Natalee Case Discussion #688 11/2 -11/13/07

[Anna]

O/T correction--his charge card was used the morning he disappeared around 9 a.m.

[dennisintn]

Absolutely disgusting what they did to Mr.Matthews. It is also Rammstein's most passionate subject besides the anti-boycott sites and it makes me wonder why that is. He comes fighting mad and uses obscenities when these two issues are discussed. Sounds personal IMO

imho, rammstein does take it personally.  he loves holland and respects and trusts the dutch judicial system.  he also trusts dutch newspapers and dutch politicians and officials to be honest and trustworthy as they should be.  he is having a very difficult time understanding and believing how perverted the aruban culture has become, and it is anathema to him that the island bureaucracy has conspired to cover up the unwarranted death and disappearance of a young girl.  he's a true dutch patriot and i admire that, and i think he's totally honest in what he says.  that goes a long way with me.  i do see changes in his attitude as this drags on and he's been forced to see aruba as it really is.  just my opinion, but there it is.

just the opposite is people like renfro and mip6. in a better world, things like them would be fed to rabid dogs and the dogs then euthanized.
dennisintn

[Hotshot]

Yes, if you want to get a real reaction from certain people, just post a few glaring truths about certain things and people.  Paulus never fails to get a response and Matthews is another.  I wonder why that is as it was deemed in The Hague that his human rights were violated and that is when the big remodeling of KIA came about, to try to offset this horrific scandal.

Maybe it is because of Paulus making all the evidence disappear to help his friend Vocking like that and the fact that Vocking decided to return the favor when Paulus needed help with what his son had done to Natalee.

But it is highly irrational and another case of blaming the victim.  Definite pattern of doing that.

You are so right on Anna.  I love your style.  Keep up the good work!

[Anna]

Hotshots,

I saw a photo once of a black man lying on a jail cell floor and I always wondered if he was dead.  I think it may have been Matthews, however, so guess he wasn't.  Obviously beaten.

Yes, I was also told they used to drug him so he couldn't fight back and I wondered if that is where these PIMPS got the idea to drug these young tourist girls on their last night in Aruba.

.

Yup, not only did they drug him, but then they put a bag over his head, and smacked him to the floor.  once on the floor, they beat him to a pulp.  Only to wake up in the solitary cell, that had not roof ect....

So the kids have this example set for them of how to render a person helpless.  Sounds like they are sociopaths themselves.  And one reason they kept him in solitary was so he couldn't tell anybody what they were doing to him.

[Kiwi]

I would like to thank Ramm for the brief. Explains why were where we are. Since there is no trial they are just writing and submitting positions. I find no matter how fast I type here, the course correction is too slow to make corrections on the fly. A point needs to be countered after it is presented. Simply the system doesn't allow them to build on anything. They should have been able to charge them with something for causing the security guards to go to jail, on there statements alone without evidence. That should have lead to a search warrant for the whole house, just as they used their statements to keep the investigation moving away from them. This would have worked better in open court verbally. You just have watch the counter arguments to now this helps you not build a case. The archives here have taken two years to compile and assemble, writing a three page brief to counter another three page brief, works better for a land dispute. J2k really have not been motivated to tell the truth yet. No one got to just ask Joran how did you get home? On these dates you said this and that.

[Anna]

dennis,
I am patriotic and love my country, too.  I would love to think it is perfect but as adults we know better.  We try to make it better by exposing what is wrong.  Case in point where the system broke down, this Stacey Peterson disappearance.  The husband should have been investigated after the suspicious death of his last wife but he wasn't.  We need to do something to keep that from happening when LE are involved in things like this.

All systems break down and people are corruptible.  I don't want to ever defend wrong no matter who does it.  Somebody dropped the ball with Drew Peterson in my opinion and I want to see if there is anything anybody can do to keep it from happening again, not praise a system that did it.

There is only one human being that I believe is infallible and then in matters only of faith and that's the Pope.

[Hotshot]

So the kids have this example set for them of how to render a person helpless.  Sounds like they are sociopaths themselves.  And one reason they kept him in solitary was so he couldn't tell anybody what they were doing to him.

Exactly!  The wife (Arianna) did get to see him, but even then, she got threatened too, and only got to see him on certain occasions.  He had businesses in aruba, and the threat was to take them away, and they did so.  One was with a telecomunication bussiness.  Not sure if it was Digicell or not, she wouldn't disclose that to me.  The other was a bar, that got handed over to an ex-GF of his, who framed him.   Oh it just goes on and on.  I'll have to look for that paperwork I took home with me on all of this.  She did make it clear though, that they wanted Beth, and Dave to know the whole story, and that it will be alot of BS, to get ready for it all.  It tooks months of them re-writing documents to make everyones stories match to their liking is how she put it. 

[Hotshot]

To explain more, it took months of the LE re-writing documents to make all stories match, is what I meant to say........ 

Hey, I have to get up at 5am, I am going to bed.  I will continue this in the am when I wake up.  Thanks for the chat anna, and *******.  Ramm is gonna be pissed when he wakes up.   

[Observer]

Kiwi

Your post is appreciated and I wanted to let you know it was not ignored. I agree with much of what you had to say. We haven't seen the full interrogations but the FBI hinted to us what they were like. He may have not been really interrogated until the very end..That is when he pulled his hands away from his ears  We saw how many times Joran changed his story and how we got home and I think it's pretty obvious who he was protecting.

[Anna]

Kiwi,
I agree with your post.  And I don't understand why they can't be charged with some lesser charges.  Maybe they will yet?  Not holding my breath but maybe we will see the end of the year.

[wreck]

Did I miss any news of the status of the Kalpoe/Dr. Phil suit? 

[klaasend]

Did I miss any news of the status of the Kalpoe/Dr. Phil suit? 

No Wreck - no word on whether the Kalpoes turned over documents or not.  At least, not that I've heard.

[sirensong]

Found this..interesting to read again...Aired Sept.13.2005


GRACE: That`s right. Him. Joran Van Der Sloot. He left Aruba. He`s in college now. I don`t know if he`s going to return for police questioning or not. In the chaos and the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, did Joran Van Der Sloot slip through the cracks? With us tonight, a very special guest, Beth Twitty.

Beth, thank you for being with us. What is your response to these three, the three chief suspects, being released?

BETH HOLLOWAY TWITTY, NATALEE HOLLOWAY`S MOTHER: Well, you know, Nancy, I was thinking, I knew there was corruption and cover-up involved. But I certainly didn`t know they were cowards either, and to hide beneath the cloak of Hurricane Katrina is just reprehensible. And you know, I think -- I think of the Dutch government, and I want to keep the focus on this political party in place, NEP (ph). I think of this judge, Rick Smit. And I can`t imagine putting the suspects` rights or the suspects, you know, before the victim of Natalee, and that why should he choose to be concerned about Joran attending university in The Hague? It just is unbelievable.
GRACE: That`s why he let him out, so he could go to school?

TWITTY: Well, I think that the judge was concerned about Joran beginning college and wanted to have him pursue that.

GRACE: What about Natalee starting college? Is anybody worried about that?

TWITTY: Evidently, they`re not.

GRACE: What was the grounds? Why did they release them?

TWITTY: You know, Nancy, there was absolutely no -- no grounds for them to be released. And I spoke with the Dutch interrogators. And even as of September the 1st, things were really progressing well, and Joran and Deepak and Satish, they had -- these young men had divided, and they were not denying a crime anymore. They were merely implicating each other. And the list of inconsistencies was presented before Judge Smit. The reasonable doubt was there. I don`t have any idea why he fled the island and then faxed a reversal decision. It just is incredible.

Dutch legal article on wikipedia about suspending sentences.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schorsing_van_de_voorlopige_hechtenis

Schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis
Suspending pre-trial/temporary detention

De uitvoering van het bevel tot voorlopige hechtenis kan worden geschorst. Deze schorsingen kunnen tijdelijk van aard zijn, wanneer bijvoorbeeld het belang van de verdachte om op een andere plaats aanwezig te zijn dan in het Huis van Bewaring, groter is dan het belang van de maatschappij dat verdachte feitelijk vast zit. Denk hierbij bijvoorbeeld aan de mogelijkheid dat een verdachte een intakegesprek zal voeren bij een afkickkliniek, of dat verdachte aanwezig zal zijn bij een begrafenis van een van zijn naaste familieleden. Deze schorsingen kunnen ook een meer permanent karakter hebben. De schorsing duurt dan voort tot het moment dat de verdachte voor de rechtbank moet verschijnen.
A warrant for temporary/pre-trial detention can be suspended. These suspension can be of temporary nature, this is when it is in the interest of the suspect to be somewhere else than prison, is greater than the need of society to have him detained in jail. Examples of this temporary situation is when a suspect needs to go to an intake-session at a drugs/alcohol clinic or when a suspect is permitted to attend the funeral of a close family-member.
These suspensions may also have a more permanent character. The suspension will last untill it is time for the suspect to stand trial.

Schorsing door de rechter-commissaris
Suspension by the investigating-judge

Het bevel tot inbewaringstelling dat door de rechter-commissaris wordt verleent (zie ook: inbewaringstellen), moet in beginsel van de wetgever worden geschorst wanneer de verdachte een minderjarige is. Deze wettelijke 'druk' bestaat niet wanneer de verdachte meerderjarig is. In dat geval moet de rechter-commissaris beoordelen of de belangen van de verdachte om in vrijheid zijn proces af te wachten, zwaarder moeten wegen dan de belangen van de maatschappij/justitie bij het voortduren van de voorlopige hechtenis. De wetgever heeft ook besloten dat de voorlopige hechtenis moet worden geschorst wanneer niet te verwachten valt dat de verdachte voor de strafbare feiten waarvan hij verdacht wordt een even lange, of kortere gevangenisstraf zal krijgen dan de duur van de voorlopige hechtenis.
The order to incarcerate, that is given by the investigating-judge, must in in principle always be suspended if a suspect is underage. This legal pressure does not exist if a suspect is an adult. In those cases, an investigating judge must determine wether or not the interests/right of the suspect to await his trial in freedom, is outweighed by the interests/needs of society/justice department to keep a suspect locked up. The law-giver has decided that the pre-trial detention has to be suspended when it is not expected that the prison-time a suspect will be sentenced to, if found guilty of the crimes he is being accused of, is shorter than the pre-trial detention.

Schorsing door de raadkamer van de rechtbank
Suspension by the trial-court

De voorlopige hechtenis kan ook om dezelfde redenen als hierboven genoemd door de raadkamer van de rechtbank worden geschorst.
The pre-trial/temporary detention can also be suspended (for the above mentioned reasons) by the judge who presides over the case during the trial-phase of the judicial process.

Verzoeken tot schorsing
Requests for suspension

De advocaat van de verdachte doet meestal op grond van de volgende redenen een verzoek tot schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis:
The lawyer of a defendant will usually apply for a suspension of the detention on the basis of the following grounds:

    * De verdachte is nooit eerder in aanraking geweest met politie en justitie;
the suspect has never been in contact with DA's office of police before today
    * De verdachte zal door het ondergaan van de voorlopige hechtenis zijn baan kwijt raken;
the suspect will loose his job because he has to sit in pre-trial detention
    * De verdachte volgt een opleiding, en het is van belang dat hij deze voortzet;
the suspect is following an education, and it is in his best interests if he continues this education
    * De verdachte heeft volledig meegewerkt met het onderzoek;
the suspect has fully cooperated with the investigation
    * De voorlopige hechtenis zou een averechtse werking hebben op de verdachte;
the pre-trial detention would have an adverse result on the suspect
    * De ernst van de feiten weegt nauwelijks op tegen de 'straf' van het vastzitten;
the seriousness of the crime is disroportionate to the "punishment" of being locked up
    * De verdachte kan wegens zijn gezondheidstoestant de voorlopige hechtenis niet ondergaan.
the suspect cannot undergo pre-trial detention because of health-related issues

Het bevel tot schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis
The order to suspend pre-trial/temporary detention

In dit bevel wordt de aanleiding om tot schorsing over te gaan beschreven, en ook de datum en het tijdstip waarop de schorsing ingaat. Aan de schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis zijn een aantal voorwaarden verbonden. Over het algemeen zijn deze voorwaarden:
In this written order, the reasons for the judge to allow the temporary detention will be listed, as will the date and the time when this suspension will begin. A suspended pre-trial detention has several binding conditions. Usually these conditions are:

    * Dat de verdachte geen nieuwe strafbare feiten mag plegen;
the suspect may not comitted new punishable offences
    * Dat de verdachte bij verhuizing zijn nieuwe adresgegevens door moet geven aan politie en justitie;
if the suspect moves house, he must relay the new details of where he lives to the DA and the police
    * Dat de verdachte op iedere oproep van politie of justitie moet verschijnen;
the suspect must obey any request for questioning by polce of DA
    * Dat de verdachte mee zal werken aan een onderzoek van een gedragsdeskundige, in het geval er zo'n onderzoek gestart wordt;
the suspect must comply with a behaviouralist examination, if one is ordererd
    * Dat de verdachte zich niet zal onttrekken aan zijn vrijheidsbeneming, mocht die worden bevolen.
the suspect may not attempt to escape re-incarceration, if it were ordered.

Daarnaast kan de autoriteit van wie het bevel uitgaat (de rechter-commissaris of de raadkamer van de rechtbank) een aantal aanvullende schorsingsvoorwaarden opleggen. en bijvoorbeeld aan een voorwaarde dat de verdachte niet in een bepaalde straat mag komen, of geen contact mag opnemen met bepaalde personen.
Also, the authority who decided the order for suspension (the investigating judge or presiding judge) can add further requirements of the suspect, for example, a suspect may not visit a certain street or have contact with certain individuals.

They knew by then Joran was not cooperating.

[sirensong]

To the R.H. Judge-Commissioner
                  handling criminal cases in the GEA
                  through fax: XXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Request to cancel order to incarcerate ex art. 103 W.v.Sv.

Gives to know:

JORAN ANDREAS PETRUS VAN DER SLOOT, suspect, currently imprisoned in the KIA, for this case choosing domicile at the offices of the lawyer Mr. A.A.D.A. Carlo at the address of the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX X, who declares that he is authorized to act on behalf of his client, in this case also authorized to sign this petition and to file it:

   The, to be cancelled, order of incarceration

1.  this petition would like to achieve the cancellation of the order to imprison dated July 4th 2005, that was granted on the 5th of July 2005.

   Grounds for the petition

2.  The petition to cancel is based on article 103 Sv. There is no legal basis for the continuation of the incarceration of the suspect now that there are no more grounds based on article 101 Sv. Stronger than that, to continue to incarcerate the suspect is against the law, the principles of justice and in no way contributes to the finding of the truth.

   The motivation

3.
1.)  On July 4th 2005, the judge commissioner ordered the incarceration of the suspect for the duration of sixty days, starting on July 5th 2005. He ruled in that order to incarcerate that the reasons to suspect, suspicions and grounds that lead to this order were still upheld.
   
2.)  On July 14th 2005, the common court found that the appeal brought against this decision by my client was denied because of the strong suspicions and ground that were the reason for the order were still valid.
In this the court found of special importance that the conditions under which Natalee Holloway disappeared justified the suspicion of a serious crime. The strong suspicions against my client were that he had been in
the company of Natalee Holloway very shortly before she had disappeared and that he has made several differing statements about that. For the investigation it was then deemed necessary to continue the incarceration because the suspect shortly before the 4th of July 2005 had once again retracted earlier statements and that another investigation into the validity of those new statements, studying the causal link with all the other statements of the suspect, the incarceration was also necessary to ensure the suspect did not influence the outcome of that investigation.

3.)  the defence has not received the files that show that there indeed was such an investigation into the validity of any of the statements made by the suspect up to this date. It is clear to the defence that the incarceration is in contradiction to the rulings of July 4 and July 14 and that the continuation of the incarceration was, contrary to it's stated purposes, being used to entrap my clients into making statements. A special team of specialists from the Netherlands was brought over (of which the jurisdiction issues are being contested) intensively occupied themselves with the suspect and are submitting the suspect to intense questionings in order to entrap him into making statements. This however, based on your ruling and the ruling of the appeals court, was not the purpose of the continued incarceration. The incarceration thus is being used for a purpose other than the purpose it was granted for and thus in breach of art. 71 of the Sv;

4.)  On August 6th 2005 the suspect came of age. While he was under aged his parents were able to visit him daily. This ended abruptly on August 6th 2005. The District Attorney no longer allows any visitors for the suspect except for the hours between 10.00 am to 10.50 am on Saturday. Before August 6th 2005, the parents were allowed to speak with the suspect at the police station after the interviews had ended. On the 9th of August 2005, the interviewing officers, after the lawyer mr. A. de Bie had been informed that the interview was over, joined the suspect in his cell (without the lawyer being present). Making use of the fact that the suspect was unable to share his emotions with his parents, and in against the wishes of the suspect, the interviewing officers started to try and lean on the suspect. The interviewing officers, among others, made comments about the suspects parents that made the suspect angry. The interviewing officers also disregarded your ruling of June 6th 2005 (meant is July 6th 2005). On the 9th and the 16th of July 2005 the suspect was, after his lawyer had been informed that the interviews had ended, interviewed further without his lawyer being present (see letter of the 21st of July 2005, added as exhibit 1) and with this your ruling of June 6th 2005 (meant is July 6th 2005) was ignored. On top of that, the interviews that are taking place do not have the intention of finding out the truth but are aimed at entrapping the suspect to make statements that are untrue in order to incriminate the suspect. On a regular basis the suspect is confronted with statements of witnesses that were never uttered by the witnesses.

5.)  Another ground/reason with regard to cancelling the incarceration is the fact that the safety of the suspect is not ensured. On July 16th 2005, the suspect, after the camera's had been turned off, was physically abused by his interviewer. The suspect has filed a police report/complaint stating this on the 20th of July 2005 (see exhibit 2). No adequate response was given to this police complaint/report. The interviewing officer that hit him is still part of the investigative team. The suspect was hit hard in the face and is still hindered by the effects of that hit. How hard the punch was is proven by the hardening of the cartilage under the skin above his right eye.

6.)  On top of that, the detention situation in the KIA is very unfavorable for the suspect. At the KIA construction work is going on and the youth section lacks any facility. For example, there is no gym and the library is not accessible. Because of that the youths present in the youth section are not able to get rid of their energy and there regularly are fights, sometimes even using stabbing weapons. One of the fellow detainees was seriously injured by a toothbrush that had been turned into a stabbing implement. Recently a riot broke out in the youth section. The suspect was not involved in this but he too was punished along with the rest of the section. All visits were cancelled and all books were confiscated. Recently a drugs test was done in the prison and only my client and one other inmate were found to be clean. This has lead to further punishments for the inmates found to be using, this has made the suspect become in a privileged situation. A privileged situation in a prison setting makes the detention even harder. The detention has caused suspect disproportionate and unnecessary damage which is in violation with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity as is in our law articles 71 a and c SV.;

7.)  The Aruban system of law has been seriously shocked by the fact that suspect is being kept in jail even though there is no evidence of even a crime having been committed. This goes against the fundamental principles of law in such a manner that it is leading to great unrest in the Aruban society. Apparently the imprisonment of suspect serves no other purpose than to appease the American press and the family of the missing person under the threat of a tourism boycott. It is becoming clearer and clearer that feelings of unrest and unease are present in the Aruban community against the fact that apparently the American media and the family of the missing Natalee Holloway are to a degree the deciding factors regarding the further imprisonment of suspect. One demonstration has already taken place against this influence and another demonstration is in the planning.

8.)  The continued imprisonment is violating one of the most basic rights that the suspect has. The right to personal freedom. This right is not only found in art. 5 of the EVRM, but this right is also safeguarded in article 1.5 of the Aruban Statehood agreement. The continued imprisonment of suspect is violating his civil basic rights. In order to continue the imprisonment it is not sufficient that the family of the missing Natalee Holloway and the American media have suspicions. It is also not enough if the proper authorities have (reasonable) suspicion. On the basis of art. 5 EVRM, there has to be a situation in which the objective ******* feels that the involved person is guilty of having committed a criminal act. One can look at the ruling made by the EHRM on November 27th 1991, NJ 1995, 567 (Kemmache). In this ruling the court opines: “The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a conditio sinc qua non for the validity of the continued detention (....) but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; The court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty”. A suspicion is no longer enough to rob the suspect of his individual freedom. There have to be concrete fact and conditions that justify the continuation of the imprisonment and there are non. There are no fact of conditions on which the court could reasonable suspect that the suspect, after being released, would influence witnesses or would destroy/make potential evidence disappear; Suspicions of that can not be grounds to continue the imprisonment of the suspect. To let the imprisonment continue there have to be relevant grounds to suspect this. Because this criterium cannot be met, it is no longer possible to continue the imprisonment of the suspect. I draw your attention to EHRM 26th June 1991, NJ 1995. 575 (Letellier).

9.)  Also, it is in the best interest of suspect that he can start with his further education now that he graduated for his high-school diploma on the 9th of June 2005, the day he was arrested. Because of the situation that developed, the suspect can no longer start his already approved study (with scolarship) at Saint Leo's University near Tampa. This has caused the suspect serious damage and disadvantage. There is no justification to further damage and disadvantage the suspect. In order for him to continue his education in the Netherlands or Canada, then he will have to start no later then the middle of August 2005. There are possibilities that Joran could still enter a similar education (sports-management) in the Netherlands (Arnhem) or Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) that he was supposed to start in the U.S.A. There is also the possibility that he would register at the University of Aruba to start a course in hospitality management, if it is deemed that it would be desirable for him to still be available for the investigation. This could possibly mitigate the damage that Joran has already had to endure.

   Concluding

4.  There is no legal justification anymore for the continuation of the incarceration of the suspect, now that none of the grounds mentioned in art. 101 Sv. Are present anymore. Even stronger, continuing the incarceration of the suspect is in violation of the law, the principles of justice and in no way or shape aides the process of finding out what the truth is. The temporary incarceration must be lifted when the legal rules for that investigative tool are no longer met. The suspect has made all the statements he could make (he even made statements to what he thought) and the witnesses have been interviewed. The interrogations that are now taking place by the dutch specialists are merely a re-do of what has been done before and adds nothing new (but then from a pre-conception that Joran has committed a criminal act). Also from the standpoint of suspects future and the detention-situation cancellation of the temporary incarceration should be considered. Not only is the stay in the KIA, also because of his age, traumatising, but the suspect is also, without any reason for doing so, being robbed of the opportunity of working towards his future. The District Attorneys office gave no clear reason as to why it is necessary to continue the incarceration of the suspect. The imprisonment is only being used as a way of pressuring the suspect in order to break him, breaking him as in making him say things that aren't true. The District Attorneys office  is focusing – as far we can tell – solely on interviewing the suspect. Fact remains that it is not clear that a crime has even been committed, and especially not that the suspect would be involved in such a crime, even though the investigation has been investigating the suspect (too) intensively for months. This situation cannot continue in a society based on the rule of law. Joran can no longer be robbed of his individual freedom.

THAT IT MAY PLEASE THE COURT to forthwith grant our request for the cancellation of the incarceration or to decide after a hearing of the suspect that the continuation of the incarceration will be cancelled or make whatever other ruling your honour thinks is necessary to further proper justice.


         On behalf of the suspect,
         the lawyer:



         A.A.D.A. Carlo

Aruba, August 16th 2005

And didn't Joran admit he caused this himself, because he used someone elses sample?  I don't care what you say Ramm, the judges in this case have not shown themselves to be fine upstanding men crusading for justice.  They are  cowards who sat by and watched while this corrupt system made sure Natalee would never get justice.  I would hope everyone would educate themselves on this case before they ever go ANYWHERE Dutch law is in use.

[sirensong]

The points that I tried to highlight in the above quotes were:

the suspect has fully cooperated with the investigation
   


 Recently a drugs test was done in the prison and only my client and one other inmate were found to be clean. This has lead to further punishments for the inmates found to be using, this has made the suspect become in a privileged situation. A privileged situation in a prison setting makes the detention even harder. The detention has caused suspect disproportionate and unnecessary damage which is in violation with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity as is in our law articles 71 a and c SV.;

[Observer]

OT/ But its a good write up and Video on Tim Miller

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/texas.equusearch.missing.2.564151.html
Video at the site

Search Team Founder Inspired By Personal Tragedy
Texas Equusearch Founder Tim Miller Created The Organization In Memory Of His Slain Daughter

CHICAGO (CBS) ― The drive to find Drew Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, is now leaning on the skills of a man from Texas who is on a personal crusade. As CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot reports, the man who founded Equusearch never forgets what gave him a new mission in life.

"Every day I think about Laura," said Texas Equusearch founder Tim Miller. "Every day I miss Laura and again, the grieving process is very long and painful."

On September 10, 1984, Miller's daughter Laura was abducted while walking home from a payphone. Seventeen months later, the 16-year-old would be found dead in a field a short distance from her home. Laura's killer has never been found.

"I made a promise at that time to God and the Lord, never leave another family alone again, so I just didn't know there'd be this many families," Miller said.

In his daughter's memory, Miller founded Texas Equusearch in 2000. To date, the organization has taken part in more than 850 search efforts and located close to 250 people, reuniting them with their loved ones.

"All the families we've helped because of her death, I look back, and her death wasn't in vain," Miller said.

With more than 840 volunteers nationwide, Texas Equusearch members look for missing people on horseback, on foot and by air. They even have their own infrared equipment and use sonar. Among the high profile cases they've been involved in are the Natalee Holloway disappearance in Aruba, the search for pregnant mother Jessie Davis in Ohio, and missing college graduate Stepha Henry in Miami.

"I know this for a fact, there's one thing worse than having a murdered daughter, a murdered loved one, and that's knowing they're probably out there dead somewhere and never being able to say goodbye," Miller said.

Miller says the best feeling he's ever had was reuniting with their families three children that were the focus of Amber Alerts. The organization is supported solely through donations and volunteers.

[greeneyedlady]

P225 of Joran's book:

August 11th 2005

Joran is woken at 7:00am for a drug test. He says, "Cell mates quickly provide me with a little bag of urine from someone who had never 'blowed' before. In front of the guard i need to pull the little bag out of my zipper and deposit the content into a small container. I'm very nervous, but i manage to do it. Results are negative. Only two people in the youth department of KIA recieved severe detention for the use of marihuana, the rest all tested negatively since they used the urine of the boy who had never 'blowed'."

[igsigs]

So, Joran was demanding release from KIA because his drug taking and urine switching had put him in a priviledged situation?   

One thing Joran got right in the book - calling Aruba corrupt.

[Hotshot]

Diario Obits today/  Is this Max's dad? 

[Rammstein]

So wheres the source that the court said his arrest was unfounded? Thats a bunch of BS!! Im not buying your BS as I have read enough from Dutch Law experts and they are all amazed as we are. The DA did make there case for the house to be fully searched but the Judge changed that on the spot the day of the search. It's obvious they threw all the rules out the window when they illegally tried to frame two innocent men and immediately searched there clothes,home and cars. Not collecting evidence from murder suspects is a for sure way to kill a investigation and they succeeded. In the Judges defence I dint think they acted alone. They were probably paid off or influenced by the Aruban Govt.

No doubt about it..These two judges killed the Investigation along with the Paul's friends and the rest of the cover up team. All to save there precious tourism as nothing bad can ever happen to a tourist in Aruba.

The Dutch quality newspaper Elsevier quoted the courts ruling as follows:

Het Arubaanse hof oordeelt nu dat de aanhouding van Van der Sloot wel ‘ongegrond is gebleken, maar niet onrechtmatig'.

The Aruban court now ruled that the arrest of van der Sloot had "shown to be unfounded, it was not illegitimate/unlawful".

So wheres the source? Was this from PVDS attorney  Just because something is written in a NY Post,Elsevior or a National Enquirer it doesnt mean its true.

no, courts have their own press offices/press judges who make statements about cases when asked. And Elsevier is more like the Washington Post/New York Times and is nothing like the NE.