Natalee Case Discussion #697 11/29 - 11/30/2007

[blah]

With regard to what the defense attorneys are calling old evidence, what if this was never presented to the judges by Karin Janssen and is found to be credible and incriminating?

I suppose under their system, she is free to just neglect to do that even though it would be her job?

.

what if the "old misinterpreted evidence" were a video tape of Joran and the K's killing Natalee.  Are they allowed to just disregard it because its old?

what if it is wire tapped confessions that were not transcribed properly or fully?  The judge is allowed to just say he cant consider it?

This is a bunch of BS

The judge should have easly been able to say "8 more days".  Why does it take 1 then 2 now possibly 3 days to decide if something is incriminating or not?

Either the judge corrupt or Mos is stretching it

Add to it all that Mos has had these punks locked up for a week now.  You telling me he couldnt come up with anything new or incriminating in a week?

This blows, i'm so pissed

[GabbyG]

Memphis
I don't know if all of us will be enough..I will say this...I have been amazed at what truly dedicated people can and will do for something they believe in.  It only takes a spark..I want to be positive. 

Beth said at her book signing in Birmingham in response to a question about her still believing that this case could be solved...You always have to have hope..without it life would be unbearable. (paraphrasing only) Still, I doubt she thought what has happened in the last few weeks would actually transpire..so yes, I think there is hope...it's that magic word that requires a leap of faith for all those that believe in it.

As someone told me last night...here, hold my hand we will make it through this together.

Yes.

OK.
I can't imagine how Natalee's family is getting through this. I'll be praying for them throughout the day today.

Hi Memphis! Count me in on this. I have been and will continue to do so until this is over, and most especially so today.

[Anna]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

[Helen Back]

ALSO - as of right now NOTHING at RU about a release, NOTHING on Greta's blog about a release.

DO NOT listen to the defense attorneys!

OK Klaas ... I will not listen to the defence but ... it does appear that in Aruba the defence are the first to know.

Janet

+++++++++++

LOVING NATALEE
Beth Holloway

Page 182 - Helen is very positive.  "It looks good that they will remain in custody" she says.  Then just three hours after she tells me this encouraging news, a devastating call comes from an AP reporter.

"Paulus van der Sloot and his attorney are bragging to everyone that all three suspects are getting out day after tomorrow!".

Then all the media start calling.  I call Helen, then FBI agent Bill and the U.S. vice-consul.  None of them have this information. So we tell the media it must be a rumor.  But the word is out all over the island from the defense side that all three suspects will walk.

Four and a half hours after this announcement is made to international media by Joran's father and his defense team, the FBI calls to tell me that it is indeed true.  So the three suspects who were last seen with my daughter, and who offered multiple versions of what happened that night, will go free.  And we are the last ones to find out.

That's the way they used to roll under the old "regime".  It's not happening that way any more.  Last time, the DEFENSE was running the investigation! 

Not on Mos's watch!  That's the big difference here.

Helen ... I pray you are right but ... how can you be certain?

With all my heart I hope and pray that Aruba is now serious about affording justice for Natalee Holloway but ... considering that Paulus van der Sloot was not detained along with Joran, Deepak and Satish and ... considering the past foundation that I derive my skepticism from ...  I am not willing to get on that emotional roller coaster ride again ... only to be plunged into the depths of despair.  I have been there ... done that ...

Respectfully, Janet

Hey Janet,

I understand your skepticism.  I guess we can't be certain of anything until more news is released.  However, what we are witnessing at this time in terms of Mos's handling of the simultaneous arrests,separate locations with no access to the news, management of the media, lack of leaked information, defense attorneys out of the loop, Paulus's non-access to Joran, separate attorneys for the Kalpoes to prevent coordination of info and statements, no AHATA spokespeople giving interviews, etc.... give the appearance to me that things are different.  I am observing quite a different handling of the investigation, and this gives me confidence.  Mos is willing to meet with Beth and Dave, something Janssen never had the guts to do. 

What I am observing is not the kind of circus where the defense lawyers would be holding a press conference to BREAK the news that the suspects are released, WITH EVERYONE ELSE FINDING OUT LATER.  Where was Janssen that day?

These are just my feeling and opinions, but not without basis.  I am basing my feelings and opinions on what I am observing, and my observations tell me this is different. 

I put my confidence in my own observations and not in the statements made by defense attorneys and those who are demonstrated to not be credible.  I also believe that Mos will be bringing the sweaty man in.  But, whats the rush?  Why not let him sweat some more?

Hey Anita, we're gonna need more towels.

That's just how I have to look at things, until shown to be different.  Believe me, I've been to school regarding defense attorneys.  IMO, if you're looking for the truth, take them out of the mix and look at the rest.

Helen

[Spock]

When a decision is a close call, Judges like to give something to each side. They may release one suspect and hold one or two others longer. I would be surprised if all are allowed to go at one hearing.

There really is no reason for Mos to hold any evidence back at this point. It wouldn't make any sense to hold back evidence from the Judge so they could walk this week, only to charge them in a month. He did say he would close the case in 30 days, if he couldn't get what he needed to prosecute.

If the boys are released, he wont be bringing them back in before the end of the year, and that would likely be the end of the case

[Anna]

All that stuff Cowgirl Janssen chose to ignore can be presented to the judge as NEW evidence.  Only if a judge has seen it before can it not be used to detain but will still be considered in totality of a trial situation.

[blah]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

thats exactly what I would think.

I just cant figure out why it would take 2-3 days for a judge to come to a conclusion that something is either incriminating or not incriminating.  I mean, either it is or it isnt.  Should be a pretty quick/simple procedure.  Why is the judge stuggeling to come to this decision?  It makes no sense, or am I just nuts, or what?

[klaasend]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

thats exactly what I would think.

I just cant figure out why it would take 2-3 days for a judge to come to a conclusion that something is either incriminating or not incriminating.  I mean, either it is or it isnt.  Should be a pretty quick/simple procedure.  Why is the judge stuggeling to come to this decision?  It makes no sense, or am I just nuts, or what?

Where are you getting 2-3 days?  We don't know if the judge got the evidence from the prosecutor TODAY or YESTERDAY.  We know for sure he at least got it today.  So he may be wanting 24hours, what's the big deal?

[snoopy]

Let's be cheerleaders for Beth & Dave who are surely sniffing justice.  They have longsuffered far greater than anyone I know.  They have had the most precious item in the world removed from them, stolen and brutalized by thiefs, rogues, murdering thugs.  And yet they remain optimistic, hopeful and very faithful to the cause.

Let's be cheerleaders for Klaas and Red, who have worked long and hard and Mrs. Red who has given up her husband more weekends than not and dear Klaas' who has to time her showers and grocery purchases.  They have spent very tiring hours monitoring, setting up websites, writing articles, coordinating phone calls, etc.

Let's be cheerleaders for Tim Miller who has worked long and hard, who has lost his own child and who continues to be faithful to the cause of lost people everywhere.  Let's keep faith for him, who certainly needs it.  Tim is not a young man and is doing the work of a young man, working day and night, organizing and participating.

We can sit here and chat and, least of all, keep the faith.

 

 

 

[Anna]

When a decision is a close call, Judges like to give something to each side. They may release one suspect and hold one or two others longer. I would be surprised if all are allowed to go at one hearing.

There really is no reason for Mos to hold any evidence back at this point. It wouldn't make any sense to hold back evidence from the Judge so they could walk this week, only to charge them in a month. He did say he would close the case in 30 days, if he couldn't get what he needed to prosecute.

If the boys are released, he wont be bringing them back in before the end of the year, and that would likely be the end of the case

Mos said he would not release the totality of his evidence until the TRIAL.

I think it makes perfect sense not to release any more than absolutely necessary at this point so that they cannot cook up defenses or create a CYA agenda, destroy evidence this time, get Paulus buds on board, etc.

Strategy of releasing the minimum to detain is very smart in my opinion.  Meanwhile, working on enough to arrest Paulus perhaps but at the least trying to get suspects to talk.

See what evidence he can get from them before going to court for actual trial.

MO

.

[blah]

When a decision is a close call, Judges like to give something to each side. They may release one suspect and hold one or two others longer. I would be surprised if all are allowed to go at one hearing.

There really is no reason for Mos to hold any evidence back at this point. It wouldn't make any sense to hold back evidence from the Judge so they could walk this week, only to charge them in a month. He did say he would close the case in 30 days, if he couldn't get what he needed to prosecute.

If the boys are released, he wont be bringing them back in before the end of the year, and that would likely be the end of the case

I agree 100%

except for maybe the 2nd sentence, not sure about that.

[Spock]

When a decision is a close call, Judges like to give something to each side. They may release one suspect and hold one or two others longer. I would be surprised if all are allowed to go at one hearing.

There really is no reason for Mos to hold any evidence back at this point. It wouldn't make any sense to hold back evidence from the Judge so they could walk this week, only to charge them in a month. He did say he would close the case in 30 days, if he couldn't get what he needed to prosecute.

If the boys are released, he wont be bringing them back in before the end of the year, and that would likely be the end of the case

Mos said he would not release the totality of his evidence until the TRIAL.

I think it makes perfect sense not to release any more than absolutely necessary at this point so that they cannot cook up defenses or create a CYA agenda, destroy evidence this time, get Paulus buds on board, etc.

Strategy of releasing the minimum to detain is very smart in my opinion.  Meanwhile, working on enough to arrest Paulus perhaps but at the least trying to get suspects to talk.

See what evidence he can get from them before going to court for actual trial.

MO

Anna, it doesnt make any sense to hold back too much evidence and have them released. He has to present enough to keep them in jail, and if he doesn't have it...

[Anna]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

thats exactly what I would think.

I just cant figure out why it would take 2-3 days for a judge to come to a conclusion that something is either incriminating or not incriminating.  I mean, either it is or it isn't.  Should be a pretty quick/simple procedure.  Why is the judge stuggeling to come to this decision?  It makes no sense, or am I just nuts, or what?

Because yesterday he only got the motion for them to share an attorney and for Baby Joran to be given creature comforts.

Today is when he got the evidence to hold the Kalpoes.  Has that hearing even taken place yet?  He may rule at the hearing or tomorrow but I don't know that the hearing to detain has even taken place because the judge would go to the jails, both of them, where the Kalpoes are being held.

The motions he heard yesterday were at the courthouse.  He may not have even heard the evidence yet.  Might be a good idea to let him hear it before we get impatient.  He has to hear the new evidence in the actual presence of the suspects as their way of due process, allow them to answer, etc.  He did not go to any jail yesterday is how we know he didn't hear that evidence.



.

[Tylergal]

When a decision is a close call, Judges like to give something to each side. They may release one suspect and hold one or two others longer. I would be surprised if all are allowed to go at one hearing.

There really is no reason for Mos to hold any evidence back at this point. It wouldn't make any sense to hold back evidence from the Judge so they could walk this week, only to charge them in a month. He did say he would close the case in 30 days, if he couldn't get what he needed to prosecute.

If the boys are released, he wont be bringing them back in before the end of the year, and that would likely be the end of the case

I think Mos will hold back the big guns until he goes for the 60-day "hold."

[Rooscrew]

Let's be cheerleaders for Beth & Dave who are surely sniffing justice.  They have longsuffered far greater than anyone I know.  They have had the most precious item in the world removed from them, stolen and brutalized by thiefs, rogues, murdering thugs.  And yet they remain optimistic, hopeful and very faithful to the cause.

Let's be cheerleaders for Klaas and Red, who have worked long and hard and Mrs. Red who has given up her husband more weekends than not and dear Klaas' who has to time her showers and grocery purchases.  They have spent very tiring hours monitoring, setting up websites, writing articles, coordinating phone calls, etc.

Let's be cheerleaders for Tim Miller who has worked long and hard, who has lost his own child and who continues to be faithful to the cause of lost people everywhere.  Let's keep faith for him, who certainly needs it.  Tim is not a young man and is doing the work of a young man, working day and night, organizing and participating.

We can sit here and chat and, least of all, keep the faith.

I'm with you, Tyler  
Monkeys, we gotta keep the faith, it's all we got. We gotta stay strong as the families draw from our strength as well. Also, we have to remember God's timing isn't our timing. We've been wanting justice for 2 1/2 years now. God's perfect plan sometimes goes in different ways than the way we want that plan to go. We try so hard to do the Lord's job and tell Him what he needs to do. During that process He changes us to become more like Him. We know ultimately God's ways and plans are perfect. 
I go back and forth with exactly what some are going thru' as well, wondering if it's for real or just a pony show going on. I'm trying to remain optimistic and what Robots, Wreck, Klaas and the others keep saying, brings hope. I'm praying that this will be the end and Natalee can be found with the deep sea search and brought home.
We gotta stick together, think positive, hope for the best and continue to fight the good fight. Good overcomes evil!!

Roos~

[Tamikosmom]

Janet,

Respectfully, you are already on the roller coaster with us. Your work will not be in vain.

Being right will not ease the pain, so I say, let go and bring the positive energy, we've gotten off the canvas before and we wilagain if we have to.

A bible to Joran is what a cross is to vampires. He will burn, one way or another, the van der sloots will burn.

A story ...

I have always had a good relationship with my my eldest son's wife but ... not close.  My daughter-in-law has given my hubby and I a beautiful grandson and ... she is a great mother and ... she makes my son happy.  However ... she is thisclose with her parents who reside in Quebec.  Fortunately she has a good long-distance plan ... she talks to them every day.

Frank ... I had fully excepted the status quo of our relationship and did not expect it to ever change.  However ... yesterday something happened.  My hubby and I received a personalize card from our beautiful French Canadian daughter-in-law and ... the unexpected made me so happy ... I am still walking on air today.

My point ... I expect nothing out of Aruba in regards to justice for Natalee Holloway and ... closure for her family but ... if it happens ... I am going to be sooo excited.

Frank ... am I making sense. 

Janet

[blah]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

thats exactly what I would think.

I just cant figure out why it would take 2-3 days for a judge to come to a conclusion that something is either incriminating or not incriminating.  I mean, either it is or it isnt.  Should be a pretty quick/simple procedure.  Why is the judge stuggeling to come to this decision?  It makes no sense, or am I just nuts, or what?

Where are you getting 2-3 days?  We don't know if the judge got the evidence from the prosecutor TODAY or YESTERDAY.  We know for sure he at least got it today.  So he may be wanting 24hours, what's the big deal?

we were told the hearing was yesterday (or was supposed to be)
Didnt it happen?

Then we were told the decision was supposed to be made today?

And now today we are hearing tomorrow?

thats 2-3 days isnt it?

Seems like it should be a very easy thing to do.  hear the evidence and decide if it is incriminating or not.  I dont understand why it would take even 24 hours??

[Anna]

I would think Mos has a pretty good feel for how much is enough for a judge to hear to detain someone.  It must be a fine judgment call on his part and I only hope and pray he is correct in his assessment of how much is enough but not too much so as to assist the defense.

[blah]

Blah,

It is my understanding that the judge has to consider whatever evidence presented to him by the prosecutor whether it is old or new.

Defense attorneys calling it old doesn't mean it is old in the sense the judge has seen it.  New to the judges.

I have never read nor heard anything at all that says old evidence is not to be considered, only that the suspects are using this as an excuse to remain silent.

The judges have to consider it no matter when the evidence was gleaned.  Only new required to keep the perps in jail and it is new if not previously presented to a judge regardless of when the evidence was obtained.

MO

.

thats exactly what I would think.

I just cant figure out why it would take 2-3 days for a judge to come to a conclusion that something is either incriminating or not incriminating.  I mean, either it is or it isn't.  Should be a pretty quick/simple procedure.  Why is the judge stuggeling to come to this decision?  It makes no sense, or am I just nuts, or what?

Because yesterday he only got the motion for them to share an attorney and for Baby Joran to be given creature comforts.

Today is when he got the evidence to hold the Kalpoes.  Has that hearing even taken place yet?  He may rule at the hearing or tomorrow but I don't know that the hearing to detain has even taken place because the judge would go to the jails, both of them, where the Kalpoes are being held.

The motions he heard yesterday were at the courthouse.  He may not have even heard the evidence yet.  Might be a good idea to let him hear it before we get impatient.  He has to hear the new evidence in the actual presence of the suspects as their way of due process, allow them to answer, etc.  He did not go to any jail yesterday is how we know he didn't hear that evidence.



.

I thought he heard the evidence yesterday and was to notify his decision today.

"He did not go to any jail yesterday is how we know he didn't hear that evidence." \
"because the judge would go to the jails, both of them, where the Kalpoes are being held."

how do we know these 2 sentences are true? 

[Anna]

Blah,
No, I don't think the evidence and detention hearing happened yesterday.  Did anyone read about a judge going to the jails?  Didn't we joke that the first two motion hearings were a full day for an Aruban judge?

He still has to rule on those two motions which evidently are considered more important that the one on detention.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I think today is when he will hear the evidence on whether to detain.

Blah, from yesterday until today is one day, not 2-3.  It just seems like it is, lol.