friend was "SICK"??
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1441
Location: 4° C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
| Nena wrote: | yeah I saw that part of Katherine Whatley's affadavit..
Gee....I wonder why the friend was "SICK"?? |
LOL. "I had to take a friend back to the hotel because she drank five different kinds of alcohol and was puking on her neon-pink party dress."
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16072
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| enigma
Posted:
Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:41 am |
|
|
|
| BhamMom wrote: | Most of the students stated they had been acquaintances for________years, not close friends. Only one mentioned being "close" friends. I would dare say these kids probably don't know the truth and Beth knows it. They could not get caught for perjury and Beth doesn't want to be guilty of causing one of the kids to get caught in a lie.
Beth didn't want FEB, William or the twins to testify because they know the truth. I found it interesting that most stated it would be an inconvenience to go to Aruba, not they would never return to Aruba. Beth got the students closest to NY that "knew" Natalee but not the truth.
Was it Katherine Brown that stated she went back to the hotel with another student because they were sick? Who could that have been? Has anyone here heard that before? Wouldn't it be interesting if Natalee was the one sick and Joran left with someone else?
I just wish the Refugees had been mentioned in the answer. |
If you recall early in the case some tourist stated that she saw Natalee in the bathroom at C&C's sick. Several MB posters came out and said no this was not Natalee it was another girl that had blonde hair and looked like Natalee but wasn't Natalee. The discussion was on SM in the summer/fall.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 298
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AuntJ
Posted:
Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Didn't the re-enactment show the girls getting into a taxi to go to C&Cs? At least, in the clip on Greta I saw, I thought thats what it was about but you couldn't really tell. And wasn't the re-enactment supposed to be based on the facts (which I assumed meant from statements from the MBers)?
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 131
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AuntJ
Posted:
Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Sorry, I wasn't clear on post above. Whatley says in her AF that they took a bus but the re-enactment seemed to show them getting into a cab to go to C&Cs.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 131
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Trixie
Posted:
Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
| AuntJ wrote: | | Sorry, I wasn't clear on post above. Whatley says in her AF that they took a bus but the re-enactment seemed to show them getting into a cab to go to C&Cs. |
Madison Whatley was probably very nervous. She was only 17 on the Aruba trip and she was in the casino and C&Cs. Hey, isn't that what their complaint says about Joran?
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 6698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fiery
Posted:
Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Two very interesting points:
On another thread BigBen has pointed out that it is quite interesting that many of the afffadavits emanate from NYS yet when FBI/ALE made their little trip they didn't go to NYS.
Harry Tho has pointed out that the boy at west point is required by his position to tell the truth at all times.
|
|
Who died and made YOU Darth Vader?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 8848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alibaba
Posted:
Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Links don't work for me .........
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alibaba
Posted:
Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:10 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks Jenny .... but I still get "Windows can't open this file"
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alibaba
Posted:
Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:19 pm |
|
|
|
| pax wrote: | Thanks JennyM, for obtaining this!
Thanks CharlieRat, for your excellent analysis. |
I agree with you, Pax. Charlie just makes everything so understandable. He makes it very clear for me. Thanks, Charlie ....
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jacqueline
Posted:
Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
So with all these new arrests where does it leave JQK response to motion to dismiss and how can they persue this motion with all these new arrests going on?
|
|
"Petit Chou"
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| charlierat
Posted:
Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:46 pm |
|
|
|
| jacqueline wrote: | | So with all these new arrests where does it leave JQK response to motion to dismiss and how can they persue this motion with all these new arrests going on? |
Of course, it's only one new arrest so far but I know what you mean - stay tuned.
Everything we're hearing about the direction the investigation has taken since the release of J2K last September and the new evidence it has uncovered since then (not to mention the new arrest and whatever else may happen between now and May 17th) only strenghtens the Motion to Dismiss filed by Joe T., almost to the point where JQK might as well just confess the Motion and allow the case to be dismissed.
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 6970
Location: If you don't know by now, don't mess with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
| jmo wrote: | | am I the only one getting "page can not be found"? |
I'm getting it too but I'm at work and thought their firewalls might be the cause. Are you at home?
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3470
Location: Coocoo for cocopuffs but avoiding the koolaid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
