Natalee Case Discussion #703 12/8 - 12/11//2007

[truthseeker2]

Good morning all. I brought this up a few nights ago, but it was too late to really get anything going. I suggested that  prosecuting 2K now and not Joran may force them to turn on each other unless 2K are willing to let Joran run around free and party while they sit in prison for 3 long years. Plus they will always be known as the ones who committed the crime.

That would be an interesting process if it were to occur.  First they have to prove she died then that the Kalpoes helped drug her, kidnap her, or helped dispose of her body after someone else killed her.  Probably difficult to prove in their court unless they find the body.  Ole Papa Sloot took care of that.  "No body, no case".

[NYC_lover]

Good morning all!

[2NJSons_Mom]

Here you go, Anna.  I seem to be posting this message more and more often.

http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewforum.php?f=14
bakabl wrote:
Frist Im vary sorry to hear of the vary sad case of Natalee Holloway in such a wonderful place like Aruba but it could happen anywere at any time. There are a few questions that need to be asked of the two men that the FBI are questioning - 1st ask them about the drink that was given to Natalee around 3:15am Aruba Time the morring Natalee never retyrn to her hotel and ask them about what the drug was in the drink that Natalee drunk without her knowing. 2nd ask them about the boat and the 2-1/2 mile trip they took.

They should break dowm and tell the truth about are were Natalee can be found.

I am reading backward which is usually a small disaster but bumping this forward as yet another cryptic post for OceanExplorer that we have mulled over endlessly.

.

Remembering this very well, as do many others.  The date escapes me, but I believe it was early in the case, iirc.  (was not able to find it using search at that site)

[Anna]

I don't know if I have posted this here before or not, can't remember even with nice morning coffee from Peru.

Saw a discussion on another forum with regard to whether or not the U.S. can arrest foreign nationals, etc. on their own soil without the benefit of extradition treaties and such.

I like the comment of the comedienne Chris Rock when he says "CAN we?  Of course we can!  Who's gonna stop us?  The UN with their army?  Oh, they don't have an army?  Well, in that case. . .. . "

Of course, he is joking for this country, given the power that we have, has been the most restrained and the last aggressive in history.  We are not the ones with former colonies all over the world and as Colin Powell commented, we have shed our blood for the freedom of others asking only for land enough to bury our dead.  No nation in history has such a record.

HOWEVER, can there be a limit even to our patience?  Can we do dirty tricks legally as others are so adapt at doing?  More so now than at any time in history.  WOULD we over street crime?  Prolly not but how about the routine drugging of tourists as admitted by ALE Dennis Jacobs?  Sounds like a human rights or civil rights or both violation to me.

Anyway, here is food for thought article and applies to nothing in particular except hoping to keep the Sloots awake as night wondering what those crazy Americans might do next.

Article:


From The Sunday Times
December 2, 2007

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
David Leppard
AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the "extraordinary rendition" of terrorist suspects.

Related Links
a.. NatWest trio allowed time to pay off debts
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government's view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman's nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. "The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared," he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: "If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse - it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s."
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be "honest about [his] position".

Jones replied: "That is United States law."

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time - as there currently is between the United States and Britain - the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a "sinister trap" and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term "extraordinary rendition" was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: "The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation."

The US Justice Department declined to comment.

Additional reporting: Anna Mikhailova

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us and americas/article2982640.ece


Additional comment from me:

Remember Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid who were tracked down in the remote mountains of Bolivia by Postal Inspectors!  and forcibly extradited.

I don't see this happening in the instance of Natalee but if it could be combined with other tourists who have been drugged according to ALE, something might could come of it all.  Unlikely it would seem for a crime against one citizen on foreign soil but maybe not as impossible as it once seemed to me.

And if we are willing to offend the British, we woulnd't think twice about the Dutch with this manner of dealing with things outside the extradition treaties.  Americans seldom ask those more corrupt and inept and less successful for advice as that would rather futile and we have often gone it alone in the past and will likely continue to do so.

Just some late night reading to give that flyspeck of a nation something to think about. . . .

.

[NYC_lover]

Anna - we were talk about Dutch are stubborn yesterday....lol...
Now there is stay in De Telegraaf, Dutch men been rougher in bed. ...lol...
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2744661/_Nederlandse_man_slecht_in_bed__.html?p=7,2

[Anna]

Anna - we were talk about Dutch are stubborn yesterday....lol...
Now there is stay in De Telegraaf, Dutch men been rougher in bed. ...lol...
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2744661/_Nederlandse_man_slecht_in_bed__.html?p=7,2

 

[MumInOhio]

Good morning all!

Hello NYC_lover....I have a question, please. If Judge Wit took an oath of another court which is only an ******* to Aruba on June 1st 2005, what authority did he have to limit the search at the van der Sloots house almost 2 weeks later? TIA

Anna   Just realized he could NOT have been working on this case prior. There was no case as of June 1st!!

[NYC_lover]

Hello NYC_lover....I have a question, please. If Judge Wit took an oath of another court which is only an ******* to Aruba on June 1st 2005, what authority did he have to limit the search at the van der Sloots house almost 2 weeks later? TIA

Anna   Just realized he could NOT have been working on this case prior. There was no case as of June 1st!!

MumInOhio - Sure. This is a good question, but I don't have directly an answer. Give me few minutes.

[JA]

I'm another that believes Paulus is one of the main reasons why this case can't be/isn't solved.  Due to his connections and job, he knows a lot of the corruption and illegal things going on in Aruba.  If Joran goes down, then he will tell, and others do not want that happening.  The 2Ks will not go down unless Joran does and they have been told this.  All they have to do is keep quiet.

I'm one of the few who still isn't sure that that is Paulus in the casino with Natalee.  To me that guy looks thinner and younger.  I also think Paulus was involved in the disposal, but not the actual drugging or sexual assault.  He also may have had something to do with not getting Natalee medical help and letting her die.  he also may have known that Joran had his eye on the MB group and was planning a little action that evening.

I also find in hard, that within the walls of the Sloot compound Val hasn't heard a lot too.  I'm surprised he hasn't spilled some info out among his friends.  Same thing with Saunder, because I think Koen knows a lot too.  Dad made sure to wisk him out of there before he opened his mouth.  Who knows, maybe Koen wanted to tell the police some things that went down, or his dad knew they could get info out of him.  The ALE was probaably fine with Koen's dad coming in because then they wouldn't have to take a possibly incriminating statement that they would later need to destroy.

I think Joran would have gone to Paulus when he got in over his head that night.  He knew Paulus would know what to do, who to contact etc.  I still find it hard to believe that they boys could have done all this on their own.  Even if they took a deceased Natalee, contacted Koen and took her out to sea, they would have gone to Paulus afterwards or before for advice.  Paulus has allowed Joran free reign; drinking, gambling, lying, providing porn, staying out till all hours, bringing girls home, and drugging them with the intent for sexual assault is all okay in Paulus' book.  Of course he'd go to Paulus.

Little did Aruba know the determination of Natalee's family.  Otherwise by mid summer of the first year this case would have been closed.

[Silverfox]

I don't know if I have posted this here before or not, can't remember even with nice morning coffee from Peru.

Saw a discussion on another forum with regard to whether or not the U.S. can arrest foreign nationals, etc. on their own soil without the benefit of extradition treaties and such.

I like the comment of the comedienne Chris Rock when he says "CAN we?  Of course we can!  Who's gonna stop us?  The UN with their army?  Oh, they don't have an army?  Well, in that case. . .. . "

Of course, he is joking for this country, given the power that we have, has been the most restrained and the last aggressive in history.  We are not the ones with former colonies all over the world and as Colin Powell commented, we have shed our blood for the freedom of others asking only for land enough to bury our dead.  No nation in history has such a record.

HOWEVER, can there be a limit even to our patience?  Can we do dirty tricks legally as others are so adapt at doing?  More so now than at any time in history.  WOULD we over street crime?  Prolly not but how about the routine drugging of tourists as admitted by ALE Dennis Jacobs?  Sounds like a human rights or civil rights or both violation to me.

Anyway, here is food for thought article and applies to nothing in particular except hoping to keep the Sloots awake as night wondering what those crazy Americans might do next.

Article:


From The Sunday Times
December 2, 2007

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
David Leppard
AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the "extraordinary rendition" of terrorist suspects.

Related Links
a.. NatWest trio allowed time to pay off debts
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government's view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman's nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. "The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared," he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: "If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse - it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s."
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be "honest about [his] position".

Jones replied: "That is United States law."

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time - as there currently is between the United States and Britain - the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a "sinister trap" and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term "extraordinary rendition" was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: "The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation."

The US Justice Department declined to comment.

Additional reporting: Anna Mikhailova

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us and americas/article2982640.ece


Additional comment from me:

Remember Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid who were tracked down in the remote mountains of Bolivia by Postal Inspectors!  and forcibly extradited.

I don't see this happening in the instance of Natalee but if it could be combined with other tourists who have been drugged according to ALE, something might could come of it all.  Unlikely it would seem for a crime against one citizen on foreign soil but maybe not as impossible as it once seemed to me.

And if we are willing to offend the British, we woulnd't think twice about the Dutch with this manner of dealing with things outside the extradition treaties.  Americans seldom ask those more corrupt and inept and less successful for advice as that would rather futile and we have often gone it alone in the past and will likely continue to do so.

Just some late night reading to give that flyspeck of a nation something to think about. . . .

.

Hey good post!!

Hey and don't forget Noriega! We sent the troops in after him! 

[MumInOhio]

Thanks NYC_lover....no hurry. I can't seem to find out much about these Judges back in 2005, or now for that matter. A lot of web pages in Dutch, so maybe I'm missing it! You would think there would be some reference other than the blogs!

[Anna]

Good morning all!

Hello NYC_lover....I have a question, please. If Judge Wit took an oath of another court which is only an ******* to Aruba on June 1st 2005, what authority did he have to limit the search at the van der Sloots house almost 2 weeks later? TIA

Anna   Just realized he could NOT have been working on this case prior. There was no case as of June 1st!!

You are correct about no case existing prior to his being sworn in at other court.

I wish someone would submit this question to Mos as it should be investigated as misconduct on the part of a judge sworn into another court and yet issuing decrees directly in lower court.



The search did not happen until around June 15 from memory so that would have been a full two weeks after he was sworn into the regional court.

It really sucks to have a judge rule like that on searches.  That is like saying you can only show me this and this and this but not that or that and is just a glaring conflict of interest and just plain stinks.  How can a case even be prepared with judges saying what they will be shown and what they will not be shown as evidence.

Just another way to arrive at the predetermined outcome.

Corruption abounds.

MO

.

[private eye]

HS 06/04/05
Q: I would like to do a reading on the disappearance of Natalee Holloway on the island of Aruba. Please give me something to bring some closure for those who are grieving...

This is quite an interesting piece nanandjim. Now, let me apologize for the length of my reply, I find the mystery surrounding Natalee’s disappearance unsettling and intriguing.

From the psychic: “She was drugged with a local ecstasy substitute… The other men left and she hardly noticed… The white male repeated raped…. her. She was innocent to some of this and became hysterical.... So Natalee was taken on the fishing boat out to sea by someone who knew the white male and was called at about 3:30AM… The boat has blue somewhat scrolled writing on the back . It lists or slants in the water to the left somewhat when viewed from behind as it sits in the water at the public marina… a local man drove the boat straight out from the marina at about 35 mph for 32 minutes…he weighted and pushed her body overboard…Natalee has found some peace after the traumatic act. She is deeply regretful about the agony it is causing everyone (especially her mother) but what is done is done. Her body may never be found.”

This reading is pretty eerie. It is hauntingly similar to a tip posted to an Aruba forum within 5 days of Natalee's disappearance, though the tip refers to the 2 security guards held early on in the investigation. In Post 28 of thread part #2, Kahskye referred to a board (which is now closed). The link, I assume, lead to this post which was included in Reply 28:

“bakabl wrote:Frist Im vary sorry to hear of the vary sad case of Natalee Holloway in such a wonderful place like Aruba but it could happen anywere at any time. There are a few questions that need to be asked of the two men that the FBI are questioning - 1st ask them about the drink that was given to Natalee around 3:15am Aruba Time the morring Natalee never retyrn to her hotel and ask them about what the drug was in the drink that Natalee drunk without her knowing. 2nd ask them about the boat and the 2-1/2 mile trip they took. They should break dowm and tell the truth about are were Natalee can be found.”


???????????????

[Kermit]

ANITA THIS POST IS FOR YOU HONEY ITS A SHAME WE HAVE TO KEEP MEETING LIKE THIS BUT, I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN MY INVITATION TO YOUR CHISTMAS PARTY:)

While the prosecutor may choose to close his file,the Van Der Sloots, in particular Anita, need to realize that this case will never be over for her, Joran, Paulus, and her other children whom she is forcing to also live this horrible lie, until she does the right thing and tells the truth. I hope years from now, when your family is torn apart and laying in ruins from this very treatable cancer, when your children are in pain and their lives ruined from the horrible neglect you have intentionally inflicted upon them, you remember this. It didn't have to be like this, you could have stepped up to the plate and helped your family, including Joran to grow and lead valuable, productive lives, but YOU REFUSED. Beth, Matt, Mrs Reynolds, and hopefully Dave are almost healed, receiving blessings from God,and Natalee is sitting with God because they turned to God instead of away from God when faced with their loss. You who have turned from God, rejecting his instructions, haven't even hit bottom yet, you are still falling from that great height but are beginning to see your fate that rest at the bottom, and I know you know the pain is certain and will be great. The sooner you do the right thing, the shorter the road back to the top is and the less the pain suffered from the fall.

Turn the channel of life, what could have been, and you might see Joran incarcerated for a while, apparently the worst thing you think can happen to him, wrongly. Keep watching and you might see Joran befriended not by "Bubba" but by a person who knows the Lord and introduces him to the Lord, enabling Joran to grow to his full potential, become a good man, a role model for his siblings, and a great father who blesses you and your family with many grandchildren. But you don't want Joran to lose 10 years of his life in jail, I see, you would rather ruin an entire life time of his, and generations to come represented by the children he as a great man and father could have had. Oh but keep watching, remember this is the channel of good people, and who are those gracious women arguing to get Joran an early release, could it be, well it is , Beth and her mother. Is this how it would play out, I am no Simian or Shango, the Aruban voo doo schams who claim to know all but tell nothing, making them real punks in my book, but it certainly is a very real and possible outcome when 2 families come together in the truth and do the right thing despite the fact that the solution to one family appears mighty bright out the window labeled doing the wrong thing. Fools gold Anita, something you in Aruba should recognize. Your family, for generations, depends on you having the wisdom to say no to fools gold, and realizing that you never do the wrong thing when you do the right thing.

I can assure you Anita, Beth and her family are going to have a great Holiday Season and wish the same to you. But it can't begin to happen to you until you do the right thing, and while they are rooting for you, only you can make the choice to begin restoring the health of your family. Merry Christmas.

"I am willing to wait out all their lives to get to the truth. I have the rest of my life to find out what has happened to Natalee." (p. 98 Beth Holloway)

[ldstlou]

Morning again Monkeys!!
Did Jossy spill any beans yet?!

[MumInOhio]

Was it ever mentioned who signed the search warrant? Doesn't make sense that Wit would sign off on it and then limit it? TIA

[Kermit]

Kermit, maybe he is zipping his pants up

Or worse, remember this guy is a pervert::)))))) About a 15 year old intellectually and emotionally

Perhaps it is evidence Paulus & Joran cheat at the blackjack tables[/b]

[NYC_lover]

Hello NYC_lover....I have a question, please. If Judge Wit took an oath of another court which is only an ******* to Aruba on June 1st 2005, what authority did he have to limit the search at the van der Sloots house almost 2 weeks later? TIA

Anna   Just realized he could NOT have been working on this case prior. There was no case as of June 1st!!

MumInOhio - Sure. This is a good question, but I don't have directly an answer. Give me few minutes.

I am not really in part of the Judges work at home, but I know a Dutch judge become appointed and must get a oath by the queen of the Netherlands. What I know, there is no judge that can says anything about a search in a house, is in the Netherlands. Maybe I am wrong with this is what I know. And there is then no reason for a stop limit at a searching by a judge, in somebody this or her house.

Huiszoeking Procedure
Huiszoeking. De politie en ook andere medewerkers van justitie hebben de mogelijkheid tot huiszoeking over te gaan, indien de verdenking bestaat dat in een woning strafbare feiten worden/werden gepleegd of voorwerpen aanwezig zijn, die volgens de wetgeving in beslag genomen kunnen worden.

Huiszoekingsbevel. Men is alleen verplicht toegang tot erf of woning te verlenen, nadat een bevel tot huiszoeking is getoond door de politie (zoals vaak in Amerikaanse films te zien is).
Inhoud bevel.

De inhoud van het huiszoekingsbevel. Kan echter een vrij algemene strekking hebben, zodat adres en huisnummer van de woning er niet in staan. Voldoende is dat het bevel de machtiging van de officier van justitie (respectievelijk de Rechter-commissaris) vermeldt en tevens het doel waartoe dit bevel is uitgevaardigd. In dit geval kan dan worden overgegaan tot in beslagneming van bepaalde voorwerpen.

Translation:
Searching procedure
Searching. The police force and employees also other of justice have the possibility to searching, of proceeding if the suspicion exists that in a house indictable offences/were committed or objects become present are, which according to the legislation be confiscated can.

Searching command. One is only obliges access to (farm) yard or house, grant after a command to searching has been shown by the police force (as in American films to frequently see is).

Contents command. The contents of the searching command are possible however a rather general scope have, so that address and house number of the house do not stand. Sufficient is that the command mentions the authorisation of the public prosecutor (respectively the judge-commissioner) and besides the aim to which this order has been issued. In this case can be proceeded then to in seizure take out of certain objects.

[Kermit]

Was it ever mentioned who signed the search warrant? Doesn't make sense that Wit would sign off on it and then limit it? TIA

Karin Janssen was responsible.

She had no problem getting the right search warrant for the security guards.

If she or anyone in her dept screwed up the search warrant, it was her responsibility to correct the mistake and go get the search warrant they needed to do the investigation.

[Nut44x4]

Thanks NYC_lover....no hurry. I can't seem to find out much about these Judges back in 2005, or now for that matter. A lot of web pages in Dutch, so maybe I'm missing it! You would think there would be some reference other than the blogs!

Have you checked in Curacao? Seems most travel in from there