Natalee Case Discussion #678 8/16 - 8/26/2007

[Tamikosmom]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

[Ree]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

[BTgirl]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

I was thinking the same thing, Ree. In particular, there is the case of Mary Winkler who killed her husband and was essentially let go. Also, our local legal system often gives alternative sentences, particularly in the case of young people. They will have them do some sort of community service, as opposed to serving jail time. Perhaps the Dutch legal system is not as mysterious as we sometimes think, but maybe the terminology is much different and confusing to us.

[Anna]

Good morning, all!

Yes, I think Aruba greatly flatters itself that all the media will ever come back.  Unfortunately for them, it left with the worst possible impression of the island.

Now we have Geraldo and BOR updating it as a place for little besides drugs and prostitution.  They had a big chance with that much attention focused on their small island and did little to utilize it in a positive way.

[Tamikosmom]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

It is my understanding that in the United States and Canada ... the prosecutor's responsibility is to gather the evidence that a crime has been committed.  It is then the prosecutor's decision or a grand jury's ruling whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial ... not to determine whether the crime was justified.  The guilt or  innocence of the accused is either decided by a trial by judge or ... a trial by jury.  Once guilt has been decided ... then the judge has the power to either sentence ... or release on probation/condition if the public is not at risk.  In other words ... the victim of the crime is given a voice.

Janet

[Anna]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

That's true, Ree, and which laws to apply.  The difference that I see here is that the Prosecutor has the right to totally ignore what the laws require in the interest of the public good.

Our prosecutors have to act only within what is allowed by law.  Apparently, under Dutch law, the entire case can be scrapped if not in the public interest to take it to court.

Also saw only something like 5% of felonies reported to the police ever make it to court.  That seems like a very low number to me.

And it mentions "other options" available to the prosecutor.  I want to know more about what those options are and how they apply in cases like this one.

[Tamikosmom]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

I was thinking the same thing, Ree. In particular, there is the case of Mary Winkler who killed her husband and was essentially let go. Also, our local legal system often gives alternative sentences, particularly in the case of young people. They will have them do some sort of community service, as opposed to serving jail time. Perhaps the Dutch legal system is not as mysterious as we sometimes think, but maybe the terminology is much different and confusing to us.

BT ... the prosecutor/grand jury (?) in the Mary Winkler case made the decision that there was enough evidence against Mary to proceed with a trial.  The DEFENCE ATTORNEYS gave the accused a voice ... the PROSECUTOR gave the victim a voice and ... a JURY made the decision based on what evidence was presented by both sides.  The JUDGE then sentenced accordingly.

Janet 

[GrannyToad]

And to think - that under their system this judgment can begin with polis who can "decide" whether evidence exists or shall exist. At least, in practice - whether by the intent or spirit of the law.

[Anna]

Janet,
The Prosecutor under Dutch law is apparently supposed to be sort of neutral, that is allegedly after the truth equally for the suspects as well as for the victim.

Since in a case like this, the victim is not represented by a team of attorneys already looking out for their interest, it would seem to be tremendously one-sided in favor of the suspects.

No one is assigned to look out for just the victim. 

[Anna]

And to think - that under their system this judgment can begin with polis who can "decide" whether evidence exists or shall exist. At least, in practice - whether by the intent or spirit of the law.

And with an abnormal interest in how much money the family of the victim may have as well.

[dennisintn]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

crimes against money interests are always prosecuted vigorously.  crimes against govt. officials and big shots are always prosecuted vigorously.  crimes again women and children really don't warrant spending money and time investigating and prosecuting.  crimes again tourists ?  never happens on aruba. impossible.  anything that happens to tourists are the fault of the tourist, so that makes it an accident.  "vanishments" happen to tourists sometimes but it's always, always, the tourists fault.  he/she's in hiding, it's an insurance scam, or a suicide and self burial.  the main thing to remember about tourists is that they go to the happy island, disrupt people's lives by laughing, having fun, dancing, meeting other people and having more fun, and just not worth the effort unless they have money in their hands.  tourists go home when their money runs out, that's the way they like it on the happy island.
dennisintn

[Anna]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

But it does explain why there has never been one bit of effort to bring this to trial in what we would consider a normal manner.

And what about the rights of the Security Guards?  The Prosecutor certainly had no such concerns about their rights. 

Seems far too much power in the hands of far too few.

[dennisintn]

[quote

And what about the rights of the Security Guards?  The Prosecutor certainly had no such concerns about their rights. 

Seems far too much power in the hands of far too few.
[/quote]


you said a mouthful of truth right there.  if you compare side by side the actions a.l.e. took against the security guards, and the actions (or inactions) in the actions against j2k, you'd think they were the actions of two completely different organizations from beginning to end.  favoritism and internal manipulation sticks out from every opening in the way j2k was treated.
dennisintn

[Tamikosmom]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

But it does explain why there has never been one bit of effort to bring this to trial in what we would consider a normal manner.

And what about the rights of the Security Guards?  The Prosecutor certainly had no such concerns about their rights. 

Seems far too much power in the hands of far too few.

Anna ... when you consider the conflicts of interest that existed in regards to Paulus van der Sloot's professional/personal relationships within the prosecutor's office, the ALE, the Aruban/Dutch administrations and the judiciary .... the door was left wide open for the abuse of power ... an abuse of power to protect a collegue/friend and his son from implication in the disappearance of eighteen years old American citizen.  Justice for Natalee Holloway was not about to prevail ... the writing was on the wall from day one.

Janet


Beth Twitty
'Scarborough Country'
October 21, 2005

HOLLOWAY TWITTY: They never—they never wanted to implicate these three young men. They never wanted to implicate them from the beginning. And there is a list of reasons, you know, why we know that is true


Paulus van der Sloot
NOVA
June 28, 2005

JUDICIARY

Reporter (Twan Huys): Which function do you have here at the island? Because many stories go around about that. What is your function?
 
Paulus van der Sloot: I am a replacing member of the joint court of justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba [1] and I am appointed for a period of three years, from January the first, 2003, until January the first, 2006.
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): So, you are replacement judge?
 
Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): Do you know the people very well, for example, the people here from the public prosecutors' office that ordered your detention?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, for sure, because, before that, I have worked for eight years as chief of the cabinet of the prosecutor general [2].

Reporter (Twan Huys): So, you also know the current prosecutor general?
 
Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): Mrs. Croes.
 
Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.

ARUBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): Yes, and what does that mean when your colleagues stop by to arrest you?

Paulus van der Sloot: That gives a feeling of absurdity. It is indeed almost unimaginable that by someone you actually know very well, where you worked together with for a long time, that that one comes to tell you that you are suspected of complicity to murder.

Reporter (Twan Huys): Who was that in your case?

Paulus van der Sloot: That was, in this case, that was the leader of the team of police commissioners.
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): Jan van der Straaten.

Paulus van der Sloot: That was Jan van der Straaten, yes.
 
Reporter (Twan Huys): And you know each other very well?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.

Translation Credit: Dugo - Riehl Worldview


Jossy Mansur
NANCY GRACE
October 4, 2005

GRACE: … Jossy, regarding the connection, what I perceived to be a close connection between the judge, Paulus Van Der Sloot and the retired chief of police who initially handled Natalee`s case, Van Der Stratten, were they friends?

MANSUR: Of course, they were friends. It stands to reason they were friends because Paul Van Der Sloot had many friends within the police department; he had many friends within the Department of Justice. And he had many friends with -- and he was friendly with all the judges in Aruba. He worked out of the same office as they did and did the same work

[SunFreak2]

REGARDING BONES FOUND -

I grew up at a beach and we were always finding things that had washed ashore and never thought twice about them.  Imagine now, living on an island where things wash ashore all the time.  There could be evidence of Natalee lying on a beach somewhere is Aruba or Venezuela, just being ignored by the locals.

ARGGGHHHHH!!

[Ree]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

It is my understanding that in the United States and Canada ... the prosecutor's responsibility is to gather the evidence that a crime has been committed.  It is then the prosecutor's decision or a grand jury's ruling whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial ... not to determine whether the crime was justified.  The guilt or  innocence of the accused is either decided by a trial by judge or ... a trial by jury.  Once guilt has been decided ... then the judge has the power to either sentence ... or release on probation/condition if the public is not at risk.  In other words ... the victim of the crime is given a voice.

Janet

Prosecutors sre maing those decisions.  I found numerous examples, but below is one where a special prosecutor (who happens to be a judge) made that decision:

For Immediate Release
Special prosecutor announces decisions on use of force cases
Mayor Jackson, Director Triozzi and Judge Connally to provide comments at 2:30 p.m. in the Red Room, Cleveland City Hall, 601 Lakeside Avenue.
 
June 6, 2006 – On April 6, Mayor Frank G. Jackson and Law Director Robert Triozzi appointed retired Judge C. Ellen Connally as a special prosecutor to focus on resolving four ”use of force” cases that resulted in fatalities. Since that time, a fifth case was delivered to the Prosecutor’s Office for resolution.

Judge Connally examined all of the forensic evidence, interviewed witnesses and family members, reviewed all documents and photographs and met with officials from the County Coroner’s office, reviewed and applied the controlling legal authority to conduct an extensive review of each case.

The United States Supreme Court, in describing the test that must be used in determining whether the use of deadly force is justified provides that there must be an objective test to be judged from the perspective a reasonable officer on the scene, rather that with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

Today, Judge Connally announced her findings in all five cases.

In the matter of the death of Eren Y. Beyah on March 3, 2004, no charges will be filed against the officers and Judge Connelly ruled the use of force justifiable.
In the matter of the death of Brandon McCloud on August 31, 2005, no charges will be filed against the officers. Judge Connally has determined that the outcome, while tragic, is within the bounds of the use of deadly force guidelines as set forth by the Cleveland Division of Police, the Courts and the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
In the matter of the death of Laray Renshaw on September 30, 2005, no charges will be filed against the officers and Judge Connelly ruled the use of force justifiable. In the matter of the death of David Crenshaw on October 20, 2005, no charges will be filed against the officers and Judge Connelly ruled the use of force justifiable.
In the matter of the death of Angelo Ferguson on December 11, 2005, no charges will be filed against the officers and Judge Connelly ruled the use of force justifiable.
 

[Tamikosmom]

Rees ... I am off to church right now but ... will return later on today and ... will respond to your response.     

Later, Janet

9:55 AM

[Auntiem]

Since when did the administration of justice ceased to be about the victim and become all about the accused?  Since when did the prosecutor become the judge?  Since when did the prosecutor become the advocate for the accused?  Who speaks on behalf of the victim?  Obviously ... the best interest of the public has nothing to do with justice for the victim.

I'm not defending anyone else's laws, but I'm not sure that this is all that different from our laws.  The prosecutor has a right to review the case and determine that a homocide was justifiable and refuse to bring charges.

WHAT???????????    Where are you getting your legal information from?  No Prosecutor has the right to JUDGE whether a homicide was justifiable or not.  A Prosecutor's job is to make sure enough that there is enough evidence to bring to a Grand Jury in order to obtain an inditement (sp?)   and hence bring the accused to trial.

    The Prosecutor in NO way makes a judgment of guilt or innocense!!!   Such was the folly of District Attorney Nifong, who determined, the three Duke Lacrosse players were guilty, without ANY evidence.....He acted in the role of Judge not Prosecutor and got his fanny disbarred.

[msmarple]

Bottom line about this "public interest" approach to prosecute or not - On Aruba, anything that might be perceived as detrimental to tourism will not be pursued, for that reason.

I think we all GOT that memo a while back.

And I haven't seen any indication that Aruba has taken a proactive approach to eliminating activity that might have led to Natalee's disappearance.

Is the drinking age being enforced? Gambling age? Is anybody working undercover at C&C's (for example) re. drugged drinks? Any arrests for dealing date-rape drugs?

JVDS and Satish should not have been at the Holiday Inn casino, or at C&C's ...

[Auntiem]

     Judge C. Ellen Connally, retired as a Suprem Court Judge of Ohio in 2004.  In 2006, due to the resignation of Cleveland's Chief Prosecutor, Ms. Connally was asked to temporarilly serve as a Special Prosecutor in order to bring  closure  to four pending death cases involving police and the use of "necessary" or unnecssary force.   She was not Acting as a Judge, she was retired........She was not sitting on the bench during this trial!!!!   There is no such thing as a Prosecutor/Judge.   

          Many Prosecutors go on to become Judges.   Many also become defense attorneys, as that is far more lucrative!!!!!!