Natalee Case Discussion #739 3/3 - 3/5/08

[mlspdq]

 

Country code # 297
Sloot Paulus A Van Der    Montanja 19  587-2711

http://arubayp.com/communityinfo.html?PageNumber=3
 

[Bladerunner]

I believe a helicopter drop is a plausible scenario, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the more people that would have needed to be involved in the disposal the less likely that scenario actually happened.

What has stunned me--and others have stated the same--is that we know this was a cover-up from the beginning, yet, there have been no leaks from anyone about it. This leads me to believe the cover-up was orchestrated by only a handful of people. So with a helicopter scenario the pilot would have to be in on it too. Chasing someone around is a lot different then helping dispose of a body. Just some thoughts.

Who knows how to fly choppers in Aruba?

[Lala'sMom]

I believe a helicopter drop is a plausible scenario, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the more people that would have needed to be involved in the disposal the less likely that scenario actually happened.

What has stunned me--and others have stated the same--is that we know this was a cover-up from the beginning, yet, there have been no leaks from anyone about it. This leads me to believe the cover-up was orchestrated by only a handful of people. So with a helicopter scenario the pilot would have to be in on it too. Chasing someone around is a lot different then helping dispose of a body. Just some thoughts.

Who knows how to fly choppers in Aruba?

The only connection to aviation that I have seen so far that is yet to be explained is Andres Meneses.   He was questioned numerous times.  I doubt he flies helicopters...but maybe he knows someone that does/did.  Still waiting for that story to play out. Of course, this was in 2006 and not in 2005.  Probably no connection.

[AZSunny]

[\Quote]
Steve Croes dad bought the computer place where Depak Kalpoe worked the following August after that May is what I heard and Steve Croes went to work in there.  I really do not know.  Just may be scuttlebutt.  Guess he wanted a job after the Tattoo let him go.  That is one way to get one.  I wonder if Depak still works there?   j/b
[/quote]

Jack, I believe it was Depaks father that bought the internet cafe that Depak worked in, not Steve Croes dad.  Croes took the job as a DJ at Carlos and Charlies.

[GBMW]

Hi caesu, hey is the phone call to Joran pre-recorded or will it happen live?

I hope he keeps on talkin'.

pre-recorded. they showed him answering the phone yesterday.

so, he does answer and take some questions?

i don't know. all they showed is that he answered the phone.



Beth, Patrick, Bram, Peter.

I didn't hear Jorans voice; did you? I do think Joran would pick up the phone (because I think they used Patricks phone & of course he has his number in his memory) but would probably hang up the moment he would hear Robert Jensens voice. So hopefully Patrick is the one who does the talking . There is also a possibility he didn't pick up though...since a couple of Jorans cellphone numbers have been online (although I haven't seen the number we have of him online as of yet) he probably got a lot of calls and got a new number

And (maybe old info; sorry!): Bram Moszkowicz will be on Pauw & Witteman tonight; concerning the possible civil case against Joran.

[Rob]

I believe a helicopter drop is a plausible scenario, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the more people that would have needed to be involved in the disposal the less likely that scenario actually happened.

What has stunned me--and others have stated the same--is that we know this was a cover-up from the beginning, yet, there have been no leaks from anyone about it. This leads me to believe the cover-up was orchestrated by only a handful of people. So with a helicopter scenario the pilot would have to be in on it too. Chasing someone around is a lot different then helping dispose of a body. Just some thoughts.

Who knows how to fly choppers in Aruba?

Bladerunner, there were / are only 4 registered helicopters on Aruba, or were when Natalee became a crime victim.

One would obviously be the copter with the Aruba flag (ALE and the one that searched the Marriott pond in a grid pattern, also this is the copter that almost slammed in to Dave in his copter), another would be the black tourist tour copter... and I am not sure who possessed the other two.

We found that info when looking at Roman Abramovich and his helicopter - XTC with was on-board the Ecstasea .

[Rob]

I believe a helicopter drop is a plausible scenario, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the more people that would have needed to be involved in the disposal the less likely that scenario actually happened.

What has stunned me--and others have stated the same--is that we know this was a cover-up from the beginning, yet, there have been no leaks from anyone about it. This leads me to believe the cover-up was orchestrated by only a handful of people. So with a helicopter scenario the pilot would have to be in on it too. Chasing someone around is a lot different then helping dispose of a body. Just some thoughts.

Who knows how to fly choppers in Aruba?

Bladerunner, there were / are only 4 registered helicopters on Aruba, or were when Natalee became a crime victim.

One would obviously be the copter with the Aruba flag (ALE and the one that searched the Marriott pond in a grid pattern, also this is the copter that almost slammed in to Dave in his copter), another would be the black tourist tour copter... and I am not sure who possessed the other two.

We found that info when looking at Roman Abramovich and his helicopter - XTC4 with was on-board the Ecstasea .

self edit to add the number 4

[Blonde]

I believe a helicopter drop is a plausible scenario, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the more people that would have needed to be involved in the disposal the less likely that scenario actually happened.

What has stunned me--and others have stated the same--is that we know this was a cover-up from the beginning, yet, there have been no leaks from anyone about it. This leads me to believe the cover-up was orchestrated by only a handful of people. So with a helicopter scenario the pilot would have to be in on it too. Chasing someone around is a lot different then helping dispose of a body. Just some thoughts.

Who knows how to fly choppers in Aruba?

Doesn't the PM have access to one

[Lala'sMom]

Bladerunner
By keeping all your dirty deeds within the confines of only a few people one can accomplish much.  Paulus and Straten could keep the big secrets and then the others are left floundering in the sun trying to catch up.  When Beth was at the police station to give her first statement...remember there was Jan van der Straten and Dennis Jacobs in the same building.  They kept her waiting for 2 hours and then told her they didn't need her statement.  I think the Kalpoes vehicle was in there in the yard and who knows who was there also. Keep the truth within a handful of people (PVDS, Straten, Jacobs) and remove the rest from the equation.  If none of those three say anything, it's all speculation as to what really happened. Gives you time to hide and destroy any evidence that may have existed. Jacobs was in on most all the important interrogations and questioning.  We now know that Joran has mostly likely already told the story of her dying in his presence and that she had a seizure...so daddy goes to his dear friend with the same story that Joran told Patrick...minus the body disposal at sea...and the cover up begins.  "How can I arrest my best friend's son?" 

[private eye]

Good morning, hitting and running but still thinking about Anita's diatribe as to the description of Natalee's panties and other specifics, accurate I think from Beth's comments in the press, or at least having seen the subject of the diatribe.

Anita was trying to shame Beth off of the island, using what she thinks is discretion. She purposely wanted Beth to know that Natalee was sexually active and to do so she had to accurately describe Natalee's privates. She did it off camera but in front of Greta, and as Greta claimed, the conversation made her want to crawl under the table. Anita felt Beth would cave and runa back home in shame or to prevent the discussion from becoming public. This was the start of Anita's involvement of the coverup. There is no earthly other reason for that conversation to have occurred. And she has been bashing Natalee every since.

[private eye]

and by sexually active I don't mean to imply voluntary

[klaasend]

Posted on the front page of SM:

EURobert wrote:

Summary of the most important parts of the Jensen interview with PRdeVries from 03-03.

http://tinyurl.com/326nc9

PRdeVries (edited): When we started the show (with Patrick) the case actually was closed and Joran thought ‘he was off the hook’, and he was about to claim a damage-compensation. Now the investigation is reopened and behind the screen people work VERY hard on it ‘I know that from sources close to the case’. JORAN NOW OFFICIALLY IS SUSPECTED OF MURDER!

Jensen about interview with Joran (edited): I went into that interview unprepared, as if I was talking to someone in a bar. But I clearly noticed when he started to hesitate and turn, starting at the question: how did you get from the beach to your home. I told him straight forward: you know more of this case. Then Joran looked at me with his ’stone-hard’ eyes, ‘glass-hard’-eyes and said: No Jensen, that’s really not so, that’s really not so’. After the show I asked the public: ‘What do you think?’. And 99% of the audience thought he knew more of what happened.

Peter (edited): A year and a half ago I’d done a show on this subject. And already then I thought: Joran vd Sloot you know more of this thing, you don’t tell the truth, you hide things. And you can’t give answers to the most simple questions. And an innocent person doesn’t have to call for his right to remain silent. And when you’re innocent you want to say the truth ten times over!

Jensen (edited): At Pauw en Witteman you constantly looked at him and thought ‘you’re a liar, you’re a liar’. And he felt that constantly because of which he snapped. You know with the wine and so on… And your wife made that clever remark about Joran to Anita: “Well, you brought that up right!” (Fragment of wine incident.) And she right away threw a glass of water at Joran, didn’t she?

Peter (ed.): Yes off course… What he can, she can do as well. LOL It all was a reaction on the fact that Anita throughout the show claimed ‘Joran was a d-e-c-e-n-t guy’ (…).

Jensen(ed.): I have the feeling those people absolutely don’t have any control over this guy anymore.

Peter (ed.): I have the impression that the parents don’t know half of what he’s all into. And it’s odd that they claim they would bring him to the police if they only had the smallest idea of him having something to do with it. Well, untill today I haven’t seen anything of that! LOL Even after my sting operation they don’t tell him to finally tell the truth.

[klaasend]

Posted by Heli at RU:

The Jensen Show
RTL - The Netherlands
March 5, 2008

Guest: Beth Holloway

Transcribed from audio files provided by Abarth

Part I

Beth:

If I have to look at everything about that interview with Joran and when he's talking to Patrick, the part where I really want to come through and I really just want to kill him Robert and I mean when he imitates her, when he imitates her, when he imitates her actions as she's suffering. I'm thinking 'what, what a sick sonofabitch'. I'm sorry but I mean you know, how could, I mean, I mean, I think that's what really brings it all to the truth for me is, it's just not him, it's just his verbalization of what she's doing but he imitates her with this body action.

Jensen:

I understand because I mean those are kind of rough words, I mean what you're saying about wanting to kill him but I understand. I mean it's a natural way, a natural anger in a way, because I also because, I want to show you something because I had the Goldman family on the show, you know the parents of the guy O.J. Simpson killed

Beth:

Yeah, yeah

Jensen:

They are exactly, well they're in a similar position as you are

Beth:

Right

Jensen:

I don't know if you've ever met them?

Beth:

I've spoken with Denise, Nicole Brown Simpson's sister and I'll be honest Robert, I think about them a lot when I think about Natalee's case because I think here they're having to do the same thing.

Jensen:

I mean O.J., he got away and we all know it's obvious that he killed their son and I want to show you something because the way they go about life nowadays, and I respect that I applaud that; I mean some people will say it's vindictive but it's not, it's just you know, you don't want the killer as they call O.J. or the person who perpetrated this

Beth:

Yes, yes

Jensen:

you don't want them to get away; even if he's not in jail, you want to make his life a living hell when he's still walking amongst us and I want to show you just this clip of the Goldmans.

(play videoclip)

There are similarities aren't there Beth?

Beth:

Yeah there are and I think about them a lot Robert, everyday that I've tried to, because some days you really struggle with the bitterness and it's you know, it's hard to remain, as far as optimistic about the future and reaching out to thers and that's really what I'm trying to do. I'm really trying to continue that mission of reaching out to others and making a difference but you know, it's hard some days and you just want to give in to that but when I think about people like you know, I think about them and I draw a lot of strength from them that if they can continue this and knowing full well who their loved one's perpetrator was, then I can too.

Jensen:

Yeah, I understand that. Another thing that's happened since you were last on, I couldn't believe it but actually Joran came on my show. He had put out this book and he wanted to promote it but he still, to come on my show. I know a lot about the case knowing you and so he came on my show and I went in, you know I said this to Peter R. de Vries last night, he was on the show, I said I just went in like you know, let's just start and talk; I wanted to talk to the guy like we were in a bar you know and I just waited for the moment I felt 'oh now he's being evasive, now he's dodging my questions, now he's starting to ' and that happened pretty quickly, I mean the whole incident, I mean 'how did you get from the beach to your house?' that's where it all started to become 'I don't know' he became like a magician, he pulled every string available to him, it sort of, it didn't make sense anymore but I want to show you a few things, but especially, we mixed it up with the tape from Peter R. de Vries, so his real confession

Beth:

Okay

Jensen:

If you look at this, we subtitled it for you so you understand what he said in Dutch. It's just horrible; I leaned on him pretty hard, I leaned on him pretty hard. You can see in his body language he's leaning forward because I felt 'you're hiding something' Let's just start here with the incident on the beach, what he said on my show and then what he said to Patrick.

(play videotape)

I'll put this out to everybody: where do you think he was telling the truth?

Beth:

Oh exactly, right there

Jensen:

Yeah

Beth:

Exactly at that moment and what's so, what's so really completely frustrating about this whole deal is when he says epileptic seizures, I can't tell you how many times we were asked that Robert, within 48 hours.

Jensen:

That is true, I've heard that, you have to elaborate on that

Beth:

Yeah

Jensen:

The prosecutor asked you about that or he asked you about that?

Beth:

No, the prosecutor did not but a lead detective asked me within 48 hours of her disappearance, he asked me when I entered the Bubali police station, he said, he asked only one medical question, now I could see, I mean just one, he says 'does Natalee have a history of epilepsy or seizures?' and I was like 'no' and then let's move on

Jensen:

Right, so the question is where did that come from?

Beth:

Where did that come from? It's hard not to tie those two things togther. It's really hard not to put those two pieces together.

Jensen:

It's interesting because what I've followed from you and also what you've put out in the american press, this is something that really caught your eye from this whole experience, this Peter R. de Vries undercover sting

Beth:

That's it

Jensen:

That's it huh? This is a major thing

Beth:

Yes

Jensen:

You were asked within 48 hours about that seizure and seizures, seizures, it almost sounds like this guy brings that up, so I mean, I'm just (inaudbile) he must have just mentioned that to somebody over there

Beth:

Somebody because I was only asked that once but my husband at the time, Jug was asked at least, at least a dozen times by four different persons (inaudible) but we never really thought to much about it becuase we were just like 'please get them off that and get back on

Jensen

the case

Beth:

(inaudible) so it didn't make any, it didn't really, we didn't really have any red flags

Jensen:

So perhaps Joran confessed to somebody there. Let me show you another clip because it's just so obvious where, that he's lying, that he's lying but it says so much about the person, it's so weird. This is about the shoe incident, that's a big thing. How many stories did he tell about this, about 22 or something? Leaving the shoes on the beach

Beth:

Yeah, yeah, the shoe was, yeah

Jensen:

Take a look at this Beth, this is unbelievable

(play videoclip)

Bet this drove you absolutely crazy didn't it during the investigation?

Beth:

Yes

Jensen:

Him just changing his story and lying, knowing that he lies all the time, and not getting to the truth, not owning up to anything

Beth:

God, don't you know the interrogators want to get hold of him, I mean the things he did to them by just toying with them, he would stick his fingers in his ears during the interrogation and just smile, don't you know they just wanted to just grab him and

Jensen:

Just think of the psyche of the person I mean, knowing all that, knowing you did all that and then writing a book about it

Beth:

I know

Jensen:

So I want to show you what he told me about why he wrote the book, I couldn't understand why he would do it, but this is what he told me an the real reason follows

(play videoclip)

* long sigh from Jensen *

Beth:

Yeah, yeah

Jensen:

What do you make of that?

Beth:

He just wants to see how he can benefit from it or what he can profit from, golly I tell you what, he is truly just taking anyone he could for a ride

Jensen:

Yeah, he has

Beth:

He really did, yeah

Jensen:

It's unbelievable. Finally my final clip and I want to show this. I think this was the worse thing for me, the way I interpreted it he doesn't feel guilty at all

Beth:

Yeah

Jensen:

After he went to bed that night, didn't lose a minute of sleep over it, can you believe that Beth? Let's take a look

(play videoclip)

He really doesn't care, he really doesn't care

Beth:

No, he doesn't

[sirensong]

Good morning, hitting and running but still thinking about Anita's diatribe as to the description of Natalee's panties and other specifics, accurate I think from Beth's comments in the press, or at least having seen the subject of the diatribe.

Anita was trying to shame Beth off of the island, using what she thinks is discretion. She purposely wanted Beth to know that Natalee was sexually active and to do so she had to accurately describe Natalee's privates. She did it off camera but in front of Greta, and as Greta claimed, the conversation made her want to crawl under the table. Anita felt Beth would cave and runa back home in shame or to prevent the discussion from becoming public. This was the start of Anita's involvement of the coverup. There is no earthly other reason for that conversation to have occurred. And she has been bashing Natalee every since.

Absolutely, Private eye!  Good post.  I believe Joran was doing the same thing.   I never thought about Anita doing the same, but  she did.  This part of the whole case makes me maddest of all.  Joran and Anita talking about what Joran did to  Natalee.  What  kind of monsters would tell the  parents these things, then the public.  It was only to slander this  beautiful girl that they knew was dead.   I hate them all.  ROBOTS  COME BACK!!

[Rob]

Thank you EURobert and Heli for that.

I know some of the Dutch posters are not fond of Mr. Jensen, but he sounds pretty fair minded and was truly compassionate toward Beth. I appreciated that.

[Tamikosmom]

I found old Transcripts from May-June 2005 that I had posted. this might help you guys.
http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=2580.msg343607#msg343607

Thanks Blonde.  Those articles/transcripts were a very interesting read.

I wonder why the three judge panel ruled that that there was sufficient evidence to further detain Joran when Deepak and Satish were released.

Janet

++++++++++++

Jug Twitty
NANCY GRACE
July 14, 2005

GEORGE "JUG" TWITTY, STEPFATHER OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY: ...  But today, there actually wasn`t one judge. I think there was a three-judge panel that came in and made the decision. And you know, at least they did keep Joran in there. I think, if they would have let him out, it would have been devastating to Beth and I, actually probably to the whole world.

GRACE: You know what? You`re right, Jug. You`re right. At least they kept Joran Van Der Sloot behind bars.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/ng.01.html

[Anna]

Thank you EURobert and Heli for that.

I know some of the Dutch posters are not fond of Mr. Jensen, but he sounds pretty fair minded and was truly compassionate toward Beth. I appreciated that.

Just finished watching/listening and I, too, was very impressed with how he interviews Beth.  One couldn't ask for more of a gentleman in his dealings with her in both this interview and his previous one.

Now am I to understand that tonight, he will do the second part with Beth, Peter R and Patrick all together?

.

[Anna]

Posted by Debbie at BlogsForNatalee.com

 on: March 04, 2008, 10:41:29 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.peterrdevries.nl/

DE PERS EN PATRICK

HOE DE MEDIA MET EEN WERELDSCOOP OMGAAN…

Met dertig jaar ervaring als misdaadverslaggever heb ik een aardig beeld gekregen van de journalistieke mechanismen die in werking treden als je toevallig een keer een echte scoop hebt, zoals de bekentenissen van Joran van der Sloot. De manier waarop de pers daarover bericht voltrekt zich meestal volgens een vast, herkenbaar patroon.

‘EEN BOTJE, EEN KLUIFJE, ALSJEBLIEFT!’

Op het moment dat je zulk nieuws aankondigt – maar de uitzending zelf moet nog komen - beginnen de collega’s van andere media, die dus eigenlijk je concurrenten zijn, te bellen, alsof je altijd hun beste vriend bent geweest. Het is het startschot voor het gebedel om nieuws. Of je alsjeblieft vast een tipje van de sluier kan oplichten, hen misschien een ‘klein primeurtje’ kan geven. Collega Ton van Dijk verwoordde dat proces onlangs in een email naar mij treffend: ‘Het gehengel der collegae om een snippertje nieuws, om een botje, een kluifje, alsjeblieft!’. Zo is het ook exact gegaan.

Als de uitzending dan is geweest loopt men de deur plat en word je ook nog steeds ‘van harte’ gefeliciteerd met het succes, maar in het interview zelf is de vraagstelling ineens kritisch(er), om na afloop met een vriendschappelijke schouderklop te zeggen: ‘Ja, je begrijpt wel dat ik voor de vorm ook even tegenwicht moest bieden, toch?’.

Maar dan komt de fase dat je niet overal kunt zitten, niet aan elk verzoek kunt voldoen en niet iedereen te woord kunt staan. Dat is het moment waarop de reporter zich wendt tot de zogenaamde deskundigen, balorige advocaten en allerhande al dan niet verstrooide strafrechtdeskundigen, die vaak feitelijk verbijsterend slecht geïnformeerd zijn, maar dat door ferme – lees: vaak onjuiste – uitspraken goed weten te camoufleren. Ze weten intuïtief dat er pittige quotes worden verwacht, want voor hen natuurlijk tien anderen.

AFGUNST EN GEMAKZUCHT

Na een dag of twee, drie braaf achter de affaire te hebben aangelopen worden de meeste journalisten dat zat en beginnen om zich heen te kijken of zij niet zelf wat nieuws kunnen maken in de affaire, waarmee ze toch even in de warme gloed van de scoop kunnen staan. Dat is in de praktijk bijna altijd iets wat afbreuk doet aan het verhaal. Per slot van rekening is afgunst – naast gemakzucht - de best ontwikkelde karaktereigenschap van de meeste journalisten.

Gevolg is dat hoofdverdachte Joran van der Sloot, de man die op tape bekent dat Natalee in zijn armen is doodgegaan, waarna hij haar in de oceaan heeft laten dumpen, een soort van underdog wordt, terwijl undercover Patrick van der Eem door een aantal media op de grill wordt gelegd.

KOORKNAAP OF MAN VAN DE STRAAT (TRANSLATION BELOW BEGINS HERE)

De Panorama en de Nieuwe Revu komen deze week met coverstory’s over ‘het verleden’ van Patrick van der Eem. Nu had Van der Eem daar zelf al helemaal niet zo geheimzinnig over gedaan. In mijn programma, maar ook in andere media (bijvoorbeeld Pauw & Witteman) heeft hij toegegeven in het verleden veroordeeld te zijn voor drugsbezit (heroïne) en alle randverschijnselen die daarbij horen. Inmiddels heeft hij al jaren een eigen bedrijf en dateert zijn laatste veroordeling van lang geleden, maar Van der Eem zal nu niet van zichzelf zeggen dat hij een koorknaap is. Sterker nog, hij noemt zich ‘een man van de straat’ en dat was nu juist één van de redenen waarom Joran graag in zijn gezelschap vertoefde. De legendarische Amsterdamse oud-commissaris Gerard Toorenaar zei mij al toen ik zijn memoires schreef: ‘Boeven vang je niet met de dominee of de pastoor’. Met zijn verleden kon Patrick die rol goed spelen.

Niettemin doen de bladen nu alsof zij een spectaculaire onthulling doen met dit verleden. Panorama op de cover: ‘Het drugsverleden van Patrick van der Eem - ‘Hij dealde heroïne en snoof coke’) . Nieuwe Revu op de cover: ‘Het viessse verleden van Patrick van der Eem. Drugshandel, vechtpartijen, inbraken’. Terwijl uit het verhaal blijkt dat hij voor die inbraken nooit is aangeklaagd, laat staan veroordeeld, maar dat terzijde.

PATRICK OP DE GRILL, JORAN VRIJUIT?

De vraag is: doet het verleden van Patrick er iets toe of zouden de media zich beter eens op het verleden van Joran kunnen richten? Waarom wordt Patrick op de grill gelegd en slikt men alle smoezen van Joran over zijn bekentenissen? Het lijkt een beetje de omgekeerde wereld. Patrick wordt niet gezocht. Hij is niet voortvluchtig. Er staat geen straf tegen hem open. Hij wordt niet van misdaden verdacht. Hij heeft slechts geprobeerd – en met succes! – de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway op te helderen door Joran zijn aandeel te laten bekennen.

Is het verleden dan misschien belangrijk om de betrouwbaarheid van Van der Eem te toetsen? Dat zou kunnen spelen als Van der Eem alleen maar een verklaring-van-horen-zeggen tegen Joran van der Sloot had afgelegd. Dan wil je natuurlijk weten: spreekt deze man wel de waarheid of liegt of overdrijft hij misschien? Maar ja, dat is in deze zaak niet aan de orde, nu drie camera’s precies hebben vastgelegd wat Joran zélf heeft gezegd. Al was Van der Eem de grootste cokesnuiver van het westelijk halfrond, een oplichter van het kaliber van Heer Olivier, een grotere fantast dan de Baron von Münchhausen of een beruchtere brandkastenkraker dan Aage M., dan nog is het Joran die zélf zegt dat Natalee in zijn armen is doodgegaan en dat hij vervolgens de halve wereld daarover heeft voorgelogen.
 
JOURNALISTIEK UIT DUCKSTAD

Wie vervolgens de moeite neemt om de verhalen in Panorama en Nieuwe Revu te lezen, stuit op onderzoeksjournalistiek uit Duckstad. In hun haast Van der Eem af te branden kon kennelijk niemand worden gevonden die daar met naam en toenaam over wilde verklaren. Meestal is dat een veeg teken, wat veel zegt over het waarheidsgehalte, maar de bladen hebben zich daar in hun verkoopverlangen niet door laten weerhouden. In het hele Panorama-verhaal worden uitsluitend anonieme bronnen opgevoerd: Een ‘voormalig onderwereldfiguur’ en ‘zegslieden die anoniem willen blijven’ vormen de enige sprekers in het verhaal. Het is waarschijnlijk de voormalige onderwereldfiguur die in al de verhalen van deze verslaggever wordt opgevoerd en waarvan we maar moeten geloven dat hij werkelijk bestaat.   

TEMEIERS EN GEWONE WIJVEN

En wat zeggen deze anonieme bronnen onder meer? Houdt u vast: ‘Patrick was ook een liefhebber van orgies op hotelkamers, waar temeiers en gewone wijven werden uitgewoond door hem en zijn vriendjes’. Ik zie het de investigative reporter van Panorama gretig opschrijven, terwijl het kwijl hem uit de mond loopt. Wat er trouwens precies bedoeld wordt met ‘gewone wijven’ mag Joost weten, of is dat hoe mannenblad Panorama vrouwen pleegt te betitelen? Opvallend is ook dat de liefde bedrijven in zo’n verhaal, dat Van der Eem als een onbetrouwbare schurk moet neerzetten dan meteen uitwonen heet. En dit alles uiteraard zonder één regel wederhoor. Want stel je voor dat Van der Eem iets tegenspreekt of ontkracht. Maar de kernvraag is en blijft natuurlijk: zegt het feit dat Patrick in het verleden wel eens voor drugsbezit/handel is veroordeeld en kennelijk een vrouwenliefhebber is iets over de bekentenissen van Joran?

13 ANONIEME BRONNEN

Nieuwe Revu maakt het zo mogelijk nog bonter (maar biedt wel een kadertje wederhoor). De reporters hebben er eens flink aan getrokken en brouwen een verhaal van in totaal zes pagina’s. Zeg niet dat ze bij dit blad over één nacht ijs gaan. En wie zijn daar de betrouwbare bronnen? Ik som ze even voor u op:


- Een ‘vroegere buurman’
- Een ‘heer die een ommetje maakt’
- Een ‘echtpaar dat ons in de deuropening te woord staat’
- De voormalige ‘overbuurman’
- Een ‘andere wijkbewoner’
- Een ‘vrouw die haar hondje uitlaat’
- Een ‘voormalig uitsmijter’
- Een ‘buurvrouw’
- Een ‘andere voormalige zakenrelatie’
- Een ‘intimus van de familie’
- Een ‘jeugdvriend’
- ‘Iemand die slechts op basis van anonimiteit wil praten’
- Een ‘informant’

Nou, dat is Nieuwe Revu journalistiek in optima forma! En dan heeft men de ‘altijd goed ingevoerde taxichauffeur’ en de ‘immer welingelichte dorpskapper’ waarschijnlijk nog achter de hand gehouden.

Nee, geef mij dan maar Patrick Van der Eem, die gewoon open en bloot staat voor wat hij in deze zaak heeft gedaan.
 
SLOTVRAAG

Tot slot nog dit. Wat denkt u dat deze bladen zouden hebben gedaan als Patrick van der Eem met het hele verhaal over Joran niet naar ons maar naar hen was gekomen en zij het hadden kunnen publiceren? Denkt u dat ze dan verontwaardigd hadden gezegd: Néé, daar kunnen we niet aan beginnen, want volgens ‘een heer die een ommetje maakt’ en een ‘voormalige uitsmijter’ heb je wel eens in drugs gedaan en heb je in een hotelkamer wel eens ‘gewone wijven’ uitgewoond!

Gelooft u het? Maar goed, zo werkt de journalistiek dus.

Peter R. de Vries


TRANSLATION:

Choirboy or Man of the Streets?

The Panorama and the Nieuwe Revu this week came with cover-story's concerning 'the past of Patrick of of the Eem'.  Van der Eem himself has not been secretive about this, in my programme, but also in other media (for example Pauw & Witteman) he has admitted to have been convicted for drugs (heroine) possession and all phenomena that go with that.  Meanwhile he has owned his own company for many years and his last conviction is from a long time ago, but van der Eem will not claim to be a choirboy. More so, he calls himself 'a man of the street' and that has been one of the reasons why Joran liked to be in his company. The legendary old chief commissioner Gerard Toorenaar told me when I was writing his me-moires: 'you do not catch gangsters with the dominee or the pastoor'. With his past Patrick could play that role well.

Nevertheless the magazines now pretend to do a spectacular revelation with his past. On the cover of Panorama: "The drugs past of Patrick of of the Eem" - "he dealt heroin and sniffed coke". New Revu on the cover: "The dirty past of Patrick van der Eem". Drug trafficking, scuffles, burglaries. Whereas from the stories it becomes clear that he was never prosecuted nor convicted for burglaries, but that on a side note.

The question is: does the past of Patrick matter, or should the media focus on the past of Joran?
Why is Patrick being grilled, and does one swallow the inventions of Joran concerning his confessions? It seems a little the world in reverse. Patrick is not being looked out for. He is not a fugitive. There are no open punishments against him. He is not being suspected of crimes. He has only tried - and successfully! - to clear up the disappearance of Natalee Holloway by letting Joran confess his role.

Is the past then perhaps important to review the reliability of van der Eem? That could be the case if van der Eem only had given a hear-say statement against Joran van der Sloot. Then you want know of course: does this man tell the truth or does he lies or does exaggerates perhaps? But that is not the case, since 3 cameras have captured exactly what Joran himself has said. Even if van der Eeem were the biggest coke sniffer of the western hemisphere, a swindler of the caliber "Heer Olvier" or a bigger fantast than the baron von Münchhausen or a more notorious bank robber then "Age M" then still it is Joran himself who says that Natalee has died in his arms and that he after that has lied to half of the world about that.

And what do the anonymous sources claim about Patrick? Take a chair: "Patrick also was someone who loved orgies in hotel rooms, where hookers and ordinary bitches became run-down by him and his friends".  I see the investigative reporter of Panorama writing down it down impatiently, whereas the dribble him runs from the mouth. What exactly does he mean with "ordinary bitches"?  Is that how man's magazine Panorama labels women? It is also striking that "making love" in this story, in which van der Eem is being describes as a first class criminal, has to be called "run down".  And all this of course without one line of having asked the person in question. Because imagine that van der Eem would say this did not occur or takes the edge off it. But the main question is and remains: does the fact that Patrick in the past has been condemned for drug possession/trade and allegedly loves woman say anything about the admissions of Joran?

He who wants to take the effort to read the tales in Panorama and Nieuwe Revu, encounters journalism from Duck-town. In their rush to burn down van der Eem apparently they could not find anyone who wanted to state anything with their name. Generally that is a sign that says much concerning truth quality, but the magazines did not seem to care about that in their lust for sales. In the complete Panorama-story exclusively anonymous sources are intensified: 'former underworld figure' and 'speakers who want to remain anonymous' are the only participants in the tale. It is probably the former underworld figure who is brought up in all these tales and of which we are to believe that he truly exists.

New Revu makes it even more colorful. The reports have made huge effort to blow up the story to no less then 6 pages. Do not say they went over one night of ice!  And who there are the reliable sources? Let me sum them up for you:

- a former neighbour man
- a man who walks around
- a couple standing in the door-opening
- the former 'neighbor'
- person 'living in the neighborhood'
- woman who takes her dog for a walk
- a former bouncer
- neighbour
- ex business related person
- inti-mus of the family
- 'old friend'
- someone who wants talk only on the basis of anonymity
- 'informant'

Well, that is Nieuwe Revu journalism in optima forma! They probably have the always 'well introduced taxi driver ' and the 'always well-informed rural hairdresser ' just in case.  No, then I prefer but Patrick van der Eem, who simply openly stands for what he has done in this matter.

Finally still this. What do you think you that these magazines would have done if Patrick van der Eem instead of coming to us had went to them, and they could have it published?

You think that they had said then have said: No!, no way we will do that, because according to 'a woman who walks her dog' or 'a former bouncer' you have done drugs and have run down 'ordinary bitches' in a hotelroom!

Do you think that would be their answer?

Well, this is how journalism works.

Peter R. de Vries.   

[caesu]

Thank you EURobert and Heli for that.

I know some of the Dutch posters are not fond of Mr. Jensen, but he sounds pretty fair minded and was truly compassionate toward Beth. I appreciated that.

Just finished watching/listening and I, too, was very impressed with how he interviews Beth.  One couldn't ask for more of a gentleman in his dealings with her in both this interview and his previous one.

Now am I to understand that tonight, he will do the second part with Beth, Peter R and Patrick all together?

.

yes, tonight beth, peter, patrick en bram mosko - the lawyer.

both shows taped on tuesday.

i don't like jensen too much.
that's why i never watch him or listen to him on the radio.

but i agree that he does this well. apparently he has a serious side too.
i didn't know that.

[caesu]

Hi caesu, hey is the phone call to Joran pre-recorded or will it happen live?

I hope he keeps on talkin'.

pre-recorded. they showed him answering the phone yesterday.

so, he does answer and take some questions?

i don't know. all they showed is that he answered the phone.



Beth, Patrick, Bram, Peter.

I didn't hear Jorans voice; did you? I do think Joran would pick up the phone (because I think they used Patricks phone & of course he has his number in his memory) but would probably hang up the moment he would hear Robert Jensens voice. So hopefully Patrick is the one who does the talking . There is also a possibility he didn't pick up though...since a couple of Jorans cellphone numbers have been online (although I haven't seen the number we have of him online as of yet) he probably got a lot of calls and got a new number

And (maybe old info; sorry!): Bram Moszkowicz will be on Pauw & Witteman tonight; concerning the possible civil case against Joran.

i hear joran say: "ja, met joran" ("yes, this is joran")