March 28, 2024, 08:24:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Natalee Case Discussion #742 3/10 - 3/14/08  (Read 299020 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
katrien
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



« Reply #220 on: March 11, 2008, 03:53:28 PM »

Is it possible that Mr. Moszkowicz means this?


http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/





Logged
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #221 on: March 11, 2008, 03:53:29 PM »

Klaas, speaking of moving some posts.....  Could you please move the posts on page 81 of the Prayer Thread to the Peaches Rally Thread?  From pdh3 at the top down to Lala's will do nicely.  Shoulda been there to start with.  TY

Will do 
Logged
Tater
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2071



« Reply #222 on: March 11, 2008, 03:53:42 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..
Logged

Proverbs 3:5
  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
         and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Tater
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2071



« Reply #223 on: March 11, 2008, 03:56:52 PM »

Is it possible that Mr. Moszkowicz means this?


http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/


 






Logged

Proverbs 3:5
  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
         and lean not unto thine own understanding.
suisse71
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #224 on: March 11, 2008, 04:04:33 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!
Logged
private eye
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522



« Reply #225 on: March 11, 2008, 04:07:51 PM »

To IDSTLOU:
   Dear sweet Lady you are such a wonderful woman as well as a teacher of the young and as a leader in the Scouting program you have shown these young men that a community that is served by upstanding young men will continue to thrive and prosper , I am not just speaking of financial wealth but wealth in regards in our youth that will grow and be able to stand up responsibly for good verses evil .
  A very heartfelt thank you to you IDSTLOU and may I say again that I am proud to say that you are my friend as well as a fellow SM . (((( idstlou)))
  Jerry from Ohio



Good Morning Monkeys!!!

I am sending out my thank you notes to those who participated with us on Sunday. I think most of you know I invited some of my scouts out. I wanted you to know why. Here is the thank you note I am sending the boys and why it meant so much to me that they participated:



What brave young men you are to come out as you did on Sunday and take a stand and let your voices be heard, I am so proud of you all. You took a stand for a girl who you know of, but never actually knew, that is even more incredible to me. There are people all across America that have also taken a stand for Natalee, and most of us never knew her personally either. You are now part of a very special group of people who have given their voices to a very important cause; Justice for Natalee.

At the beginning of every Cub Scout meeting, we stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance together. We state:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
And to the Republic for which it stands:
One Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

I just want to take a minute and tell you why I am so grateful for what you did Sunday, and why I feel it is so important. I think you understand most of the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, but there are three very important words at the end that we are pledging, that we are making a commitment to, and they are; Indivisible, Liberty, and Justice. So I looked those words up in the dictionary and here is what I found:

Indivisible: incapable of being divided.

Liberty: the power of choice. The right to live one’s life without threats, fear, or some kind of retaliation.

Justice: the right to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper laws and principle.

Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with; for All. These principles we pledge to belong to EVERY AMERICAN regardless of race, religion, color, creed or any other criteria. So my understand is that essentially, we are saying that as Americans, we stand together and can not be divided, and that we are committed to Liberty, to live our lives without fear or threats, but if our Liberty is taken away, then we also are committed to Justice. That those who took away our Liberties must be held responsible according to the Law. If you break the law, then you must be held responsible for your actions.

Unfortunately, Aruba has not given Natalee Justice. Natalee's Liberties were taken away from her when she visited Aruba, and now as Americans, we are standing up to say, Natalee deserves Justice. The bad guys need to go to court and if found guilty, then they should be put in jail. This is what you stood up and said on Sunday when you were passing out the fliers. You were true to your Pledge of Allegiance, and for this, I am so very proud of you. You may be young men, but your voices are strong and you made a difference on Sunday and stood up for our beliefs, as Americans, and as Cub Scouts who Pledge Allegiance to our Flag.

Thank you so much my brave heroes!!!


Oh Jerry, you made me cry, thank you so much!!!

Those boys are defintely standing with the girl and "Modern Day Heroes!" Their leader is pretty great as well:))))))))) Good work men! Why is there always a woman standing behind a good man????????????????????????????????????????/
Logged
private eye
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522



« Reply #226 on: March 11, 2008, 04:10:56 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!

I am not an attorney, in the US or Holland, but I think it goes like this. If the prosecutor decides to not prosecute a case, and formally drops the case, then the victim can hire an attorney and prosecute the case themself. They get the complete file.
Logged
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18149



« Reply #227 on: March 11, 2008, 04:17:57 PM »

Private Eye,

Please contact me at email Anna.bama.bama@gmail.com.

Yes, I know that is a corny address to use and no offense to Auburn fans but it was hard to find a username not already taken!

Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
private eye
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522



« Reply #228 on: March 11, 2008, 04:18:11 PM »

Hi Monkey's,
  Just got caught up reading.Watched the video link and listened to Dave and Beth.Seem's Dave thinks it all went down at the Sloots house..Bless his heart and Beth's heart too..One thing I've always wondered about and that is why Dave had to find out from his son that Natalee was missing.I wonder why Beth or Jug didn't call him immediatly..I don't know,just sad...
And you are trying to do what with your question.  Read the books.  Good try.  Not working.     Jack blue


You're way out of line jackb..It was a fair question and it's one that's asked by many people that don't care to go out and buy books to get the answer.This question was answered very nicely which you would have seen had you of scrolled down to see.Do not ever and I mean ever accuse me of anything,especially the act of manipulation.That is an evil accusation and I do not appreciate it one bit.When your pointing your finger at someone else,you've got three pointing right back at you.You might want to remember that!Like I said,it was a fair question and a fair answer followed..God Bless

This is the second time in the last week or so that I have seen this very same question, almost word for word, so it must be on everyone's mind. What was the fair answer and did it get answered fairly both times? I missed both answers but I definetly remember the question. Just curious.
Logged
Anna
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18149



« Reply #229 on: March 11, 2008, 04:21:59 PM »

Anna - I have moved your post to it's own thread.  It has not been deleted nor has it been modified, simply moved so we don't disrupt this new NH discussion thread again.

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=2694.0


Thank you, Klaas,

Not my intention to disrupt.  Yes, the new discussion if far more interesting.  I find it very offensive that Beth is referred to as a suspect, however. 

Since when?  Does this go back to Dompig and his bogus insurance claim or since the last time they were in Aruba and were questioned possibly in relation to the Psycho Psychics?

Perhaps more will be forthcoming on this.  I could see her being called a WITNESS but never a suspect.

.
Logged

PERSONA NON GRATA

All posts reflect my opinion only and are not shared by all forum members nor intended as statement of facts.  I am doing the best I can with the information available.

Murder & Crime on Aruba Summary http://tinyurl.com/2nus7c
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #230 on: March 11, 2008, 04:25:22 PM »

Anna - my guess is Beth being called a suspect comes from the Kelly & Young and Renee Gielen documetary (I could be wrong).
Logged
Tater
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2071



« Reply #231 on: March 11, 2008, 04:27:43 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!

I am not an attorney, in the US or Holland, but I think it goes like this. If the prosecutor decides to not prosecute a case, and formally drops the case, then the victim can hire an attorney and prosecute the case themself. They get the complete file.


Thankyou PE,
   Wow!Wow!Wow! Getting the complete file would be great if they had one eh? Seem's things go missing in Aruba.People,evidence,etc...If it happened in Aruba,it would be in front of the same judges,right?

suisse71 ,
  I don't know a thing about the Zorpia site or that boat..Sorry..I'm sure someone else here could find it for you though...
Logged

Proverbs 3:5
  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
         and lean not unto thine own understanding.
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #232 on: March 11, 2008, 04:28:32 PM »

Private Eye - yes, Janet explained it very well in a couple posts in response to Tot's original post:

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=2689.msg363689#msg363689
Logged
Ree
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 298



« Reply #233 on: March 11, 2008, 04:31:16 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!

Sorry Tot.  I'm not ignoring, just working (or trying to pretend to at least).  It's my understanding that if the prosecutor fails to bring charges, the victem can file an appeal to the court to try and have that decision overruled.  I don't know if it's ever done and if so, how successful it is.  I would imagine it works well in Holland, but in a corrupt environment like Aruba, I doubt it's very useful.
Logged
Tater
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2071



« Reply #234 on: March 11, 2008, 04:31:34 PM »

Hi Monkey's,
  Just got caught up reading.Watched the video link and listened to Dave and Beth.Seem's Dave thinks it all went down at the Sloots house..Bless his heart and Beth's heart too..One thing I've always wondered about and that is why Dave had to find out from his son that Natalee was missing.I wonder why Beth or Jug didn't call him immediatly..I don't know,just sad...
And you are trying to do what with your question.  Read the books.  Good try.  Not working.     Jack blue


You're way out of line jackb..It was a fair question and it's one that's asked by many people that don't care to go out and buy books to get the answer.This question was answered very nicely which you would have seen had you of scrolled down to see.Do not ever and I mean ever accuse me of anything,especially the act of manipulation.That is an evil accusation and I do not appreciate it one bit.When your pointing your finger at someone else,you've got three pointing right back at you.You might want to remember that!Like I said,it was a fair question and a fair answer followed..God Bless

This is the second time in the last week or so that I have seen this very same question, almost word for word, so it must be on everyone's mind. What was the fair answer and did it get answered fairly both times? I missed both answers but I definetly remember the question. Just curious.

I only asked it once and was told that Beth told her son to call Dave.I thought it to be a simple and well rounded answer. It seem's like a fair answer to me.I don't know about another question and answer and if there was one,I missed it...
Logged

Proverbs 3:5
  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
         and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Ree
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 298



« Reply #235 on: March 11, 2008, 04:38:34 PM »

Anna - my guess is Beth being called a suspect comes from the Kelly & Young and Renee Gielen documetary (I could be wrong).

Too bad Beth can't include all the Fobbers in the suit.  After all they started the accusations without any of the evidence that they demanded to believe in Joran's guilt.
Logged
Tater
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2071



« Reply #236 on: March 11, 2008, 04:38:52 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!

Sorry Tot.  I'm not ignoring, just working (or trying to pretend to at least).  It's my understanding that if the prosecutor fails to bring charges, the victem can file an appeal to the court to try and have that decision overruled.  I don't know if it's ever done and if so, how successful it is.  I would imagine it works well in Holland, but in a corrupt environment like Aruba, I doubt it's very useful.

Hi Ree,
   Thankyou for answering..Smile I do believe you're right about corrupt Aruba and doubt too that it would be useful..Sad
Logged

Proverbs 3:5
  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
         and lean not unto thine own understanding.
private eye
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522



« Reply #237 on: March 11, 2008, 04:41:06 PM »

Private Eye - yes, Janet explained it very well in a couple posts in response to Tot's original post:

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=2689.msg363689#msg363689

The whole situation is sad, but personally I think Beth and Dave have worked together better than 98% of all other people similiar situated. When it has counted they have both been there for each other, supporting each other. I would hate for either of them to start questioning their response to this, their behavior as parents, or their treatment of each other. They did and are doing a great job.They still have a child alive that needs them to function as parents who both financially and emotionally contribute to Matts life and to support him while he is in college, and it takes BOTH parents to support a child in college today.
Logged
suisse71
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #238 on: March 11, 2008, 04:42:42 PM »

Posted by Marco at RU:

03-05-08 P&W Bram Moszkowics on the show, De Vries or Joran?

Quote from: marco
De Vries or Joran, who's responsible?

Q: Good now were' going to talk about Beth Twitty, Bram Moszkowics, you have contact with her, she's in Holland now to investigate with you if Joran vd Sloot can be juridisch , is it only about Joran or also other family members"

B: At the moment we're only concentrating on Mr. Joran vd Sloot.

Q: How did you get in contact with Mrs. Twitty?

B: Today or yesterday?

Q: No no, back then....Did you contact her?

B: No, that's a misconception, I never call people and ask them if they want to be my client.
I was called by a middleman, she then called me and asked me if I want to represent her, in the beginning she has asked around how she can find someone.

Q: And in the end, somehow she came in contact with you?

B: Yes, that's how it goes.

Q: Does she have an American lawyer?

B: Yes, there was talk about that.......but that's been blown away.

Q: Which judicial system is going to deal with Joran?

B: Either in Holland or Aruba. But that's the same.

Q: Why not in America? Is that not the country of the "claim culture"?

B: That I don't know for sure, I have still not talked to her American Lawyer, but I think that it has to do with the fact where all these awful things happened, and the law enforcement.

Q: We asked Mrs.Twitty what her motivation is, at you office, and this is what she said:

(Beth talking on tape):
We have to hope that the judicial system will kick in and that he will be prosecuted and put behind bars, but you know,  but if that does not happen, you know, we're looking at a civil action, I mean it's too late for Natalee and for us, but it's not too late for other young females that might be in his path.

Q: Lets talk about the different paths you might take. How big of a change, what's the percentage, that you can win, do you have if you begin the procedure?

B: If I confine myself with the civil procedure, I think a 85 - 90% chance that I will do it, but you have to be careful, you understand that also, look this lady can not take much more, so at the moment that you start investigating, as a lawyer you have to be sure, that there is a realistic change is,more than that, that it will succeed, because what's worse for her, if I start a civil case, and Mr. vd Sloot will win, we don't want that.

Q: So a civil case, we're talking about money........

B: No, it's not about money, this woman....................has.....................a civil case, it's that.......I will represent my client and .........we will take legal civil action, not criminal but a civil action.......against vd Sloot.
That means that I am investigating, with other people around me, also on Aruba, if it makes sense that we sue the man for an unlawful act.
Unlawful act, that means  that you did something that in society you should not have been done.
There are two anchors then, I will throw those out, one what we call "shock damage", it's a form of damage, if you experienced something terrible word speaks for itself, and if you have psychological damage, my client has that also, you can demand "shock damage".
That's one way, the other possibility I am looking at, which is also interesting,  is also based on an unlawful act,  if you take someone civil lawful, keep in mind that the man made a confession, because for me there's no question in my mind, that he made the confession a whole lot of different times in that car, and because he kept silent all this time, he committed an unlawful act against my client, because, as an example, my client has been pointed out as a material suspect, and because of this she's suffering.

Q: Because now she's a suspect herself in the disappearance of her daughter?

B: Yes! Just to say something.

Q: But how can Joran vd Sloot help this?

B: Can help what?

Q: How can Joran vd Sloot help, is it his fault that Mrs Twitty has been a suspect herself, for a little while at least?

B: Well that I can tell you, it's because he consistently has denied, until the moment he did confess, has it been possible that the eyes have been pointed towards my client......

Q: But it's his right, loose from the fact IF he did it, it is your right as a suspect, to say you are innocent.

B: That's why I am talking about a civil action with you, than he does not have the right to deny the charges.

Q: That's the difference, that's what you're talking about?

B: Well, in the civil........well lets say in the criminal case the man is a suspect he can keep still, in the civil case, because he's not talking, he has caused her (Mrs Twitty) damage. So here the obligation to keep quiet does not apply here.

Q: And does that only work if can start from the point......if the judge....that  the confessions that he made in the car to Patrick  v d Eem the right confessions are

B: Well look the whole premises, and there will stand or fall the whole case with, how do you appreciate the confession, what Joran said in the car, I, myself have no doubt about that, you can argue about that, I have colleagues they do not agree with me at all, they don't see a confession what so ever, I find that ridiculous,

That was Gerard Sprong, or Mrs Riet (?)

B: I'm not sure, but you can not persevere with dry eyes that vd Sloot 5 times in the car, yes shark, no shark,  he never took one word back, not the day after he had said it, that he never confessed, that's just nonsense.
Whatever this guy has said in the car, that's going to make an impression on the judge.

Q: Shock effect, I want to.......shock effect, damage, what's the shock?

B: That she, my client physiologically has been GEDEKOMPSEERD (I can't translate that word)     (HELP PLEASE)
and she now seeing a psychologist.......

Q: And then how can you say: That's because of you, Joran?

B: Well do you have someone else in mind? You have to connect the dots, and that's what my team and I are investigating right now, to begin with, how did she get "the shock"that can be diagnosed by a psychiatrist, that she's suffering,, I think that's possible, there's a connection, you don't have to be an Einstein to make the connection between the misery this woman has now, and the fact that her daughter has disappeared.

Q: That has to do with the fact, well the confession from Joran in Patric's car, and that's one of the things that will be seen as a confession......

B: That's very important .....

Q: because there is the suggestion that one of the things......this boy is a pathological liar, he just makes stuff up, 

B: I know that, I have heard that, but that's nonsense, because the man has never been investigated by a judge, leave alone a psychiatrist, that people are now screaming that he now, let's say, a habitual liar is, you can't take that serious.

Q: But then, how is it possible, you yourself say: it's a confession, but you can't take it serious, how is it possible then that this boy is still walking around free?

B: It's a very good question, and why that is, is because ....what was said after the De Vries's show?
We do not have enough to rearrest him, I find that remarkable, because if, in the past you had enough to lock him up, what they did on Aruba, WITHOUT  the confession, then I ask myself: What more do you want if they have what they had then, they said them self it's enough to lock him up, then you get a fantastic TV show, where they show the man made 5 confessions, that he said he did it, I think then if you count 1 + 1, that also on Aruba that's 2,

Q: But I think the judge-COMMESARIS, who back then questioned Joran vd Sloot, he came to the conclusion that Joran a big fat liar is, so you can't classify the confession in a car with a lot of camera's as a confession.

B: The  judge-COMMESARIS, should not hide behind that, because if that's the fact because that's not his job, he has to determine if there's enough evidence to pick the man up again, and the same judge found there was enough to pick him up without the confession, that's important what I say now, now he's saying that with the confession there's NOT enough evidence to pick him up again.
Now it's your turn again.......... ha ha

Q: My turn, but you can also say that the "shock damage" that Mrs. Twitty has now, is not because of Joran vd Sloot but De Vries.

B: That's a different question....

Q: It might be a different question, but it's an important one.

B: Look, at the moment my client knows what Peter de Vries got from this man, is it above being a human for he to not look at it, I think, you can't set that  after what she heard from Peter de Vries, you can't say: I don't have to see this.
She wants to know this, I think as a mother, you want to know this. What happened, coming from the mouth of Joran .......

Q: So there's no responsebility for Peter R de Vries?
The question is: who caused the shock damage?
And then you have to take a step back, and say it's the one who's responsible for the show.

B: No, of course not, the shock damage has been caused because of the fact that, and I believe that, that you have to take the confession very serious, and the shock damage has happened because of what the man said he did, he said it himself.
So you can't say: The messenger has caused the shock damage, No it's Mr vd Sloot of course. Because of his actions and what he left behind.

Q: All the confession, let's call them what you call them, all the facts has been checked and they were not happy on Aruba, the boy has not been found, the boat has not been found.

B: That's true what you are saying now, but what you see often in a lawsuit is that a judge will believe a witness even though it's been proven that he lied.
So to judge to believe the witness is not the point, if you can believe him, or catch him in a lie, the judge can think: I can trust him, it makes sense what he says, or a suspect who lies, you can disconnect the two.

Q: Believability is in question, how can you bring the believability in front of a judge?

B: First of all don't forget the criminal case is still ongoing on Aruba, also my client has given me the orders, that as soon as Aruba makes the decision to not prosecute, we're going to MAKEN EEN KLACHT BY HET HOF. (Twitty, even though if the case gets dropped she's going to complain to the court on Aruba)

Lets look again at Mrs. Twitty, what she thought was the most difficult for her to watch during the show.

(Beth on tape)
When he imitated her when she's having a seizure, or is suffering or whatever, that's when......I mean............that's the part that's the most difficult for me to watch, that's this the day, or today .......I just said: I want to come through the Tv and I just want to kill him right there, I mean now I know the answer to what happened to Natalee, and I don't have to constanlty have to spearhead and manage and gosh you know I mean it's just like it's finaly put to rest I guess,

Q: Are you being motivated because of this reason or is it a client that.....?

B: No, I have to tell you that I am more motivated in this case because I can put myself in this woman shoes.

If the case is dropped I can myself bring a complain (by the courts).

Q: When are you yourself sure of the case, When are you going to start?

B: I told my client I will tell her within two weeks.


Here Peaches..


Hi Tot,

I have not heard of this either.  Maybe our new Dutch friends can help us to understand this type of civil suit.
I do hope Bram seriously believes he can win this for Beth, otherwise why even mention it?

BTW, do you have the link to that zorpia site mentioned in earlier thread.  Not had a chance to look into it.

Also, back in Feb. Art Wood was on Dana's show and he said he found the Gottenbos boat and gave that 411 to Mos.  Any updates on that?

j4n!!

I am not an attorney, in the US or Holland, but I think it goes like this. If the prosecutor decides to not prosecute a case, and formally drops the case, then the victim can hire an attorney and prosecute the case themself. They get the complete file.


Thankyou PE,
   Wow!Wow!Wow! Getting the complete file would be great if they had one eh? Seem's things go missing in Aruba.People,evidence,etc...If it happened in Aruba,it would be in front of the same judges,right?

suisse71 ,
  I don't know a thing about the Zorpia site or that boat..Sorry..I'm sure someone else here could find it for you though...


Thanks PE!

The complete file.  Doesn't John Q Kelly have that, and we know it is incomplete - ie Joran's statement from May 31, 05 etc. 

Thanks Tot!

Probably CAPS may know the lastest on Gottenbos boat and other  follow up questions.

BTW everyone did such a great job @ St. Louis travel show - Bravo!!!  It speaks miles that the Aruba booth at every travel show is empty. 

j4n!!
Logged
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #239 on: March 11, 2008, 04:42:47 PM »

Anna - my guess is Beth being called a suspect comes from the Kelly & Young and Renee Gielen documetary (I could be wrong).

Too bad Beth can't include all the Fobbers in the suit.  After all they started the accusations without any of the evidence that they demanded to believe in Joran's guilt.

Not sure about the Fobber's but I'm sure Kelly/Young/Gielen could be on her list 
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 2.256 seconds with 19 queries.